|
|
|
|
|
by brd
4599 days ago
|
|
I don't get the argument here. Look at a fashion magazine geared towards women, what do you think the ads look like in those magazines? Marketing copy with attractive people tends to convert better than marketing copy with unattractive people. Are we just supposed to sabotage our own marketing material in order to... what exactly? If sex sells its not because IT is a male dominated industry, its because sex sells to the population at large. Why don't you go to Hollywood and tell them to start hiring more unattractive actresses in star roles, I'm sure that would have a much larger and more immediate impact than changing the marketing copy on a few landing pages. You can't honestly expect IT to be the ones that pioneer more 'ethical' marketing practices. |
|
Our society is really fucked up and repressed about sex.
I'm really glad there's a man around to tell my partner that if she wears bathing suits to the beach and a man sees her backside that she's a victim instead of advocating she wear whatever the fuck she wants (including nothing) to the beach.
When my partner and I go to the beach we have to travel an extra 15 minutes because she'd rather go topless, that's fucked up and repressed. I can go around where ever I want with my top off, but thanks to white knights like the writer of the article she has to travel an extra 15 minutes lest a man (who is uncomfortable with naked pictures of his own gender) have to see her tits.
I'd be more impressed if people like the author could look at a woman wearing a bathing suit with out immediately thinking about sex than any blog post he could ever write about how women are sexualized. It's really fucked up that he can't think a woman at the beach in a bathing suit is doing anything other than being sexualized.