We live in a world where vulgar, misogynistic rappers, Beyonce the ass-waver and leg spreader, and the Kardashians are young people’s role models. I doubt that running an ad suggesting they’ll look hot in a certain selection of dresses does them any harm at all.
The target of that ad is girls. Calling oneself or a friend a “hottie” would be, maybe unfortunate compared to other traits a girl could prize, but basically harmless. An adult using the word to get them to buy a dress would be a bit manipulative and maybe insulting, and well, that’s advertising for ya.
But offensive beyond that, I dunno. I mean think about it, saying a woman is a “hottie” simply means she’s reproductively fit. And a man’s admiring her body is the act of sizing her up for reproductive fitness. Tits, ass, legs, whatever, these are all indicators of her fitness to bear and raise children. Men are predisposed to mate with such a woman because for millions of years those who prized those traits and had desirable traits themselves, managed to mate and pass on their genes (both the “hotness” and the taste for same), and insofar as those traits aided survival, child-rearing and the next generation’s future mating process, they were passed on with disproportionate success. It’s all really really dumb (it says nothing about how likely she is to learn calculus or cure cancer for example), but it works, for perpetuating the species through long years of which modernity is only the tiniest fraction.
Where underage girls are concerned, they (and the boys) don’t yet have the judgment to foresee or discern between an okay mate, an awful mate, a sexual predator, or just the life-ruining effects of early pregnancy in a modern setting. So you are being asked and legally compelled to keep your dick out of them. This is for their sake, not because they’re not “hot” enough yet. Quite to the contrary, many of them are entering their peak time of reproductive fertility and sexual attractiveness. And of course somehow the urge survived evolution that makes a small minority want them before they’re even sexually mature… which I find creepy and don’t understand, but that’s part of what we’re trying to protect them from. But there should be no shock or surprise that there can be “hotties” among them. It’s biology.
It’s a fashion site. The fashion industry is built on negging and shaming women one moment, and praising them to the skies the next. I think “homecoming hottie” fits perfectly into their MO.
No, it doesn’t. It’s not “biology”, it’s sociology.
They must have changed the ad, because I’m not seeing the word “hotties” anywhere.
It says she’s reproductively unfit, then?
Forget it, Brawn, it’s Libtown.
Woman physically fit!
Physically fit!
Okay up to here.
I was unaware that models, who are often thinner than they should be, are models of reproductive fitness. What is “hot” is culturally determined. And to be sexist about it, not all men agree on what is hot, which is lucky for our reproductive futures.
These ads try to get their target audience to visualize themselves as attractive by imagining they will look like the models if they buy the dresses. The dresses themselves seem fairly conservative compared to the stuff my younger daughter’s friends wore to their prom.
I think the word - which has been removed - did refer to the dresses and not the girls. But since it could be and was misinterpreted, they trashed it.
Kids over 18 often portray teenagers in movies/TV because union rules restrict the amount of time younger kids can work. Models are not unionized, and shoots are shorter, so I don’t think older models go younger that much. Especially here where the models are just wearing dresses with nothing obviously improper going on.
So I agree that the age is irrelevant, but I doubt the models are 20.
Forget it, asshole, it’s asshole town.
oh, ok, so taking a dress in a bag would be “bringing the heat”? Good to know. I was thinking that they expected them to be worn. By a person. My mistake. :rolleyes:
They’re young, healthy, and in prime child-bearing age. Barring anorexia-level thinness, there’s no reason thin girls/women can’t have kids. Many have.
Yes, but only superficially. Young, unusually attractive girls and women have always caught male attention in ways that the word “hot” conveys today, no matter what the cultural standards are now, or have been in the past.
What on God’s Green Acres is sexist about this perfectly obvious observation?