Is it less objectifying if you smile?

The OMA rejected one version of two almost identical ads for the skincare brand [Ella Bache] because the models, who were using their hands to cover their naked bodies, had serious facial expressions that were interpreted as “too sexualised”. A version where the three models were smiling was accepted . . . The chief executive of the OMA, Charmaine Moldrich, defended the decision and told Fairfax, “I know its nuanced and subtle but there is a difference between a woman who is empowered, and happy to be here and a woman who is being objectified. It’s our job to make that make that call.”

 Whatever you think about the mitigating power of smiling and objectification, it’s disturbing that an unsmiling facial expression is considered more sexually “arousing” than the facial expression of a woman who looks happy. Read more (and see the images) here. 

One thought on “Is it less objectifying if you smile?

  1. The article doesn’t comment on where the women are looking in the two photos, but that seems a potentially relevant difference. In the one deemed “too sexualised”, all three women look directly out at the viewer. In the other, they look in various directions.

Comments are closed.