I don’t watch a lot of TV, but I see enough to catch a few commercials and see what’s out there in the Zeitgeist. There are a few commercials currently that just make me cringe. I’m not talking about the erectile dysfunction commercials that you pray all the way through, hoping that you don’t have to answer any of your 10-year-old’s questions about it. No, it’s the Klondike commercials. They are rolling out a new version of their “What would you do for a Klondike bar?” ads. One shows a man at the table listening to his wife talk about someone she ran into at the store. He remarks that that would be so and so’s cousin who married so-and-so. Tag line: Keeping up with his wife’s stories, give that man a Klondike bar! Another shows a man at a restaurant table with his wife. A beautiful woman walks by and he keeps looking at his wife. Tag line: Dave kept his eyes on his wife, give that man a Klondike bar.
My feminist ire was raised. Shouldn’t we be past all the stereotypes by now? Doesn’t portraying these little vignettes perpetuate them? Of course my aggravation is spread all across the media so, why did these commercials get under my skin? It is easy enough in a sitcom to use all the same stereotypes as simple short-hand. How many TV dad’s are clueless and bumbling? Maybe it is because they seem to say it is ok to fall into those roles. Even more, if you don’t, well congratulations! You get an ice cream!
Should I just be thankful that they show someone actually breaking the mold? At least they are better than the commercial that is the doppelganger of the Dave/Klondike one. It is for and new shiny phone. A perky little stereotypical blonde plops down across from her boyfriend. She takes out her phone and uses it to check her hair as she goes on about how busy she is with fashion week. Two girls walk by the table. Boyfriend picks up his shiny phone and uses it to check them out. His phone chirps with a text message. “OMG! URA pig!” Seriously, how many stereotypes can you get in one commercial? Blonde, fashion week, checking her hair, guy looking at women AND a text message! Give that phone company and Klondike bar!
Cog in the Wheel 
As a guy I can tell you, keeping you eyes on your wife is exactly what you do in that situation, if you love your wife. You can look another time. She knows that you look, and that you don’t touch. But to gawk while she’s sitting there…that’s low.
Now, gimme that Klondike!
Kudos and a Klondike to you!
Women seem to be really pissed at these commercials. But I kind of like them. Where else in our culture are men given messages to listen and honor their wives, even if it’s in exchange for ice cream? I get sick of commercials selling sex and particularly selling the idea that cool men are not monogamous. Why not celebrate ones that show just the opposite?
I should add, of course, that we’re not talking about giving the guy a medal. That would be a different matter. No one deserves a medal for doing such a basically right thing. We’re talking about giving him a Klondike bar. In other words, good job, but it’s not something to go crazy over. I think that is what makes the commercial work.
Agreed. Also, men looking at women can’t be classified as right or wrong. It is, after all, how we’re hard-wired. It is a right or wrong issue only when you’re with your wife, as Paul already said.
It ONLY becomes a right or wrong issue WHEN you’re with your wife, does it? How does anything change when she leaves? Does she (your WIFE) no longer exist? What is the point of behaving like a satisfied, one-woman man; eyes lovingly locked in on hers, if in actuality you are just waiting until she leaves so you can be “hard-wired” for lust? It is so demeaning to say that you have to put on your “loyal husband” act (you know, the one you daily impress yourself with) for your wife who doesn’t want to handle the reality of your “unstoppable carnal instincts”. Oh but she “knows”. She just wants to be able to IGNORE the reality of the situation (that no living breathing man could ever be monogamous…? Seriously?? WHAT A COP-OUT) so both of you allow for time apart, where you can finally “be yourself” without the burden of being faithful to your wife, and where she can evade reality, because she isn’t WITNESSING your behavior. What a happy, healthy marriage you have. Is it really all that big and sad of a lie? Bravo to all of you who think that is good enough. Dream big. Did you notice how ridiculous the wife in that commercial started to look, sitting across from her tormented husband at that restaurant when he so gallantly gave her his undivided attention?
I hated, even despised, those ads.
