View Article

Family Life > Kids & Culture

Has Madison Avenue Gone Too Far?
By: Mark Merrill
Printer Friendly Version

 Designer Calvin Klein is used to shocking the masses, but his latest advertising stunt has stirred up trouble in his own, celebrity-filled backyard. On her talk show, Rosie O'Donnell blasted Klein by stating, "I'm never wearing his (Klein's) underwear again." Take that Calvin Klein.

The man who launched a huge blue jeans business by giving us a teenage Brooke Shields claiming that there was nothing between her and her Calvins has been in the hot seat before. So what's all the fuss about this time? Klein recently posted a Times Square billboard ad featuring young boys, dressed only in underwear, playing on a couch. The public outcry was immediate, and Klein caved in, pulling the ads within hours after they went up.

Were the antagonistic opinions of the public and the necessity of pulling the ads any surprise to Calvin Klein? Of course not. The controversial ad was a well thought out, highly calculated move by Klein to get publicity to sell his product. Millions of dollars may flow into Klein's bank account following this recent outcry, but at what, or whose, expense?

Advertisers, like Klein, who operate under the belief that "sex sells," say they are only giving the public what it wants. But corporate responsibility means they should show some restraint. Just because a child wants candy for dinner, does that mean we should give it to him? Obviously not. So when advertisers forego good judgment and use sexual themes to sell an unrelated product, it makes them appear more concerned about making a buck than about the people they are exploiting.

Still, each year advertisers continue to push the envelope even farther. From the Calvin Klein underwear ads to the Victoria's Secret Super Bowl commercial, this overt commercialization of sex has helped create a society desensitized to indecency. And it may influence our children.

One of my primary concerns is that it undermines our children's self-esteem by providing a false standard of beauty. Do we really want our daughters to grow up thinking their primary value is that of sex objects? Do we really want our sons believing feminine merit equals airbrushed sex appeal? Furthermore, sensually-packaged advertising sells our children a warped perspective of human sexuality. Human sexuality is beautiful, but not when it is used at the expense of others.

So the question remains, what can we do about it? We can refuse to buy products from those who produce explicit advertisements, and encourage publishers and television producers not to place their ads. (The Calvin Klein children's underwear ads are still scheduled to run in upcoming magazine issues.) And while that will probably not discourage advertisers from using sex to manipulate and shock the public, we can still take a stand (ala Rosie O'Donnell).

We can also take action in our own homes. Of course there is no quick fix that will satisfy everyone. Yet we can start by doing two things. First, teach our kids to learn to discern. We need to help them understand what is good and bad, and how to recognize the advertising gimmicks advertisers often use. Second, establish a TV usage policy at home. Set limits on the amount of time each day our children can watch television. Preapprove the programming they are watching and never use TV as a baby-sitter.

Children may not initially appreciate these guidelines, but they are what they need. Since advertisers like Calvin Klein care more about the bottom line than they care about children, it's our job to take a stand on our kids' behalf. In the long run they will thank us for it.

 Mark Merrill is president of Family First, an independent, non-profit research and communications organization dedicated to strengthening the family.