It wasn't offensive for girls featured in the video (or why did they?), yet it's immediately offensive for some random stranger on the net who then proceeds to command its removal. If something is gross here, this is.
P.S. Objectification is a kind of strange word. Human body is an object. It's physical, materialistic.
Now, if there would be objectification of human soul (or whatever other thin layer) that where we would start to worry, but there isn't.
"Objectification is an attitude that regards a person as a commodity or as an object for use, with little or no regard for a person's personality or sentience."
If you're a model, that's what you do for a living. I mean, they use their body to demonstrate clothing. Where could they get the space to display their personality and sentience here?
If it's okay for them it should also be okay for everyone else, don't see why not.
>It wasn't offensive for girls featured in the video (or why did they?), yet it's immediately offensive for some random stranger on the net who then proceeds to command its removal. If something is gross here, this is.
Got to say, I agree. The advert doesn't appeal to me in the slightest - the sexuality is so in-your-face and over-the-top. It's pandering and almost condescending:
Look, a geeky guy hugging a model in panties! Buy our shirt, it has a website logo on it. Look, here's some boobs, here's some leg, you're a man in your twenties who works in tech, so this is what you want, right? So just give us the money already.
The advert has turned me OFF the product it was selling by being too overt. But that's just me.
What I find objectionable about this saga is Kane's rather entitled "I find this offensive, so it must be removed" attitude. The advert itself is not, in my mind, sexist. The idea that women need some kind of guardian angel who stops models from being shown in promotional videos - that I find offensive.