I love it, Reeder. I have debated this with my husband for years. Do not misunderstand. He is faithful and loving. He doesn’t ogle women as they walk by. And, certainly, THOSE TWO THINGS ARE NOT ONE AND THE SAME. Still, he maintains that it is an ingrained trait. Men hunt, women gather. The debate always comes down to me saying it is environmental – a learned behavior promoted and propagated by society (just like these ads). He replies it is evolutionary. To which I reply that men should learn to overcome their base instincts and stop using them as a cop-out. Then it gets heated until we again realize we will never agree on this issue. We have had this same debate a 100 times.
I see nothing inherently wrong in finding beauty in the human form. It is beautiful. Did you watch the Olympics? I marvel at the swimmers and runners… all of the athletes. Every muscle shaped and molded to a specific task. The difference lies in the intent. And, I just don’t buy that it is all based on testosterone.
Well said. And kudos to you for not giving up on questioning your husband’s cop-out/instincts.
Reeder, you build a classic straw argument. That is, you state what MY argument is, regardless of my intent, then tear your invention down. When you ask rhetorically if it is only wrong to look at other women when my wife is away, you are making an argument for moral absolutism in the extreme. It isn’t a right or wrong issue at all. It is a matter of being polite. You make reference to, and even put in quotes (though I never used the term)”unstoppable carnal instincts”. Isn’t that extreme, sir? Looking at another woman other than my wife is not having carnal knowledge of her. It’s looking.
You also erroneously state that I “put on your loyal husband act”, state that I impress myself daily with said act and further state that I am stating that no man can be monogamous! Looking at a woman is not polygamous. It isn’t cheating on her and it isn’t immoral. It is the natural consequence of over 2 million years of human evolution.
You must be either very young or very black and white in your thinking to judge me so harshly or to actually despise a tv commercial. I mean, it’s tv. And by the way, my wife clearly knows I look and that it is nothing more than that, so how can you claim my marriage is a lie? And all based this based on a commercial.
You may want to take back the kudos, Reeder. I feel I must clarify a bit. I don’t “question” my husband about looking at women. That mischaracterizes what I said, which was “debate”. It is what we do about everything and one of the reasons why I love him. Also, I want to reiterate that looking at a woman walking by and being a faithful spouse are not mutually exclusive. And, yet again, let me say that there is nothing inherently wrong with finding beauty in the human body. We all do, don’t we?
I agree that one’s behavior should be consistent whether your spouse is present or not. Leering at woman (or man for that matter) as they walk by is in bad taste no matter who is present. Yet, it is rude behavior, not rising to the level of being unfaithful. But, I have a feeling that you and Jon are talking about two different things. It is not fair to characterize what he is talking about as “lust” when that is not what he said. I would maintain if you are lusting after someone your marriage has more problems than just wandering eyes.
There is so much more to this debate. The commercials bothered me and I wrote the post originally because they play into the notion that it is an acceptable behavior to discount women. It isn’t just the commercial about not watching the woman go by, it is also the commercial about listening to her talk and paying attention – implying that whatever women have to say is inherently unimportant. All this plays into the debate. It probably is hard-wired that men and women find each other attractive (and yes, by that I include men-men and women-women). That is how the species survived and evolved. And, please, don’t tell my husband I said that, because I have a caveat coming and frankly I love debating with him. Here is the caveat: that through societal pressures that which is instinct has been morphed into something a lot more lurid for men and suppressed for women. It is totally acceptable in the mainstream media (i.e. sitcoms, movies) for men to basically judge a woman by how she looks. It is a stereotype that plays out on tv every night. Add to that the fact that such views of women have been around for centuries and you have a stereotype that is seen as reality – and often is reality. Of course, there are exceptions. For women, we have had centuries of being pressured to be chaste and where physical attraction never played into the arrangements. That has lead to the stereotype of women marrying for money and security. Even this is sometimes reality. There are games on both sides. Women play up to the fact that men are suppose to look. Men play up to the fact that they are supposed to be lead around by their testosterone. Neither needs to be the reality.
