I was originally pretty pleased at the Guitar Hero World Tour commercials. I liked that the first one, at least, showed a group of guys hanging out in comfy, even kinda sexy, clothing, rocking out like dorks. Typically representations of masculinity perform "boundary maintenance" (see "Fraternal Bonding", which interestingly enough specifically talks about athletes), which is about displaying masculinity through sexism and homophobia; so often in commercials, the "cool guys" are the womanizing-objectifying type (not that the first GH didn't have at least one of those in there), not the male bonding through semi-sexy fun type. So the initial commercial, at least, thwarted my expectation by not giving into the the sexist-homophobic construction of masculinity typically seen. The first one featured several male athletes (Plelps, A-Rod, Tony Hawk, Kobe Bryant) rocking it out in someone's living room a la Risky Business, and several more have followed including American Idol stars David Archuleta and David Cook, High School Musical actor/singer Corbin Blue, and most recently model Heidi Klum. Except they're not really a la Risky Business.
In Risky Business, Cruise dances around the living room in a long-sleeved button-down t-shirt, barely long enough to cover his ass, and nothing else is visible until the end when you see he has skimpy tighty whities on. In the GH commercials, the guys are dancing around in replica dress shirts and long, white boxers. Not 100% authentic, but I didn't think anything of it because it's a daytime commercial, and I figured they probably didn't want it too seductive. That logic only held until I saw the Klum ad, where she wears (big surprise!) only the barely long enough dress shirt--no white shorts.
Why the discrepancy? Does this go back to the idea that sexualizing women's bodies is acceptable for general consumption, but men's bodies are (generally) off limits? What's especially interesting to me here is that the original context of the parody was the sexual one--it's not like they changed the commercial to make the one with the woman more sexual; rather they specifically desexualized the men's commercials, and in doing so, deviated from its original context. It doesn't bother me that they deviated; it's that they deviated from, and desexualized, only the ones with the men.
But wait--it gets better. Because they actually did make the women's one more sexual. The version of Klum's commercial aired during Monday Night Football featured Klum with the button-down shirt unbuttoned, displaying black lingerie underneath. During her GH "performance", she strips her shirt off, gyrating around, shakes her boobs while leaning back--all very stripper-like moves; again, this version is way off from the original they are supposed to be parodying. Celebrity Smack has this characterization of the commercial:
Close-ups of her ass and her boobs come next, followed by Heidi jumping down on the couch and holding the guitar between her legs as though it were a 2-foot long sex toy.
It is indeed a very sexualized commercial, Klum is turned into a quasi-porn star and the guitar seems more like a phallus than a fake guitar. This still is particularly telling:
Before anyone points out that "it's not that bad", the point is that for a series of commercials that are supposed to be citing a famous film scene, the ad makers go out of their way to increase the sexualization of the one commercial featuring a woman, and decrease the sexualization of the many commercials featuring a man or men. The only ad they made that is an accurate representation of the film is the "family-friendly" Klum ad. And until now, I haven't even pointed out the 3:1 male:female ratio of the ads, nor the vocations of the genders represented (athletes and musicians: supermodel, how original!).
Let me point out, that there have been more "successful" replications of the Risky Businessscene. Exhibit A: one of my favorite shows, Scrubs, had a JD fantasy sequence with the guys imitating Cruise. Now they don't go through and dance--the fantasy is cut short--and the scene is much more goofy than sexy, but there we had 4 guys on non-cable TV early prime-time (and syndicated now during the day) with the same shirt some Cruise-like much skimpier undies. No reason GH couldn't follow suit.
But maybe our only women's-bodies-should-be-objectified/men-looking-at-men's-bodies-makes-you-gay society can't handle the swooning that would ensue if we were able to see as much of A-Rod, Phelps, and Kobe's athletic physiques as we see of JD, Turk, Dr. Cox, and The Todd. For a game that appeals quite equally to female as well as male players, GH sure didn't aim to give men and women equal ad time and representation.
(For other posts in this series, see here)
(cross-posted: don't ya wish your girlfriend was smart like me?)
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Commercial Critique: Guitar Hero World Tour .
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/10954
I think you already summed it up pretty well with this:
Now they don't go through and dance--the fantasy is cut short--and the scene is much more goofy than sexy
I think that's the main problem with the whole "men being sexy" thing. Even you admit that the scene from Scrubs was goofy, despite them all wearing really short undies. Heck, THE TODD is well known for his love of banana hammocks, but it's never viewed as a sensual thing...ie, the script ALWAYS makes fun of Todd wearing Banana hammocks, because it is a GOOFY thing, not viewed as sexual at all.
