...Be a little more polite. 'Oh come on, please' does not contribute to a reasonable discussion, rather encourages a flame session which is useless for all concerned.
> If you take big issue with that (like you seem to do), your problem is with the simple evolutionary fact that men fancy good-looking women, good luck trying to change that...
Or perhaps I have a problem with what they use it for and the effect it has on the users. You fail to even consider that possibility.
I could draw an analogy between that and adding cocaine to soft drinks (good luck trying to change the human brain's reaction to that chemical...) - it's not a question of natural [heterosexual] male behaviour, it's the fact that it is used to manipulate with complete lack of regard for how it might affect the non-target audience.
>As for 'what marketing does to women both when advertising to them and advertising using them': did you ever care to have a look at one of the millions of magazines explicitly targeted at women? They are full of pictures of fashionable sexy people, male and female, for the exact same reasons some geeks put bikini pics in their powerpoints: because the audience likes looking at them...
Again, what is isn't necessarily what should be. Actually the huge use of airbrushed models in womens' magazines is often harmful to women/girls, as they try to match up to a fantasy view of a woman (encouraged in mens' minds by what they are shown.)
> I don't condone sexism in any way, but trying to find some kind of evil sexist motives, intentional or unintentional, behind every instance where women are depicted for their good looks, seems extremely cynical and sour to me.
Again with the emotive language! Not useful. My extreme cynicism and sourness aside ;-), if a person's good looks is used in a context where doing so encourages a prejudice, then it's bullying, plain and simple.
Nobody's in denial of natural feelings of attraction here, that's a straw man I feel.
I really believe you should lighten up a little. I can see where you're coming from and I don't disagree with everything you say, but from the way you put things in your comments in this topic, I get the impression you're drawing the line too far from where it really matters. Distasteful use of imagery containing scarcely clad women usually doesn't imply sexism.
I agree with the unrealistic anorexic photoshopped models you see on ads and magazine covers, but I'm not sure whether I can even attribute that to 'sexism', as it appears to be the fashion ideal for many women, for whatever reason. None of my male friends even like that kind of look, and yet it's somehow the norm in fashion and lifestyle targeted at women. Is that sexist? Why do women think men find anorexic women attractive? Could there be other reasons things are the way they are, that are unrelated to sexism?
...Be a little more polite. 'Oh come on, please' does not contribute to a reasonable discussion, rather encourages a flame session which is useless for all concerned.
> If you take big issue with that (like you seem to do), your problem is with the simple evolutionary fact that men fancy good-looking women, good luck trying to change that...
Or perhaps I have a problem with what they use it for and the effect it has on the users. You fail to even consider that possibility.
I could draw an analogy between that and adding cocaine to soft drinks (good luck trying to change the human brain's reaction to that chemical...) - it's not a question of natural [heterosexual] male behaviour, it's the fact that it is used to manipulate with complete lack of regard for how it might affect the non-target audience.
>As for 'what marketing does to women both when advertising to them and advertising using them': did you ever care to have a look at one of the millions of magazines explicitly targeted at women? They are full of pictures of fashionable sexy people, male and female, for the exact same reasons some geeks put bikini pics in their powerpoints: because the audience likes looking at them...
Again, what is isn't necessarily what should be. Actually the huge use of airbrushed models in womens' magazines is often harmful to women/girls, as they try to match up to a fantasy view of a woman (encouraged in mens' minds by what they are shown.)
> I don't condone sexism in any way, but trying to find some kind of evil sexist motives, intentional or unintentional, behind every instance where women are depicted for their good looks, seems extremely cynical and sour to me.
Again with the emotive language! Not useful. My extreme cynicism and sourness aside ;-), if a person's good looks is used in a context where doing so encourages a prejudice, then it's bullying, plain and simple.
Nobody's in denial of natural feelings of attraction here, that's a straw man I feel.