I'd love to know what magazine this came from. It's obviously not only aimed at very traditional men, but also at morons -- buy gold now! While it's at its all time high! So you can sell it later at its all time low!

This ad was in Discover Magazine, of all places, which to me makes it even more horrifying. Given how many presumably smart and science-oriented women must read the magazine, I found it particularly offensive that they would choose to run such an ad. Of course, I suppose it is aimed at geeky science-type guys.... guys who might very well collect coins.... and may find solace in the belief that collecting coins really is sexy!!!

Also women are not things and shouldn't be referred to as such. That pisses me off.

I bought a magazine (this ad was in popular mechanics) to use this ad for a project about (semi)-nudity. I had planned on using it in a section about objectification.

One thing that makes me laugh about ads like this is the literal use of "sex sells". Why are naked people used to sell things that don't usually involve naked people?

In regards to Gwen's comment about how this image as attractive is portrayed as universal law: I've had plenty of conversations - with social researchers - where this ideal has been touted as "objectively attractive." I mean, *objectively*? Gah.

re: that overused trope "sex sells"

I teach in subject areas similar to our blog hosts, but in a communication department, and I regularly chide my students that I never want to hear such a naive analysis from communication students. (Yes, they frequently offer that as an explanation for a particular image or visual strategy.) First, when someone says "sex sells", they almost always really mean "sexual objectification of women sells." Second, it really isn't an effective advertising strategy, according to this study published a few years ago in AdWeek. Advertising research suggests that such blatant imagery distracts men so much that their brand recall is poorer than with non-sexual ads, and women are either too offended to continue looking at the ads, or too annoyed to recall the brands either.

It's not like the idea is new or anything, the phrase "trophy wife" has been around for ages...

So is the real message here, "Here are two potential trophies. You are never going to get the babe, so why not opt for the gold coins which are within your grasp?" Or is the idea that if you have the gold coin collection, you can invite women back to your place to see it?

Or is the real issue here that there was an advertizing meeting in some agency and the boss said, "anyone got any ideas how we can entice people to buy pointless gold coins at twice their face value in the middle of a major recession?" and everybody shrugged, and the boss finally said, "well, damn it, we have to come up with something for the client by noon today!" and this is the stupid ad they threw together without thought, originality, or care.

The other day I noticed this UK campaign project, which challenges the objectification of women -
http://object.org.uk/

Or is the idea that if you have the gold coin collection, you can invite women back to your place to see it?

As a pickup line, it would only be a little bit more awkward than inviting her to see his model train installation.