That first pic is actually a turn on...oh boyfriend, where art thou? Let's meet for lunch and eat each other. Why is this "women's" group against being dominated sexually? Helloooo, it's hot you prudes. Not everything is symbolic of the "strife of women" and not everything needs to be turned into a whiny fight. If you're into him and he's into you: play.

The "anorexic" chick looks disgusting. I could snap that bitch with my pinky. How is it sexy to look like a prepubescent boy...?

That first pic is actually a turn on...

I think so, too.

I look at these pictures and I feel like if I am back in the early '80 when the image of the woman was paramount to her insertion in society. At that time, the Feminazi groups would yell at anyone who look at "improper material" in their eyes.

It sounded like sensorship two decades ago and it still sound like it today.

Let's look at the pictures. The first one would make any feminist with the mindset of Andrea Dworkin scream "Rape!". I tend to see another way to explain this picture. Here's the idea; if this was a gang-rape waiting to happen, men around the action wouldn't be posed around while looking surprised. They would be closer and in the process of removing their pants. Another idea is that the men pinning the model is not between her legs but aside.he also hold her down gently by the wrists. For me, it looks more like someone trying to restrain a model who lost her marbles on the catwalk.

The second image just turn me off. For me, anorexic women are excessively bad looking. I take note of the company and you can be sure that I will have no business with them.This is an attitude I have not only for publicity with anorexic model but also with other disgusting patterns. If a brand sell their products by putting down men, I wouldn't buy their stuff.

The third picture shows us how sick and twisted some feminists can be. How a beautiful women, looking smoking hot while still decent is "Insulting to Women"? Where's the insult? This is where the darkness of NOW shows up; for them a woman can't be sexy. This attitude is more dangerous towards women that any "Patriarchal" scheme out there; it teach to women to hate their attractiveness. It turns the body of a women into a gulag when some "twisted" ideals of freedom and self are crushed under the need to conformity and the desire to see sex as an evil thing dominated by males.

Oh well, it's just another day for those demented and self-appointed guardian of women's virtues everywhere. Those social Talibans will never cease to impress me...

Some of us like to be pinned down by a man.

Be sure,Amy that I will fight for your right to be pinned down by a man without being harassed by the fascist people of NOW. ;)

They're defending the wrong target. The right to offend is implicit in freedom of speech. What they should be defending is not "Boo hoo! I'm offended!" but somrthing on the lines of "likely to lead to abuse of women."

The two guys in the first picture are checking out the guy holding down the model. The second picture makes no sense at all. I'm not even sure if it's distorted by photography looks more photoshop work which is a bit different. I wouldn't call it offensive just badly done. The last picture is hot, though I'm not seeing stable boy.

I can sort of see why the first picture might be offensive, especially to a rape victim. However if you actually look at the picture the only one who looks like he's about to be gang raped is the guy on top of the model.

With respect to anorexia my understanding was that most of it has to do with control. The control then begins to slip into a psychosis as the disorder progresses but I don't think it has anything to do with body image.

"Some of us like to be pinned down by a man."
Hell yes.

The first one looks like a Robert Palmer/Roxy Music gatefold album image from the last century!

Over here, boys 'n girls! - Dolce & Gabbana - oiled, ambiguous, provocative and very 1980s!

What they should be defending is not "Boo hoo! I'm offended!" but somrthing on the lines of "likely to lead to abuse of women."

They do get into that on some of these, but see above, I've posted examples that debunk their claims.

P.S. The reality is a lot of women have rape fantasies, they're just not going to be of getting shoved into an alley by some scabby junkie.

These don't bother me so much as the ones that pose women to look like murder victims.

But then we're all adults and have the reasoning and critical thinking skills needed to deconstruct the images. Younger kids, not so much. Maybe I was a particularly impressionable child, but I was growing up during the Twiggy years and really thought all women were *supposed* to look rail skinny. No one around me told me any different. And I did start dieting at 103 lbs, ended up anorexic, and then spend several years dealing with eating disorders. While I'm aware that current research indicates that anorexia and other ED's may be primarily genetic, the overwhelmingly skinny images of women that were held up as the ideal were definitely a trigger for me. I can look at them now and know they're not real or attainable, but at 13 years old I didn't have the capacity to understand that. I'm not in favor of censorship, but am in favor of media literacy being taught in schools at the middle-school level.

