Sex in the Media

Copyright 2008

 

 

      On the new Starbucks logo there is a new mermaid and, of course, she is surrounded with controversy.

 

Do you see a mermaid?

or

A naked slut with her legs spread?

      OK...

      What does Martha Stewart think?

      What does Bill Clinton think?

      What does Queen Elizabeth think, as if she's allowed to think?

      What does Scoop Doggy Doo, or whatever his name is, think?

      How about Aqua Man, what does he think?

      Now, what do you think?

•

      Now, what do you see?

 

      When I was a resident physician at the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston there was an elderly psychologist who told me an amusing anecdote from the days when he was in his training. He said, "I was given the task of performing Rorschach ink blot tests on volunteer subjects. At that time ink blot tests were new and not well known. I performed the test on two faculty wives who had volunteered to be test subjects. These ladies were shocked at the pornographic drawings that I was asking them to comment on. I was reported to the Chancellor and I was required to explain myself."

People see what they want to see.

      Way cool Starbucks!! I saw the slut spreading her legs but I'm stupid Levystien...the sex fanatic. I saw what I wanted to see.

      What do you think was in the minds of the good ladies at The Resistance, a San Diego based Christian watchdog group, when they loudly objected to the new Starbucks logo?

•

      Radio, television, newspapers, magazines, movies, songs, the internet, and even planes dragging a banner all push the envelope of what is acceptable in regards to sex.

So, what is acceptable in regards to sex?

      This chapter is about what is acceptable in the media with regards to sex. Personally, I could watch a 30 year old man with Down syndrome getting fellatio from a horse that is being masturbated by a midget and not suffer lasting emotional trauma. However, my bipolar catholic neighbor who has a photograph of her with the pope would have nightmares for a week. Then she might be turned on and start looking for horses...maybe she was not the best example. In any case, is it possible that sex in the media could be hurtful?

      Let's look at some examples of sex in the media. You should judge these examples based on your own pre-conceived notions. Don't consider reason or what other people might think.

      Only consider things like, "What does it say in the Torah/Bible/Qur'an about this?" You may also consider any opinion that Jim Baker may have had on the subject as totally relevant. You could also consider what Joel Osteen says...on second thought, he never really says anything that really means anything.

      Whether you are a strict or back-sliding monotheist, Buddhist, or Hindu or just a good old fashioned pagan or whether you are a homosexual or a polygamist or you are hypersexual and masturbate five times a day or you are a prostitute or an "orgy kind of guy," as Seinfeld would say, or one of those sadomasochist folks who like pain with their pleasure or you think sheep are really cool or bukkake is your thing or necrophilia (even Levystien says "yuk") or you have ever been raped or you are a rapist or you were molested as a child or you are a pedophile or you have ambiguous genitalia or you were raised as a girl but became a boy at puberty or you are just really into feet in a sexual way, what I want you to do is to pretend that your way is the only way. Judge everything only by how you see it.

      My hyper-religious neighbor, whom I like very much but who is quite manic most of the time, read my first book entitled, "This Book Is Great." She wanted to argue every line as though I was trying to write a manifesto of my own personal beliefs. She brought over prayers that I should read and spoke of articles that prove her point. Obviously, my deep seeded sarcasm was lost on her even though she is a very intelligent person.

      So, let me express early in this book one very important point...I am being sarcastic. Entertainment is the goal and I don't care if you agree with me or not. In fact, I would prefer that you express a differing viewpoint. If you could make that differing viewpoint logical, then that would be a plus. You see, I learn nothing from people who agree with me. Do you agree with that? Most people don't prior to having it pointed out to them.

      In any case, here's the thing; If this book causes your brain to wake up and causes you to think and re-evaluate your beliefs and if you can discuss them rationally and if you are laughing, then I have succeeded.

      Now, let's begin.

      Just in case anyone had the idea that sex in the media is a recent phenomena, take a glance at the full frontal nudity in this 1871 ad for Pearl Tobacco. The idea is, of course, that seeing a naked woman will make a man want to wrap his lips around something that is long, stiff, and smokin' hot...and, this, in the day when attitudes towards alternative lifestyles were significantly less open.

      Or were they?

      Seems like the western United States were settled by men who escaped society, smoked cigars, and...and...perhaps they had rather progressive sexual preferences as well?