Ok listen. I would never give anyone kudos for being a questioning, suspicious spouse. I would always give any couple kudos who can be deeply in love and as a part of that, debate their differences. That is what I meant without a doubt. It is a hard task to communicate clearly via blog comments, I am seeing… Now Jon, I know that I put things in quotes which you did not say. I was quoting the general mindset of our society. It was another one of those things where it was just getting hard to communicate. Had I not put those quotes there, you would not have understood where I was speaking as myself or using the public opinion in sarcasm. My apologies, however. Also, I really was not speaking directly to you as a person. I wish it had not seemed that I was. I do not know you. All I know of you is what you wrote in the few paragraphs related to this blog post. The person I was speaking to was that guy. The guy who is comprised of what was written and nothing more. Of course I do not understand you. But the things you said seemed wrong to me, and there was no redeeming quality that I knew you to possess which could stop me from expressing my opposition to your viewpoint. So I simply addressed your viewpoint, nothing more, nothing less. You seem to have taken it very personally, and I am sorry. I DO think it is a matter of right or wrong when you look at another woman. Call it black and white, but what else IS right and wrong but black and white? If you are a moral relativist, so be it. I am not. I don’t believe that certain lines can be smudged to allow for what I would consider unneccesary, albeit natural, behavior. I would not be so simplistic as to equate, in literal terms, leering with unfaithfulness. However, they may be characterized together if your leering is indeed lustful, as one action (leering) might lead to the next type of action (unfaithfulness). And I really just have trouble believing that your looking (at other women) is of the same nature as your admiration of the body of an olympian. But perhaps I am wrong. If I am right, and it is of different intent, then I disagree with your right to look. But if in fact you are admiring the bodies of attractive women for their pure beauty, as you might admire an olympian or another man, then I am entirely wrong. And I didnt say that you had carnal knowledge of anybody. I meant, when i put that phrase “unstoppable carnal instincts” in quotes that your carnal INSTINCT was being presented as unstoppable by you, the commercial, and the generally male team which I argue against on this issue. That was the point. An instinct to know someone carnally is not the same as the carnal knowledge of that person, I realize that. Anyway, as I read back over your reply once again, I must say that I really think that you have not gotten past your initial argument, which has to do with what you call the natural consequence of over 2 million years of human evolution. That is an easy way to excuse yourself. See, I return to my initial argument as well. I say, fuck evolution and fuck this idea that we are helpless to certain things that may harm our relationships and that many people, especially women, consider to be hurtful(albeit, not your wife, which makes this entire argument sort of conveniently irrelevant to you!). But alas we are arguing on two completely different moral planes. Because I say its wrong, its hurtful, its useless, and you say (well, suggest) that nothing or almost nothing is inherently wrong, at least not this, and its not hurtful (true in your case) and its helpless. So I throw in the towel. Lets agree to disagree. I think men and women have been saying that on this topic for centuries.
And lets be glad that the two of us are involved with people who we happen to agree with on this. (I’m not a sir by the way)
One more thing-“It isn’t just the commercial about not watching the woman go by, it is also the commercial about listening to her talk and paying attention – implying that whatever women have to say is inherently unimportant.” Yes. That’s what I mean. And also, about your caveat…I am sure that men who seem to offer security are more attractive to me than men who don’t, just like women who are beautiful are more attractive to men than women who are not. BUT if I fed off of the security that any male acquaintance of mine had to offer, either emotional or financial, I would feel that I was cheating my husband out of his job, and that I was craving another man for some reason, when I should have been focusing on how to be satisfied by what my own man had to offer. Now, since that could easily be said to be more equal to actually cheating, I will take it one step further. If I was even to look at a man who seemed to have lots of money or who seemed to be extremely confident, gentle, and kind (sources of security) and wish to myself that those things could be mine (“lust” after them, if you will allow me to stretch the term) then I am clearly calling my husband inadequate, or at least forgetting that I HAVE a husband who I committed myself to, and that if he doesnt have those qualities, or if he doesnt momentarily satisfy my desires for those qualities, well, we are in this together, and maybe I should be spending my time learning to find those things in him, or constructively discussing something which will help that end in the longterm. Do you know what I mean? Well, this has been quite the rambling soliloquy. If anybody gets through it, I thank you. You are a good friend.
