Comments on: Chapstick Gets Cheeky

By: It's Time for You to Stop Being a Sex Object - Pillowtok #34 (Re-Release) - Gossipist

Tue, 24 Feb 2015 19:47:17 +0000

[…] communicated through faces, eyes, and eye contact: We get the same effect when we show women from behind, with an added layer of sexual […]

By: Gossipist – It’s Time for You to Stop Being a Sex Object – Pillowtok #34

Mon, 07 Apr 2014 13:38:02 +0000

[…] communicated through faces, eyes, and eye contact: We get the same effect when we show women from behind, with an added layer of sexual […]

By: Sexual Objectification, Part 1: What is it? | BWSS

Sexual Objectification, Part 1: What is it? | BWSS — Tue, 05 Nov 2013 06:01:04 +0000

[…] achieve the same effect when showing women from behind, which adds another layer of sexual violability. American Apparel seems to be a culprit in this […]

By: Sexual Objectification, What is it? | BroadBlogs

Sexual Objectification, What is it? | BroadBlogs — Tue, 12 Mar 2013 05:34:01 +0000

[…] achieve the same effect when showing women from behind, which adds another layer of sexual violability. American Apparel seems to be a culprit in this […]

By: seraphim delight

seraphim delight — Tue, 03 Jul 2012 21:14:53 +0000

[…] achieve the same effect when showing women from behind, which adds another layer of sexual violability. American Apparel seems to be a culprit in this […]

By: Sexual Objectification, Part 1: What is it? : Ms. Magazine Blog

Sexual Objectification, Part 1: What is it? : Ms. Magazine Blog — Tue, 03 Jul 2012 20:15:12 +0000

[…] achieve the same effect when showing women from behind, which adds another layer of sexual violability. American Apparel seems to be a culprit in this […]

By: Sexual Objectification, Part 1: What is it? | Caroline Heldman's Blog

Sexual Objectification, Part 1: What is it? | Caroline Heldman's Blog — Mon, 02 Jul 2012 23:49:11 +0000

[…] get the same effect when we show women from behind, with an added layer of sexual violability. American Apparel seems to be a particular fan of this […]

By: llllL

llllL — Fri, 09 Dec 2011 06:11:00 +0000

Reading this I was waiting for the line where you state the obvious and say you’re sarcastically mocking the Obligatory Sexist Denier. I still hope you are, because your comment has everything. All the things that are wrong: they’re here, you said them.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 21:12:00 +0000

Hooray! Teaspooning for feminism. :D

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 21:10:00 +0000

Yeah, cool- they could use ‘Hot For Teacher’ as the jingle. ‘I got my… pencil!”

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 21:09:00 +0000

Yep.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 21:09:00 +0000

MNMMMMFFFPPPPH!!!!!

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 21:08:00 +0000

That’s funny… my housemate asks where things are and I tell him: ‘If it was up your butt you’d know it!” XD

By: Leslie

Leslie — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 15:48:00 +0000

Yeah, but the thing is that sexy women are used to market toward everyone. The male gaze is so common that (straight) women learn that beautiful women = sex, attractiveness, luxury, etc. just as much as men do. (There’s also the idea that “you will be/feel associated with this level of sexiness if you use our product” – like chocolate ads with sexy women eating chocolate. Chocolate is going to make you feel this decadent and powerful! Eat it!) The idea that the gazer is male is so powerful that sexy pictures of men are often perceived as coded “gay.” Even though straight women theoretically like looking at them.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 20 Nov 2011 08:45:00 +0000

Well, there’s only one brand of Chapstick but several brands of lip balm.