There's another ad in the campaign with the same two men and with the text "If you have to sign a release form it's probably not worth doing." While not explicitly referencing gender, this one works with similar ideas of consent and coercion.

sorry, it's "if you have to sign a release form it's probably *worth* doing"

You mean it isn't saying that you should approach a woman the same way you approach a lion or a rhinoceros, because she's incredibly dangerous and will trample you to death if you spook her? ;-)

I always find it interesting that the line is drawn between this mode of thought and rape. In many ways, this model has the woman in the position of power - she is the one making the choice, the one with power over sex. The man must please her, dance for her, convince her that he is the best of the other man courting her so as to get what he wants. In this case, one approaches a wild animal carefully because otherwise they will either a) run away or b) kick your brains out.

I'm just saying that it seems like there is a great deal of framing in one's interpretation as to who is in the dominant role.

It's not exactly offensive on the "humans = animals" front because, well, yes. I don't have any problem being compared with animals psychologically for the same reason underlying my lack of offense at being compared to, well, most human groups. Inferiority may be implied, but that doesn't mean inferiority is real.

Color me unsurprised, though. Objectification is objectification, and it's pretty easy for it to move from one group to another while retaining a lot of the same characteristics. It's only possible to believe it's wrong to treat women like this when you accept that it's wrong to treat animals like this, too.

It's also interesting: hunting is implied here, but implicit in the ad is that animals/women are mentally inferior for not trusting men/hunters. When, well, men/hunters are trying to hurt them. So the proper conclusion of the ad is not, "Women/animals are incapable of understanding," but "Women/animals are a helluva lot more perceptive than we give them credit for."

I actually work on research that posits dehumanization/animalization is a precursor (or at least, a contributing factor, causal direction unknown) to rape and sexual coercion. Sadly, there is something to it, the work I've been involved in suggests that men who implicitly animalize women (e.g., associate them with words like "nature", "animals", "instinct" on an IAT) are more likely to endorse rape myths, have negative attitudes toward rape victims and even engage in coercive sexual activity (we ask them "so, if no one could EVER KNOW that you had done this, how likely is it that you would..." and insert a sexual behavior, for this purpose, it's "rape" or "force a partner to do something sexual that they did not want to do.")

This ad comes at a particular interesting time; I'm starting down a line of inquiry on whether people just animalize sex and/or their partner, and if that makes a difference. So a man could be lion or tiger-like in bed, but a woman is more likely to have an association with something small and relatively weak (my advisor put it elegantly when she said: "Playboy bunnies are bunnies and not bears for a reason, methinks.") It bothers me that I can't know, even in my own work, how much of this idea is potentially natural (we may like mutually "wild" sex, because it's an obvious indication of everyone's pleasure) and how much is being contributed through cultural symbols like this one, making it much harder to see any kind of mutuality at all, and much much more predator/prey concept. There's an excellent, if scary, article that dissects years and years of American Bowhunter magazines and there are hundreds upon hundreds of explicit mentions between the feeling of hunting and killing, and sex/women, even pre-Hunting For Bambi uproar when we all sat up and took swift notice. It's really upsetting that even given how just deliberately DANGEROUS this association can be, we rely on and promote it in ads.

This ad actually angers me to a point of disgust. Ugh.

Oh, wow. This ad does not at *all* play into turn-of-the-(20th)-century imperialist romanticism, no, not at all.

Just to be clear, this ad is weird and confusing.

But first, they're carrying golf clubs and, I presume, using them to golf (on sand/dry grass?) not hunting implements. Second, it never mentions hunting, only approaching and speaking to wild animals/women, things you would most likely not do if you were trying to hunt something.

It's hard to tell who is speaking but it looks as if the man in the foreground is speaking and "interesting man" is smiling in approval. I think the message of the ad is varies depending on what viewer thinks the two non-white (pacific islanders?) relationship with wild animals is, as a hunter or someone who respects nature and wild animals.

Now people can go off about how this still dehumanizes women, which it does, but at least reference the real imagery in the ad. This will make any criticism more robust.

And, no I'm not saying date rape is a hate crime. I'm saying it has a similar affect - the intimidation of an entire group of people.

Wow... This discussion deteriorated rather quickly. Before I read any comments I looked closely at the advertisement and studied what the imagery imparted to me. Evidently, what I saw, and therefore was encouraged to do is vastly different than what many other people saw. Honestly, the comments were much more disturbing and disconcerting to me than the advertisement itself.

After studying that advertisement, this is the message it implied to me:
"When out trying to pick up women, be cautious in your actions and mindful of your words because, like wild animals, they can be vicious when angered or provoked. If you are up to this dangerous task, you'd best have the bravery, sophistication, and savvy that a Dos Eques man does."

