Advertising uses this not because it is "sexualized", but because men will buy toxic waste by the barrel if you draw nice titties on it.
This statement makes no sense. Associating sex with non-sexual things is the definition of sexualization.
And I know why advertisers do it, it's not rocket surgery to figure it out. Their motivation doesn't change the fact that the action itself objectifies and degrades women (and to a lesser extent, men).
Watch an advertiser sell SUVs to women: they have a big, hulking, strong look and are advertised as serving and protecting the kids. That is the masculine face of advertising.
You quote me stating that men are sexualized, and respond by explaining how men are sexualized? What's your point?
This statement makes no sense. Associating sex with non-sexual things is the definition of sexualization.
And I know why advertisers do it, it's not rocket surgery to figure it out. Their motivation doesn't change the fact that the action itself objectifies and degrades women (and to a lesser extent, men).
Watch an advertiser sell SUVs to women: they have a big, hulking, strong look and are advertised as serving and protecting the kids. That is the masculine face of advertising.
You quote me stating that men are sexualized, and respond by explaining how men are sexualized? What's your point?