cross-posted from: https://poptalk.scrubbles.tech/post/4855549

October 1

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -5 points 3 weeks ago (21 children)
  • [–] 35 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

    She explicitly did not want to be sexualized in those ads. She made IG stories about it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 3 weeks ago (17 children)

    Because you dont need to sexualize the AT&T employees?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [+] -10 points 3 weeks ago (13 children)

    But they are desexualising them

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 3 weeks ago (8 children)

    You're implying women are to be sexualized by default, and that it's a good thing

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago

    Only partially. They could be implying that all humans, regardless of gender are to be sexualized by default and that's a good thing. If that's what they're saying, then I agree with them wholeheartedly.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago (3 children)

    Remind us which parts of a human are sinful to acknowledge, and why more of those put women at a disadvantage again? It seems a little sexist.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago

    It's not a problem to acknowledge any body part or attraction to it. It's weird to signal that ads not prioritizing showing off the boobies means they're missing something (referring to the desexualizing comment).

    The actress has nice large breasts. Great, I like them too. AT&T didn't rely on them to sell products, but instead decided to focus the viewer's attention on their products and services. What's wrong with that? It's a mobile internet service, not Hooters.

  • source
  • parent