Lauren S. sent in this ad for a used car dealership that ran in the London Free Press, a free newspaper in London, Ontario. The ad compares used cars to sexually experienced women with the lines, “You know you’re not the first. But do you really care?”:
As Lauren points out, it’s blatant objectification of women, but “in addition to objectifying women to sell vehicles, this campaign suggests that a woman’s sexual past is equivalent to depreciation.”
I suppose someone could argue that the message that you shouldn’t “care” whether your women/cars are “used” rejects the sexual double standard, but the objectification and the implication that non-virgin women are “used” undermine any apparent rejection of that double standard.
It’s not the first time we’ve seen this type of ad for used cars; we previously posted a BMW ad, but in that case, I suspect (though we’ve never been able to confirm) that it might have been a spec ad made by an ad agency but never actually used by BMW. In this case, Lauren actually saw it in print.
UPDATE 1: Well, I must give Dale Wurfel some credit. He is apparently an equal-opportunity objectifier. He ran a second ad that uses a man instead of a woman:
Via Wheels.
Of course, equal objectification doesn’t necessarily have equal effects. We live in a world with a sexual double standard. Calling a woman “used” resonates culturally in a way that it simply doesn’t for men, because we don’t punish men for sexual experience in the same way.
UPDATE 2: Lauren let us know that the car dealership issued an apology:
UPDATE: Comments closed.
Comments 130
Rosemary — April 10, 2011
Ew. That's just icky in a couple different ways. I don't get why these ad agencies can continue to think that insulting half of their potential customer base will do anything good for them (and it seems that ad agencies frequently forget that women are, in fact, half of the population).
Caleb — April 10, 2011
I feel bad for the model. I doubt she knew that she would be featured in such a trashy add.
saywhaa — April 10, 2011
how can non-virgin-hood be a visible physical marker?
Hau — April 10, 2011
Looking at that ad I don't get the idea that the woman would (or would not) be virgin/used, but the car itself. The way I read it is: "You know you're not the first [owner of the car], but do you really care?".
Chris — April 10, 2011
Like Hau notes, "you" could refer to the woman as a proxy for the reader, but I think the double-entendre metaphor is intentional, and I find it in questionable taste.
That said, I find fallaciously reasoning from false analogy to be in bad taste too. The extent of their analogy is that the partner of such a woman doesn't care or doesn't much care that they weren't her first partner (perhaps justified on the basis of her looks, perhaps not), and a car buyer should adopt a similar attitude regarding being the first with a car. To the extent this reveals a possible popular acceptance of women with histories and rejecting the idea that they should be discriminated against on that basis, that much seems good.
"First" could mean first boy/girlfriend or first husband/wife (a male audience isn't explicitly targeted, though one might assume - along with the dangers inherent in that), first kiss, etc. and not just first sexual partner. Reading sex where sex isn't explicit may say more about the reader than the speaker. One might say sex is implicit, given that the woman is "attractive," "made up" and that her clothed breasts are in the shot, etc. but do attractive women, cosmetics, or breasts, etc. necessarily imply sex to you? Furthermore, they are not saying the woman is "used" any more than they're saying she's a "vehicle" or is available for 4.99% financing.
Also, could you please start giving the full citations for the images you discuss?
Martin Dufresne — April 10, 2011
I hope that Mr. Wurfel experiences the rightful wrath of female clients and friends of clients, virgin or not.
Dvd Avins — April 10, 2011
I think the ad intends that men recognize that de-valuing women who are not virgins is a silly standard that remnants of conventional wisdom might tell them to do, but about which they know better. But the existence of that notion, however wrong, is something everyone will be aware of. (That's the only way the ad is effective.) I don't think referring to such a notion and mocking it is at all the same as buying into it.
Dvd Avins — April 10, 2011
I sometimes think the authors of the blog, whose politics I think I almost completely agree with, are less effective in their analysis and advocacy due to being uncomfortable with any playful reference to men and women wanting to find each other as sexual partners.
Martin Dufresne — April 10, 2011
If writers of such ads were really being "playful", they would take not of how often women are not amused.
Martin Dufresne — April 10, 2011
Since Mr. Wurfel appears cocksure enough to go on publishing this ad despite adverse feedback, I'll take up his choices with his head office: BMW Canada, 50 Ultimate Drive, Richmond Hill, Ontario L4S 0C8
Who knows? Maybe it's company policy and they will give him kudos for stirring up interest in the brand...
