So after watching the Superbowl (through new eyes), it is clear that it is essentially the epitome of the Freudian idea that sex and aggression are key motivators (at least in our western society). It seemed to me that at least every other commercial had either a male/female sex symbol, thoughts of sex (This one in particular stood out: http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-super-bowl-commercials/09000d5d81e2b8f7/Pepsi-Max-First-date), or someone getting harmed in some way. Add to this the aggression that the game of football itself exhibits with the usual accompaniment of cheerleaders (It so happened that this was the first championship without cheerleaders since like the 1960's). Almost everywhere one would look during the Superbowl, sex and aggression were present in some form.
However, while sex and aggression are clearly major factors, I would imagine that most people have other motivations for watching the Superbowl. I myself just like watching competitive sports, which includes golf (Very little aggressive behavior or sex symbols involved, if any).
I watch the superbowl every year primarily for the commercials. Although they all seem to have some sexual or aggressive theme, they are entertaining. I don't think they have a negative impact on society because they use these themes to get more viewers.
I do think it's interesting to see how the superbowl committee WILL prohibit commercials that are too blatantly sexual. Like PETA for example:(http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2009/01/27/peta-ads-suggesting-sex-vegetables-deemed-racy-nbc/)
I think it is more frustrating for me to see an organization like that (which is supposed to be focused on a good cause) use sexuality to promote their cause. Maybe it's just me, but it somehow feels more inappropriate for an organization that's supposed to appeal to all animal lovers to push the sexual envelope as far is it will go. I've come to expect things like that from Budweiser or automobile commercials (which clearly are more focused on adults anyways).
Like Katrina, I also watch the superbowl every year mainly for the commercials. Since football is mainly a man's sport, many of the commercials are aimed towards men. This being said, many of the commercials seem to focus on things men would like; cars, razors, girls, beer and food. I found that many of the commercials would use girls and sexuality to promote their product even when it had nothing to do with either of the two.
I also find it weird that brands and organizations such as PETA (which is focused on animal rights) resorts to using nudity and sexuality in order to shine light on their cause. I feel that although this will get people's attention, it will mainly be negative attention.
I don't think its necessarily worse that PETA uses sex in their advertizing because they're doing it for a good cause. Every other organization uses sex in their advertising and they're just doing it to sell stuff. The fact is, it works. It gets your attention. Thats why we're talking about it right now. Negative attention is still attention. You may not like PETA's advertising, but that doesn't limit your ability or desire to support it's cause. You don't want to go out and hurt animals because PETA's advertising disagrees with your moral code. That aside, I think the facination and attraction of sex and agression in advertizing is mostly due to the fact that all of us at our basist selves are motivated by certain aspects of these things. With the evolution of society, we have supressed these drives and replaced them with more humanistic persuits, but there is still a base and somewhat subliminal attraction within us to these things.
First I want to say PETA=people eating tasty animals! =D
Now, I want to say I think Freud is whacked and had too many issues related to his own poor up bringing and broken psyche; having said that I do agree with some of the psychodynamic theories that came forth from Freud’s teachings. I personally lean more toward a humanist view of psychology and have a tendency to take a phenomenological approach. That being said, I don’t really agree with Freud and would probably be considered more of a Jungian.
Now sex and aggression —it would be interesting to hear what evolutionary psychologist would have to say about this. I would guess they would say that both are related to our early survival. Men are promiscuous because they are trying to insure there immortality by producing as many off spring as possible through the insemination of as many women as possible and I believe natural selection has chosen the features that men find most attractive in women. So sex at its very root has a purpose, but I’m not sure I see it as Freud does. Now what about aggression? I figure aggression would be attributed to survival; first in protecting yourself from invaders and then for hunting. Who could bring themselves to kill an animal to eat with out at least a little bit of aggression. So sex and aggression are a natural part of our survival as a species.
I love both sex and aggression; they make up a huge part of my television watching and a played a huge role in my earlier life, but that’s not all I’m about. When I cuddle with my grand-daughters I’m not thinking about sex or aggression. When I’m at work, other than this one guy who ticks me off, I’m not thinking about being aggressive nor am I responding sexually. How would it work in class if we were either being aggressive or sexual? It would be like a violent orgy and I’m not sure how long Thomas More would let that continue. I guess what I’m trying to say is yes, sex and aggression are part of our human make-up, but it is not the only thing that governs us, other wise the professor would have a black-eye for assigning me the chapter on Kierkegaard. =D
I think Robert brings up a good point of how it would be interesting to hear what evolutionary physchologist say. both sex and agression play very big parts in everyones life these days. sex sells and that is the bottom line. If people don't like that well sorry. If the media wants to sell anything you have to have some sort of sex involved (in most cases). agression is part of our human survival. We have to be able to protect ourselves and our instincts tell us that it is survival of the fittest.
I really enjoy watching the Superbowl just because its the Superbowl, but the commercials make it even better. I agree with probably all the business majors that sex and aggression do sell. It's because of this that it will be everywhere and not a whole lot people can do because it is part of our nature to be attracted to that. I think that to a degree that thats a good thing because it is through sexual desires and aggression that the human race has survived and that by saying none of it should be in the media may lower our values for family and our passion for things like sports and our countries. I do believe that for some immature minds that the advertising may be a little overboard, but with the right education for everyone we can know that is wrong and just laugh at it as a joke.