I think one of the reasons you don't see many men in underwear scenes in ads and what nots is because many people have the same question:
"How on Earth is a man supposed to be "sexy" "?
In the Australian version of I Want to be a SuperModel, in which men were able to take part as well, there was this episode where the photos taken were supposed to be sexy and sensual. Needless to say, ALL the women had no problems taking great photos while ALL the men struggled to be..."sexy" ...because they had problems intepreting what "sexy" for a man is.
The general view is Banana hammocks and G-strings on men are laughable (both by men and women alike) as compared to when women wear skimpy undies. Heck, isn't wearing Speedo a fashion crime for men in the United States? (correct me if I'm wrong). Most women (and men) seem to prefer men in boxers or boxer shorts...Tighty Whiteys are considered for white men only and it seems that not a lot of women are turned on by them (the Tighty Whiteys).
Imagine if a man, dressed as skimpily as Klum (banana hammock) did what she did on the commercial (gyrating around, shaking his ass, perhaps even moving his hand to his crotch seductively)...I seriously doubt people would think that was HOT...the reaction would be more like people would laugh, or perhaps feel uncomfortable (and yes, women would laugh and feel uncomfortable as well).
I have no problems with ads showing men in a sexual manner. I encourage and hope it happens even. But until we, as a society, allow men more freedom of expression in being "sexy", you wouldn't see men dancing around in skimpy underwear on ads (unless it's meant to be goofy, then it might be acceptable).
I meant to say "Tightey Whiteys" are meant for OLD men only. Sorry.
"But until we, as a society, allow men more freedom of expression in being "sexy", you wouldn't see men dancing around in skimpy underwear on ads (unless it's meant to be goofy, then it might be acceptable)."
Yeah, I agree....but where does it start? If men will only be represented as sexy when we start "allowing" men to be sexy, that's a circular issue isn't it?
Linda,
That is a good question.
I think let's say 20 years ago, men were restricted in terms of expressing themselves as sexy.
Then came the "metrosexual" (the need to pigeonhole people into categories seems to come naturally to the human race) where men were allowed more expression to be sexy (pleatless pants, boxer shorts, working out at the gym to get a sleek body, facial and body products) to even be beautiful. I personally feel that freedom to express one's self in terms of looks can be a very heatlhy boost for one's "sexiness" state of mind.
But then came the backlash ("we want REAL men...not those that hog the mirror and take more time than we do to get ready")and now it's more popular to be "manly"...whatever that means.
Afterall, isn't it a common stereotype that "all the good looking men are gay" ? Homophobia is caused in part by men policing other men, but actually, women buy into the concept that men shouldn't express themselves as well (ie. Kate Perry's Song..."You're so Gay").
Because they're trying to sell this game to young men. Young men largely like scantily clad women. Young men largely don't like the idea of being associated with anything potentially gay.
"No reason GH couldn't follow suit."
It's because they might sell fewer games. They want to sell more games.
I like the way you're thinking about gender and sexualization in advertising, but I suspect the people who made these ads put way less thought into it than you. When I saw the commercials, I assumed the underwear choice was based on what most people wear. We generally assume a hot guy is wearing boxers and a hot girl is not. I felt they wanted the ads with men and women to be cute/goofy/sexy all at the same time, and tighty whities would have pushed the men too far from sexy in most of their viewers' eyes. I see the ads as evidence of the fine line society sometimes makes us all walk between being sexy and cute (therefore not threatening), not as sexist.
I'm sure they weren't--we have internalized the idea that women are mainly worth looking at in commercials when they're sexualized. I do think it was deliberate, though, and not an oversight. Everything else about the ad is to the "t", including the menswear shirt on Klum, and the moves that all of them do. The lack of boxers in favor of appearing to wear nothing is awfully conspicuous.
We generally assume a hot guy is wearing boxers and a hot girl is not.
Actually, you kind of make my point here...why can a man be sexy in boxers, but a woman must appear to be naked to be sexy? Or the flipside, why isn't a sexy man one in revealing attire, but that's what a sexy woman is? Is it that there's more ways for a man to be sexy than for women?
I felt they wanted the ads with men and women to be cute/goofy/sexy all at the same time, and tighty whities would have pushed the men too far from sexy in most of their viewers' eyes.
To far from sexy? I think to far toward sexy. As I've written before, sexy men's bodies as obscene, women's sexy bodies are everyday.
I don't personally think Klum is being cute or goofy. And I think the men are sexy in their cuteness/goofyness. That's what I think is f-ed up too.
