These type of ads "sell". Sexy sells, therefore these ads will be around. Why get offended? They aren't any reflection on the person you are and those women do have brains. Think of it this way, if men want to be dumb enough to think they'll get women like that for drinking a certain beer or using a certain product then they're the ones without a brain!

I swear I just commented here, but it's not here. Anyhow, I was going to say... most men aren't stupid to think that they'll be getting the women by using whatever product. It's more of a visual fantasy issue covered in most psychology texts on male behavior.

Like Karen said, it has no reflection on the person you are. Although I wouldn't suggest going into marketing/advertising if this is bothering you. *grin*

Suzanne, there are men who won't buy products that are advertised that way either.

Most women are brianless and are nothing more than 'objects'. Not all, and certainly not the ones I'm attracted to, but the majority of women go through life always hanging on the words of their boyfriends or husbands. Most women I know are money hungry to begin with, so it's no surprise that beer makers have an abumdance of women ready to show all to sell beer. They pay, women strip. Thats pretty much how it goes.

The American male is depicted in most commercials as a bumbling, self-apologetic wimp. This is due to the "wisdom" of Madison Ave. ad makers that suggest women control the family budget.
Men are "put in their place" by women going out and buying whatever appeals to this false sense of superiority.
If Suzanne is offended at ads that use women as sex objects, where then is the outcry toward this unfairness to men?

Like so many Americans, I stopped paying any attention to advertising long ago (Sorry advertisers and ad agencies! I know that's hard for you to hear...) Regardless of how men and women are portrayed, the point is that advertising is not honest - it hopes to manipulate your emotions, either with fear or sex. My life and my emotions are mine - not theirs. But as we all grow more weary of advertising (it's everywhere we look!) and as we get better at avoiding it (TiVo anyone?) they keep trying to come up with ways to force it on us. There are ad campaigns called "stealth" that hope to deliver a commercial message in the disguise of a friendly conversation. If you're really fired up about 'ad creep' or advertising in general, Commercial Alert is a great organization to join - take a look at their web site and remember that you are only accountable for your own actions - so if you consistently reject that kind of advertising and avoid those products, you will have the peace of mind that comes with the courage of your convictions. Here is a link to Commercial Alert http://www.commercialalert.org/index.php/category_id/1/subcategory_id/53/article_id/98

Brian Harper, what an absurd generalization about "most women." You need to get out more.

Steve, the semi-humorous and essentially harmless marketing strategy does little to actually hurt men, while objectification of women is a culture-wide issue with serious ramifications. Also, I never understand the arguments that go, you can't talk about your problem because you didn't talk about every problem.

Eddie: I never said she could not make her point, it just seems fairer if other sides are presented.
The bashing of the male is deeply influential on children, it dishonors their fathers and brothers and friends.
The indifference toward men is a well calculated insertion into modern culture. The social transaction is begun by two infallible females, the man speaks,(social contamination) thus triggering the "moan track" sign to the audience. The male realizes his inadequacy and waddles out stage left.
Hour after hour of this in all forms of media does have a major negative effect on how men are treated.
The purpose is to blame males for all error and unhappiness, a one upsmanship if you will. This is a watering down of male authority.
Using soft spoken women as battering rams makes it hard to see how destructive it really is.

Ed,
I get out plenty and that's why I'll stand by my observation of women. I respect women, when they have earned my respect, with the exception of strippers and the like. They deserve no respect.

The sexiness in a commercial is there to make the commercial attractive, and therefore make the product name come to mind when a person thinks of or recalls the commercial. The more outrageous or memorable the commercial, the more it will be remembered. Ergo, product recognition.
Believing that a balding, fat, 50 year old guy sitting drunk in a bar will score with a college girl because he drinks XXX brand beer is laughable! But you might remember the beer name the next time you pass by the beer cooler at the grocery store.

Steve, got any data to back up your assertions about the effects of these ads on children? Also, who is making this calculation of which you speak?

Brian, how do you reconcile these two statements:
"Most women are brianless (sic) and are nothing more than 'objects'." --you, 12:48 PM

"I respect women." You, 8:11 PM

No wonder so many women are "Brianless".

Eddie: Do you need data to see the gnaw marks when a dog bites your leg?

Ed, that was funny.
I guess I should clarify. I respect the women that aren't brainless which is to say, very few.
My view of women may be skewed, but it's my view backed up by my experiences. There are a few out there that are all right.

Since women are posing for the very ads that objectify women, I'd say that some women need to get a little respect for themselves.

