Firefighters, kittens and tequila—oh my!

Is it time that we accepted the fact that all of us—men and women, straight and gay—enjoy seeing images of attractive people? Or is it all “exploitation” and unacceptable?

Clearly, liquor companies are always going to use sex to sell, but what does it say about who has the buying power if now instead of a girl in a skimpy bikini, Sauza tequila is using a hot firefighter and kittens?

I’m not complaining.

Hot firefighters and kittens are cool. What’s funny to me is that when we women cry exploitation when there’s a girl in a skimpy bikini in a Peta PSA, why do we turn around and yell, “more, more!” about naked Adam Levine and his girlfriend…umm…lending a hand in support of testicular cancer awareness? Is it time that we accepted the fact that all of us—men and women, straight and gay—enjoy seeing images of attractive people? Or is it all “exploitation” and unacceptable?

What’s the real issue here? It isn’t that men want to be reduced to being valued only by their appearance. It isn’t that women want to be valued only for their minds. So why the double standard? Is it only sexist when men do it or can women be sexist too?

Scratch that—it’s rhetorical. Of course we can. The question isn’t do we objectify or are we sexist, it’s are we all being a bit too sensitive about all of this stuff? Can we differentiate between true malicious objectification and appreciation of beauty—all types, all genders—and realize that while we squabble over it, advertisers are laughing their way to the bank.

Can’t we just call a truce and say what’s good for the gander is good for the goose (or whatever other cliche you want to use to admit that we all like seeing attractive people, we are all sexual beings and when we are talking about consenting adults—it’s not a bad thing?).

You mull it over and get back to me. I’m going to go watch the firefighter make another margarita. Cheers!

Relephant Bonus:

Like Equal Rights for All and elephant journal gets sexy  on Facebook.