Apology accepted – if indeed it was necessary since you say you did not mean to attack me personally. Please accept my own. It occured to me that you might be female and I said so but later edited it out when editing out some vehemence on my own part. Just two more points then I will bow out, hopefully, graciously.
Were your husband/boyfriend to look at other women when you were not there, would you know and have you had this conversation with him? Just curious. And two, I am NOT a moral relativist but do not believe it has to be either/or. i believe most “sins” depend on the circumstance. For instance, I would be justified in lying if I were questioned by the Gestapo in WWII concerning the whereabouts of Jews I had hidden in my house. Conversely, some things: murder, kidnapping, child molestation for instance, are clearly and universally wrong and no situational change makes them acceptable. For myself, a sin is something that hurts another human being or creature needlessly. Nothing else qualifies. Were I married to you then, looking at another woman (I do not “leer”)would indeed be wrong. Regardless, I would never behave like the man in the commercial and the commercial is indeed demeaning.
Peace.
Ok, I admit it. I can’t shut up.
I just wanted to add that I don’t think ANYTHING when I look at a pretty woman. My eye is drawn to her quite without any thought whatever. By most definitions that discounts lust as a motive since I am not having illicit thoughts. I truly think you’d have to be a man to understand. It just happens.
If I follow a woman with my eyes after seeing her, I still am not thinking about any action. I’m not thinking at all. I’m enjoying the view. I do understand women enough to know that that statement likely seems offensive but it truly isn’t meant to be.
And finally (I promise) women are part of this “evolution” (in both meanings of the word) because they play to it. I would not glance even once at a woman whose figure was indistinguishable but I live in an age where women allow their daughters to wear clothing with words written across the butt! I consider that a much larger breakdown of our society than me looking at a mature woman.
I hope this is my last post too. I like how your entire tone changed when you learned that I am a woman, and how the thought that I could have possibly been a woman was part of your edited out vehemence. Haha. That was why I went with a gender neutral name to begin with. Sheesh. And ok, fine if you do not consider yourself a moral relativist. I guess that if you have clear cut definitions of right and wrong that you stick by, then you are not a moral relativist at all. You are right. And yes, my boyfriend (not husband) and I have had this conversation, and I do believe him when he says that he does not look at other women. I think he notices when one is more attractive than another just in passing, of course, because he has eyes, but he has an unusual amount of self-control, more than any other person I know as it regards these types of issues, and he is also quite gentlemanly, and those two things combined make it hard for his male instincts to take control. Your comments about “enjoying the view” versus having purposed thoughts are actually anything but offensive to me. A conversation that I had with an ex of mine comes to mind and I remember realizing that yes, men might look but they are not thinking. I hadn’t thought of this that way. And that concept even redeems the commercial a tiny bit. I think the commercial did a terrible job at whatever it was trying to do, though (I know that it was not your favorite either.)
If a man looks at a woman and isn’t thinking any conscious thought about her and does not entertain any unfaithful thoughts, then I am pretty un-offended. Happy? Maybe that was your understanding of this entire topic to begin with, that the man was just “enjoying the view”. It was not mine. It may have been something that I had thought of if I were a man, or if this whole thing didn’t seem to be such an issue. If that is all you are doing, why would you allow it to be so controversial? That’s my question I guess. And I’m not QUESTIONING you. I am really curious, didn’t you realize that that was probably all that needed to be said? It just seemed like you were defensive enough that there had to be more to it than that.
ps I cant believe how much time it can take to splash your opinions all over cyber space. Do you do this often?
I meant “splash your opinions” as in splash MY opinions, or anyone’s, not YOURS in particular. Just didn’t want that to sound like a jab.
Actually I am new to blogging but not to being opinionated (you might have guessed). I enjoy the “back and forth”. The fact that you are also opinionated has made this enjoyable, overall. Avoiding anger is, of course, the hard part. I accept that you are a thinking human being and that opinions differ. Also, I accept the fact that men are from earth and women are from earth but that there are intrinsic differences. Having said that, my tone changed toward you because you professed to NOT be attacking me personally, not because you are a woman. The edit of my acknowledgement of your possible gender was accidental. I felt I over-reacted and edited out some vitriol. The line about realizing you may have been female was accidentally cut.
