October 1

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 28 points 1 month ago (17 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 1 month ago (13 children)

    But they are desexualising them

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 month 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 1 month 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 1 month 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 1 month 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