Advertising is designed to sell products; in the process it also sells lifestyles and aspirations, and communicates concepts of acceptable behaviour and gender roles (Children Now 1997). Advertisers resort to various kinds of tactics to get people to buy their products or patronize their services, e.g. humour, self-esteem, peer pressure, etc. However, the one that is assumed to be the most popular and the most effective is the use of sex in advertising (Heather Price 2002). I know someone who believes that the health, beauty, fashion and fragrance industries’ advertising would be dull, wimpish and lack-lustre without the images of near-perfect models flaunting flat-ribbed abdominals, seductive curves and breathless beauty! In everything- from lingerie to soap to coal, from branded paper to car batteries, from liquor brands to UPS systems, from perfumes to toothpaste to shampoo, etc., advertisers are aggressively displaying scantily-clad women in order to sell all kinds of products. Sex is regarded as the second strongest of the psychological appeals, right behind self-preservation (R.F. Taflinger 2003). Studies have shown that advertising is easier and more effective on men; they are receptive to the immediacy of the image (Heather Price 2002). According to Kim Gordon, of Entrepreneur Media Inc. U.S, the reward centres in the human brain are activated by food, sex, money, drugs and anything that makes the individual feel good. Recently the Massachusetts General Hospital carried out a brain-imaging study and found that the reward centres in the brains of young heterosexual males were activated by female faces. A leading author of the study, Dr. Nancy Etcoff, describes this finding as “a kind of visceral response to beauty.” Advertisers also want to shock you by forcing you to look at what it is that they are selling (Nikki Katz 2003). This is because daily you are bombarded with ads everywhere you turn. Some opine that people generally would want to be left alone and therefore they resist advertising. In contrast to this is a strong self-interest (C. Killian 1999). Dr. Tom Reichert, an assistant professor of advertising at the University of Alabama, in his book The Erotic History of Advertising says that rather than pay too much attention to what models are wearing, it is important that we note what they are doing; this he calls ‘Parasexual’- the model is flirting and connecting with viewers (Catlin Tudzin 2003). Reichert states that attracting attention is not the only goal of advertisers who use sexual innuendo: other motives include creating a sex-tinged brand identity; generating excitement; offering sexual benefits and; creating identification with target groups, e.g. young men. Advertisers believe that the more outlandish, the sexier, the more skin shown, etc. the more the brand image will refuse to leave your memory. We know of companies who associate erotic images with their products so as to make sales; Calve Klein stands out in this category. According to Reichert, it is difficult to talk about sex in advertising without acknowledging Mr. Klein, whose empire with its provocative ads sells jeans, underwear and fragrances. And his technique is to use scantily-clad models like the now-controversial Kate Moss and Mark Wahlberg. Janice Crouse of Concerned Women for America claims that advertising moguls make millions of dollars by targeting children and teenagers with salacious, suggestive advertising. Mothers in America are disturbed that many children who do not even have a boyfriend or girlfriend are being confronted by advertising that portrays children of their age as sexy and seductive, behaving provocatively. In France, many ads actually use nearly naked women to advertise clothing! Meanwhile advertisers say they have a right to promote their products in the most effective way. Free enterprise, the moguls say, is about business making money! But some critics are convinced that there is little evidence that suggestive advertising is actually effective. According to Prasoon Joshi of McCann-Erickson India, using sex in advertising is a “short cut to attract attention, and it certainly does not result in aiding brand recall.” As far as he is concerned such ads do not benefit the brand. Kim Gordon even goes to buttress this by submitting that advertisers who produce objectionable ads may actually create a mental link between negative images and their products thereby causing buyers to avoid them. For Etcoff, if an ad elicits negative emotions… it will pull you away from the product, causing a kind of avoidance reaction (Gale Group 2003). For Sanjay Garg of Enterprise Nexus, India, suggestive ads only indicate that there is lack of creativity and since the brands are not able to spend big money, they try to get attention. He therefore submits that such brands can manage high recall only if they are repeatedly shown (The Hindu Business Line 2003). In one of Helen Thiel’s research efforts she reports that “what the advertising agencies present to us in their work is more a reflection of an ill society rather than the reason for it.” What she is saying is that the advertising guys should not be castigated for churning out these suggestive ads as they are merely reminding us of our society! But the Pontifical Council for Social Communications disagrees with this view. It states that though advertising acts as a mirror of the surrounding culture, it is a mirror that helps to shape the reality it reflects; sometimes it reflects a distorted image of reality (Vatican City 1997). The Council believes that advertisers are selective about the values and attitudes they want to promote while they ignore others; this selectivity therefore destroys the argument that advertising does no more than reflect the surrounding culture. In France activists have formed groups to protest what they term a “form of subjugation” of women; they paste stickers on offensive billboards with this simple message: “women are not objects for sale” (Megan’s Journal 2001). In the U.S women form pressure groups and warn ad men to voluntarily clean up their industry or expect legislation, while more of such female groups continually recruit their gender for the purpose of boycotting suggestive advertisers and their products. In addition they call on the general female population to complain about ads deemed to be overboard (Concerned Women for America 2003). Of interest is a networking group of high-tech business women based in the U.S which gives “disgraceful” awards for “over-the-top sexiest ads from technology firms.” The group, known as Grace Net, was founded by Sylvia Paull, who says that advertisers who depict women as prostitutes or make them appear stupid or of no significance forget that women are a segment of the prospect group. I do not agree with some of my professional colleagues who preach that we should not take ads seriously while basing their conviction on the slogan “creative light-heartedness and freedom of expression.” Advertising is a pervasive, powerful force that shapes attitudes and behaviour in today’s world that it would be foolhardy not to take commercials that seriously! Suggestive advertising will of course remain with us forever and that is because sex is just one of our basic emotions and advertisers look for basic emotions to attach to their products so as to have them sold (Eric Zanot 2003). I hereby conclude by advising that advertisers do not disregard good taste, decency, cultural dignity and sectorial values while expressing themselves creatively.