HyperSexualized M&Ms

[DesertShark]

Has anyone seen the new M&M ads?
How do you feel about candy being so sexualized?
Does candy really need to be 'sexy' to sell? Isn't the fact that its candy enough of a selling point (it definitely is enough for kids)?
Also, its not the male candy that's being sexualized, its the female candy. Although a friend pointed out that in one of the commercials (the one where all the male M&Ms videotaping, doing the sound, and directing melt) the male M&Ms (especially the yellow one) looked like penis that just blew its load.

[Bilan]

Reading too much into it/who cares?
I don't really see the problem with things being sexualised. It's just...a non issue, imo.

[Guerrilla22]

the male M&Ms (especially the yellow one) looked like penis that just blew its load.

:lol: I'm saddened by the sexualization of candy for advertising purposes.

[Module]

Reading too much into it/who cares?
I don't really see the problem with things being sexualised. It's just...a non issue, imo.
If you don't care, then please do the rest of us the courtesy of not polluting threads with worthless posts.

I, presumably like SoB here, haven't seen the ads so can't answer your questions. Can you find them on the internet and post a link? :)

[JimmyJazz]

Here's the one where they're videotaping the girl M&M--can't say I would have come to the conclusion that yellow just blew his load all on my own:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7z6NFQSJCjQ

Advertising has come to disgust me more and more. And yeah, gender stereotyping is of the most annoying things about it. This seems like one of the less harmful ads I've seen though, tbqh.

[ev]

A by-product of capitalism. I agree with you however, candy should not be sexualized especially if the target audience is so young and does not understand the sexual innuendo. Like I said however, this type of advertising is just a by-product of capitalism and reinforces the status quo relating to gender-based stereotypes.

[Pawn Power]

Chocolate is often related to sex. However, it is telling that anthropomorphic objects are often only sexualized if they are given feminine characteristics. That is, it indicates the hetrosexist patriarchal relations which deem women as objects (of sexual pleasure) to be consumed, like chocolate.

[TC]

Chocolate is often related to sex. However, it is telling that anthropomorphic objects are often only sexualized if they are given feminine characteristics. That is, it indicates the hetrosexist patriarchal relations which deem women as objects (of sexual pleasure) to be consumed, like chocolate.

Not really.

Firstly, without a voice actor, given the fact that M&Ms display no secondary sexual characteristics, any 'gender' the M&Ms have is in fact projected onto them by the viewer. You can tell the green M&M is 'female' because she's voiced by a woman and wears female-only attire (high heels) but how does one determine that the other three M&Ms are male? You can't, you just guess because in a patriarchal culture male is default, but especially when it comes to being impressed with a woman's sexualized performance (Could the yellow M&M not have been a 'lesbian M&M' or a 'scandalized female M&M')

I don't really have the time or interest to do a full analysis of the adverts but my point is just that, when we criticize cultural objects politically its necessary to evaluate what unsafe assumptions the prevailing relevant political ideology (in this case, patriarchy) might shape the way we think so that it shapes how we interpret cultural artifacts.

[Kukulofori]

Nothing wrong with sexualised candy imo. Don't forget that desexualised children are themselves a discriminatory myth. Most children who are old enough to chew solid food have sex drives.

As for the objectification of women... er, no opinion.

[Pawn Power]

Not really.

Firstly, without a voice actor, given the fact that M&Ms display no secondary sexual characteristics, any 'gender' the M&Ms have is in fact projected onto them by the viewer. You can tell the green M&M is 'female' because she's voiced by a woman and wears female-only attire (high heels) but how does one determine that the other three M&Ms are male? You can't, you just guess because in a patriarchal culture male is default, but especially when it comes to being impressed with a woman's sexualized performance (Could the yellow M&M not have been a 'lesbian M&M' or a 'scandalized female M&M')

I don't really have the time or interest to do a full analysis of the adverts but my point is just that, when we criticize cultural objects politically its necessary to evaluate what unsafe assumptions the prevailing relevant political ideology (in this case, patriarchy) might shape the way we think so that it shapes how we interpret cultural artifacts.

