Burger King Part II

I could not find the exact date that this advertisement debuted. But according to my attempts at figuring this out, I am going to venture a guess and say that these advertisements were promoted around 2006. In this particular campaign Burger King presented some pretty offensive ads. The image above, let's not lie, clearly alludes that the "Real Big Burger" can be likened to a real big male part. The band aids around her mouth also suggest that eating a burger is like performing a sexual act that may cause your mouth to spread to the point of breaking the skin.

Perhaps I am looking at this image too literally. Perhaps I am just too cynical. What I do not understand is that this advertisement is for fast food; yet there is no fast food featured. It describes their fast food as "Real Big Burgers" with the Burger King logo off to the side. But this advertisement, because of the lack of Burger King products, could easily be a pornographic advertisement. I mean, this would be a bit kinky... but nonetheless, it does suggest a certain kind of sexual undertone.

So what do we do? Well considering that this image is a bit old and therefore cannot be undone, I am perplexed. As my professor, Dr. Michael Karlberg, told me, "For every one advertisement there are a thousand critics." This has stuck with me. His words have motivated me to move beyond ranting... don't worry I am still going to rant. BUT I also need to think of productive ways to deal with this offensive advertisement. SO I am attempting to be more productive... wish me luck.

First off, I believe that in fast food advertisements, there does tend to be more sexually suggestive messages. Meat and male genitalia are often intermixed. I believe that we need to let these restaurant chains know that we will no longer stand for these sex implied messages. I say this not only for my own sake but for the sake of children who see these advertisements. Young and developing children often tend to take these images and store them away in their minds. Essentially these images become part of their collective memories. For some, not all, these images can construct ideas of femininity and pornography that may encourage them to act in certain ways. These actions may degrade women. This degradation could lead to violence and a perpetual cycle of unfair treatment. As I said, this is not the case for everyone. But considering the amount of violence that is inflicted upon women and children, we do need to consider the possible connection. In no way am I stating that advertising affects or causes these ideas/actions. What I AM saying is that advertising is a major part of social institutions that many citizens are exposed to. As a result, it is an important function of gender identity, consumerism, and stratification of the "other."

Reginald Twigg has a clear interpretation and description of the "other." Considering I read about him in my Visual Rhetoric class about a year ago, the specific details are fuzzy, BUT the general idea still stands. Essentially, photographs of those who are stratified in society, whether it be those who are poor, women, children, or people of a different race and ethnicity who are not White, can be "othered." A really good example of this is through images. In a lot of cases, the images that we see of those who are part of the "other" peoplehood are exposed via pictures, advertisements, and media facets. Many of these images, due to how society is set up, are only seen by more privileged individuals who have access to these kinds of areas of social institutions. This means that those who are exposed via these images, advertisements, and media facets are seen by the privileged. The gaze of the privileged further engrains the idea and image of what the "other" is considered to be. This kind of gaze can further stratify those who have no sense of agency to change their circumstances or advocate social issues. The interesting part? The gaze is not a two way thing. The gaze is only relevant to those who are privileged enough. Ideas of social and political power then take form in the minds of these individuals.

There is a parody of this Burger King advertisement that promotes Durex condoms. As misogynistic as this ad is, it makes the same point that I am attempting to make. You can easily make this image sexual. Hm. Instead of saying "Real Big Burgers" the caption has been changed to "Really Big." Once again, hm. There is a connection between burgers and sex. Who knew? We are so socialized to see these images as harmless and funny. BUT really? There has to be some kind of limit.



So dear readers, what do you think?