I looked at the link. The deodorant and the whiskey adds were the most out there. Why would those two adds offend anyone.
Enjoying pictures of your girlfriend naked should be flattering. Deleting the bad ones are more to protect yourself from looking like a bad photographer. I'd think that if your guy or girl was disgusted (offended) by pictures of you naked that would be offensive.
The use of evil alcohol in anything will be offensive to all super prudes hence we had the temperance movement. However the bottle they are using is curvy, in fact if the girl looked like the bottle her ass would be the size of an SUV. Why would celebrating a curvy body be offensive to feminists. The message in the add is distinguished gentle men like curvy women.

"P.S. The reality is a lot of women have rape fantasies, they're just not going to be of getting shoved into an alley by some scabby junkie." Oh the pains of the difference between fantasy and reality. I'd love to get used by two or four or hell bring as many hot women as are willing. However during my free and clear days only men showed interest in me.

Did anyone notice that the model being held down in the first picture has her back arched and her hips raised? In my world that's definitely body language for "more please." Actually that picture is really turning me on. I know what I'll be asking for tonight. I wonder how many members of NOW are secretly thinking "that's offensive? No, that's hot!" but are afraid to say something for fear of having their membership revoked.

Wow I took a look at the rest of the site. They are using bad stats and unspecified toxin theory. NOW is woo, scented candles lead to cancer, anxiety, respiratory problems, stroke and death. I know that scented candles are dangerous to some birds but this is new. Then they push the "all-natural" alternatives which have not been shown to be any safer. They aren't just feminazis they are alties too.
http://loveyourbody.nowfoundation.org/harmful_chemicals.html

"Did anyone notice that the model being held down in the first picture has her back arched and her hips raised?"

Golly gee - now you come to mention it - and peering closely over my bifocals, you seem to be right, SarahBeth:)

P.S. The reality is a lot of women have rape fantasies, they're just not going to be of getting shoved into an alley by some scabby junkie

I think most of those fantasies have more to do with domination than actual rape. In this day and age when we try so hard to divorce ourselves for our primal animal instincts we just wind up suppressing them rather than abolishing them.

The reason so many women have rape fantasies is not because they want to be violated in such a manner but they want to feel thier primal animalistic sexuality while as the same time denying that they, as rational evolved 20th century women, want to feel it.

The problem is so many women are bring up their boys to respect women at all times with out letting them know that treating a woman as a sex object while having sex is respectful.

Thats why so many women are dissatified with their husbands sexuall preformance, and quite freankly vice versa
So many women are being brought up with the notion that sexulity is wrong or evil and so is any enjoyment of sex - hence the rape fantasy

This dynamic also explains why men as so turned on by women 8 inches or more shorter than them

"The reason so many women have rape fantasies is not because they want to be violated in such a manner but they want to feel thier primal animalistic sexuality while as the same time denying that they, as rational evolved 20th century women, want to feel it."

Utter rubbish, petal.

"Utter rubbish, petal." Your explanation of the phenomenon is? Personally I'm not sure it's actually a rape fantasy per say but more of the guiltless stranger fantasy, mix in a bit of sub/dom play. If you are very comfortable with fun guiltless (and I'm assuming safe) stranger sex your less likely to have them. On the other hand if you have been told that sex is bad and evil and your going to hell, but if you are the victim it's ok. What else could that lead to if you have a normal sex drive.

"Your explanation of the phenomenon is?"

Our most common rape fantasy is roughly along these lines, vlad.

We are fully in touch with our animal sexuality, thank you.

We adore the idea of driving Delicious Male beserk with sexual passion.

He's in our thrall: dammit, we're practically asking for it with our lips, our eyes, our...

We see ourselves looking devastatingly, impossibly, betwitchingly ravishable.

We slyly understand Delicious Male won't take no for an answer.

We love the scenario that gives us, in fact, animal control of Delicious Male's usually tamed urges.

It's a full on enjoyably down and dirty, fantastically filthy scenario, no holds barred, dripping with sweat, lace 'n leather - sometimes involving big guns and pain & attractive hidden bruises too - but ymmv.

And - if we're lucky - we'll find a Real Delicious Male who will read the dangerous sparkle in our eye and catch the early train home with a bounce in his step.

The only thing we don't fantasize about for the most part - is having our arms broken, our teeth knocked out or our brains left oozing in an alley.

Call that bit denial, if you wish.

