Was I too discreet when I spelled that out in this article? "I have news for you Awl, it's not just the TV execs, it's the client and the ad agency too."

Jesus David, you couldn't have found a smaller image?

As I've stated many times before, sexist ads are bad for everyone and there's a difference sexist and gender normative... Two wrongs do not make a right (but two Wrights can make an airplane). You're comparing an underwear ad - where the actual product is shown on a model - to a nutritional supplement ad, where the models body is (presumably) the result of the product. Lets compare apples to apples instead, last month in the UK Bulk Powders ran a campaign with a completely naked man wearing only strategically placed pixels (image attached). I do not recall any uproar or outrage against this ad (there, now I made your point but with an identical product example).

In both the Bulk Powder campaign and the Protein World campaign, the physique of the models are (presumably) the result of the product being sold. So basically, they're testimonial bodies, if you will. Showing the bodies is thus actually called for. I would say the same if the product advertised was say, a core training class, gym weights or related products.

This is not like the "Studly Steve" eye-candy cariacature, where Zesty guy might be the best example, and some women actually found offensive (ew! Man-cooties in my salad, gross). The "Sexy Steve" trope got so old at one point that I even told Adweek that Studly Steve is as bad as Doofus Dad. Point being, these half-naked models draped across the hood of a car or cooking in your kitchen wearing only an apron are objectified eye-candy only, and actually distracting from the product being sold. IE; bad advertising. I hate bad advertising. It doesn't matter to me if it's a man or a woman in the objectified position.

Also, that non hairy man you're showing is not what I consider drool-worthy. But the man in my bed is.

hahaha, "lysande"