Super Bowl Commercials Aren’t Sexist

Every year, the howls about just how “sexist” and “objectifying” and “disrespectful” and “misogynist” Super Bowl commercials are seem to get louder. Despite whatever else they may try to dilute it with, what really seems to get the bellyachers is the sexual nature of these commercials. Nowadays, nothing offends feminists and emasculated men more than any expression of men’s natural sexuality. Threatened by, and uncomfortable around, attractive women—and, by extension, men’s natural desire for them—they do their best to silence and suppress them both. Simply depicting female attractiveness is a crime to them.

This time around, the opposition was organized around an Internet boycott campaign that went by the almost-clever name #NotBuyingIt, complete with its own glossy Internet video, website, and twitter page. The idea was that outraged fatties, prudes, diesel lesbians, “pansexual” female-bodied persons, and lispy white knights from far and wide could narc instances of what they deemed to be “sexist.” The community could then collectively refuse to buy products by the offending companies.


But, like most feminists, the short-haired fatties of #NotBuyingIt made the crime fit the punishment, conveniently ignoring plainly obvious facts in order to push their played-out talking points. They selectively read commercials for their one perceived offense (sexuality), while bypassing other problematic aspects, which were often worse.

Take this Kia Motors commercial, which premiered during last Sunday’s Super Bowl:


Any reasonable man (or woman) who sees this commercial immediately wonders: what if you were to reverse the roles? A woman is disrespecting a showroom car, greasing it up with her hands and kicking the tires. A male android notices the offense and is enraged by it. He punches the woman so hard she leaves a large impression in the wall across the room. He then celebrates his act with the touchdown gesture. Imagine the outrage.

Instead, this was reaction from #NotBuyingIt:


That’s right: all they saw was that an attractive girl was, god forbid, being attractive. Simply putting a hot girl in a commercial is now “objectification,” even if she’s in a maximally dominant position.

Unsurprisingly, they remain conspicuously silent on the commercial’s promotion of brutal violence against men.

Read Next: The Anti-Male Commercial

25 thoughts on “Super Bowl Commercials Aren’t Sexist”

  1. The professional victims are at it again. *sigh*
    The man is the one assaulted but yet the robot women is somehow the “disrespected” one? What a bunch of hypocritical jackass. Fuck off you stupid Feminazis!!

  2. Angry Harry said it best!
    “And if ever there came a time that men spent more hours at home looking after the children, the feminists would suddenly discover that children were not a burden but a pleasure.
    “This is outrageous,” they would say. “Those poor women are out at work while the men are at home sitting in front of the TV and having a good time bonding with their children.”
    You have to understand the mindset of these revolting dysfunctional women. They are driven by a hatred of men. This hatred is the only thing that unites them and it is the only thing that explains what they say, think, and do.”

  3. Nice artcile. One additional point that I think few notice.
    What makes these boycotts especially hilarious and pointless is that these fatties, prudes, dykes, and manginas probably don’t buy the products of the companies they wish to boycott in the first place. I would bet most of them can’t even afford those products.
    Their boycotts are the equivalent of some obese land whale declaring “I am going to turn down all the guys who don’t treat me like a lady.” Overlooking the fact that most guys don’t interact with her at all.

    1. Yeah, only fatties protest sexist advertising.
      And only broke-ass, lonely, short, ugly pathetic BETAS, come to sites like this to whine about the ‘war on men’ and ‘mens rights’, while the hot ALPHAS are out getting hot pussy.
      See what I did there? 😉

  4. Am I the only one who noticed the Doritos ad where they dudes all dress up on dresses and acted like jackasses? Any chance that some “interest group” will object to that one?
    Didn’t think so.

  5. Newsflash: feminism is a joke.
    I am so tired of feminists acting like only men objectify people, and women are perfect little angels. For every man objectifying a woman by her looks there is a woman objectifying a man by his income or his height.

    1. Given the choice of being treated like a mere human being or being treated as a sex object, everyone who has his or her marbles together would choose the latter. A successful fight against this “objectification” would hurt those most who are currently being “objectified”.

      1. the women who tend to bring up sexual objectification are usually the ones who no one is objectifying. it’s like if they know they can’t compete against the appearance of other women, all of a sudden appearance isn’t supposed to count.

        1. And all the pansies whining about the “war on men” are all under 5 feet with microscopic penises and a negative balance bank account.
          See what I did there? 😉

    2. Not only that, but income takes years of hard work and height cannot even be controlled, it is genetics and actually serves no purpose outside of sport.

  6. The more you study feminism the more you realize what a complete farce it is. Feminists havent been the reason women were ‘liberated’ from anything. Not even once has the movement been effective for much besides complaining and punishing men for not wanting to play footsie with ugly fat chicks.

    fuck me sideway, i JUST posted the kia commercial. i KNEW i should have run it yesterday but had a finish a series about using a dog to game women.
    i made a joke about this commercial when it came on i made a joke about a truck commercial where a manbot slapped a giggly airhead chick. made mom laugh. what a good egg.

  8. I saw most feminist responses to last years commercials and laughed, anyone actually watch the commercials in full without the selective editing from feminists would know that half of them make fun of, and commit violence against men.

  9. The irony is that the goal of advertisements is to create name recognition and brand awareness. For that reason, any attention (positive or negative) is good attention, and this sort of stuff actually plays into their marketing strategies.

  10. Its objectification because the only reason women are there is because of their bodies.

  11. This is a moronic article. Men’s sexuality is not being attacked. There is no war on men.
    The point is that men are rarely ever objectified, certainly not to the same extent that women are in advertising. Either both genders get objectified or neither.
    I’d love to see me some sexy wash board abs and big hunky arms attached to a handsome, shirtless young man. If I don’t get that, why should you get hot babes with nice tits?
    Get a life ROK.

Comments are closed.