LAM FACIAL PLASTICS

I found the last entry hyper interesting.
Obviously, the issue of sex and what sex sells is an extremely complex one. Not only it is hard to find one single type of response among "people", but it also varies depending on the product, the amount of flesh exposed, the gender of the viewer, whoa!

I was struck by the comment. "sexy only sells sex". And I started to think about it.

From all the examples I can think of, I would rather agree, yes.

One type of ad that came to my mind and got me thinking is the one of parfum ads and campaigns.
I think parfums are of the products that, per se, do not look nor make you think instantly of sex. I am speaking of the bottles, the parfums in stores, etc. But if we think of campaigns, there is an obvious trend to advertise them through images of highly sexual content or at least very suggestive. And that would make sense if we think not of the bottles nor the products per se, but of parfums as scents that easily awaken our sensuality. I said sensuality, not sexuality, but those two are quite easily connected.

If we think of how parfums are all about the sense of scent and of how deeply linked that sense is to our memories and experiences... and then add to that the way our bodies apparently react to smell signals we don't consciously perceive (pheromones) when being attracted to the other gender... and if we think of how substances strong on pheromones such as musk are used in parfums, then it is easy to see why and how smell and sex could "walk" rather close together.

And it seems the world of advertising agrees on that in the sense that over time, over centuries, even, parfums' ads had a strong sensual and sexual component.
I recall the example of one specific parfum and the way the company had advertised it over the years. In their first ads, the parfum showed a woman playing piano and what I assume would be her piano professor totally enraptured by the smell of the parfum and kissing in a very sensual, sexual kiss. You could not see the faces of the people in the ad, neither in the upcoming ones. Over time, the piano lesson was replaced by some other other circumstance, but the image and later "pic" remained basically the same: a man and a woman passionately kissing (but faceless because of their body position). So, the ad of the parfum was one to sell the parfum and the sensuality of it with, indeed, images suggestive of sex, this even in ads from the early XIXth century.

What I find interesting about those ads and many, or most others I have seen in parfum ads OTHER than the ones of the two most recent decades, is that those ads would suggest sex, strongly so, but the people in it would be anonymous, not even totally shown (sometimes you would see a cleavage, a neck, half the face, the hands holding the bottle or some other suggestive body part but not the full body nor a particular "person". Nevertheless, around the eighties, the "trend" of famous people making parfums started, and a bit later on, maybe following the same "idea", well known, big parfum brands, started asking celebrities to advertise for their parfums, too. I would say it was only then, with the first parfums made "by" some celebrity or endorsed by one celebrity that we started seeing parfums associated with famous people.

I would be interested in knowing what has been the impact of it. Have specific parfums become more succesful as they have been advertised by a given celebrity? or were they sold "more" by other type of ads, even by current ads portraying sensual situations with "anonymous" people?

My own perception, and I really mean my "own", personal one, is that -when thinking back of all the parfums I remember and their ads- I remember easily the name and parfum advertised by the old type of ads (where people were not fully shown, or were anonymous faces, or where you saw anonymous hands, necks, etc.) rather than by the ones advertidsed by celebrities. The funny thing is that I remember the celebrities and the ads in general, but not the specific name of that specific parfum!
That would reinforce Lindstrom's comment that some public images can work as "vampires", sucking people's attention and taking actually the focus so much out of the product on itself, that as much as the intention was to sell better or more the product, the fact is that people remember the celebrity, not the product.
For example, I remember ads with Charlize Theron, others with Nicole Kidman, others with Live Tyler... but I have to think long and hard to recall what specific brand of parfum the ad was aboutg. In the case of Nicole Kidman's ads, there was so much talking about her contract with Chanel, that, well, I remember from that and from big luminous signs in the ad that the parfum was one of Chanel's. Yet, I swear I am not sure what specific "number" or name of Chanel's parfums she was advertising!

On a sidenote, it is interesting to see that 90% of the people who are asked about Chanel N'º5 remember a *comment* (not an image!!!, a comment) made by Marilyn Monroe, who said that she slept with... Chanel Nº5 only. It is so well remembered by most people that it even is one of the most common questions in the Trivia games!!!

But don't you find interesting that the product was associated with sex (sleeping in the nude only with parfum) AND with that specific celebrity (the "sex symbol" Marylin Monroe) but NOT with an *image* of neither a sexual situation nor the celebrity? It were the words that stuck with us. It makes me wonder, do we recall better a specific product when associated through sexual situations or sensual people/celebrities but not through sexual *images*? instead, by comments they made or allusions that were made?

What do you think?

I think it is obviously a way too complex issue.
I would personally assume that the more inherently sexual or sensual the product is, the less likely we will remember the product if there is an image that will attract our attention way more than the product itself in the ad/campaign, but, that, in turn, the less sexual and more "sexually neutral" the product, or... the less sexy of a situation the product suggests, the more easily we will remember who endorsed "it". I am thinking of how I have noticed that, being someone living in a country where those products are not sold, I can't believe how many times I've seen on the Net people mentioning how a specific brand of products for acne (not really the most sexy image one can have: pimples!) were endorsed by this or that celebrity, as it was the case with Proactive and Jessica Simpson, Vanessa Williams, etc.
Would the product be, then, more remembered for the not-so-sexy products or ads if, yes, a celebrity is associated with them? is it then that our feeling identified with a celebrity "works" FOR the product and not against it?

