4 ms·
I am not limiting it to attractive women, that is just the example I used. I think that extrapolating the idea to attractive men, to unattractive people in skim
by axguscbklp 5y ago
I am not limiting it to attractive women, that is just the example I used. I think that extrapolating the idea to attractive men, to unattractive people in skimpy outfits, and so on makes sense.
- jjulius 5y agoBut it's still a really terrible comparison. Advertising is designed to attract your attention and convince you to do something. Individuals, by and large (and, obviously with exceptions - working out, dieting, cosmetic work, etc.) cannot control what they look like. Even with those exceptions, they have absolutely zero control over what other people may find attractive or unattractive about their bodies. What is simply a comfy outfit that one individual chose to wear might be deemed "skimpy" or sexy by you but not by others. They're wildly different things, and the assumption that just because some skin is showing means that someone's trying to get you to look at them is also incorrect.
- axguscbklp 5y agoWell yes, that assumption is incorrect, but I am not making that assumption. When I said skimpy outfits I had in mind skimpy outfits worn in the context of the wearer wanting to attract attention. Maybe I should have been more precise, but I assumed that my audience would understand what I meant without me having to spell it out. Also, when I wrote my original post I had two different things in mind - intentional grabbing of attention, which is what the person I was replying to had in mind, but that post also made me think of unintentional grabbing of attention: for example, would that person be annoyed by just some random airplane passing by the beach even if it does not carry an ad? How much does intention matter? Etc.