[saus]

I agree sex is used in advertising the world over, no doubt about that.

The difference in my opinion is very simple, one is advertising, the other is taking girls or guys and having them sexed on camera, on web, etc etc or anything else to make a pornographic product that is eligible for people either 18 , or 21 and older.

The only thing that is the same is the use of an attractive model to lure eyeballs, after that there aren't many analogies. The sex acts themselves make it perfectly legitimate to require strict laws to protect young women from being sexually exploited on camera, because they are engaging in sexual acts. it's one thing to hype a tv show, or magazine articles by wearing a skimpy bikini, another thing entirely to sell & market hardcore sex, full frontal nudity, masturbation etc. I don't think that's a double standard as the scale does not balance imho.

what is the debate, whether its wrong to use attractive people & natural sexual impulses to sell any products & services, or whether appearing on maxim magazine is the same as appearing on the cover of an xrated dvd? To the first question I think everyone agrees, it is widely used across the advertising world. To the second question I think there's room for opinion, the laws just happen to fall on the side of maxim is not the same as being dp'd on camera for what i think is legitimate reasoning.