Now, why is that?

Is it because you just don't get it?  Being sexually interested in women doesn't make you sexist--making them into objects, as this advert does, makes you sexist.

It really shouldn't be called "sexism" at all because that's a poor description of what's happening.  "Objectification" and "gender discrimination" are far better descriptors.

Men aren't treated the same way as women; men are not made into objects whose primary asset is their physical beauty, rather than their character or intelligence.  Women have to fight EVERY DAY to be taken seriously as intelligent creatures.  That's why many women are so sensitive to slights such as this one.

However, I find the ad itself not so monumentally offencive--since it will quickly fade into oblivion, like most pop culture--but the vicious, offencive manner in which Markos and his frat boy posse have defended the advert.  Actually, I didn't even notice the advert until this diary was posted--but I DID notice that Markos went out of his way to deliberately insult people who dared question him.

By the way, you seem to know an awful lot about me for somebody who doesn't even know my gender.  Perhaps you don't me at all?  That must be it.

They/we don't, but it says something about you, perhaps, that you only NOTICE it in contexts like this. If you're not seeing the depth of criticism/commentary/thought on these sorts of things, except when somebody doesn't like a beloved, titillating ad -- its only because you dont care to pay attention.

First of all, before you get all up in my grill about female sexuality and being ashamed and all those other feeble rabbit punches you have in your arsenal, let it be known that I am a bonafide pornographer. I sell that shit every working day of my life and I know ALL the angles. I have no problem with porn, with female sexuality, male sexuality, lesbianism, homosexuality, what you do in your bedroom or to whom, as long as they're human, of legal age and consenting.

Let's talk about sex. That ad has NOTHING to do with female sexuality. That is pseudo-lesbianism designed to titillate and draw in the male gaze based on a widely-known American male sexual peccadillo. Whose staple of sexuality is it? I mean, really, come on. We all know that a lotta guys get off watching two women get it on, especially when they're caricatures of women doing it for the benefit of the male viewer. Those two women potentially getting off is NOT the point. It's the viewer, you, the guy, getting off that is the point.

By knowing that, I play thousands of men like a fiddle using it to get you to open your wallet, watch my program, buy my images.

Now let's talk money. That ad is firstly, BADLY TARGETED MARKETING. You don't market to a group of people who are going to end up resenting the hell out of you for it. You can't make money off people you piss off. What constitutes money in this context? this includes all the posters and lurkers who provide free content, page views, ad clickthroughs and donations to candidates promoted on this site.

Now let's put both sex and money together, and put it in a politically progressive site with a really big female demographic. Because clearly you didn't notice, that ad is a signal, shorthand for all the little things that are unsaid, that women have to struggle against to this very day. Being used as an object, in imagery or reality, and sold for money. Sounds a little like prostitition, doesn't it? How does that go over in a progressive site? Like a lead balloon. And if it doesn't for you, then I feel sorry for you. You're deadened to the concerns of a good crosssection of the Democratic community.

Yeah, it's a dumb, softcore ad. I thought little of it when I first say it last week-- I haven't even clicked on it. And sadly, it's not really the ad that bothered me. What really chafes my ass about this whole issue is that some of the Kossacks here can't see this for what it is, and are coldly insulting about it to boot. That ad is a visual signal, shorthand for a whole world of issues that women have to struggle against every day, in large, explicit ways and small, banal, implicit ways. Do I REALLY have to ennumerate them all here? Are you really that tiresomely stupid?

I can tolerate Miller Lite catfight commercials during football games and other dumb sexual marketing ploys in the proper context, but by God I want some respect out of my political community. Put the tits in your bedroom where they belong. This is dailykos.com, not fucking nerve.com.

For all the talk of seeing nuance and shades of gray and how great Dems are because of it, and how big tent we want to be, I'm not seeing it here. And to not see it in the leader of this site, someone who's a Dem, progressive, and a minority is especially disappointing.

Sorry my first and last post was a flame. I'm taking my vote, my clickthroughs and my political contributions elsewhere.

Well, of course heterosexual men like to look at women's breasts.  It's healthy and normal to do so.

BUT--This isn't about whether or not you find the ad sexually titillating, nor about sexual prudishness.  It is about making women into objects--and that was done deliberately, consciously, not because it was "hard wired" into the human brain.

I personally don't think the ad is worth fighting over, tho'--it's a tempest in a teapot.  What's upset me is the way Kos and others have reacted to criticism--not mildly, but with a withering anti-feminine blast that is truly disheartening.  Some of the comments I've read, from Kos and from defenders of his comments, have been quite hateful.

I can almost remember from the farther away parts of my education reading about what different peoples of the world consider arousing or attractive. (Perhaps the more Anthropologially skilled among us could care to comment.)

Apparently there are places in the world where a girl can't hardly get a date without an artificially elongated neck or decorative scars on her face.

There ARE places on this earth where men exist that would find the Pie Fight amusing, maybe - puzzling, certainly - but hardly erotic. I'm just saying that it's possible that you are aroused by what has been presented to you as "sexy".

Although, admittedly, those places are becoming fewer thanks to the steady march of "Western Civilization" to even the farthest reaches of the globe.

Interesting side note: A small island in Micronesia finally got television. A while later, they began noticing bulimia in its population. Coincidence? Nah...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/347637.stm

So is shrill extremism, which you are an example of.

The objectification of women - and support of it - cuts right to the heart of exercising power. It says women are not as important and, as Recordkeeper mentioned, it also says that women who have a problem with it don't matter.

I agree with Recordkeeper and Shadowthief - it's the mean and dismissive attitudes here that upset me. I see plenty of crap on TV, in movies and in advertising that blatantly objectifies women. Does it piss me off? Yes. I suppose I just didn't expect the same attitudes from a group of people who often consider themselves enlightened.

this is just absurd. i'd like to see some documentation for this claim, and i won't accept any source published by an organization with the words "family" or "faith" in its name.

anyway, what's your point? even if true, what does it have to do with a racy commercial, or with kos' apparently inflammatory remark? same goes for most of your post, which, like so many others in this thread, is a sputtering, semicoherent string of nonsequiturs and bizarre, irrelevant claims. outrage is cheap, insight is harder to come by. we get that you're outraged...what else ya got?

pornographic spam, which every single email user gets every single day, makes you feel "absolutely assaulted"? just as you feel "assaulted by this website"? good lord, get a grip. it's only a website. god help you if you ever have to endure a real assault, metaphoric or literal.