So your talking about more the stereotypical date rape, as opposed to the aggravated kind. It went to far and "Delicious Male won't take no for an answer".

"animal control of Delicious Male's usually tamed urges." Unless he's well over 50 and/or in a miserable relationship those urges are usually not tame. Suppressed and tame are two different things. IE: Your house cat has no desire to bit your head off, the tiger at the zoo only chooses not to eat his handlers cause it's easier to eat what he's given. Cats are tame tiger reactions are suppressed through training.

Suppressed...tamed..whatever, vlad!

I'm not interesting in analyzing the delicious bastard!

"Interested" I mean.

(Need to get a grip!)

"In my world that's definitely body language for "more please."

Its also a pretty basic self-defense reaction to buck your hips and throw an attacker who is trying to smother you off balance. Not trying to nitpick. I think the ambiguity of her intentions is what makes the picture hot.

luljp wrote "This dynamic also explains why men as so turned on by women 8 inches or more shorter than them"

Yep, when I see a woman 5'9" or shorter I just want to make her my bitch.

Or, it could be the statistical scarcity of women who are both taller than 5'9" and have IQs over 140 would leave me way too few candidates to be turned on by. (Although I do flirt outrageously with 6'+ women).

In the end tall is negotiable, smart isn't. My wife is 5'4". As it happens, she loves it that I tower over her when we're vertical. Further deponent sayeth not.

--
phunctor

The longer I look at the first picture, the D&G, the more it looks like the fab 5 came across a woman in ravenous heat and they can't for the life of them figure out what to do about it. "Maybe she'th having a back spathm."

The first picture would be more of a turn-on for me if the fellow on the left wasn't so androgynous.

As for the message...gang rape? I don't think so. Hasn't anyone at NOW heard of group sex? Why assume the worst here, ladies? She might be having the time of her life. I know I would. These are fashion ads, nothing more, nothing less. No one buys a shirt because the advertising features an ugly person in a boring photograph. Really, it's stuff like this that makes feminism completely irrevelant to many women today. Surely there's a girl in Africa having her clit sawed off they could save?

> The reality is a lot of women have rape fantasies

So that's why "kg" found consent a scary proposition (in the who-pays-on-dates thread). Mysteries of women, #566.

"Surely there's a girl in Africa having her clit sawed off they could save?" That would take effort beyond blaming men for the evils of the world. I'm not seeing NOW do much other than blame shlong sporters for crimes against humanity. However the real injustices are usually performed in very poor areas by tribal groups. Not much advertising there to attack and hiring mercs to liberate villages is pointless, the culture surrounding these acts needs to change. That's a lot harder then vilifying, any group.

That would take effort

Yes, Vlad, right now I'm trying to imagine Dr. Martin Luther King saying, "Oh hell, why bother marching from Selma to Montgomery? Let's just issue a press release stating we're still offended by Butterfly McQueen's role as the silly darkie in Gone with the Wind."

"I'm not seeing NOW do much other than blame shlong sporters for crimes against humanity."

Why not let google help you climb off your ridiculously high horse, Vlad?

"Such groups as Mandalaeo Ya
Wanawake in Kenya, NOW in Nigeria and New Woman in Egypt now include the elimination of
female circumcision among their goals..."

The longer I look at the first picture, the D&G, the more it looks like the fab 5 came across a woman in ravenous heat and they can't for the life of them figure out what to do about it. "Maybe she'th having a back spathm."

Bwaaah ha ha ha ha! Thanks for today's biggest laugh, martin. I would replace those gay boys with some lumberjack types.

Funny how you don't hear Ayaan Hirsi Ali getting herself into a dither over silly magazine ads. Maybe she's got bigger fish to fry? Like her life being in danger and such? NOW is really discrediting itself with this drivel. If I joined, it would have to be the Nigeria branch.

why do people like NOW try to ruin perfectly good things for the rest of us? And their name is misleading ... should be National Organization of Crazy Prudish Bitches who wouldn't know what a vagina was if it came and bit them in ass b/c they are to puritanical to actually, god forbid, look below their waists, let alone use the thing.

"Why not let google help you climb off your ridiculously high horse, Vlad?" Jody the NOW in Nigeria http://www.ladiesofnow.org/ has absolutely nothing that I can find which relates to NOW listed above. NOW (Nigeria) sands for Nigeria Outreach for Wellness, the NOW above sands for National Association of Women. These are two distinct organizations.

