It's been said that for many women chocolate is better than sex. The reality of this is for each woman to judge for herself, but there is no doubt that the idea has been propagated well. Advertisers have appropriated this belief and used it to target their female, as well as male, population.

A great example of this chocolate/sex comparison is this chocolate ice cream bar commercial we came across via Ali Eteraz's blog. The commercial features Pakistani supermodel Neha Ahmed. The product - Magnum chocolate bar made by Magnum and associated with U.K.-based Walls Ice Cream company. Both owned by Unilever. This will be addressed in a moment.

In the commercial we see Neha, escaping from the bustle of life, slowly savouring a Magnum chocolate ice cream bar. "Savouring" being used in a vague sense. Specifically, we see Neha open the freezer, caress the chocolate bar, and pick it up, eyeing it desiringly, almost as if she is flirting with the chocolate. The lights are turned off, the wrapper of the bar is pulled off smoothly, like silk slipping off a body. She kicks off her shoes, lays down on the sofa, and writhes around while eating the chocolate bar. This includes tilting her head back, with her back slightly arched. Each time she takes a bite, we get a close up of her mouth slowly putting the bar inside, and occasionally licking a finger, too. Oh, and not to mention the cleavage shot.

Now commercials are meant to sell things. And, sex, we are often told, sells things. But if chocolate is better than sex, one would think the chocolate would be enough to sell itself. And for many women it is. Many women just need to hear the word "chocolate" and they're sold. So why the "chocolate sex?" The way in which Neha enjoys the chocolate bar parallels the way in which straight women supposedly enjoy men during sex. Or actually, how straight men want to be enjoyed. In fact, this commercial depicting a woman's chocolate exploits, appears to be targeting the male viewer's sexual fantasy rather than a female viewer's chocolate one. Notice the way in which the chocolate bar is made into a phallic symbol. Not to mention the name itself - Magnum - shares its name with a gun and condom. A very male-oriented name indeed.

The commercial, as with other Magnum ice cream products commercials such as this and this, use sexual innuendos left, right, and centre. This is not surprising, considering Magnum is owned by Unilever - owners also of the infamous Axe products and behind the disgustingly sexist and misogynistic Axe commercials. (I usually want to hurt a man every time I see these commercials.) But what all these commercials have in common is that they serve the male sexual ego, satisfying the hungry male gaze, providing them a few moments with a sexy female all too eager to please them, albeit via a TV screen.

In this commerical, the sexy female happens to be Muslim. Although I was not able to find out exactly where this commercial was airing, from the sounds of the singer (not Louis Armstrong but a South Asian imitation) and voiceover, it appears the commercial is meant for South Asian audiences, thus South Asian men. Chocolate is not native to South Asia and I wonder to what extent it is associated with sex in the subcontinent.

Watch the commercial for yourself.

I was walking through the aisles in the grocery store the other day when a particular product made me do a double take. I had to backtrack so I could see if what I thought I saw was what I actually saw. And unfortunately it was. It was a box of Canadian label President’s Choice "Memories of Marrakesh" couscous with a picture of the face of a niqab clad woman! And not one, but two.

Once again the veil has been utilized, in a completely irrelevant circumstance, to represent the Muslim world. Although this product was purposely associated with Morocco, couscous is a grain which is commonly associated with the Middle Eastern region, therefore tying this image in with the entire region. Once again. Never mind that the majority of women in the region do not wear the niqab. Never mind that 1000 other images could have been used to represent Morocco. And never mind that this picture, unlike those of many of their other products, was inauthentic. On their "Memories of India" masala chai, they use a picture of the Taj Mahal. Very Indian. On their "Memories of San Fransisco" they display the famous trolley. Very San Fran. After all, when one "remembers" Morocco one "remembers" the barely existent niqabi woman, and not the omnipresent mesmerizing architecture, mosques, or traditional markets.

President's Choice exploits and uses orientalist thinking to sell their product. With the kohl laden eyes of the niqabi woman one becomes aware of her femininity; her sexuality. In line with orientalist thought, she is the oppressed and sexualized woman, luring you to try some couscous; eager and ready to serve you as her submissive nature would dictate. The memories of this exotic creature should make one nostalgic enough to buy this product.

Now President’s Choice has for a long time been appropriating various cultures to sell their food products. With names such as “Memories of Punjab,” “Memories of Bangkok” “Memories of Greece” etc. they try to tap into and exploit the nostalgia one would undergo with having experienced the culture. A low and insulting but unfortunately common move in North American markets. However, using a woman's body for this product becomes further insulting and sinks lower. The offensive implications of such images were irrelevant in face of the bottom line.

The pictures on their products vary, though the majority do not involve actual people, though they appear to be related to the region. Therefore, of the many pictures which could represent Morocco, I can't help but get irritated and suspicious about their choice when their trend has been otherwise.

Television commercials and print ads have fascinated me for some time as these messages are not there to entertain or teach, but to manipulate the people into mass consumerism. As someone who is being schooled to analyze all messages critically, I find myself hyper-aware of the messages we receive through advertisements. In order to be successful, however, the messages must resonate with the masses, reflecting what they feel, desire, and crave, bringing them into the message, as if they themselves were driving the car or eating the burger.
I realize there is a definite lack of Muslim women in advertisements in the West. Heck, there is a definite lack of Muslims in general. As the oh-so-funny Iranian-American comedian Maz Jobrani says: "You'll never see me saying 'Come fly the friendly skies'."

However, there is one venue for commercials with Muslims in them - the ethnic slots on local channels. In Canada, very often on the weekends, one can catch a variety of ethnic programs, including ones for Muslim audiences, whether those be of a religious nature or a cultural one. I remember one particular commercial which erked me long before I was conscious of the messages these images send. This particular commercial was one for halal meat products. It depicted a very happy Muslim family, at home, having a halal meal consisting mainly of products from the company for who the commercial was made. This seems fairly benign. A Muslim family, eating and enjoying each others company in the comfort and privacy of their own homes. However, one unusual thing jumped out at me about this family. Something didn't fit. It was the hijab on the mother's head! I couldn't understand why she was wearing a hijab. I mean, she was at home with her husband and children. Only her husband and children. If one believes that the hijab is obligatory one surely knows it is not needed in the presence of one’s husband and children! Why was she wearing the hijab???

The message to me was clear – a Muslim woman must cover her head even if she is playing a mother in her home alone with her children and husband. This to me was similar to the criticisms I heard of the Little Mosque on the Prairie husband and wife characters Yaser and Sarah when they were portrayed showing affection toward one another in public. “How dare she touch her husband’s ass in public? If Muslims are being depicted on television, they damn well better be behaving like ‘good,’ ‘pure,’ and ‘proper’ Muslims.” A bit preachy if you ask me – and not to mention unrealistic!

In my opinion, depicting Muslims engaging in lusty or affectionate behaviour, or depicting Muslim women, heads uncovered, in the privacy of their homes, aides in the process of ‘normalizing’ us. After all, is this not how we behave? Do Muslim couples not show affection toward each other in public? Can our heads not be left uncovered in our homes even?* Or must we portray this façade of ‘virginal purity’ and display our modesty (or at least one version of it) at all times? Muslim women do show their hair with reckless abandon. Even those who wear the hijab have their hijab-less moments in the privacy of their homes. Why must we shove morality, or at least one particular version of it, in everyone’s faces?

*To clarify, I am of the belief that our heads can be left uncovered anywhere, anytime.