Sex Doesn't Sell

So Why Does the Myth Live On?

“The meta-analysis of 78 peer-reviewed advertising studies from 1969 to 2017 firmly concluded that sexualized ads didn’t drive more people to buy things, or people to buy more things - the key goals of advertising”

Foreword: if you’re not the sort of man who believes that the objectification and sexualisation of half the human race is just a cracking wheeze, I’m not criticising you. And no, I’m not a feminist, before we start on the feminazi tropes.

The reality is that it took me decades to discover this, and I want to share this information with you, in the hope that the next time someone says “Sex Sells!” you can consider that proclamation more critically, and with more facts at your fingertips.

---

That’s Not Sex

“Sex Sells” is sold to society as a truism and often used to excuse those who are comfortable with one half of the human race being seen as a set of available body parts. The only problem is - the truism isn’t true.

It’s well established that sexualised advertising does not sell more products.

If you’re open-minded and rational enough to re-evaluate the myths, read on.

First things first

First, let’s consider the term “sex”.

Women in soft porn poses revealing flesh, women being dominated by men, the representations of women being objectified in adverts — none of these represent sex.

The image above is not an image of sex. It represents a woman being sexualised for the camera.

Generally, images referred to as sexy represent women being sexualised in specific ways. Spot the difference.

“In short: sexualization is performance; it’s all about being desirable to others. Sexuality is understanding and connecting to your own desire.”

Oh that’s just semantics, I hear you say.

Sexualising women sells, if you insist on being pedantic.

But Sexualising Women Doesn’t Sell Either

Long ago, I questioned the validity of the claim that looking at women’s buttocks, breasts, nipples and flesh generally, and women presenting themselves as sexually available, was selling more products.

It certainly wasn’t selling anything to me.

By the time I was a teenage girl I felt demoralized by being forced to view women being objectified in every single public arena.

Media print, billboards, buses, trains, newspapers and magazines. In the public space objectification of women was everywhere.

I’d try to escape these images, and avoid purchasing anything from the companies that produced them where I could.

But there was no escape.

Without knowing why it was harmful to females to be portrayed in this way, I understood nevertheless that it was.

I also realised that men were rarely sexualised in such a fashion.

I was right on both counts.

The American Psychological Association states:

“Women and girls are more likely than men and boys to be objectified and sexualized in a variety of media outlets” .

And according to researcher Dr Erin Hatton of the University at Buffalo in New York:

“However, it was also found that when it came to women, images have become much more sexualised than those depicting men…” In the 1960s, 11% of men on Rolling Stone covers were sexualised and by the 2000s, this had risen to 17%… However, in the 1960s, 44% of women were sexualised and by the 2000s, this had risen to 83%. Furthermore, in the 2000s, ‘there were 10 times more hypersexualised images of women than men, and 11 times more non-sexualised images of men than of women’.

This is not good news for women and girls.

Misdirection

Let’s also quickly talk about another regular misdirection - but sex sells sex!

Well, yes. Highly sexualised objectification of women and girls does sell pornography and prostitution, which is in itself highly sexualised objectification (and often dehuminisation) of women and girls.

So, advertising the product when the product is sexualised and objectified women does sell the product to the men who went looking for exactly that product.

Just look at the Kardashians, or Only Fans (or don’t, I try not to).

But this discussion regards the sexualisation of females by the advertising industry who use women’s bodies to promote products or campaigns which are not pornography or prostitution.

The self pornification of certain women who sell themselves as a product is not the topic under discussion.

In The Real World

Even as a teenager, I knew instinctively that flesh peddling portrayals of women decreased our dignity, safety and caused us harm, but I didn’t have the language, confidence or education to speak up about it effectively as a young woman.

On the occasions I tried to object, I was mocked at best, and basically told to shut up and put up. This is the way of the world.

I was also told implicitly and explicitly that money justifies everything and any other position was naive.

I didn’t agree with that statement at all. The dignity, safety and protection of half the human race has always meant a great deal more than whether a car company makes a profit.

But you can’t expect a reasonable response from people who claim “that’s just the way it is” - particularly if they believe they have financial success to back their claims.

It Turns Out Sex Doesn’t Sell

I’m not in the minority. Many other women don’t enjoy watching women being commodified. In fact, many people of both sexes turn away actively from such adverts.

And those who do enjoy the objectification of women are not actually spending money on your product, based on the advert in question.

Because it turns out that arousal related to the dehumanization of or objectification of women doesn’t translate into support for the product or the cause.

Unethical Ethicals

If you believe that the ends sometimes justify the means if the cause is important enough to you, think again. The unethical treatment of women and girls does not drive more money and support to ethical causes.

Peer-reviewed research by the University of Queensland and the University of Melbourne found that exposure to dehumanizing and objectifying images of women actually reduced any intent or behavior helpful to the cause.

Exposure to sexualised advertising has been shown to reduce both intentions and behavior helpful to support the organization.

Dehumanizing women in adverts does not increase support for the campaign.

“With exposure to sexualized advertising reducing both intentions to support the ethical organization (Studies 1 & 2) and behavior helpful to the animal-rights cause (Study 2). In both studies, conducted in different nations (Australia, the United States), and with different demographics (male undergraduates, mixed-gender community sample), consistent evidence of mediation by dehumanization indicated that the dehumanization of the women in the sexualized advertisements is central to explaining these findings.”

But after all, sexualising women still translates to greater product uptake, and we must all worship at the feet of Mammon.