I was not attacking legitimate organizations who are on the firing line for women who are in actual deep shit. I was attacking NOW (US) by name.

"Yes, Vlad, right now I'm trying to imagine Dr. Martin Luther King saying" Wonder what Dr. King's reaction would be to a loud mouth bigot like Sharpton.

"I was not attacking legitimate organizations who are on the firing line for women who are in actual deep shit. I was attacking NOW (US) by name."

Bloody acronyms!

Sorry vlad.

You may NOW remount your high horse!

> it is provoking things
> that really are not
> what we want

For the record, there's no evidence of that, right? Is there anyone who hasn't heard about rape, and who might have been enthused to give it a try by this ad?

> a Robert Palmer/Roxy Music
> gatefold

Might as well face it....

> they're just not going to
> be of getting shoved into
> an alley

Women dreamed of getting raped by men they'd have fucked anyway. Which is darling.

> Call that bit denial,
> if you wish.

Denial!

> a scary proposition (in
> the who-pays-on-dates
> thread)

Not sure about your final analysis, but I thought that was a notable comment too.

"...Might as well face it...."

Loved that one, Crid.

"Women dreamed of getting raped by men they'd have fucked anyway. Which is darling."

Darling - and d'oh!!

Not our problem if spotty mclurch doesn't fit the bill!

Don't be crass! Don't be vulgar! It's really insensitive you to say "Not our problem!" when we're talking about rape, Jody! Don't you have feelings?

Whose Spotty Mclurch? Google has no report. Is this a private stereotype? Is someone spotting?

Darn Amy Alkon's commenting software. Jody, I am afraid Amy's software cutoff your comment, just when it was getting interesting.

Could you um, redo it, and expand on the theme a bit?

Thanks!

P.S. As I noted at Glenn's, the Calvin Klein ad is so over the top, that I don't believe it's a real ad. If it was, a GIS search for Calvin Klein and (fat, anorexic, thin, ...) would turn up lots of protests and I can find the ad nowhere but at NOW's site. And NOW isn't saying where they found the image. I suspect it is like this page at snopes:

http://www.snopes.com/photos/people/models.asp

"Whose Spotty Mclurch? Google has no report. Is this a private stereotype?"

Yeah, a mean private stereotype, Crid.

But I assume almost all women have a Spotty McLurch in their past? (Even if that wasn't exactly the name his mommy gave him.)

The group sex ad and the hot cowgirl ad are totally turning me on. The anorexia girl looks like she's somehow very askew (broken back?). Just my contribution to the conversation.

I thought you were being British again, with the tellies and blokes and bloodies and all.

Sorry.

"I thought you were being British again, with the tellies and blokes and bloodies and all."

I was in a limo with six Brits for hours the other night. That probably reawakened the preposterous slang, Crid.

"Whose Spotty Mclurch?" I'm familiar with Spooky McStalker, Spotty McLurch is a new one. Why Spotty, ring worm, warts, bad hygiene?

PJ, always happy to get a little coffee into your keyboard, hope you take it w/o sugar so the keys don't get sticky.

"the Calvin Klein ad is so over the top, that I don't believe it's a real ad. "

I suspect the context has been stretched at the minimum. The pleats in the top part of her dress suggest skeletal ribs and the backlighting of her actually very nice hips and waist gives a cadaverous effect. It looks like an intentional commentary on female images and eating disorders rather than a way to sell that dress. It would be funny if one NOW operative photoshopped it and another one down the hall included it in the collection unbeknownst to each other.

"Why Spotty, ring worm, warts, bad hygiene?"

Actually, they were his over-friendly brothers, vlad.

I want credit for the "Sorry." It was subtle as hell but right on point. And I've never been to England, though my sister bought me a Beatles record once.

Hey Alkon! Read 'em and weep, especially that last graph: http://urltea.com/23ar

Let's put Tovee in a room with your hero and let 'em duke it out.

I want credit for the "Sorry." It was subtle as hell but right on point.

Nope. Still too dumb to see it.

(As for the other - yay Tovee!)

IRONY ALERT:

The exact same ad, if the 'victim' was a man surrounded by five hot female models...NOW would STILL consider it "offensive to women".

I posted about that study on my blog yesterday, Crid. Clever (curvy) me.

I like that one comment on your blog: "I keep getting smarter and smarter."

