There are many reasons not to like this ad.
First, comparing people to used vehicles is offensive. People do not depreciate or have warranties and you can’t make them look good-as-new no matter how hard you try. This article is suggesting that once someone has been deflowered or ‘bought’ off the lot brand spanking new, they are somehow used, less valuable, but you shouldn’t care because they don’t look it. Maybe you can still get a warranty.
I agree with Michael Babad, author of the article in the Globe & Mail that discusses this ad. He states:
The first ad goes in a bit closer on the woman, who, wearing a black dress, is depicted in a provocative pose, with her arm up, her hand pushing back her hair, and her chest prominent. My take is that the second ad shows the man,his tuxedo tie unmade, wearing a silky robe-type thing. He’s leaning back, almost as though he’s sitting on a throne, having already conquered, if you will.
Indeed. According to Gwen Sharp, assistant professor of sociology at Nevada State College and co-author of the Sociological Images blog:
It still plays into this idea that people who are non-virgins are depreciated, literally devalued, in the same way that a used car is not quite as good as a new car.
Ah, yeah. I agree with both of them. This ad is in very poor taste and does not depict the woman in the same light as the man. ‘Experienced’ women are not viewed the same as experienced men. The women are just plain sluts, a word for which there is no male equivalent.
Do you have one? Is there a word for a man who is sexually active that paints him with the brush it does a woman?
Is there a word for a sexually active woman that is not negative?