I was not necessarily talking about M&Ms, since I have not seen the ad in question. The generalization was in regards to the overt objectification of what is signified as female sexuality.

But you make a great point! In our society, male is seen as the default gender; female must be signified.

[gorillafuck]

Who the fuck sexualizes candy?:confused:

[Prisoner#69]

Haha, what a great commercial. :laugh:

[bcbm]

how does one determine that the other three M&Ms are male?Because they've talked with male voice actors in other commercials.

[Pogue]

Not really.

Firstly, without a voice actor, given the fact that M&Ms display no secondary sexual characteristics, any 'gender' the M&Ms have is in fact projected onto them by the viewer. You can tell the green M&M is 'female' because she's voiced by a woman and wears female-only attire (high heels) but how does one determine that the other three M&Ms are male? You can't, you just guess because in a patriarchal culture male is default, but especially when it comes to being impressed with a woman's sexualized performance (Could the yellow M&M not have been a 'lesbian M&M' or a 'scandalized female M&M')

I don't really have the time or interest to do a full analysis of the adverts but my point is just that, when we criticize cultural objects politically its necessary to evaluate what unsafe assumptions the prevailing relevant political ideology (in this case, patriarchy) might shape the way we think so that it shapes how we interpret cultural artifacts.

Nice try at accusing us all at sexism but massive fail.

[Killfacer]

This is the kind of uptightness which makes the left a laughing stock.

[DesertShark]

Here's the link to the M&Ms website where you can see the ads: http://us.mms.com/us/fungames/tv/
Interesting enough: you have to type in your birthday so they can verify your age, if you're too young (I don't know what the cut off age is probably 16 or 18) you can't see the ads page. Why would they do that if there wasn't something overtly sexual in the ads?


This is the kind of uptightness which makes the left a laughing stock.
I'm not uptight, I've just seen first hand how detrimental a lot of advertisements have been to many females and I'm tired of seeing them and their effects.

[Rascolnikova]

Why would they do that if there wasn't something overtly sexual in the ads?

Because they're concerned about getting sued over collecting info of children?



I'm not uptight, I've just seen first hand how detrimental a lot of advertisements have been to many females and I'm tired of seeing them and their effects.I'll be as uptight as I want to be.



I feel the analysis in this thread is lacking.

While it's true that the audience has to project femaleness onto the character, the reader also has to project meaning onto words on a page. There are clear cultural indicators in the add that the character is intended to be interpreted as female, and that the crew is to be interpreted as male. Simply the fact that it is possible, and even reasonable, for a thoughtful observer to interpret otherwise is almost irrelevant--advertising is about getting a visceral response* from a target demographic.

The anthropomorphic sexualization of the candy is an extension, maybe even a personification, of the food/sex paradox which is pervasive in advertising directed at women. It goes something like this--sexuality for others/appearance is both paramount and impossible. That means eating, god forbid, is dirty and evil. It's clearly best to advertise them together--as per the women's magazines with "better than sex" chocolate deserts two pages after "how to loose 15 pounds in 2 weeks." As long as your audience has any sort of money to spend, this has to be close to the ultimate in job security. It creates an effective consumerist treadmill, and is massively destructive to actual relationships and health.


If you are interested in or ignorant about this topic, I highly recommend killing us softly. (http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=killing+us+softly&emb=0&aq=f&aq=f#)

Edit:* my bad. . . it's not about getting a visceral response--it's about using a visceral response to stimulate consumerism, and often other capitalist values as well. . . but getting it is an important first step.

[Bilan]

If you don't care, then please do the rest of us the courtesy of not polluting threads with worthless posts.

I, presumably like SoB here, haven't seen the ads so can't answer your questions. Can you find them on the internet and post a link? :)

Thanks for your smashing contribution, but people are liberty to state that something is a non-issue.
Thanks. :)

[cleef]

this isnt exactly a new concept though is it?
sex is used to sell the majority of products
so im unsure why this paticular ad sticks out as shocking?

