Shiek what's his name got into trouble over using the uncovered meat analogy.

Yet Melindas example of uncovered flesh and sexism would seem to add more weight to the shieks analogy.

I have a theory that heterosexual male attraction to the female form is hard wired by evolution and genetics. Apart from performing lobectomies on the male population, I doubt if there is any real answer to the vexing questions Melinda proposes.

But then Melinda could always change her perspective. then problem solved.

I know that, as a feminist, the venerable Melinda would scarcely be interested in this. But surely such a campaign is as demeaning - if not more demeaning - to men? The implication of the campaign is that men are driven entirely by their sexual needs. Something as innocuous as deodorant - arguably less important to one's sex appeal than toothpaste or shampoo - is marketed entirely around sex. A bunch of women willingly take most of their clothes off for the campaign, and men are expected to come running.

Ultimately, the fact that such campaigns work indicates that plenty of men and women don't care about these matters. The women participate and DON'T boycott Unilever, the men lap it up and Unilever makes a profit. Until one or more of these things changes, I suggest that Melinda is out of touch with the concerns of our society.

There is a trend that is emerging in articles by Melinda, Helen and Nina just to name a few.

Basically it comes down to demonizing male or more specifically hetero male sexuality.

Helen wrote that even the most upstanding respectful man can be a rapist, Melinda writes that there is something wrong about appealing to male sexual desire, and that women are subservient sexual slaves.

Melinda is right about sexism being alive and well, but then in psychological and psychiatry terms, projection and transference would seem to be strongly at play here.

Not to mention promotion of anti-choice feminism.

The radical feminist anti-male slant was embarrassing to the mainstream of feminism decades ago, resulting in angry protests and it still is.

'While I frequently write about the objectification of women and girls, this issue has been unrelenting of late. Sexism is alive and well.'

No, you've been unrelenting of late Melinda.

Seriously, why is it someone can continue to be published when they have no new ideas, and just continue to spew out the same rubbish article after article? Does anyone here know how to build a career in order to do this?

I agree though that 'sexism is alive and well', as evidenced by the sexism displayed by Miranda in this article.

I think a quote from r0berts links (Which I may add, are 10 times better than anything MTR has written on the subject of sex and porn in umpteen articles) sums it up...

'many condemnations of mainstream porn incorporate a “view of masculinity itself as inherently hostile and dangerous” and a tacit claim that male sexuality “needs to be kept on a short leash, where men’s viewing of violent or pornographic media is restricted, either through community pressure or state action, lest the dumb beast of a man get the wrong ideas.”'

The 'dumb beast' seems to sum up MTR's general view of men.

'No qualms about sending men off to work all aroused?'

How dangerous! They may not be able to control themselves and rape every woman in the office!

'Everywhere they look, women and girls get the message that they exist for male gratification and pleasure. Their reason for being is to serve men and meet their every need.'

Everywhere you look Miranda. Does it ever occur to you that the rest of society gets the message that women don't 'exist' for male 'gratification', just that men find women attractive, and can be attracted to women without thinking that is the sole purpose of women.

I think you better turn down the hyperbole meter.

Speaking of which, that picture does not depict gang rape! I suppose in Miranda's world, any group sexual activity must of course be instigated by a man and be rape.

It's looking more and more like MTR really fears male desire.

It is about degree.

This article is not about diminishing men's or women's sexuality it is about the continuous sexually objectification of women in the media and its effects on socialisation. If you think media and advertising have no effect on consumers or on reinforcing/establishing a particular mindset then you will no doubt disagree. (Shades of the tobacco industry denying that advertising encouraged smoking despite spending millions on the exercise.)

Also, this article is not about demonising the sexuality of men - where on earth did that come from. If anything this Ad makes men look foolish as if they are led purely by their sexuality and have nothing else to recommend them which is of course untrue. We are all sexual beings.

My simplistic take on this is that it is about manners and respect for each other. Sexual advertising is inevitable to some extent but it is about how far you take the sexual angle. I agree with MTR that this Ad seems to be advertising a brothel - maybe done tongue-in-cheek. At first I thought maybe this Ad was a bit of a spoof, almost making fun of overt sexual advertising - maybe it is.

As the first poster wrote, the consumers can show their response one way or the other by voting with their feet.