The UC study is by Steve Gaulin and William Lassek and I have it on my office floor. Sigh...I actually had it before anyone because Gaulin gave it to me at the evolution society conference, but I was too busy working on the book to write about it. And sorry, it's a preference along with many others, but it IS a preference. And in brief, it seems hip fat is a different kind of fat than belly fat. They also found that women who have children too young -- before the age of 18, I believe -- end up stupider and having stupider children because they're robbed of their own developing cognitive resources by the developing baby.

All hail aging bimbos!

***
IRONY ALERT:

The exact same ad, if the 'victim' was a man surrounded by five hot female models...NOW would STILL consider it "offensive to women".***

So true! :D

For many civil (Read Non-White Males) rights groups out there, everything is subject to offense. When it is your bread & butter to lobby in a direction, generating useless news to validate our point is valid.

Many people out there call Bush's "War on Terror" pure rubbish with fancy alert colors that means nothing. those same people seems to forget that the fear of a evasive enemy is used by many groups in North-America with impunity. NOW is one of them. Fear, just like Sex, sells...

> And sorry, it's a
> preference along with
> many others, but it IS
> a preference.

But what if she has

A) Great tits
2) A nice car
3) A good job
D) A wonderful family
5) Money
6) A connection for drugs/stolen art/etc.
G) Pretty eyes
8) Money
I) An apartment near my work
10) A honkin' pair of hooters
11) A friendship going back to high school
12) A son who's a sucessful portfolio manager
M) A seat on the Repulican National Comittee
14) A brother who's a mechanic
15) Money
16) A gift for making strangers feel relaxed
17) An inclusive set of bootlegs from the Stones' 1975 Tour of the Americas
17a) Tits

If she has some of those things, can I still fuck her even though she has a suboptimal waist-to-hip ratio? How 'bout I promise not to do it from behind?

Please? PleasePleasePlease Pleeeeeeeze?

"Petite Brigitte", one of the parisbloggeuses, has some terrifying examples of modern-day Twiggys here:
http://petitebrigitte.com/2007/02/21/skinny-models-debate-continues-as-pret-a-porter-looms/

She also informs us that Sofia Coppola LUUURVES Café de Flore. Just what the bloody place needs, huh? Another rich américaine... *rolling eyes*

Crid, I have A, 2,3,D,5,G,8,14 and 17. No. o_O

What do five oily gay guys, a skeleton in a sheer outfit, and a babe in the woods have in common?

"If she has some of those things, can I still fuck her even though she has a suboptimal waist-to-hip ratio?" Well that depends on what you mean by sub-optimal for both men and women. After about 4:1 or 1:4 I'm not sure the laws of physiology (or physics) will permit it. Your welcome to try, if you do can I get a report on how you did it with schematics but NO pictures.

Amy wouldn't permit it, Vlad. As she always says when this get discussed "I'm sorry, but..." (See above, 354pm) She's got herself a gen-yoo-ine datum and she's gonna ride that pony all the way home. So to speak.

"I warn you to be well advised and assured what matter ye put in his head; for ye shall never pull it out again." - Thomas Cardinal Wolsey (1471-1530)

Aaaarrrrrrghhhhh

Deja Pseu -

I am working on a propaganda primer for kids. Came on the idea when my five year old and I were discussing a billboard he likes (it has a cat standing up holding it's crotch - for kitty litter). He decided that was the funniest picture ever. When I explained it was an advert (no, hes not retarded, he just doesn't watch commercial tee vee, ever), he decided we should buy whatever was being advertised.

Amy not to be captain obnoxious and no offense meant to Gaulin and Lassek but. As most women who have kids before 18 tend not to go to college. Wouldn't that almost guarantee that they would have lower IQs as a group. Then if you consider part of your education comes from the parents you could have a trickle down effect. They should run a second study comparing women who had kids at 18 and did not get an education after with those that did.

The waist to hip ratio is explained in a history/discovery channel special that they air every so often. The waist to hip ratio is one of many signs of fertility. The theory goes that certain things are attractive because they have (or had) some indication about a womens fertility. So the ratio is one of many factor that are be considered.

"Amy wouldn't permit it, Vlad." No physics won't permit it. Lets use the ridiculous number 36-24-36 Lets take a 24" waist (really small) now lest run the 1:4 ratio his or her ass would be 96" across. Now lets use 36" hips and the 4:1 ratio he or she would have a waist of 144" (12 feet).

