Misogyny.

your image suggests otherwise

it's okay to use tits and ass to sell beer... but it's a public outrage if women go topless

that's the contradiction

the former places women in the position as objects..if they didn't want to objectify women, there would be just an equal marketing campaign of using men solely for their physical attributes.. and that would be every inch as sexist

the latter says that women are also sexual objects but from a "moral" viewpoint.. that women should conceal themselves out of respect for societal values

in closing... your image isnt an ironic commentary on the alleged hypocrisy of the statements.. both statements are absolutely correct
 
your image suggests otherwise

it's okay to use tits and ass to sell beer... but it's a public outrage if women go topless

that's the contradiction

the former places women in the position as objects..if they didn't want to objectify women, there would be just an equal marketing campaign of using men solely for their physical attributes.. and that would be every inch as sexist

the latter says that women are also sexual objects but from a "moral" viewpoint.. that women should conceal themselves out of respect for societal values

in closing... your image isnt an ironic commentary on the alleged hypocrisy of the statements.. both statements are absolutely correct
Naw, it ain't like that. The message of the picture was that certain people get mad when they can't walk around naked, but then this same bunch also gets mad when they see women in swimsuits in ads, you know, like the poutrage over Paris Hilton's Carl's Jr. ad. The point is, whichever way you change the law, you can't satisfy these people.

However there are right wingers who don't want women walking around naked at all, and drool over Paris Hilton's ad. Usually in secret, of course. Them's ain't me. I don't care if you walk around naked, long as it isn't in front of children. Paris Hilton's ad didn't bother me.
 
Back
Top