It is really complex!!!

Wow, that has got to be the most detailed response on the planet. Thanks for the thoughtful insight. To be honest, after I wrote the blog and did not get any responses, I was disturbed all weekend whether I had crossed the line with (gulp) sexuality. But we are all adults so I assumed that you got the positive understanding of a fundamental of human nature without thinking of me as a lurid individual. So thanks. I feel better that I did not cross any unstated boundaries and that I can challenge my readership in provocative and thoughtful ways. I think the Marilyn Monroe situation is unique in that she actually had a memorable line using the product name. O/w a celebrity can be a crippling agent. Yes, it is complex and we humans are tremendously complex. I just finished an 8 page article on female sexuality from the New York Times that is simply brilliant by a female sexologist. Very interesting reading and thought provoking of how women perceive sexuality not from the on/off switch of men. All the Masters/Johnson etc. purported that men and women are the same, when in fact we know that is not the case. Even though I am a masculine guy, I have a unique feminine sensibility that most of my male colleagues do not. I know that because in my EO forum I actually voice more of the feminine ideas toward subject than others. Should I say more sensitive one? I guess I am just a connector. Okay, off on a tangent here. This is getting a bit stream of consciousness so I'll sign off.
best,
sml

Oh, I am sorry you had to wonder if you had crossed boundaries only because we didn't answer sooner.
I didn't answer sooner only because it was kind of tricky to find the time over the weekend, but I actually read it Friday and "used" what I read there while watching the ads on TV.

No, I don't think you crossed boundaries. For once, sexuality is a humongous part of our lives. I don't mean "sex", I mean sexuality as in gender and the different needs and sensibilities, physical and emotional, that come with it.
I dislike profoundly any sort of site where sex is treated as a yet one object of consumption, but this is not the case here. You actually were helping us analyze what we are exposed to and who, and why, regarding sexuality, by the media. It was written from a respectful standpoint, with an intention to move us to reflection. I don't think anything is LESS objectifying of sex than trying to understand how our mind functions and how such a strong force in us can or could be manipulated by the media and by whatever we are exposed to.
The more we learn about something, from a respectful, insightful, rational way, the better we can remain in control of what we want that "thing" be/represent in our lives depending on *our* values, not on arbitrary standards created by corporations or various interests that want us to see "it" under one given light only... and usually a shallow one.

I went to a Catholic school but was blessed to have very cool nuns that were open to discuss sexual matters, not in detail, of course, but I mean: they would approach subjects like these, well, maybe not them, but the professors in the school, so we, students, would actually be aware enough of the realities of the world as to not fall into ingenuity and ignorance. Innocence and ignorance are too different things, and anything that takes us away from ignorance, in a delicate, scientific, rational, respectful way is actually a bonus: something more for us to not fall into the inertia of letting values and ideas sink in in our minds only by not even reflecting of what the media and overall external influences want us to think of sex like.

So I praise you for bringing up the subject in such an useful, rational, respectful way.
It was educative, not "too much info" in any way.
Rest assured.
I doubt you would ever, anyway, be able to cross any sort of boundary in that sense. Your own special sensibility to people's needs, feelings, issues and your being in touch with both the male and female sensibility... PLUS your own values would not allow you to do or say anything vulgar.

Yes, I agree. You have a way of being in touch with the female mind and sensibility that is rare to see, particularly in your field (well, at least from my own experience with doctors!). I think it has a lot to do with your clicking with both male and female patients. You are a very manly man (not in a macho sense of the word, of course) with yet the ability to empathize and understand women, to connect with your own more feminine-side / sensibility--- something good since I think a lot of the misunderstandings between genders are due to our terrible mistake of forgetting that we have a bit of the other gender' sensibility TOO, and to USE it for everyone's sake.

It became really obvious to me, that you had that empathy with women, in the best sense of the word, when watching the videos of the trips you made with your staff, and when sharing thoughts or comments regarding women in your staff.

I think it is of the most valuable traits you have, and one that will be a true blessing for your loved one and your family when you will start it.

Hugsssssssss

thank you! i went to a Catholic high school too and was taught sex ed by a priest! lol.
best,
sml

Wow! MysteryAgain, you managed to beat the record again! You amaze me that you are so good at writing in a second language!

Dr. Lam, you crack me up!

lol, I think it’s totally fine that you feel free to talk about whatever you wish. I wouldn’t overly worry about trying to fit under a fine, kosher line of acceptance, if I were you. (oops, “gestalt slip”….I hope you’ll forgive me.) It’s your blog anyway. And after all, you’re a doctor and can get away with it.

Cheers!

i may be kosher too because I was in New York City for 6 years so my Jewish friends have taught me that too! lol.

Oh, Heather and everyone, sorry I write so long! I am not always sure how to convey some thoughts without explaining too much, I guess!
Let me know if I write too much or confuse you, I won't get offended by such commentaries, ok?

Hugssssss

keep writing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
i love it!

[b]M/A,[/b] the more I read of your writing, the more I am certain you are a very deep thinker with most agile brain. I learn something from everything you write here.

This topic didn't seem racy at all over in the blog. Here, OTOH. Go on!!

yeah!