In the first advertisement, a device claiming to prevent double chins, efface double chins, and reduce enlarged glands is presented. Presented as a simple black and white poster, the dating of the advertisement is no doubt older than the second poster, which encourages the use of products from Protein World to gain a “beach body”. Both are targetted to an audience of women, and both are related to ideas of beauty and achieving a more ‘attractive’ body.
The first advertisement presents clear values of an expectation of beauty, as well as an objectification for the figure of the female body. Titled “Curves of Youth”, it immediately sets a clear standard for what is considered to be a youthful look. As an advertisement to sell a product, such a title can be seen as purposefully provocative to the audience, encouraging an idea where curves are the sole definition of what is considered to be a healthy and youthful appearance. This is enforced by his statement that the device will give the “flesh” the “resiliency” and “freshness” of youth, alluding to the fact that not using the device will lead to what may be interpreted as an older appearance. The clear standards for beauty are also presented in the poster in a very literal, almost listlike manner, with the idea of what is beautiful being presented as a checklist for women. Mainly, Prof. Eugene Mack presents the issue of “double chins” and “enlarged glands” as the main ones for a female’s beauty, acting as potential euphemisms for what may nowadays be called chubby. The value and stereotype of skinny being equal to beautiful are further presented with the device being named a “chin reducer and beautifier”. This clearly shows that to Prof. Eugene Mack, and perhaps his audience in the older time, a slimmer build or chin is synonymous to beauty. Another factor to consider in the first poster is the fact that Prof. Eugene Mack is likely a man, which builds onto the attitude presented of men deciding what is considered beautiful or ugly for women.
The second advertisement is much more modern, advertising a weight loss product from Protein World. It presents a slim female model in black and white, against a yellow background. However, the female wears a yellow bikini, highlighting areas of a female that are most often sexualized. This illustrates an attitude of sexualization towards women, illustrating a stereotype where females are only seen for their appearances. The fact that the rest of the model’s body is blacked out compared to the highlighted areas further enforces an attitude that a “beach body” must be model-like, presenting an unrealistic expectation towards a female audience who may then feel inadequate with their own body types and body shapes. The phrase itself of “beach body” is also problematic, as it almost connects access to a certain location with a certain body type, as if not having the specific, yet undefined “beach body” will mean not having access to a beach. This presents an idea where if the answer to the rhetorical question of “are you beach body ready” is negative, that your body and your appearance is not adequate enough to gain access to a location presented as exclusive to only those with unrealistic bodies such as in the photo.
Both advertisements are similar in conveying an idea of the over-sexualization of women. With the first one being created in a time period where education, values, and beliefs may be more centered towards a world controlled by men, words such as “beautifier” and “curves” are used much more freely, with such sexualization and objectification of women clearly being the dominant culture. However, in a much more modern time, it is not hard to see why the second poster must have been much more controversial, given the strides made in culture through education aiming towards greater respect and equality for women, as well as the greater role women now play in power, politics, and justice, as displayed by movements such as the #MeToo movement demonstrating the power women can create by banding together. This is likely why the second poster takes a more subtle approach, without the use of words whose denotations may cause controversy such as “beautifier”, but still demonstrates an old-fashioned viewpoint of beauty and an unrealistic standard for it through the use of color to focus the audience’s attention.
After seeing both posters and their different approaches to presenting such values, especially in the different directness, the changes through time in the culture of women, as well as the values and beliefs associated with them, are clearly demonstrated. However, while there may be differences in approach to presentation, the main idea and motif behind both posters remain consistent with one another, presenting the idea of female beauty as a tangible, achievable, checklist. Although it is of course, perfectly natural to want to enhance one’s perceived beauty, the two posters challenge what may now be a modern idea of self-acceptance and self-confidence, instead, pushing an ideal body towards the audience, potentially aiming to create feelings of self-inadequacy in order to sell greater amounts of products. This forces us to consider greater issues associated with such posters, such as just how much power the prospect of greater sales and money hold over an arguably, morally higher goal of enhancing the confidence in females around the world. Perhaps the two posters can be seen as a failure in such a market, where profits gained from selling such products are at greater importance to these private firms compared to the destruction of feelings of self-adequacy and self-acceptance.
In conclusion, although both advertisements have different approaches in presentation, they illustrate the same culture and value: the objectification as well as the sexualization of women. With both advertisements aiming to sell products, it is now up to us, as the audience and consumers, to decide whether to buy into such stereotypes of beauty or instead to use the power of our dollars to change society’s stubborn values of a checklist definition of beauty.
