I'm not generally in favor of "banning" stuff, but maybe Carl's Jr. went a bit too far (maybe NSFW)

[Atman]

59. But you asked why there weren't ads of sexy men!

It would be okay to use sexy men? As I said, I found several such ads...selling men's underwear to apparently gay men. Or men's cologne, to apparently gay men. Then you have the Gevalia coffee ads with women swooning over a man's coffee, and of course the old Fabio fake-butter (man-butter?) ads.

Not every woman featured in an ad is Photoshopped to hell. Although these days, Photoshop is so easy (and cheap) that it is something most advertisers have taken to. I used to shoot catalogs and ads for a major women's clothing chain, and the models we used would never be caught dead wearing the "ready-to-wear" crap we sold at malls across the country. And we never re-touched photos, other than color corrections or minor blemish removals done by the printer. And the models still looked great.

If you wanted to, you could make the argument that when Walmart started using their "real employees" in sales flyers, this was the ultimate in objectification. Here they used "normal" people -- not ideal weight, no super-model looks -- to tell everyone else it was okay to look "normal," which is fine. But Walmart's REAL motivation was to avoid paying real models, and further line the Walton's pockets. And put another segment of the population out of work. Models are very expensive. So Walmart used its employees virtually for free, who were thrilled to see themselves in print with their name and store # listed. THAT is objectification and exploitation.