Sex sells vs. polygamy

The evolution of acceptance has enabled us to accept more advertising with the sex sells theory, but how far are we allowed to go these days? I’m going to use polygamy as an example in this article. So, what about polygamy? It’s still taboo. Why is one form of sex-advertising allowed and another not?

Greg Schirf, founder of Polygamy Porter beer used the slogan: "Why Have Just One?" in time for the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, Utah. His reasoning? He believes: "You have to be creative if you're going to survive in the beer business in Utah". And controversial, for that matter: the ads were banned, yet the sales were booming as well as their e-commerce trade. One Mormon woman commented: "If people somehow think it [polygamy] represents the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it does not." Could we not then also say: “If people somehow think women represent sex, bikinis, thongs (etc.), they do not”?

Women seem to be generally accepting of ads that represent them as “sex objects”. Look at the Lynx ads as an example. But there seems to be a lack of acceptance of other sex-related attitudes, such as polygamy, a practice which nevertheless is acknowledged by some beliefs and practices in the world. Why is it better to suggest that a man wants to sleep with every other woman rather than him having three wives that he (assumingly) loves? Just a thought… as it would suggest that lust is more accepted than love these days.

I understand that there may be religious taboos involved with polygamy that may affect people’s acceptance of it. Religion in marketing has been discussed in a previous post (http://nomenuk-naming.blogspot.com/2011/09/religion-in-marketing.html). Now we can ask, why should religious views, including those on sex, be suppressed in advertising, and yet “free” sex reinforced? Polygamy could be seen as a way of expressing our sexual preferences as well, whether or not this has any religious connotations.

Of course, the question of polygyny vs. polyandry arises here as well – we mainly hear about polygyny, where the man possesses more than one wife. In the earlier example from Polygamy Porter Beer, the presence of polygyny here is actually being sexist: it’s all targeted at men.

The real problem behind this ad, then, may be the fact that polyandry gets ignored. Would women find it “funnier” if the idea of multiple husbands were to be displayed in an ad? Maybe it would ease the tension and help people accept what is really going on around them.

Lynx’s new shower gel ad with the slogan: “The cleaner you are, the dirtier you get” was also banned last week. It was featuring a woman touching her own breasts. If Lynx can get men to buy their products with this kind of advertising: go for it. This is solely speaking from a marketing perspective, of course. I personally prefer the Old Spice ad series featuring unrealistic expectations from a man. It’s funny. The Old Spice one manages to target both genders in a humoristic way that I doubt will offend anyone. Stereotypical elements still remain, yet the viewer does not notice as much.

How far do we take the censorship then? If we live in a country where women and men are meant to be equal, shouldn’t all Lynx ads be banned as well along with the Old Spice ones? Not to mention the numerous other ads evoking sexism and cultural issues.

Going back to the polygamy example, I wonder if we will slowly be more accepting of polygamy as we are more open to ads with sexual natures, as this will realistically not be disappearing. The evolution of acceptance would suggest so, however I feel this may take longer.

Maybe the moral values behind sex are being slowly wiped out, but maybe there could be several debates linked to the appropriateness of these ads (both religious and moral). Interestingly, the Lynx ads could be said to be subtly suggesting polygyny anyway.

I’m not saying I agree or disagree with any of these. I think the slogan in the beer ad is hilarious. I can appreciate the sense of humour used here. It works. The beer is good too, apparently. There may be some truth in every little stereotype of a certain sex or culture and if you can use this to sell something, why not. The important thing is that religious and moral values should be respected equally. Let’s also hope that the sex sells debate is a gate to ulterior freedom in expressing ourselves.