      Actually, there is no connection between cigars and naked ladies at all. So, why does a naked lady sell tobacco? Obviously, a naked lady sells anything. If you want to sell an ACME brick, just place it over the genitalia of an attractive female. The only issue is whether or not men want to buy what you are selling.

      Did cigar smoking perverts actually buy tobacco from a company that advertised it with a naked woman?

      Ever heard of Pearl Tobacco? I didn't think so. They are no longer in business. I think that sex gets attention and it might cause a single sale but if the sex is totally unrelated to the product, then long term brand loyalty is not necessarily achieved.

      A woman, on the other hand, is unlikely to buy a brick just because she sees it next to an erect penis. I call this the "No brick for prick principle."

      Can sexy men sell anything?

      How about underwear? Are men simply visual creatures who will buy anything that is optically appealing regardless of the sex of the model?

      Hey, this guy is selling underwear and he is wearing underwear. How is that an example of gratuitous sex?

 

 

      Is a man more likely to buy underwear worn by a sexy male model than underwear that is being worn by a non-provocative man or not being worn at all?

      Apparently so.

      I'm confused…don't women buy underwear when they see it on an attractive, but not provocative, woman?

      Why does the male underwear model need to be sexy in order to sell it to men? Or, do women buy men's underwear for their spouse and think the underwear will make them look like this guy?

      All of these questions and more have been hotly debated in an effort to answer the burning question,

 

"Does sex sell?"

 

      The answer is, "Yes and no."

      Despite the fate of Pearl, other companies such as Calvin Klein, Givenchy, Victoria Secret, and others have made a living selling sex for quite some time. There is a second question that is important to a lot of people and that is:

 

"How far is too far?"

 

      The real question is, "How can we maximize profits without pissing too many people off?"

      Interestingly, I will put forth the argument that good advertising and good morals are not polar opposites. They are two goals that actually go hand in hand. Really good advertising will sell a product and will be appropriate even if there is some sex in it. In fact, and obviously, if you want people to give you money then you don't want to piss them off.

      Some advertisers might think that if a little sex sells a little, then a lot of sex will sell a lot. This is not true. There is a point of diminishing returns on sex in the media. You really have to choose exactly when and where it will have the biggest impact and then push the envelope just far enough to still be appropriate.

      Unfortunately, the real hard core true perverts are looking at pornography and don't even notice your little Danica Patrick in a leather jacket thing.

      The vast majority of the rest of us don't want to be offended and we don't want our kids exposed to gratuitous sex.

      On that note, I want to talk about a new kiddy show on television called The Gossip Girl. It's about a group of high school kids and a girl who talks too much. It's also a bit over the top in regards to sex and drugs.

      Here is an advertisement showing the male teenage star of the show kissing the breast of a teenage girl. (Even my 8 year old son asked, "Is he kissing her booby.") This ad was ten stories tall and placed in New York City's Times Square.

      Rich Haskins, vice president of marketing for the broadcast network CW, was asked if he thought the letters OMFG were appropriate for young consumers. He said, "They are just letters and could mean anything. Ask 10 people and you will get 10 different answers."

      Melissa Henson, director of communications and public education for Parents Television Council (PTC), did ask ten people. In fact, she asked 30 people. All of them, with the exception of two elderly women, knew exactly what OMFG stands for. When asked if it could it mean anything else everyone said, "No."

 

      Actually, if you're an accountant and live in Canada these letters could mean something else. See:

      Or, if you want to rent a meeting facility at a resort to host your conference you can call:

      OK, I'm thinking that the orgasmic pose and the tit kiss pretty much make it mean,

      "Oh My Fucking God!!"

      What do you think?

      Actually, I did a Google search for OMFG and guess what I found?

      I found the actual chat room definition which is, of course, "Oh my fucking God." I also found numerous wild and crazy YouTube videos including a marine throwing a dog off a cliff, a bull's horn sticking through a man's leg, an autopsy photo of a fence post stuck in a man's butt, several people accidentally breaking various bones and this little dandy:

 

 

      Sort of just screams out, "Oh my fucking God," doesn't it?

      In addition, there were several Gossip Girl videos including naked teenagers in bed having sex and a girl making an outrageous confession to a priest in a confessional. Do you think that the point of this show will be to shock you with wild and crazy teenage sex?