[Pogue]

I got negative rep for being pissed off about accusing TC of being silly in calling us sexist. I still think it was incorrect, seeing as a) He/She got it wrong when she said we don't know what the gender of the M&Ms are and b) it was an arogant lecture. Thanks

[Bilan]

Here's the link to the M&Ms website where you can see the ads: http://us.mms.com/us/fungames/tv/
Interesting enough: you have to type in your birthday so they can verify your age, if you're too young (I don't know what the cut off age is probably 16 or 18) you can't see the ads page. Why would they do that if there wasn't something overtly sexual in the ads?

There could be any number of reasons for that, though it should say in the section where you have to confirm your age.
Furthermore, things that are even remotely sexual are often given ratings, as its not uncommon for people to be up in arms about children being exposed to sex, swearing, and so on.
'Adult themes' is a broad way of describing this, and is usually blocked from children.



I'm not uptight, I've just seen first hand how detrimental a lot of advertisements have been to many females and I'm tired of seeing them and their effects.

I would agree and disagree. Firstly, because things being 'sexualised' is not a bad thing in my opinion. It's, as I said earlier, a non issue. There's nothing wrong with sex, there's nothing 'gross' or any need to censor it.
This advertisement aims to be humorous, more than anything else.


Secondly, this is the type of advertisement which does not perpetuate the social subordination of women, as this is a stupid, childish advertisement about chocolate.
Celebrities, and images which glorify them are usually more detrimental than anything.

[DesertShark]

Someone asked earlier how we know the green M&M is a female. If you look at the website and check out the history section, it says "1997 - It's Easy Being Green: Green makes her hugely successful debut. In addition, M&M's World opens its doors in Las Vegas." So they made the green M&M female. Also, if you check out the character pages for each color, all of them say "he" except for green (and not surprisingly her page is stereotypical female). Plus, some of the colors have "turn-ons" and "turn-offs."

There is no explanation for entering your age, its a pop-up where all you can do is enter your age.

Instead of having the male M&Ms filming the female M&M in bed, they could have had her rock climbing or hiking or something cool like that because let's face it the product they were trying to sell in that add was a vamped up trail mix.

Sexualization doesn't negatively effect women, objectification does, and that's what we see in a lot of ads. Or an extremely heavy empahsis on looks/beauty over any other characteristics for women.

[Rascolnikova]

I would agree and disagree. Firstly, because things being 'sexualised' is not a bad thing in my opinion. It's, as I said earlier, a non issue. There's nothing wrong with sex, there's nothing 'gross' or any need to censor it.
This advertisement aims to be humorous, more than anything else.

Secondly, this is the type of advertisement which does not perpetuate the social subordination of women, as this is a stupid, childish advertisement about chocolate.
Celebrities, and images which glorify them are usually more detrimental than anything.

I'm not seeing where you agree in this post. . . and I'm also a little irked at your approach. When the "merely" "entertaining," the stupid, the childish, and the insipid constitute the major portion of our discourse, they deserve serious examination. To pretend otherwise is to implicitly endorse the ideology they very effectively convey.


I have to agree with your general drift that sex generally at least ought to be a good thing. . . but it's time we took a serious look at the versions of sexuality we go about promoting, and where they actually lead. That children are sexual beings in no way entails that we ought to allow them to be exploited in sexual relationships of unequal power; that sexuality ought to be open for discussion in no way entails that we ought to smile upon a discourse in which women exist solely as sexual objects for the consumption of others.

[Bilan]

There is no explanation for entering your age, its a pop-up where all you can do is enter your age.

I looked at it.
I entered a series of ages and didn't have any trouble.



Instead of having the male M&Ms filming the female M&M in bed, they could have had her rock climbing or hiking or something cool like that because let's face it the product they were trying to sell in that add was a vamped up trail mix.

They could have also had her painting, or dancing in Barcelona, but they didn't they instead made a silly animation which is purely for laughs.


Sexualization doesn't negatively effect women, objectification does, and that's what we see in a lot of ads. Or an extremely heavy empahsis on looks/beauty over any other characteristics for women.