Vlad, I have about 100 pages of research here, and I'm just off deadline and back from French (a 15 1/2 hour nonstop stint), but I know Gaulin's work, and I'm willing to bet it's statistically sound, and doesn't leave gaping holes like the one you're suggesting.

I actually do find the first two offensive. Enough that I wouldn't shop at the stores, even if I could afford them. I am personally more bothered, actually, by the fact that somehow we are assuming that the men in ad #1 are gay because they're buff. I am bothered by stereotypes, generally. But maybe that's because I don't live in New York or the west coast and where I live, those stereotypes aren't really true. I seem to see a lot of those same opinions from people in NY and the west coast, all of them saying exactly the same thing that's been said a thousand times before, and every one thinking they're saying something new and sophisticated. It's funny.
In any case, the fact that I find the first two ads rather disturbing does not mean that I think NOW should be spending their time protesting them. I think they have plenty of other things to protest that would be much more productive. And not nearly as whiny and discrediting.

> assuming that the men in
> ad #1 are gay because
> they're buff

Not just buff. Their attractiveness is slender-chined, hairless and girlish, no matter how muscular. And they don't seem to be forming a queue, which is the protocol for such festivities... Even the ones alert to the scuffle aren't aroused.

> every one thinking they're
> saying something new and
> sophisticated

True, true

But all advertising "offends", doesn't it? Especially when you know that it's working on you.

Thanks, Crid - meant to get to that "how can they be gay!?" remark but I forgot.

And gay men in the provinces still care more about their appearance than the straight boys.

And I find that those in the provinces who huff about New York are often as snobby as the coastal types, it's just kind of reverse snobbery: "We're cooler because we're not supposed to be cool. And because we don't care about being cool."

No, but you are a wee bit precious about being uncool, aren't you?

provinces? where is it do you think i live?

Ok. let's rephrase this. I find it offensive when people assume someone is gay - or straight - or anything because of how they look or how they dress. my brother, for one - actually both of them - care about their appearances, as do most of the straight guys I know. Whereas most of the gay guys I know are rather average.

i don't think i'm cool. i'm just tired of people from "sophisticated" areas treating me like i'm automatically stupid.

provinces? where is it do you think i live?

No idea, really.

"my brother, for one - actually both of them - care about their appearances,"

Uh, if you don't know a lot of gay men, don't make yourself out to be an authority on gayness. I'm a lifelong fag hag. The guys in the ad look gay.

P.S. I'm originally from Michigan. You're the one who mentioned the NY/coastal angle.

> because of how they look
> or how they dress.

At least from over here, how they look and how they dress seems like half the fun of it for them. They seem no less interested in conveying their identity (sexual or otherwise) through their comportment than anyone else is. And just like anyone else, they'd probably be annoyed if you told them they don't present meaningful information about their feelings. What good comes from pretending we're all complete mysteries to each other, especially about things so important to us?

I've talked about this before here on Amy's blog, (I've talked about everthing before on Amy's blog), but:

No one has yet come up with a meaningful explication of the gay accent. Maybe there's a piece of rarefied academic investigation out there, but I've never heard of it. So far as I can tell --which ain't very far-- the accent appears in lots of cultures. No one would doubt that it exists, and I bet most people think it's not just derived from the environment.

And it's not like the Little Girl Voice. Even those who doubt the idea that a girl's voice from a grown woman gives specific information about a troubled childhood would acknowledge that something is conveyed by her demeanor. But the gay accent's lisps and lilt are so distinct that when we hear them from someone who claims to be straight, we often presume they're closeted and naive.

When you meet a guy who's flaming --I mean really flaming-on-fire, out of the closet, and eager to mix it up with people-- it doesn't stop with a lisp or feminine singsong. Even the ideas being expressed are distinctive... Every story told is as from a socially pressured seventh grader who's trying to be wise about the world, and eager to reach out to others in a Disney kind of way.

OK, that last paragraph may just be my weak perception of these people. Here's the point...

What is the deal? Why do they sound that way? Popular theories --repeated episodes of pistonlike, blunt-force trauma to the soft palate, etc.-- do not explain this phenomenon.

kt- I [West LA from Indiana] think you're a wonderful sophisticate. It just seems weird to engage an advertisement with your full sensitivities and then claim to be ruffled that strangers care so little for your dignity. The money which paid for the ad was earned once you gave it your attention. Neither the advertiser nor his agents bear responsibility after that. Put another way: When you're walking down the street and a guy half-a-block behind you yells "Hey, asshole!", you don't turn around, do you?