Interesting commentary on sex & the Super Bowl:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.salon.com/life/super_bowl/index.html?story=/mwt/feature/2011/02/05/super_bowl&source=newsletter&utm_source=contactology&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Salon_Daily%2520Newsletter%2520%2528Not%2520Premium%2529_7_30_110
So after watching the Superbowl (through new eyes), it is clear that it is essentially the epitome of the Freudian idea that sex and aggression are key motivators (at least in our western society). It seemed to me that at least every other commercial had either a male/female sex symbol, thoughts of sex (This one in particular stood out: http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-super-bowl-commercials/09000d5d81e2b8f7/Pepsi-Max-First-date), or someone getting harmed in some way. Add to this the aggression that the game of football itself exhibits with the usual accompaniment of cheerleaders (It so happened that this was the first championship without cheerleaders since like the 1960's). Almost everywhere one would look during the Superbowl, sex and aggression were present in some form.
ReplyDeleteHowever, while sex and aggression are clearly major factors, I would imagine that most people have other motivations for watching the Superbowl. I myself just like watching competitive sports, which includes golf (Very little aggressive behavior or sex symbols involved, if any).
I watch the superbowl every year primarily for the commercials. Although they all seem to have some sexual or aggressive theme, they are entertaining. I don't think they have a negative impact on society because they use these themes to get more viewers.
ReplyDeleteI do think it's interesting to see how the superbowl committee WILL prohibit commercials that are too blatantly sexual. Like PETA for example:(http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2009/01/27/peta-ads-suggesting-sex-vegetables-deemed-racy-nbc/)
I think it is more frustrating for me to see an organization like that (which is supposed to be focused on a good cause) use sexuality to promote their cause. Maybe it's just me, but it somehow feels more inappropriate for an organization that's supposed to appeal to all animal lovers to push the sexual envelope as far is it will go. I've come to expect things like that from Budweiser or automobile commercials (which clearly are more focused on adults anyways).
Like Katrina, I also watch the superbowl every year mainly for the commercials. Since football is mainly a man's sport, many of the commercials are aimed towards men. This being said, many of the commercials seem to focus on things men would like; cars, razors, girls, beer and food. I found that many of the commercials would use girls and sexuality to promote their product even when it had nothing to do with either of the two.
ReplyDeleteI also find it weird that brands and organizations such as PETA (which is focused on animal rights) resorts to using nudity and sexuality in order to shine light on their cause. I feel that although this will get people's attention, it will mainly be negative attention.
I don't think its necessarily worse that PETA uses sex in their advertizing because they're doing it for a good cause. Every other organization uses sex in their advertising and they're just doing it to sell stuff. The fact is, it works. It gets your attention. Thats why we're talking about it right now. Negative attention is still attention. You may not like PETA's advertising, but that doesn't limit your ability or desire to support it's cause. You don't want to go out and hurt animals because PETA's advertising disagrees with your moral code.
ReplyDeleteThat aside, I think the facination and attraction of sex and agression in advertizing is mostly due to the fact that all of us at our basist selves are motivated by certain aspects of these things. With the evolution of society, we have supressed these drives and replaced them with more humanistic persuits, but there is still a base and somewhat subliminal attraction within us to these things.
First I want to say PETA=people eating tasty animals! =D
ReplyDeleteNow, I want to say I think Freud is whacked and had too many issues related to his own poor up bringing and broken psyche; having said that I do agree with some of the psychodynamic theories that came forth from Freud’s teachings. I personally lean more toward a humanist view of psychology and have a tendency to take a phenomenological approach. That being said, I don’t really agree with Freud and would probably be considered more of a Jungian.
Now sex and aggression —it would be interesting to hear what evolutionary psychologist would have to say about this. I would guess they would say that both are related to our early survival. Men are promiscuous because they are trying to insure there immortality by producing as many off spring as possible through the insemination of as many women as possible and I believe natural selection has chosen the features that men find most attractive in women. So sex at its very root has a purpose, but I’m not sure I see it as Freud does. Now what about aggression? I figure aggression would be attributed to survival; first in protecting yourself from invaders and then for hunting. Who could bring themselves to kill an animal to eat with out at least a little bit of aggression. So sex and aggression are a natural part of our survival as a species.
I love both sex and aggression; they make up a huge part of my television watching and a played a huge role in my earlier life, but that’s not all I’m about. When I cuddle with my grand-daughters I’m not thinking about sex or aggression. When I’m at work, other than this one guy who ticks me off, I’m not thinking about being aggressive nor am I responding sexually. How would it work in class if we were either being aggressive or sexual? It would be like a violent orgy and I’m not sure how long Thomas More would let that continue. I guess what I’m trying to say is yes, sex and aggression are part of our human make-up, but it is not the only thing that governs us, other wise the professor would have a black-eye for assigning me the chapter on Kierkegaard. =D
I think Robert brings up a good point of how it would be interesting to hear what evolutionary physchologist say. both sex and agression play very big parts in everyones life these days. sex sells and that is the bottom line. If people don't like that well sorry. If the media wants to sell anything you have to have some sort of sex involved (in most cases). agression is part of our human survival. We have to be able to protect ourselves and our instincts tell us that it is survival of the fittest.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoy watching the Superbowl just because its the Superbowl, but the commercials make it even better. I agree with probably all the business majors that sex and aggression do sell. It's because of this that it will be everywhere and not a whole lot people can do because it is part of our nature to be attracted to that. I think that to a degree that thats a good thing because it is through sexual desires and aggression that the human race has survived and that by saying none of it should be in the media may lower our values for family and our passion for things like sports and our countries. I do believe that for some immature minds that the advertising may be a little overboard, but with the right education for everyone we can know that is wrong and just laugh at it as a joke.
ReplyDelete