Reply #151: Actually, my point originally was to the people who AREN'T on that page.

[Warren DeMontague]

Trust me. There are people here- I'm not saying you're one of them- who will go on and on about the outrage of this or any similar graphic depiction of anything pertaining to sex (I'm not going to call it "sex" because even though I may be talking about something that is contained inside the Venn Diagram of "sex" I will be accused of claiming it is the ENTIRE Venn Diagram)

...upon being asked, okay, what graphic display of erotic human nudity, sex, or sexual activity would you NOT consider offensive, oppressive, or outrage-worthy, and there aren't any. It's not a question of "broader inclusion", it's a question of not liking it to the point of being outraged it exists. Period.

And that was the gist of my original, one line post.

Is a commercial that uses the bodies of women and nothing else in order to make money* substantially different in any way from pimping?

I don't know. First off, did the women leave their bodies before appearing in the commercial? Did their consent have nothing to do with it? Is it meaningless that they chose to be in the commercial? Would it still be pimping if it used men, too?

Is porn "pimping"? Most porn, unless it's free, "uses" the bodies of people to make money.

Personally, I don't care what it's called. Consenting adults can use their own bodies as they see fit, I think, and that includes getting naked in front of a camera for money, or a cause they believe in, or both.

Also, you keep calling the women in this commercial "sluts", "hos" and "whores". That's not the impression I get, and I suspect the women in the commercial don't feel that way about themselves or their sexuality. Since we're all supposed to be engaged in deep reflective paradigm-challenging soul-searching, here, maybe you should ask yourself where you get those labels for these women? :shrug: