The new virgin advert? Stuck in the past?

I'll answer the last question here first:

"Why is it so bad for men to admire pretty women?"

I don't necessarily think it is. I admire my girlfriend, i think she's gorgeous. I wouldn't ever suggest that there's anything remotely wrong with this. However, i think the problem arises when something good is used in a negative way. There are several reasons why this advert does that.

1) It objectifies women. As i said above, i think my girlfriend is very attractive. However, this certainly does not mean that she is only there for my visual gratification, and i think it would be demeaning to suggest that she is, and would reduce her humanity. We, as humans, have more to us than meets the eye. Plus, objectification has numerous social ramifications:

i) It is responsible for shockingly high male-female crime statistics.
ii) It demeans sex. Women become an object of desire, and sex consequently becomes a selfish, self-gratifying concept, rather than something based upon reciprocity, trust and intimacy.
iii) It reinforces the glass ceiling (or makes it more opaque). Women, if seen as 'visual pleasures' only, are encouraged to seek stereotypical jobs, and allow men to get on with 'real business'.

2) It damages self-esteem in other women. Adverts like this promote an 'ideal' of womanhood, that creates a social pressure for girls to live up to. The advert quite clearly showed the other women as being jealous of the 'attractive' ones. This in itself has numerous personal and social consequences, none of which are desirable. Women are not valued/respected here simply because they are human, and have intrinsic value, but because they reach a certain 'standard'.

3) It encourages men to look at women in a skewed manner. If men are conditioned by the media to consider only an 'ideal' standard of woman, and to focus solely upon her attractiveness, then social relationships often end up lacking the depth and beauty they are capable of. I think that the sexes have so much they could learn from one another, and they have a great potential for mutual intimacy, but unfortunately this kind of advertising creates a 'barrier' to that - it seems as though men only show interest in women they are sexually attracted to. From the other side, men are conditioned only to look at the attractiveness of a woman.

4) It promotes something as clearly artificial as attractiveness. Attractiveness is a fleeting concept, as chaseside said, women used for their attractiveness have a very short 'shelf-life'. There is far more to existence than what we look like, and we shouldn't spend our short lives chasing something so obviously subjective, unnecessary and fleeting.

It'd be more realistic if it was filmed in a kitchen. *Runs and hides*

Look at the degree to which men and women are 'commonly' objectified in relation to each other

This advert intimidates women from flying. If you're not hot, you'll be scared by a group of 'red hot' women. No woman in that ad looked happy

So the stewardesses weren't women?

You think the fat guy was happy that he was fat and not boning one of the stewardesses like the captain?

Don't be stupid.

The old women? Every woman looked intimidated and generally unhappy apart from the stewardesses, who looked intimidating - they intimidated different men as well as women.

Plus the pilot was annoying, something I forgot to say. All those girls and it's like saying, be as plain as you like, being a big shot male pilot gets you fanny.

Well women do it too! I've had a great flight recently, the pilot was a woman!

Well, if you want to call every male a rapist, woman-beater and so forth, then I've no inclination to further discuss with you. However, this also means you're a rapist and a woman beater as well. Think about that. Or I guess you're just 'special'?

The third quotation (your comment) was just to show I was addressing my comments towards you.

It does not objectify women, the very fact the women in the advert portray women who have successful jobs show that. If they were parading about in their underwear, gyrating against any man in the vicinity, their only function for the pleasure of men, you may have a point.

Women do not have to be naked/semi-naked to be objectified. The point is that men here are all ogling at the women because of how they look. If you think that the men are staring, and dropping things because they are impressed with the success of the womens' careers then i quite honestly despair. The whole function of having 'attractive women' in this job is to attract men.

i) Do you have a link to show this?

I wouldn't have thought that was necessary, it's just a matter of logic. The studies themselves are hard to find, but you'll find them embedded in feminist literature, if you want to find empirical evidence.

ii) Sex doesn't JUST have to be about trust, intimacy etc. Obviously if one person wants intimacy the other doesn't it might cause problems, but it's not just men that want/like selfish sex and if both parties are up for some sex (as opposed to 'making love') then I don't see the problem.

I'm not moralising here. I'm not saying that everyone has to have sex that conforms to my standards of hat sex should be - but trust and reciprocity ought to be present in all sexual relationships. The point is that if both parties freely choose to have the same kind of sex (loving, selfish whatever) then fine - but all too often the relationship is skewed, with one side wanting a relationship/comfort/whatever, and the other wanting gratification. Plus, it's very difficult to discern what influence our culture has on the choices people make about sex. Many academics refer to Western society as a 'rape culture', meaning that the ability of men and women to freely choose how to express their sexuality is a lot lower than most people think.

iii) I think you're missing the point that admiring a pretty woman doesn't necessarily mean it's the only thing you admire her for.

I think i've answered this point above, but to reiterate - do you honestly believe that the men in the advert are thinking about anything but how the women look? I mean, just look at the last statement of the advert 'still red hot'. The women are dressed in red, wearing short[er] skirts and are wearing high heels. The others, on the other hand, are deliberately made to look 'drab' and less typically attractive - with grey clothing, glasses, and hait tightly pulled back.


Where did it quite clearly show this? The only other women who had any kind of negative reaction where the other airline hostesses who looked more disapproving then jealous, and the celebrity who looked annoyed at the air hostesses stealing the limelight.

See above.

This point depends entirely on whether you believe people passively take on board all that they see hear read in the media or not. I am not convinced the media can be blamed for 'conditioning' men.

I'm not saying they take on board everything. But if you're going to try denying that it has any subconscious impact then good luck - all the data is against you. But i'm not saying it's 'just' the media - there are plenty of other societal influences.

Then don't. No one is forcing you (or anyone else) to do so. In the case of VA having attractive women in their advert reinforces the brand image they wish to portray. I highly doubt their real cabin crew are hired based only on their looks.

You doubt it? Why? I'm fairly sure that there are certain 'standards' of attractiveness that have to be met, and certain 'grooming' procedures that are standard. And i'm not saying that i plan to spend my life trying to be more attractive. But that is an image that is clearly put across by the media.

Apagg, thank you for showing everyone why there is a continued need for feminism. (btw - i know nothing about shoes or handbags - i'm a guy as well. Also, if it weren't for the feminist, sexual liberation movements, then there would probably be a lot more 'unused genitalia' around...)

Funny, I could've sworn I was talking to Chaseside. I wouldn't expect a guy to know about handbags or shoes Also, if you ever feel like getting a sense of humour, I think you can pick it up at the same time as getting a set of balls.

It is when it gets reactions like yours

so being a male means you have to have the desire to beat them up?

Having balls is wanting to protect women, and not throwing an insecure fit at the slightest sign of a woman speaking her mind with regards to a culture which viciously oppresses them.