Me: “Oh, you don’t like that?”

Bassie: “No. It’s exploiting the movie!”

Yeah, that’s right, my eight year old daughter uses the word “exploiting” without prompting.

And that’s why you talk to them like they’re real people and not babies. Because otherwise she might have said something stupid, like “It’s using the movie for something that it was not meant to be used for.”

Pu-lease. We must be nothing if not precise.

Really, after that, there’s not a ton more for me to say, so I’ll just do a few quick soundbites:

1. Sure, put a normal looking girl in a 3″x3″ picture on p. 194 of your magazine. Viva la Revolucion it’s not...

2. But let’s not all go off about how excited we are to see a woman who is “the dress size of the average American woman” in a fashion magazine and then ignore the fact that obesity is a real problem in America. No, not for this girl; she looks great. But she’s also, like, what? 5’10″? 6′? And a size 12. I mean, she is just a big girl, every which way. But the average American woman is not that tall, and she’s still a size 12. Which can also be okay, if you’re healthy and that’s just the size you are (God knows I know from whence I speak, for lo, I have seen the valley of the skinny girl but have not pranced through her fields; have seen the glistening size 2 rivers, but have not drunk from their waters), but, like, we are a fat nation, and that’s a no good-a. So let’s not use Hottie McAmazon here as an excuse to let ourselves go completely, America!

3. Bassie and Dina call this look the “squishy mommy”. Nice. (At least they know the fate that awaits them…)

Ooh...racy!

And everyone’s in an uproar…

Of COURSE they are! Of COURSE Calvin Klein was betting on a socially center right country to freak out over what is, frankly, a lot more tasteful than other ad campaigns in recent years with similar vibes:

how soon we forget...

This line, from a clearly thoughtful blogger not unlike myself, may be the best I found in my scourings of thoughtful blog posts on this topic:

“Calvin Klein displayed a barely pubescent, topless girl in various stages of hook up with more than one gorgeous but no doubt ill-intentioned man…”

My thoughts:
1. If that girl is barely pubescent, I would like to be barely pubescent. Look at her, for God’s sake! We’re not talking Lolita here!

2. It is sexist beyond comprehension to suggest that these three men are “ill-intentioned” regarding their behavior with the girl. Does this girl look “taken advantage of”? Does she look “put upon”? Does anyone look anything but 100% complicit in this act? And, again, compare the Calvin Klein to the D&G ad above if you want to see what intentional “ill-intentions” look like. That D&G girl looks like she is struggling…does that Calvin Klein girl look like she just can’t get away?

Look, you can personally object to it, say it’s dirty or unholy or whatnot, but to suggest that there’s no way that this girl would commit the act portrayed on the billboard willingly is insulting.

In fact the only “ill-intention” I see is the likelihood that these men are gay (given the statistics in male modeling) and that they may go ahead with this foursome even though they are not really attracted to the girl. Now that’s mean!

“Visit Utherverse.com and have your pick of quality men in a safe, fun environment. Utherverse has had more online marriages than any other online dating site . Get to know him virtually before meeting him for real! Take charge of your dating life at utherverse.com.
Read more…”

“More online marriages…” I LOVE the ambiguity of this statement. Does it mean:
* More couples who meet here get married than any other online dating service?
OR
* People get “online married” here, as in, their avatars go to the virtual Elvis chapel to tie the virtual knot?
OR, my favorite, and probably the one that is actually TRUE:
* More people who are on this site are actually MARRIED and cheating on their spouses with deceptive avatars than on any other site because we don’t require any sort of background check or even gently suggest that you not ava-date if you’re already married to a real human being.

Hot. Also, though, just fyi, that’s not how you spell “other”, guys. Kthnxbye.

p.s.- for the more socially conscious…(although I don’t think PETA was planning on making separate “European” and “American” versions of that one; pumpkin licking doesn’t really translate on the other side of the pond).

Oh, by the way, I’m really into these Dentyne ads:

I’m especially intrigued by the image on the left (upside down people) because of its gender neutrality. I mean, I was pretty sure that the person on the left was the girl and the person on the right was a boy. But, honestly, it could go every which way. And that one down there on the right… I’m pretty sure it’s two chicks, one with sweet boots and one with sweet Chucks.

Or I just want it to be, because that would be awesome.

yosef’s insight might be more sociopolitically sound: didn’t feminism teach us that it’s a woman’s right to choose to be gang raped?

When Audrey Hepburn is your model, you’re kind of writing off the size 4 and ups, you know?

(thanks to mirth for recalling my attention to this crisis today)