Reply #157: Then you should address them specifically.

[darkstar3]

Your first two paragraphs are a generalization painted with a broad brush. I recognize that there are DU members who seem practiced at taking outrage, but if you want to be taken seriously, you need to put your broad brushes away and address those posters and those problems specifically. We, you and I, are having this conversation, and I am trying to make you understand that, whether they practice it or not, people have a right and multiple reasons to be offended by this shitty commercial.

Now, as to your other points...

First off, did the women leave their bodies before appearing in the commercial?

Another flip and absurd response designed to deflect from the topic at hand. Swing and a miss.

Did their consent have nothing to do with it? Is it meaningless that they chose to be in the commercial?

Many prostitutes "consent" to being pimped, and "choose" to be prostitutes. That choice and consent doesn't negate the fact that they are being pimped, and it doesn't serve to legitimize the industry or make it safe.

Would it still be pimping if it used men, too?

Yes, that's how pimping and prostitution works. The fact that you consider prostitution to be an exclusively female profession is problematic.

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

Frankly, yes, for the most part. There are exceptions to that rule, but I don't think you're ready to process that level of nuance yet.

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.

Believe it or not, I agree, but that's where that earlier mentioned nuance comes into play. Did those consenting adults choose to get naked in front of a camera for money, or were they coerced into it by someone who's going to make more money off the deal than they will? How a person ended up naked on camera is much more important than the simple fact of filmed nudity.

Also, you keep calling the women in this commercial "sluts", "hos" and "whores".

No I don't, and once again I find myself correcting what I think is a deliberate misreading on your part designed to shift the focus of the debate. I did not call anyone in this commercial any such thing as a slut, but rather attempted to demonstrate that this commercial's depiction of women is problematic, and could (and probably would) be seen by many as "slutty behavior." I have no doubt at all that some poster-child for misogyny referred to them as such as he showed the video to his buddies on his phone.