And I have to make an addendum because I did not answer your question: If I thought the man was just enjoying the view then why the controversy?
The answer is, because I felt I was being attacked. Actually, we agree about the tastelessness of the commercial. I DO think when I have the urge to look and my wife is present. It’d be in bad taste. In fact, if I were speaking to any woman and paused to look at another woman it would likely be offensive to the first woman so I would not do it.
And no, I am not “happy” to change your opinion. I was just defending mine.
I am not new to being opinionated either. “You say things with such VEHEMENCE” are words that have been uttered at least 20 times from my mother to me. Anyway, I’m glad that you were opinionated on this, too. It did make it interesting and I appreciate a person who is willing to banter. It may have sounded like a total attack and I’m sorry. It wasn’t intended to be. It’s just that vehemence kicking in. Until next time.
I agree with much of what Reeder feels. I do think it is wrong to look/ogle other women that one’s chosen mate. I don’t think it has anything to with what one thinks when one does it, because in reality men are not thinking, they are, in effect, tasting. They are tasting with their eyes fruits that are not theirs, and are thereby soiling their ability to taste their wives with their eyes. This is wrong.
But I agree with Jon that this is an incredibly hard-wired fact of male life from 2 million years of evolution. I think women need to seek men who honestly want to confront the issues of objectification prevalent in our society, but need compassion and mercy for the fact that it is hard for them.
Personally, I consider myself a feminist more radical than most, in that my view of the media falls more in line with the anti-porn, anti-objectification feminism of the 1970s more so than it does with the modern kind. But half of my battle against the objectification of women is with my own mind, which will always be drawn to taking in the beauty of females. The first step is not to look. But that is hard enough for men that I think it deserves a Klondike bar. I am sure there are hard things for women that also deserve Klondike bars.
Matt, Reeder and Jon – I’ve enjoyed the comments regarding the post. I saw a movie this weekend that I think EVERYONE should see, but seems that you all would certainly enjoy. America the Beautiful. It is just in a handful of cities right now. God willing it will get a wider release. It does a wonderful job of showing what our unbelievably narrow and false definition of “beauty” does to the self esteem of women and girls.
Matt,
I guess we could go on about this forever. I look surreptitiously. I do not ogle. I keep saying that…
I feel millions of men do the same as I (not that that statement justifies the fact. I’m just sayin’).
The idea that looking at another woman dilutes my feelings for my wife – in any way – strikes me as absurd.
Before I met my wife, I dated women that were physically her opposite – in every way. My tastes run to exactly how she looks now. Love changed what I see and feel – not the other way ’round.
I do dislike such ads as well, because it just perpetuates the fallacy that men’s eyes wander, while pretending that a woman’s eyes are always on her husband. They are NOT. Sorry, but women cheat in their hearts and in reality as much as men do, but the difference is that society does not expect them to. Men are almost encouraged to be “dogs” while women are encouraged to be long suffering saints who put their own hopes and desires aside in favor of their families. Just look at any of those sit coms like Everybody Loves Raymond or what have you. They’re built on a fantasy of men behaving irresponsibly, and women being little more than unappreciated “balls and chains”. The reality is different. There are men who are faithful, and there are men who cheat. There are women who are faithful and women who cheat, and EVERYONE notices other attractive people. It doesn’t mean you have to ogle, it just means we all look. It doesn’t mean we all say “WHOA I want to have sex with THAT person”. I’m sick of everyone assuming that we women don’t look elsewhere. We DO whether we cop to it or not, and whether men want to accept it or not, and that’s really what I feel like it’s about; men being reluctant to accept the same behavior in women as they recognize in themselves.
Hi, I wish for to subscribe for this webpage to take most recent updates, thus where can i do
it please help out.
You are aware of so drastically in regards to this trouble, made my family in my opinion imagine it out of many many sides. It has the including women and men aren’t concerned except it can be something to achieve along with Woman gaga! Your personal items wonderful. Always deal with it!