This essay analyzes an Under Armour men's underwear advertisement to examine how consumer advertising shapes gender norms, sexuality, and cultural values. Drawing on Jean Kilbourne's critiques of advertising and Jack Solomon's analysis of American consumer culture, the paper argues that the advertisement deploys fetishism, heteronormativity, and idealized body imagery to sell an ordinary product by associating it with male sexual prowess and social dominance. The essay explores how the ad's visual composition — including the positioning of the male model, the objectified female figure, and the urban loft setting — reinforces patriarchal values and perpetuates unrealistic body ideals for both men and women.
Advertising's most fundamental function is to sell products, but in order to do so, advertising must also shape the values and norms of the culture. One of the most obvious ways advertising shapes social norms and cultural values is through the representations of gender and sexuality. Few products other than adult toys, condoms, and others of an overtly sexual nature offer as much potential to shape, play with, and manipulate gender and sexuality as undergarments. In an advertisement for its line of men's underwear, the company Under Armour promotes an ordinary product by claiming that it has an erotic appeal. The fine print of the advertisement states mainly that the underwear is comfortable and can keep the wearer "cool and dry," but the image speaks more about the way the underwear will confer grand sexual prowess and status on the males who wear it. Although the Under Armour advertisement is powerful and effective, it highlights some of the problematic features of consumer culture, including fetishism and chauvinism.
The Under Armour advertisement depicts a male model wearing a pair of otherwise nondescript black underpants. Appearing as a full-page advertisement in a magazine, the image showcases the physique of the man wearing the underwear. His is an idealized male body akin to ancient Greek statues, in which each muscle is finely chiseled and honed. The man is broad-shouldered and stands stiffly at attention in an almost military fashion, but given the presence of a woman on the bed behind him, the viewer feels as if a private moment has been interrupted. The look on the man's face appears to say, "What are you doing here?"
Behind him, in the background of the image but no less important, is a woman wearing a silky gown that blends in with the satin pillowcases. The continuity between the woman's garments and the pillowcases suggests that she is simply part of the furniture — something to be sat on and used. She exists, as the title of the ad boldly asserts, "for the benefit of mankind."
The woman sits in a provocative pose with one thigh exposed and a gaze directed straight into the camera. A brick wall implies that the couple is in a sleek urban loft, and the grey minimalist color scheme carries a stereotypically masculine American aesthetic. Given that urban lofts are expensive, the advertisement also bears a potent subtext connecting sexual attractiveness to social status and financial power. Sex, money, and power are intimately linked. The Under Armour advertisement therefore exposes pre-existing gender norms regarding aesthetics and lifestyle.
Moreover, the advertisement exhibits the power and potency of heterosexuality and reinforces gender roles because the man is visibly imposing, looming large over the woman he has just bedded. The title of the ad — "For the Benefit of Mankind" — clearly signals that it is "mankind," and not "womankind," that benefits from heteronormativity. The main goal in sexually charged advertising is, as it is with most "for the benefit of mankind"-style imagery, "power over another, either by the physical dominance or preferred status of men or what is seen as the exploitative power of female beauty and female sexuality" (Kilbourne, "Two Ways," 459). This is why the designers of the advertisement position the large male figure front and center, demonstrably dominating the woman who blends into his sheets. He has conquered her through the power of his new underwear.
One of the most striking features of the Under Armour advertisement is the way sexuality is linked with underwear. The company clearly wants to market its product as something consumers will associate with male virility, rather than with qualities such as comfort or durability. Ironically, the text printed below the image fails to mention eroticism or sexuality at all. Instead, it focuses on the pragmatic traits of the undergarment — the "lightweight" fabric that keeps one "cool and dry" at the gym, and which is stretchy and "breathable." Nothing in the printed text suggests sexuality, and Under Armour is far better known for athletic wear than for underwear.
This particular advertisement illustrates how marketing "fetishizes products, imbues them with an erotic charge" (Kilbourne, "Two Ways," 459). The company clearly aims to attract a consumer who goes to the gym to build an impressive physique and attract members of the opposite sex. Under Armour could have chosen to appeal to a health-conscious male interested in the technical performance or durability of the fabric, but instead elected to depict their product as a facilitator of male gender norms and sexual roles.
Under Armour manipulates the meaning of an undergarment, transforming a simple article of clothing from a brand not associated with luxury into an aphrodisiac. As Solomon points out, "American advertisers ... manipulate us into buying their wares" (Solomon 402). And it is not just American advertisers. Around the world, magazine advertisements appeal to commonly held beliefs about male sexuality, female roles in the heterosexual relationship, and the idealized male physique. Just as advertisers have generated an idealized woman with unattainable features resembling a Barbie doll, so too have they created a man who looks like Ken — such as the model who appears in the Under Armour advertisement. By presenting images of unrealistic body ideals, an advertisement "dehumanizes and objectifies people" (Kilbourne, "Two Ways," 459).
The underwear advertisement also fosters a sense of deep-rooted insecurity in the viewer, who may feel that his body is not good enough and that a pair of Under Armour underwear might help him better "benefit mankind." In Killing Us Softly, Kilbourne focuses on the ways advertising creates and reinforces body image problems for women, and the same dynamic applies to the way men's bodies are presented. Men must be large and muscular if they are to be of any use to "mankind" and to be selected by women as partners. The woman in the bed is the "prize" for looking good, and her selectiveness demands a high degree of physical fitness.
"Idealized bodies fuel insecurity and drive purchases"
"Female figure reinforces patriarchal sexual and social norms"
Kilbourne, Jean. Killing Us Softly. Film.
Kilbourne, Jean. "Two Ways a Woman Can Get Hurt."
Solomon, Jack. "Masters of Desire: The Culture of American Advertising." The Signs of Our Times. Putnam, 1988.
You’re 66% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.