They display the qualities of products, which associate them with the products themselves and whenever consumers subscribe to those products, they are in turn subscribing to the human models. .
This brings the discussion to the first arguing point of the essay that models are subjected to subscription by anyone and everyone who has an interest associated with the products or services the models are advertising. In order to investigate the full expanse of this suggestion, let's delve a little into the controversy on gender-biased modelling. Female models are at the core of this blight that exploits the sexuality of the female models creating benchmarks of what an ideal model, or worse even, a woman should look like. This is a crucial factor that leads to misogyny in our society and the objectification of the female models. Berberick (2010) in her paper argues that women have always been objectified and exploited in advertisements in "unrealistic portrayals" culminating in having an adverse effect on the self-image and respect of a woman in general. (p.2). Moreover, in case of the male models, they are portrayed as overly masculine entities, impervious to emotions or attachments. They are portrayed as the ideal partners their counterparts can have, leading to unrealistic expectations and objectification. Consumers' brains are bombarded with images of models when they browse for any physical product. For example, if a man were to buy a cologne, an image of a chauvinist, bare chested, athletic - having more than enough abdominal muscles to account for – male figure pops up into mind. Concurrently, any female model appearing on advert for a lingerie product has to be seductive, having amplified body proportions, latched with the idea of accessibility. If everyone can demand such features and subscribe to the idea of having a product reminiscent of a human model, then by default the models can be defined as items made to be sold in a market.
