EPT Test

The argument that Sue Jozui is stating is that we as the audience is "expected to transfer the approval of the celebrity to approval of the product. This kind of marketing is misleading and insults the intelligence of the audience . . . We should boycott this kind of advertising and legislate rules and guidelines for advertisers." What I think of the argument is true and in LA we see it everywhere- people being somewhat sexual or sexually attractive. For an example, tv commercials. Every Carl's Jr. commercial that  I see has sexually. The one that cane out over the summer last year, showed two women making hamburgers wearing clothing that showed too much cleavage. Walking near them, there was a man without a shirt staring at them. they looked like they got "love-struck" in them.

Another example is posters and billboards advertising clothing. For Bebe, there is again. a woman wearing clothing that exposes a lot od skin from the waist up. There is another billboard, a man posing against a chair either on a cruise ship or on the beach wearing Speedos underwear.

This is not right on how young women is getting exposed to things that are obviously not true but advertisers still do it, getting the male's attention. Everything that we Americans see, is always to trigger the men into being sexual or always wanting to have sex.

Another way is how women dress. now in days, teenagers are wearing short shorts and shirts that show mid drift. Men are getting the idea that they "want it" or "want to have sex" or "sexual contact". A women like me, don't wear that kind of clothing because it gives men the right idea and women the wrong idea.

Sue Jozui has the perfect idea on what he/she is talking about, and a person that thinks a lot like me . . . we have something in common.