      OK, I admit, I will watch every episode but remember that I am stupid Levystien the sex fanatic. Hey, at least I don't watch so much porn that I will fail to notice the Gossip Girl.

      I hope that my sarcasm is not confusing you. Do you wonder what my real opinions are? Remember that I am not writing a manifesto. I don't have a pre-set agenda...well...actually...I guess I do...sort of.

      My agenda is that I want you to stop misunderstanding and hating other people over issues related to sex. To that end I am trying to open your mind to what everyone else is thinking and to start a dialogue that will be respectful of others with differing opinions. I am also trying to be funny. If you don't want to talk and laugh and generally get along, then I will come over to your home and beat you up because I'm right and you're wrong.

      I hope that you don't mind one more little tidbit from the OMFG Google search. I know that I said the midget and horse thing would not bother me but then I saw how the Japanese have redefined "doggy-style." I guess having a visual image is a bit different than just talking about something.

      I admit that I'm not totally OK with this. Are you?

 

 

      Perhaps this might be a Japanese commercial promoting condom use. Do you think?

      In any case, "What is the best way to use sex in the media?"

      Actually, I think this is a crazy television show where you have to do weird stuff if you lose a bet or choose the wrong door or whatever. Do you think that people will tune in to watch a dog butt-fucking a man? Do you think this show will do well in the long run? Is this image OK for your 5 year old? I'm thinking it will not bother your five year old but it will make you have nightmares. It reminds me of why men are called dogs.

      Maybe I'm going out on a limb here but I predict this show will not do well. I know that people will slow down to see a wrecked car but I'm not sure they want to see this. If this show had quality material, they would likely not resort to such an extreme thing. I think people might watch this show briefly due to the fact that everyone is talking about it but I bet the creators of the show are not very creative. I bet this is likely not a very good show…just a guess.

      When you push the limits to a point that will offend most people and then you expect that those offended people will give you money…I must ask…what are you thinking?

      If you want to use sex to promote your television show or movie or website or book or you want to sell something such as soap or clothes or cars or alcohol or tobacco, then you need to do it intelligently. The first step is to make sure there is some connection between sex and what you are selling. Don't try and sell an ACME brick on a naked lady. Try to use sex to promote things like personal hygiene products or lingerie or romance novels or shows about relationships or swim suits etc.

      Also, there are items that are in the gray zone. These items are not bricks but they are not lingerie. For example, a nice cold Budweiser Beer that is advertised by three girls in one piece bathing suits. Hmmmm...what is the connection between beer and sex?

      If you drink a beer, then all girls will look like these models? Well, actually, that is kind of true. And, if you can get the girls to drink a beer, then your chances of having sex with them will improve? Again...kind of true. But, is sex required in order to sell beer to men? Of course not, men will buy beer if you advertise it next to an ACME brick. OK, now I see the connection to sex.

      With beer there is a connection but it is not as direct a connection as with lingerie. So, what are your options if you are a marketing executive at Budweiser? First, you put the girls in one piece swim suits that appear somewhat athletic rather than purely sexy and then you have them behave in a fun but non-provocative manner. Next, you put other stuff in the ad or commercial or add something creative like the swim suits meshing with the classic logo. Then, the sex stuff is only one piece of a much more complex overall advertising scheme.

A.

      Minimizing the gratuitous nature of the sex but keeping enough to capture a man's imagination is the goal. In fact, I think you can sell more if the image leaves something to the imagination. Picture the Budweiser logo behind a fully naked but ordinary looking woman who is being butt-fucked by a totally naked and ordinary looking man...much more sex but much fewer sales.

      Unless the gratuitous sex is really funny...OK, how about three old broads with sagging boobs painted like frog eyes. Remember, the selling point is that after a few beers image "B" begins to merge with image "A."

B.

      By the way, if you wanted to know the difference between boobs and tits...these are boobs, not tits.

      OK, here are some tits.

      Sorry, that was totally gratuitous and a week attempt to sell Constitutional Sex. I lost confidence that I'm creative enough to sustain this chapter on sex in the media, therefore, I threw in this little pair of tits. It was a cheap and easy thing to do. It required no imagination at all. I am very ashamed...but I'm leaving the tits in.

