I forgot to address that part.
So, in that context, the woman is the john and the men are the prostitutes, after all, she is the one purchasing the product.
So, should we be mad at her? How far do you intend to take this ridiculous analogy?
Seriously.
So, let's sum up.
1. We should be mad that a company made a commercial that suggests that women do in fact have sex drives. That is a bad thing to do according to the second wave brigade here. Any suggestion by any commercial or media that women have a desire for men is bad according to some folks. I'm trying to decide in which century this kind of thinking actually belongs. I'm torn between the 16th and 17th centuries.
2. Any commercial or such that acknowledges that women have sex drives is the same thing as porn and prostitution. That is despite the fact that the commercial has no nudity (not even any leg or arm skin), no sex, and no contact at all between any of the humans in it. Not even a kiss, hug or a hand shake. My has porn and prostitution changed!
3. Anyone who disagrees with the second wave brigades obviously flawed interpretation of #1 or #2 cannot possibly be a serious feminist or serious about women's equality.
To which I reply a great big 
and 
Edit history
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
= new reply since forum marked as read