Mandy B — April 10, 2011
Unfortunately this is not a one time phenomenon in the advertising world. Here is another example used by BMW: http://www.automotivetraveler.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=319&Itemid=129
marita DeVries — April 10, 2011
Perhaps you don't mind attracting this kind of attention? Personally, I see more women these days driving BMW's and I am positive that they wouldn't find this amusing in the least, I know I do not and if BMW is OK with this kind of advertising, I wouldn't even consider buying a new let alone used one. It's interesting though that you are targeting men, as if women were still merely passengers? We are in the year 2011. Perhaps injury to sales needs to be incurred before you 'get it' - get it?
JJ Hunsecker — April 10, 2011
The advertisement is completely wrong and repellent by any standard. One minor point -- which makes this all worse -- The London Free Press is not a free paper. It's the city's only daily. Somebody in their ad sales department should have raised some kind of alarm, but did not.
Martin Dufresne — April 10, 2011
Apologize for my mistake above. Actually Dave Wurfel is a Chrysler/Dodge!Jeep dealer who stole a line from a BMW campaign of a few years back. Here is the letter I sent his head offices:
To the CEOs
Chrysler Canada
One Riverside Drive, Windsor Ontario N9A 5K3
...The CEO
Chrysler Corporation LLC.
800 Chrysler Drive East
Auburn Hills, MI 48326-2757
To Chrysler executives,
I notice that Mr. Dave Wurfel, of Dale Wurfel Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ltd., 28478 Centre Road Strathroy, ON N7G 3J2, Canada is using in the London, Ontario area a concept with which BMW ran into some trouble in the U.S. a few years ago, that of selling used (“pre-owned”) cars by comparing them to women, with the line “You know you’re not the first”.
Even though Mr. Wurfel received a fair amount of opposition from London area women, he goes on running this ad, suggesting that it could also apply to men. Of course, we all know that men aren’t treated as a commodity in this society, with their virginity used as a standard to judge them by. So his winning smile doesn’t win us over.
As I wrote, BMW has run into this exact same problem before, using the same line: http://www.automotivetraveler.com/index.php?option=com_content&%3Btask=view&%3Bid=319&%3BItemid=129.
I am puzzled at a Chrysler-Dodge dealer stealing this doomed advertisement concept, and would like to know how you justify this objectification of women before I take this further, which I intend to do unless you take action.
When your advertising is discussed as a stellar example of sexism on a sociology web site - http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2011/04/10/non-virgin-women-are-just-like-used-cars/#comments - I suggest you want to take a closer look at quality control in your dealerships.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Martin Dufresne
Montreal Men Against Sexism
marita DeVries — April 10, 2011
Martin - Brilliantly stated!!!!! Thank you so much for your well written letter!!!
dub — April 11, 2011
I don't see the problem with this advert.
The target market is obviouly men. The ad makes an analogy between virgin women and new cars....most men generally desire both. Whats the big deal?
Jacob — April 11, 2011
Isn't this better than the alternative in many countries where I have lived, where a woman who is not a virgin has no value on the [marriage/dating] market? Considering that was in large part the previous paradigm in this country, shouldn't this kind of objectification be at least acknowledged as progress, if not yet the achievement of whatever goal you wish? It seems to me that this is, in some ways, a victory for third wave feminism, sexuality has been destigmatized to the point where, quite literally, one is not supposed to care about previous sexual partners. And while this is still using sex to sell, granted, couldn't at least that part be seen as a step in the right direction? It's relating the destigmatization of premarital sex for women to the destigmatization of buying used cars (There are attractive options, it's not just for poor/desperate people anymore).
Jack Plant — April 11, 2011
Get a frickin' life people!! Grow a sense of humpur. In your poor, pitiful lives don't you have better things to do tham make irrelevant comments about a totally harmless ad? A self-esteem workshop might help....but I doubt it!
Jack Plant — April 11, 2011
Women who complain about being treated as "sex objects" are usually all too obviously, in no such danger.
CBox — April 11, 2011
Shouldn't the main point here be the continuing double-standard of encouraging men's promiscuity, while denigrating women's? To continue to maintain the male-driven fantasy of having a crop of sexually pure (and more "valuable") women out there for men despoil while they themselves can wrack up women as so many notches-on-bedposts, and at the same time expect women to live up to that purity standard in the face of our hyper-sexualized culture shows the hypocrisy in our notions of gendered behavior.
Martin Dufresne — April 11, 2011
Don't you feel a little bit out of your depth, "Jack"?
:D — April 11, 2011
Why are all the lower comments italicized? Lemme try to fix this.
Alicia — April 11, 2011
Just as a note towards his arrogance - the London Free Press is NOT FREE. I own a business and have looked into advertising on their pages. To run an ad that size, in colour cost him a LOT of money (even for just one day, let alone continuing to run it). He's a total wad for creating the ad, to be sure, but the London Free Press is just as bad for running it. They are one of the worst papers available in Canada (I've lived in many provinces/cities). London proves itself over and over again to be a cultural wasteland from the top down and this is no exception.