•

      Now I want to talk about "the most alarming invention since the atomic bomb," according to Newsday. I'm talking about the secret communist plot to take over the world by brainwashing America with embedded sexual messages. They casually refer to it as subliminal advertising but we know that it is really a well orchestrated and vast conspiracy aimed at world domination.

      They secretly place the word sex in an ice cube that is in a glass that is in an ad for Gilbey's Gin.

      They also write SEX on a can of Pepsi.

      The American public is brainwashed and the very fabric of society begins to unravel. Bikini's get smaller, all seven words get said on television, Janet shows a tit (definitely not a boob), and the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man eats New York.

      The funny thing is that one lone idiot is responsible for the entire subliminal debacle. His name is Wilson Brian Key. There was this other guy who kind of started it back in the fifties but that was not totally unreasonable at the time and he did it with a bit more caution. This guy Key, on the other hand, made a ton of money by simply making stuff up. Whether he was malicious or stupid is unclear but he simply made it all up. One theory is that he was just as paranoid as all the people who believed him.

      Whatever the explanation, this guy got the idea that an airbrush painting of clams on a placemat at a diner was really an image of naked people involved in a sexual orgy. He wrote a book called, "The Clam-Plate Orgy." It was a national bestseller and is still required reading in many college classrooms. Unfortunately for Key, it is used as an example of paranoid thinking in advertising gone awry.

      Remember the ink blot?

      The fact is that embedding images in ads or in movies or in commercials does not actually influence anyone's behavior. The idea that you can brainwash someone by flashing images too quickly for them to see is silly. One study flashed single frames of a picture of popcorn during a movie shown to a large number of people. After a considerable amount of "brainwashing" no one wanted popcorn. One guy did ask for a hot dog.

      Interestingly, the subliminal ads do work. Ironically, they work because books like the one that Key wrote inform people about them and then people start looking for them and therefore they are seeing the ads. Advertisers purposely embed images in ads because they know people will be looking for them. They may even luck out and get extra free press if people are objecting to the technique. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts but, if it works, then advertisers are certainly not going to take the high ground.

      The thing that really irritates me the most about this Key guy is that he got very rich by being very stupid. One professor said, "We read his book not because he was right but because it is entertaining."

      In fact, when I was reviewing the literature to get ideas for this chapter and came across the word "subliminal" I immediately thought, "Hey, yeah, I gotta include that stuff." I included it simply because it's entertaining. I can't believe that I'm actually in collusion with this guy.

      I should also mention that just because a hidden image in an ice cube does not brainwash anyone doesn't mean that advertisers only use blatantly obvious and cognitively logical means of selling products. They try to convince us that if we wear a certain pair of jeans then we increase our chances of getting laid but they do it in lots of ways that are more obvious. Sure, advertising is about appealing to all our senses. It's about influencing us through all our desires and all our neurotic tendencies. But it's done with gorgeous faces and skin and passion and an almost kiss and a hanging strand of hair and a man who is clearly above a woman but she likes it and the word ESCAPE.

 

      This ad simply does not require an embedded playboy bunny in order to work.

      With all that in mind let's ask the question again, "What is acceptable in regards to sex in the media?"

      There is usually no reason to get in an uproar over sex in the media. It sort of has a natural tendency to police itself. There will always be attempts to push the limit and some will inevitably go over the top but in the long run what works the best is also what is acceptable to most people.

      Also, seeing an ad might influence you to buy a soda but it will not cause societal destruction. And kids are not dummies either. When my eight year old boys saw inappropriate ads as I wrote this chapter they objected themselves and covered their own eyes.

      I applaud reasonable watchdog groups such as PTC and I am irritated by flagrant violations of community standards but there are many hyper-religious groups on the fringe who go way overboard objecting to what they see in the media. These groups make dire predictions and espouse irrational cause-effect relationships. Everyone just needs to relax a bit and stop making stuff up to be scared about.

      There are also a lot of people who will get on their high horse and loudly condemn me for simply writing this chapter. To all of them I say, "Go fuck yourself." I knew they would be wrong* and I felt bad for them so I said the fuck yourself thing so they could be right. I hope that makes them feel better. In the end, I'm a very sensitive kind of guy.



*If you are objecting to the butt-fucking dog scene then I actually agree with you, sorry, my bad.

 

 

Sex in School Table of Contents