And you think a circular green thing with high heels epitomises that?

[Bilan]

I'm not seeing where you agree in this post. . . and I'm also a little irked at your approach. When the "merely" "entertaining," the stupid, the childish, and the insipid constitute the major portion of our discourse, they deserve serious examination. To pretend otherwise is to implicitly endorse the ideology they very effectively convey.

It's not endorsing it.
Not getting furious over a pathetic, cheap advertisement does not equate to endorsing, supporting, or anything of that nature.
We have bigger things to worry about then a pathetic advertisement like this.
It's a fucking green circular thing, for heavens sake.




I have to agree with your general drift that sex generally at least ought to be a good thing. . . but it's time we took a serious look at the versions of sexuality we go about promoting, and where they actually lead. That children are sexual beings in no way entails that we ought to allow them to be exploited in sexual relationships of unequal power; that sexuality ought to be open for discussion in no way entails that we ought to smile upon a discourse in which women exist solely as sexual objects for the consumption of others.Yes, I agree. But that has nothing to do with this advertisement. The sexual nature of the advertisement, at least from what I see, is merely a selling point from the position of humour. Its like beer commercials. They often contain utterly stupid things, and in some cases religious figures or what have you. They are not endorsing religion, they are joking, they are trying to get a laugh.
The advertisement here is cheap, stupid, and pathetic grab for laughs.

[Killfacer]

they could have had her rock climbing or hiking or something cool like that


Because that would have appealed to everyone. Not. That's the kind of thing Marge Simpson would say.

[Coggeh]

I don't think their marketing to kids here , their just to tap the 17-25 year olds on this one i think ....

Their just doing what marketing has always done IMO

[Rascolnikova]

It's not endorsing it.
Not getting furious over a pathetic, cheap advertisement does not equate to endorsing, supporting, or anything of that nature.
We have bigger things to worry about then a pathetic advertisement like this.
It's a fucking green circular thing, for heavens sake.


Yes, I agree. But that has nothing to do with this advertisement. The sexual nature of the advertisement, at least from what I see, is merely a selling point from the position of humour. Its like beer commercials. They often contain utterly stupid things, and in some cases religious figures or what have you. They are not endorsing religion, they are joking, they are trying to get a laugh.
The advertisement here is cheap, stupid, and pathetic grab for laughs.

Are you serious?

I never suggested we should be outraged; I suggested we should examine advertising seriously. . . and I didn't say it was endorsing religion; I said it was conveying ideology. Do learn the difference.

Consider this; for a lot of people, a substantial majority of the communication they are engaged by is advertising. Television exists solely to convince people to watch commercials--books are sorely unused--the internet is astonishingly unavailable to huge swaths of the population. In the first world, advertising is the vast majority of the public discourse, and private discourse withers.

Is this particular commercial shocking or different? Not really. Does that make it meaningless? Of course not. In fact, if it were less representative of general trends it might be less worthy of our time. However cheap, lighthearted, or pathetic it may be, the fact that it remains effective in our culture--and it is effective--definitely bears examination.

I would like to know what things we ought to be worried about more than the state of public discourse.

[DesertShark]

I looked at it.
I entered a series of ages and didn't have any trouble.
They must have changed something. When I entered 13 it said I couldn't access the page and redirected me to a different page on the site.


And you think a circular green thing with high heels epitomises that?
You don't think its a problem to stereotype women as wearing high heels?

[DesertShark]

Because that would have appealed to everyone. Not. That's the kind of thing Marge Simpson would say.
What?

[Rascolnikova]

And you think a circular green thing with high heels epitomises that?

To reduce it so simplistically to intentionally ignore all meaning it might possibly have. You sometimes get angry about little shapes you see on a screen?

I disagree that it's vamped up trail mix, or that it should be advertised with rock climbing or the like. It's food designed primarily for sensory pleasure; the correlation with sex, in some ways, even makes more sense. However, our cultural frameworks for understanding both food and sex are pretty fucked up, and this only serves to further them.