Baba Doodlius — April 11, 2011
Personally, in all honesty, the first time I had sex with my car wasn't really that great.
Zyzz — April 11, 2011
U mirin aesthetics?
jane — April 11, 2011
kinda besides the point, but the free press isn't actually free... people subscribe to this shit.
jane — April 11, 2011
whoops someone beat me to the punch
AD — April 11, 2011
He also ran the exact same ad but with a male model. Of course, no one seems to care about that one. Double standard much?
Martin Dufresne — April 11, 2011
No double standard elsewhere than in patriarchy iself where men's status as virgins to be appropriated is not similarly valued. I addressed this attempt in my letter to Wurfel's bosses:
"...he goes on running this ad, suggesting that it could also apply to men. Of course, we all know that men aren’t treated as a commodity in this society, with their virginity used as a standard to judge them by..."
Ust wonderning: are the societypages.org always this accomodating to the denial brigade?
Serious Lee — April 11, 2011
Get your heads out of the gutter and quit reading to far into things. This man is a leader in our community and has donated thousands to organizations including women's groups. To attack his character is absolutly childish and wrong. Coming from "groups" that do not like to be judged I'm really suprised you would do it to other's.
Personally I hope from here on that he donates only to "quality" Organizations that are not run and composed of hyprocrites like the people posting here and Megan Walker being the biggest.
I hope someday you all return back to the real world and go after issues that actually matter because everytime you attack innocent hard working people you look stupid. It's not a crime to advertise, it's not a crime to be pretty and if the advertisement does offend you why not turn the page???
Martin Dufresne — April 11, 2011
I see the crotch-scratching brigade has disembarked here with its trolly tropes. How they try to run significant discussions into the ground - and how liberals just give up instead of disconnecting them - would certainly be an interesting subject of investigation.
chris r — April 11, 2011
Wow, this ad's stupid on so many levels. Anyone who can't understand why some people find it offensive is indeed clueless.
However, I do agree that there are several ways of looking at it. Upon first glance, I see a beautiful woman. Right off the bat it's typically sexist like so many ads that use images of stereotypically beautiful women in order to sell products. It's clearly aimed at a heterosexual male audience. One could argue whether that in itself is a sort of benign sexism or sexism of a more harmful variety. One could just as easily argue that there's no such thing as "benign sexism".
Leaving those arguments aside in the interests of keeping this comment reasonably succinct, the next thing I'm drawn to is the caption, "You know you're not the first, but do you really care?" Clearly this is meant to suggest that the woman pictured is sexually experienced. OK, I can see that she's not a teenager, and she's posing in an oh-so "come-hither" manner, so I'll buy it. Yes, she is very beautiful and they tell me she's no virgin. Well OK then, and no, I don't "really care", in fact it's almost a complete non-issue - the "almost" being because truth be known, I think that if I had to fill out a questionnaire for a dating service on which they asked such a question, I would indicate that I do indeed prefer women who are sexually experienced. I'd certainly be interested in dating the model in this ad, as I'm sure most men in their target audience would.
However, this isn't an ad for a dating service, it's an ad for used cars, and it's getting dumber by the second.
The next thing they say, more or less, is that if you wouldn't have a problem dating a sexually experienced woman as opposed to a virgin, then why would you have a problem buying a used car as opposed to a new one? Well, gee, maybe because used cars aren't as good as new cars because THEY'RE USED.
Cars aren't women. "Experienced" isn't "used". There's a HUGE difference.
I guess it could be interpreted that what they're trying to do is elevate the status of used cars to that of beautiful sexually experienced women, in a "fine wine" sort of way, which some people may see as admirable, but which I just find clumsy at best, moronically sexist at worst.
There was a lot more but I edited for space. Hope the short version doesn't make me look like a creep...
marita DeVries — April 11, 2011
Dear Mr. Wurfel...... thank you for the retraction and the letter you have sent. It is as follows:April 11, 2011
Dale Wurfel Chrysler Dodge Jeep deeply regrets any concern caused by the recent Used Car Advertisements that appeared in the London Free Press on April 8, 9 2011.We did not wish to cause offence and consequently cancelled all future advertising associated with this campaign.
Our dealership has a long history supporting the Community,including Woman’s Support Organizations. We have supported Strathroy Middlesex General Hospital, Strathroy and Area Women’s Rural Resource Centre, Global Vision, Terry Fox Foundation, London Health Science Centre, Canadian Breast Cancer Society, Strathroy Turkey Fest, Jean Vanier Catholic School, Cure for Autism, The Stephen Lewis Foundation, VON, Blue Water Hawks, Strathroy District Minor Hockey, All Saints Parish, Arthritis Society, The Kidney Foundation, Easter Seals, The Cure Foundation, Strathroy Junior B Rockets, Paul Patterson Memorial Foundation and Strathroy Portuguese Soccer Club just to name a few.