I think this was in bad taste. Guitar hero is popular among kids, both young and old. They could have picked another group of female athletes, given them the same clothes as the male athletes and had them play in a band. Heidi Klum is a sexual icon and is way too oversexed in this commercial. I don't care if Heidi Klum is acting sexual in another context, but not when the item is marketed towards kids.
For the past few summers I've worked with kids. At the YMCA we used to have an electronics day for the kids and usually someone would bring in guitar hero. The vast majority of the kids loved guitar hero, girls and boys more or less equally (they all love Dance Dance Revolution too). The makers of guitar hero are making a huge mistake to believe that their target audience is primarily is largely 13 year old boys. If they chose to show a "gender friendly?" commercial I bet more parents would consider purchasing this game for their girls and boys. However, as soon as you thrown an over-sexed Heidi Klum jacking off a guitar into the mix we automatically make the connection that "guitar hero is for teenage boys".
Well that's just silly. GH is being marketed as a "female-friendly" game. (and when you say men, you really mean heterosexual men. Be specific so as to not erase the existence of men who have no attraction to women.)
If they showed more guys being sexy, I think hetero women might be even more apt to buy it. It's not like this is an uber-masculine game or anything.
To far from sexy? I think to far toward sexy. As I've written before, sexy men's bodies as obscene, women's sexy bodies are everyday.
It is NOT about men's bodies being obscene. In popular culture, the male tightey whiteys are considered to be unsexy, an underwear choice for old men or mama's boys. Think of the female equivalent being women's "grandma panties".
The main opinion seems to be that men look good in boxers and boxer shorts, and definitely not in g-strings, banana hammocks or briefs (briefs being more acceptable in European countries).
Is this fair? No.
Is this what is portrayed in popular culture? Yes.
Is it that there's more ways for a man to be sexy than for women?
In regards to LOOKS, there are FAR more ways for women to be sexy than men.
Note female models and actresses wearing men's shirts. Imagine a hot male model wearing a skirt....it just doesn't have the same impact.
Imagine a woman slowly licking her food (you see this all the time in movies)...imagine if a man did the same....people would laugh at him (men and women alike).
Who can wear sleeveless tops in a corporate office and seem sexy. Let a man do the same and he would be kicked out of the office, let alone a bar.
A woman dancing seductively around a pole has been featured in many movies and in real life. What are the chances of a man looking sexy while dancing around a pole?
How many red-carpet events keep on harping how beautiful and sexy women look, going over every details of their dresses, hairstyles and so on? I may be a bit off, but sometimes it seems to me women are the ones who are interested in these "red-carpet" appearances by other female celebrities. ......... the male celebrities? probably shown in the background or only if they wear a really outlandish outfit.
And isn't one of the worse insults a woman can get is that "she looks like a man"? Hence making society view men as far less desirable in terms of physical aesthetics.
Men seemed to be deemed sexy less by what they look and more by what they DO.
Men in power, who are intelligent and knowledgeable about what they DO, whether it be a pianist, or doctor (Greg House MD)or footballer (soccer to the Americans...)...
Ever notice how there is no male equivalent of Anna Kournikova (ie. incredibly good looking but with limited talent)? That's because all the good looking male athletes seem to be also those that are the top of their game.....or rather, it's because they're the best that they seem sexy.
It's always a double flip of the coin isn't it? For every woman out there who is disgusted how society views her as nothing more than a pretty face with nice boobs and ass there is a man who just wants people to admire his body or how gorgeous his face is, to be admired for his physical form, unto itself.
I don't actually agree about Anna Kournikova. She is more famous then she should be maybe because of her looks - but she doesn't get invited to tournaments or have the ranking she does because of her looks, that is based on her play. I actually find it insulting that you insinuate a beautiful woman can't be good at something.
There are an awful lot of men in sports who are valued for their looks despite their ability.
Anna is alright, but in comparison to Martina Hingis during her heyday, or the Williams twins…or any other female player that has won a Singles Grand Slam (Anna was more successful in Doubles than Singles)? There are plenty of great women in tennis, but as you say, she is more famous than her talent suggests, and most of that extra fame is down to looks. There are many women who have been more successful on the courts than Anna, yet never received as much hype or sponsors. ESPN even ranked her as an overrated athlete because of "the degree of hype as compared to actual accomplishments as a SINGLES player".
Can you name a couple of men in sports who are valued for their looks despite being mediocre? I would certainly be interested to know. Maybe in American football as I have no experience or knowledge in this sport.
Cheers!