Re the article link below. Would you be OK with your kid thumbing through a magazine at the orthodontist’s office and they page across these ads? I’m not too exercised about it, but weirdly the pixellation almost makes them more transgressive and more potently sexual than a straight up photo of the act. The pics are very nicely done.
No nudity but there are huge chunky pixels where the nudity was
But well they are still wearing them in the pictures. And it seems to me that “If you wear our clothes, someone will want to tear them off you because they want to sex you” isn’t such a terrible sales pitch.
I was being a little facetious. But still, it’s hard to tell what the clothes look like, which I’d think would be what the consumer would want. And people want to have sex with the models because they are young and attractive. They could be wearing a ratty t shirt and jeans from Target and people would still want to have sex with them.
As a side note, pretty much every kid born since, what, 1985? 1990? with access to the internet has probably seen hardcore porn many times in their childhood. Even if they didn’t intentionally click any links, there are all kinds of porn spammers on some scammy websites, porn spam emails, and some message boards - including the largest one in the world, reddit - routinely have pornographic content.
So if it causes damage, it’s already done. (I don’t know enough about the subject matter to comment, other than to say that for probably most of the history of humanity, people lived in small groups where there was little privacy)
They’ve been beaten to it. Way back in 2007 there was a thread here about a French company called Shai Clothing using a hardcore clip to sell its clothes.