This week we are making a donation to our local Women’s Rural Resource Centre of Strathroy and area.
Regards,
Dale Wurfel
President
Dale Wurfel Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ltd
Strathroy, ON
DALE wurfel | President
mark — April 12, 2011
I feel its the way YOU see women is the way the ad is exposed TO YOU
in other words if a used women is of less importance YOU feel then you will see the ad that way.
If on the other hand YOU see women as equal in ALL ways then you will see the ad as a vergin car is no different than a non virgin car. Personally I feel if it bothers that many people than it should be law FULL cover for ALL women.
My fellow admen, this is why they hate us | Japan Social Media 5 — April 12, 2011
[...] Via Sociological Images [...]
WOW POKE'MASTA — April 12, 2011
Is this a true statement? Please answer truthfully.
Is it just me or does everyone of these "debates" if you will, start out as a good debate, but then just turn into a large fight where people just try to insult others about how they look and other personal things??
Max — April 12, 2011
Ah, truth in advertising. Is there anything more satisfying? I think not.
:D — April 12, 2011
A dragon has come to our village today.
We've asked him to leave, but he won't go away.
Now he's talked to our king and they worked out a deal.
No homes will he burn and no crops will he steal.
Now there is but one catch, we dislike it a bunch.
Twice a year he invites him a virgin to lunch.
Well, we've no other choice, so the deal we'll respect.
But we can't help but wonder and pause to reflect.
Do virgins taste better than those who are not?
Are they salty, or sweeter, more juicy or what?
Do you savor them slowly? Gulp them down on the spot?
Do virgins taste better than those who are not?
Now we'd like to be shed you, and many have tried.
But no one can get through your thick scaly hide.
We hope that some day, some brave knight will come by.
'Cause we can't wait around 'til you're too fat to fly.
Now you have such good taste in your women for sure,
They always are pretty, they always are pure.
But your notion of dining, it makes us all flinch,
For your favorite entree is barbecued wench.
Now we've found a solution, it works out so neat,
If you insist on nothing but virgins to eat.
No more will our number ever grow small,
We'll simply make sure there's no virgins at all!
justin — April 12, 2011
Lighten up people. The same ad with a guy was put out the day after.
Melissa — April 12, 2011
omg peoples, ever read a financial magazine or financial advice column? Every financially-savvy person out there knows that new cars are for SUCKERS. They devalue immediately after you drive it off the lot. A reliable, used car, like the Toyota Camry, for instance, holds its used-car worth for YEARS after it's initial off-the-lot depreciation.
You are all interpreting this ad all wrong, because of your socially-bred stigma against used cars. This ad is actually stating that non-virgins are preferable. It's the virgins that should be all, "oh how offensive!" The rest of you people need to get over your unreasonable used-car abhorrence.
jeeeeeez.
Women Are Like Used Cars | UrlyBits — April 13, 2011
[...] know you’re not the first. But do you really care?”Sexist? Maybe! Honest comparison?Via.Posted in: Picture Tagged As: advertising, cars, sex, women google_ad_client = [...]
Cheap and used | Critical Sass — April 14, 2011
[...] be more like thisCheap and used Posted on April 14, 2011 by GinaSociological Images brings us this rather revolting advertisement from the Ontario newspaper “London Free Press”:As the [...]
Friday Sex Links! « Sex with Timaree — April 15, 2011
[...] Women are used to sell cars all the time but this zeroes in on it. J Crew ad where mother paints delighted son’s toenails pink causes gender controversy. [...]
Racerx — September 9, 2011
man i'm going to unlike this site if all the articals are going to be so uptight i mean who really cares if they compare used cars to non-virgin people this is whats wrong with the world everyone so uptight about what people say and do oh no they showed a boob on tv someone call the cops. get over yourselves
Chrysler Dealer Ad Compares Women To Used Cars | Used Cars FSBO — September 17, 2011
[...] putting it mildly. Take this reaction, from Sociological Images: “It’s blatant objectification of women, but in addition to objectifying women to sell [...]
Tony — December 23, 2011
I hear you can find alot of vrigins on this new dating site.
http://bit.ly/t8lZSr
The pre-owned Snatch | The Stay-at-Home Feminist Mom — December 10, 2013
[…] Seriously? Someone thought this was a good idea for advertising used cars? […]
Gender Focus | The Round-Up: Apr. 12, 2011 — July 19, 2014
[…] Sociological Images dissects a sexist ad from a London, Ontario newspaper, which compares women who aren’t virgins to used cars. […]