I'm pretty sure that Portland actually should count as the provinces, as many (possibly a majority) come straight from the mid-west. I too am from MI. I also would be the male equivalent to a fag hag, as the vast majority of my fiends are queer.

The guys in the ad not only look gay, they very likely are. Having had a short stint in modeling, back when I was a pretty boy, I noted that about ninety percent of the models were gay. I have also noted that quite a lot of guys who really get into the toning and working their bodies, tend to be gay.

And this would have been my opinion when I still lived in the midwest. It has nothing to do with where I live, everything to do with my exposure to Teh Gay.

who said i didn't know lots of gay guys? i am gay, actually. i still don't think the guys in the ad look particularly gay or particularly straight. i don't particularly care what they are. the point was that i don't like to make assumptions based on someone's appearances. i've known several gay guys who are the only people on earth to dress with less style and care less about their appearance than i do. and most are about average. and by the way, i forgot to mention, both of my brothers are very straight. so's my "brother in law". he's a visual manager for a retail chain. he eats all the healthy organic stuff. he dresses according to the latest fashions. you would swear he was gay according to the stereotypes. he's not. goes to show you what stereotypes mean.

crid - you have a point. but it's still fun.

Good for you kt. Doesn't change the fact that in all likelyhood, every guy in that picture is gay. This does not imply that everyone who is gay looks like that or dresses like that. Nor does it mean that every guy who looks like that is gay. It doesn't even mean that all of them are gay.

But the fact is, that the vast majority of male models are gay. It is also true that a lot of the men who look like that are gay. Put it all together, it is quite likely that most, if not all of those guys are gay.

wow, you really hold on to your stereotypes for dear life. I hope it makes you feel more comfortable about yourself.

did it ever occur to you that perhaps the models you associated with were obsessed with their appearances because it had a rather direct impact on your career, and not so much because they were gay? does it occur to you that having known these particular gay guys might perhaps skew your view of the whole group, just a little?

either way, it's not the point. i don't really care whether or not the guys in the picture are gay or not. i don't care if 99 of 100 models or other guys who look like that are gay. there are an awful lot of straight guys who look like that, actually. the point is to not assume something about someone based on how they look. or how they dress. or what job they have. or whatever superficial quality they possess. what would you like me to assume about you?

the original question, actually, was whether or not the ad itself is offensive. this is not affected by the sexuality of the guys in the ad one way or another. the average person isn't going to look at that ad and say "oh, well i guess those guys are probably gay, and therefore the ad is unrealistic with a female in the picture" or whatever. they're going to take it at face value.

> the average person isn't
> going to

We needn't do the thinkin' for the little people.

kt: what do you have against making informed guesses? I know it's PC to pretend that nothing means anything, but I'm sure you make such judgements all the time in your own life.

And in this particular case, simple statistics tells me that if you randomly pull one guy from a bag full of male models, odds are he's gay.

I think you're mistaking prejudice for bigotry.

Look, my first thought when I meet someone that is exceptionally attractive is that they're probably dumb as a stump. This has been an empirical observation of many years. My guess is that if you are attractive enough you don't have to work nearly as hard to be noticed, and, in fact, are probably kept too busy socially to do anything very interesting.

But, here's the thing. If I find out that the person I've just met has a PhD in Mathematics, it's time to give up my pre-judged opinion (and maybe consider re-weighting my previous empirical statistic on attractive people). Because otherwise, I'm just a bigot.

I've got nothing against pre-judging. If I see a red glowing burner, I'm just going to assume it's hot. I don't have to put my hand on the burner because not all glowing red burners are hot. Prejudging is a requirement to survive.

It's bigotry I don't care for.

And I think you are too insistent that there aren't things we can learn about people from superficial observation. I mean, isn't that one of the whole points of fashion? To communicate to others things you want them to know about you through your choices of clothing?

Certainly if I were as buff as the guys in that ad, I would still not make their sartorial choices. Because they look too gay! I would be confusing my target audience.

Thank you, fustian. And I particularly loved that last comment.

ixrmpg oayh wujy vrqdjxik wcuxyb ihfktz fziuqod