Except, Objectification Doesn’t Sell

Researchers from the University of Illinois, Ball State University and the University of California-Davis examined the meta-analysis of 78 peer-reviewed advertising studies from 1969 to 2017 and firmly concluded:

“The sexualized ads also didn’t drive more people to buy things, or people to buy more things - the key goals of advertising - than the ones that didn’t.”

“We found literally zero effect on participants ‘ intention to buy products in ads with a sexual appeal,” the report’s lead author, John Wirtz, told the University of Illinois . “This assumption that sex sells-well, no, according to our study, it doesn’t. There’s no indication that there’s a positive effect.”

This is further supported by findings from Brad J. Bushman, PhD and Robert B. Lull, PhD of The Ohio State University who conducted a meta-analysis of 53 studies to evaluate how effective it is to include violent and sexual content in advertising. They studied television, movies, video games and print advertising.

“We found almost no evidence that violent and sexual programs and ads increased advertising effectiveness,” said Brad J. Bushman, PhD, professor of communication and psychology at The Ohio State University, and a co-author on the study, which appeared in the journal Psychological Bulletin®. “In general, we found violent and sexual programs, and ads with violent or sexual content decreased advertising effectiveness.”

“Brands advertised during commercial breaks in media with sexual overtones were viewed less favorably than those advertised in media with no sexual content, but there was little difference in viewers’ brand memory or intention to buy. “

And even for those who weren’t distressed by the advertising, it had the effect of distracting them from the products being advertised. According to Robert B. Lull, PhD:

“ People pay more attention to the violence and the sex surrounding ads, both in programs and the ads themselves, than to the actual products being advertised. Consequently, memory, attitudes and buying intentions all decrease.”

So sexualised objectification of women in advertisements received more negative feedback than non-sexual adverts.

And even when people weren’t offended and put off by the advertising, the ads still didn’t increase revenue.

So why does it continue at pace?

Real World Harms, No Gains

Objectifying women doesn’t sell more products, or gain more support for your cause, and it can actually have a negative effect on sales and support.

But sexualised advertising does do one thing really well. It increases harmful, negative beliefs and behaviors.

According to Psychology Today:

“Sexualised portrayals of women have been found to legitimise or exacerbate violence against women and girls, as well as sexual harassment and anti-women attitudes among men and boys.”

Media media sexualisation of the female form is associated with:

• Negative mental health outcomes in adolescent girls.

• Young women who have greater body dissatisfaction have earlier onset of smoking cigarettes.

• The incidence of anorexia nervosa among 10-to 19-year-old girls during a 50-year period found that it paralleled changes in fashion and idealized body image

• Self-objectification has been correlated with decreased sexual health among adolescent girls (measured by decreased condom use and diminished sexual assertiveness).”

And studies by FEMINC in conjunction with Google found that:

‘“The findings of Survey 1 (Sexism in male and female users) found that in men, exposure to a single ad with sexualized imagery (considered both “slightly inappropriate” and “inappropriate” images) significantly increased benevolent sexism in men.”

“The psychological literature currently indicates that objectification and sexualization of women in the media can have wide-ranging effects, from increasing the rates of eating disorders, increasing the likelihood of sexual harassment, or affecting women’s performance and evaluation in the workplace. Benevolent sexism in men negatively impacts women’s success in the workplace.”

My Instincts Were Correct

What I always knew on a basic, bone-deep level to be true, has turned out to be true.

Objectifying women doesn’t sell more products, and it causes harm to the female sex.

And the proof of this has been available for years.

So What’s Going On?

Why does the advertising industry continue to promote objectification, dehumanization and sexualisation of women in their advertisements?

Well according to The Department of Journalism at Ball State University:

“Additional analysis showed that males evaluate ads with sexual appeals significantly more positively than females… we found a small significant negative effect on brand attitude, but no effect on purchase intention.”

It turns out that some men really enjoy ads that objectify women - although that doesn’t translate to more purchases or brand support.

While women, unsurprisingly, overall dislike ads that objectify women.

And that’s the rationale right there. Some men like it.

In Conclusion:
Sexualised advertising has been proven to have a negative or neutral effect on product purchasing.

Sexualised advertising does not increase support for campaigns, whether ethical or unethical.

Sexualised advertising causes actual, verifiable and well-documented harm to females.

But still it flourishes.

Because some men like it.

And really, friends and neighbours, isn’t that what we all suspected all along?

---

Sources:

Header image: https://pixabay.com/photos/woman-swimsuit-pool-bikini-hot-7275076/ https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/sexuality_versus_sexualization_why_is_it_important_to_know_the_difference
https://hoydenabouttown.com/2012/03/02/there-is-a-difference-between-sexualising-and-sexuality/
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/overcoming-child-abuse/201203/the-sexualization-women-and-girls
https://www.buffalo.edu/ubreporter/archive/2011_08_11/rolling_stone_images.html
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259457197_When_sex_doesn't_sell_Using_sexualized_images_of_women_reduces_support_for_ethical_campaigns
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3867429/id=10.1371/journal.pone.0083311
https://qz.com/1013695/a-new-study-shows-sex-doesnt-actually-sell/
https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/bul
http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/pornification-of-women-in-media-far-exceeds-that-of-men/832188/https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2015/07/sex-violence
https://hpaonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/FEM_Google-Whitepaper_Final.pdf
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02650487.2017.1334996?journalCode=rina20

---

(Originally published on Medium, edited and updated, Queensland, Jan 2025)