I honestly didn't find any encouragement to force myself upon another human being at all. I didn't find myself led to "hunt" women in the conventional (or rather animalistic) sense either. The "Most Interesting Man In The World" (The Dos Eques fantasy spokesman) appears to me to be going to play a little mini-golf (since they're carrying putters) or something with a pair of natives. They aren't going hunting at all. Which brings me to another point... To "hunt" something doesn't always mean to track something down and kill it. It can also mean "to search for; seek; endeavor to obtain or find" something.

I find the sweeping comments about men rather insulting, myself. I understand why they're being made, but the fact that I'm guilty of being a vile, evil, conniving menace to society until I can prove otherwise simply because I'm a man is rather discriminatory, isn't it? I got mugged by a black fella 10 years back. I don't think that every black guy I see is going to try and mug me. I mean, let's be realistic here. Why should I, never having as much as raised a hand to a woman, be held accountable for the minority of my gender who for some reason thinks it's okay to force themselves on other people? I've had a lady at a club pick me up, convince me to take her back to my place, only to wake up the next morning with all my cash and small, loose valuables stolen. Am I assume that any woman who approaches me and sends attraction signals is only out to rob (or otherwise take advantage of) me? That's letting the bad guys win, allowing them fill you with fear of your fellow human beings. Now look, I'm not trying to lessen or trivialize the crime of rape. I'm trying to empathize as best I can with what experiences I HAVE had in the past. But I digress...

I'm not going to sit here behind a keyboard and say that anyone else's perception of this advertisement is incorrect. What I will say, however, is that in MY perception of it, the meaning is much more simple and vastly less sinister than what others have voiced here. Of course, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. *shrugs*

I wrote Dos Equis. This is what they wrote back:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:
Date: Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 11:24 AM
Subject: RE: customer comment
To: (me)

- Hide quoted text -
Dear (me),

Thank you for your inquiry regarding our recent advertisement for the Dos Equis brand. We appreciate the time you took to write and share your opinion with us.

Our advertisement was in no way intended to offend. Heineken USA holds respect for society as one of its core values, and as such, we adhere to both an industry advertising and marketing code, known as the Beer Institute Advertising and Marketing Code, as well as a more stringent self-imposed code called Heineken International’s Rules and Guidelines on Responsible Commercial Communication. Like all of our other advertisements, this ad concept went through a thorough review process before it was released.

Additionally, upon receipt of feedback from consumers like yourself, we submitted the ad to Heineken USA’s Independent Advertising Complaint Review Board, which is comprised of individuals with broad experience in areas relevant to advertising, marketing, alcohol regulation and policy, and adolescent behavior. Upon review and deliberation, the board decided that this ad was not in violation of either the Beer Institute Advertising and Marketing Code or Heineken International's Rules and Guidelines on Commercial Communication.
Despite the findings of the independent review board, after careful consideration, Heineken USA has decided to remove the ad from rotation. The process to remove the ad and replace it with new advertising will take approximately three weeks. We have already begun taking the necessary steps in order to facilitate the ad's removal.

As always, we are interested in the opinions of consumers regarding our activities and your input on this issue was important to us. I am hopeful that the information we have provided to you in this regard addresses your concerns. Thank you again for taking the time to share your views.

Sincerely,

Heineken USA Consumer Affairs

The customer wrote:

From: (me)
To:
cc:
Date: 5/13/2011 1:26:58 PM

Dear Dos Equis,

I really like your beer and buy it regularly. I am particularly fond of the
lager. So it is is unfortunate that I find the need to write this email. I was
walking this week in New York City and saw an ad posted (picture attached) for
your beer. It reads, "Approach women like you do wild animals. With caution and
a soothing voice."

I have never been so offended by an advertisement in my life. The ad is
blatantly sexist, infantilizing, colonialist, and racist. I really like your
beer, but I will never buy it again as long as you continue to use advertising
images and slogans like these. I think you owe your customers, particularly
your female and non-white customers, a sincere apology. Please know you have
lost my business through this kind of advertisement, and if you hope to regain
it, your brand needs to work hard to undo the damage you have done.

Sincerely,
(me)

You're drawing a v-e-r-y long bow with this one (naff hunting pun intended). All this ad is suggesting - poorly - is that men ought to be 'cautious' when approaching women, and while this may be fodder for another, better (and less 'manogynistic') discussion down the line, I have to say I see absolutely no suggestion that this ad is attempting to equate hunting animals (for food or stupid sport) with 'hunting' women.

If anything, it's suggesting men understand women so woefully, that they require advice from a beer company and should steel their 'poor widdle souls and hearts' against these scary, confusing and potentially harmful members of our species. It's sexist, for sure, but mostly towards men.

It honestly isn't suggesting a violent predator vs. meek, helpless prey scenario, but knees will jerk where they will, and if one's knee has a particularly reactionary bias, then I can imagine your knee jerky itself out wildly of focus here.

PS: It's simply a dreary, unwitty and shite ad. And that's ALL it is.
Yawsnville.