The issue of objectification of women is a highly debatable topic.
Skin show celebrating a woman’s figure has always been a matter of controversy and debate in the country.
What is wrong in showing a woman in a bikini?
For example, if a lingerie ad has to be depicted there is nothing wrong in showing the model sporting that product. But the controversy arises because the same skin show doesn’t happen when we talk about men.
Indian ad industry had brilliantly played with this stereotype and somewhere it is evident that we as society refrain from showing a guy taking his pants off.
Take this example of ad of MacroMan premium inners starring Hrithik Roshan; although he sports the vest but doesn’t take off his pants. What is so baffling to me is the skin show of the girl coming out of the pool towards the end of the ad.
Clearly the director didn’t have the guts to ask Hrithik to take off his pants or may be he said no. My point is, what was the need to show a bikini-clad woman in a product that is meant for men?
The Indian ad world is absurd. Even though the product is for men, women are undressed.
What do the genius creative heads producing such ads think? Stereotyping and limiting the skin show is what creates an imbalance and that gives rise to objectification of women.
Another ‘Jockey’ ad will make you wonder if the director had been equally sensitive had the model been a girl.
Why does all the thinking process happen when we are selling a male product? Of course there are models breaking the stereotypes, but still a large section of the ad world in our country refrain from going bold with male models.
The Manforce ads that Sunny Leone promotes would show her in a seductive, sexy avatar but aren’t these condoms supposed to be worn by men?
Ranveer Singh made headlines to be the first A-list actor in a condom ad (Durex). But even that had him properly covered dancing with several skimpily dressed women.
Aren’t we being a hypocrite as a society by covering our actors and exposing women?