AH!! She looks like a mannequin. Why does the media feel the need to airbursh everyone into oblivion?

she looks awful and she has worn leather a million times in the past. not to mention the louboutin shoes she wears currently

<<i hate it when it when certain PC feminists are like you can only be a certain way and when you chose to pose naked or whatever youre "making chicks look like sex objects">>

There's a difference between posing naked for fun and trying to sell a politicalpersuasion with "sexiness." As I said before, it's cheap. C-H-E-A-P.

It has nothing to do with "prude."

Hell, with this "sex sells" notion, perhaps the plight of the Palestinians would actually get more support over here if they put forth ads of naked, beautiful Palestinian women?

<<What's wrong with sexy ads? Sex is a wonderful part of life. I don't see what's wrong with using pretty, healthy young women to promote animal rights and good health.>>

Perhaps if they used average looking women who weren't airbrushed to hell and back and uber thin (Jameson at least put on some weight!) it might be a little different. Maybe. But in addion to purpotrating the "sex object" notion it's yet another ad that perpetuates and ideal "perfection." I have a 13 year old niece who is absolutely beautiful (much much prettier than I ever was) and already she's got body issues (which to a degree goes with the age, but for all the images of what's "sexy" that she might not feel she has, it can turn into a worse issue). TV, actresses, models etc already put the beauty myth across, do political ads really have to go there too?

I hate it when models jump onto bandwagons to make themselves look good, without taking in any of the message. There's no point in having someone (Ms Jameson or other) say leather is cruel if they don't follow the message "they're" telling others.

__________________