Stev(ie), I'll take that as a "no," as in, no, you have no data to support your contention that the dopey dads in ads are causing some sort of harm to men, children, and families.

Certainly the dopey dad is a staple of modern advertising. But when you say, "The purpose is to blame males for all error and unhappiness," it seems just a bit hyperbolic.

And when you say, "This is a watering down of male authority," well, as a husband and father, I've never felt threatened by it. Can you point to some evidence that, oh yeah, never mind.

Edward: Your need for the last word must stem from some lack of authority in your life, oh yeah, you're married.

Did anyone else find this (maybe) typo funny? "Most women are brianless and are nothing more than 'objects'."

There's probably a good reason they are "brian-less," and it means they can think.

Yea, funny.

I am just commenting on my experiences. It's funny you broads get your panties all in a bunch when someone generalizes women as I do. LOL. A bit defensive eh? Is it because maybe you are one of them?
The fact is that most women are very dependent on us guys for next to everything. Sad, but true. Go on the street and ask 100 guys, then 100 girls a simple question and the results may shock you.
I used to be around young men and women everyday as part of my job as a recruiter. I found that most of the females I tested failed it, while most of the guys did not. You may explain it differently than I do, but the fact is that on a whole, females aren't quite as smart as us guys. Call me a sexist pig or whatever, but I tested both sexes for three years and thats all the proof I need.

Anyone who has done testing and studied results would know that test are gender slanted, for the most part male oriented. It is a very well know fact that most of our educational testing has been male gender slanted for years as well as most other forms of testing. It is unfortunate indeed that testing has become a tool to decide if an individual is "bright" enough to do the job. Ability has too often been overriden by test results.
Fortunately there are some of us who do not allow gender oriented testing to override our good sense when it comes to many aspects of todays world
I have found that testing also is flawed at best, even though testing is still considered the best tool we have, when it comes to measuring intelligence. Studies done at Harvard in the late 90's and at Sanford in the early part of
2000 will bear this out.
Intelligence is not a matter of gender as is proven by the writer who states that"females aren't quite as smart as us guys". Of course what he lacks in intelligence is certainly overshadowed by arrogance and ignorance.
Just a footnote, as a father of 5 daughters I would put any of them up against the writer of that arrogant and ignorant statement.

mrproduce,
The tests I used to administer weren't gender slanted as you may think. The tests consisted of simple math, paragraph comprehension and word problems. There was no auto mechanics or anything of that sort on the tests.
Intelligence isn't a matter of gender, you are correct. All I'm saying is that on the whole, females in America aren't quite as smart as the guys. The many, many tests I gave support my statements.
I don't calim to be the smartest guy around, just making observations that are well known, but too few are willing to say.
My statement may border on the arrogant, but none on the side of ignorance. Ignorance is the lack of knowledge about something. I have plenty of knowledge on this subject. I too have a daughter and I'm raising her to use her brain as she goes through life.
Just a footnote to your footnote, my IQ is in the high 140's, just in case you're wondering. Not the smartest out there, but better than most.

Simple math, word problems and paragraph comprehension. All of which can be and are usually gender bent, sometime intentionally and at times because that is the way test designers have been taught. As one who has designed test, I speak from experience. I designed them , you only administered them, a far cry from being able to discern how they are slanted, designed or what ever word one may wish to use in this case. Automobile mechanics has nothing to do with gender slanting on test. That is just another error in critical thinking. I know many men who would fail miserably on that subject.

It is not that women are less intelligent, it is, unfortunately that they have been told they were less intelligent for so long they often times believe it to be true. So you see it is conditioning being one of the factors in this false assumption that women are less intelligent. I think that if you were to read some research on this subject you would see the basis of my disagrement with your statements.

Your arguments have the ring of the same argument that many whites used against the black race in order to maintain control over them in a segmented society and are just as hollow.

IQ scores are certainly not the precursor for intelligence. It only show a propensity for being able to store knowledge, not use it. It takes more than good IQ scores to be able to perform complex issues or even simple ones. It takes more than a strong IQ and an education to make one intelligent. My grandfather, who only finished 2nd grade and no one certainly ever measured his IQ, was one of the most intelligent men I have known. He could look at a wagon of corn and tell you almost to the cup how many bushel were on the wagon. He also taught me one important lesson which I have strived always to follow and that is: "Speak of what you know, know of what you speak, the rest of the time be quiet, you might learn something."

Belittling a female , regardless of her circumstances, certainly caste a shadow of ignorance over the one doing the belittling.

On that note I rest my case.