This is downvoted, probably because it is considered to be 'conservative' and therefore 'bad' in this rather myopic community. It is also wholly to the point and correct in the observation that the ever-present sexualisation of - if not everything then at least a whole lot of things - is tiring and numbing. 'Sex sells' is taught at the marketing courses so sex is has to be. First a tiny bit, then a bit more because the last ad has already lost its edge. Then, a bit more still. Bit by bit, piece by piece the magic of sex is sold off for a lousy few euros or dollars or pesos or whatnot because sex sells.

While people see more sexualised imagery then probably ever before younger people have less and less of sex with their peers. Sex sells, still. For how long, I wonder.

▲

Zigurd 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I'd wager in the reason it's downloaded if in fact it is, is that it's creepy, not "conservative." Views of sex that are retrograde and nostalgic, motivated by challenging depiction of sexuality, are the problem. As we've seen with some public figures, being closeted about gender preference, kink, etc. is the real problem, not whether young people are being choosier about sexual partners or are just less interested.

▲

hagbard_c 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Can you explain what is creepy about not wanting to be bombarded with sexualised imagery in the service of peddling wares? Do you consider sexuality - our species most basic drive, hard-wired into both sexes and manipulable by those unscrupulous enough to do so - as just another 'expression of personality' that you want people to 'un-closet' their sexual proclivities instead of keeping them where they are traditionally kept, always a bit in tension with 'polite' society but for that all the more exiting?

▲

Zigurd 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Ads have become safe and bland. Automotive parts and tools calendars ain't what they used to be. The sexual imagery of things like OF is the product, it's not selling a product. I've never seen one instance where trans visibility has been used in an ad. Closeted sexuality is a big source of society's problems. The combination of shame and power has terrible results. The era before Stonewall was certainly exciting for the police doing the beatings. But maybe those in the wrong people to ask.

	▲	drdeca 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		What does transgender visability have to do with any of this? The topic was about including sexual things in ads, not things about gender identity?

▲

drdeca 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Huh? What about Mountain_Skies comment is "creepy"?

They presumably recently came across some muffin shop that has like, a double entendre as a name, or something like that, and took it as emblematic of a larger pattern, which they dislike. (Obviously they weren't saying this is a pattern specific to muffins.)

I don't know what would be creepy about this? I also prefer to not think about sex or sexuality. If I could make it so for the next few months, I couldn't perceive information about sex or sexuality (except if there is something where I ought to do something with that information) and could not experience sexual arousal for those months, I would.

It sounds like you are somehow connecting their preference to like, whether people are socially pressured to keep things about their sexual interests a secret? I don't see the connection.

▲

phantasmish 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

If the take was intended as conservative, I’d say it’s actually leaning pretty far into “accidentally left-wing”.

Market forces ruin fucking everything in their attempt to paperclip-maximize, if you don’t keep them on a leash. That includes sexiness. What’s described is an outcome of a system where “it makes number go up” is sufficient justification for almost anything.