Lisa of Sociological Images points to a fascinating variation on the male worthiness trap.
Text: “Becoming a donor is probably your only chance to get inside her.”
There are some interesting implications here about why we engage in altruism and who is deserving of that altruism.
From a Belgian men’s magazine.
The worthiness trap, remember, has its origin in heterosexual men’s belief that women are interested only in men, or more accurately only interested in sex with men, when they’ve earned it. And in the tradition of pledging to cross burning deserts, swim shark-infested waters, or slay fierce dragons in order to “win” an otherwise “out of your league” woman’s affection what could be more ultimately sacrificial than *dying and donating your organs?” The Belgians, evidently, have figured it out: dying and donating your organs so they’ll be put inside her!
Never mind that women don’t seem to base their partnering decisions on which man most deserves their booty (hmm, interesting term that, eh?) as a reward/trophy/score-counter.
Submitted by 2501 (not verified) on Thu, 2008-11-13 06:56.
Wow. I think that is probably one of the most offensive ads I have ever seen. On so many levels.
[Yup. I think Holly really nailed it on the one side (it's gotta be a young, skinny, *beautiful* women a man's saving, right?) And I still think I nailed it on the other side (you're a worthless and "out of her league" but she might accept you for spare parts.) Whee. Thanks, Sugarmag! --fl]
Submitted by 2501 (not verified) on Thu, 2008-11-13 10:43.
sugermag, seriously. Ugh.
Submitted by 2501 (not verified) on Thu, 2008-11-13 11:10.
It's so sick I love it. It's the ultimate Nice Guy(tm) scenario -- rescuing the woman who wouldn't have you from beyond the grave. There isn't even anything SEXUAL about the "inside her" element.
[Yup, unpacking the double entendre on "inside her" is pretty interesting, although I disagree that one side of it isn't entirely sexual. Thanks, ES. --fl]
Submitted by 2501 (not verified) on Thu, 2008-11-13 13:12.
So...I guess the hoped-for effect is that some sex-starved man with a poor self-concept will say "Normally, I wouldn't like the idea of someone taking my organs out after I die. But, wow...they might end up in a Hot Chick. Dude, sign me up."
Is there an award for most novel manifestation of the belief that not only will men fall for anything if you wrap it in a layer of sex, they're too stupid to recognize the manipulation? Sheesh.
Mind you, there are worse things than doing the right thing for the wrong reason - if it benefits someone in desperate need. But, I want to doubt that it'll be very effective.
What I REALLY want to see is what the companion ad aimed at women will be. I'd be pleasantly surprised to be wrong, but my guess is that it will/would have a picture of a child in it, with words about how badly he or she needs your help - because women like nurturing, not sex.
Recaptcha: whatever 34 (my age)
Indeed.
[Actually while I don't think they really imagined sex-starved men would fall for it I do think the *overt* message of "get inside her" distracts from the actual solicitation for organ donation. Which sometimes works in marketing... you remember later that organ donation seems like a good idea but you don't particularly remember where you heard it. Killer point about how the corresponding message for women would go with an appeal to nurturing children. If they were really on top of it (and assuming they didn't stray *too* far from the same old gendered stereotypes) it would be a hunky man in the image and text something like "get inside him for a change." But yeah, I bet they won't. Thanks, TLT. --fl]
Submitted by 2501 (not verified) on Fri, 2008-11-14 09:31.
I confess I didn't think of organ donation when I first saw this ad, I thought they were advertising for sperm donors (mainly because we have just had media coverage of the shortage of sperm donors and its effect on the work of fertility clinics in UK). No matter - it's still a terrible ad. and in even worse taste than I thought.
[Nope, sperm donation and so also ineffective as well as rude. There is that theory in ad design that you actually want to *distract* the viewer from the text with the photo because it's supposed to "slip in" further. I dunno, maybe so. Theoretically they do understand marketing to their reader's demographics. And as I've said elsewhere a lot of the time what they're marketing to their readers is intense insecurity. But still, not so hot ad-wise, on way too many levels. Thanks, LR. --fl]
Submitted by 2501 (not verified) on Fri, 2008-11-14 17:54.
Well, good, I'd hate to think that some ugly old fat lady might get my organs, it's not like she deserves to live too!
Worthiness cuts both ways, it's just measured on different (but equally unfair) axes.
[Yeah, and who even wants to be an achiever, let alone a stereotypical "stud" when they're dead? I mean WTF? As opposed to just helping somebody, anybody you're, you know, *histo-compatible with* live a better life, or a longer one, or even just stay alive at all? Thanks, Holly. --fl]