This odd ad for Arlington's "Car-Free Diet" initiative, currently appearing in D.C.-area Metro stations, encourages Metro riders to tone up—and get flirting!—on their commutes. Love-themed transportation initiatives may fly in Copenhagen, but since D.C. already has plenty of passengers looking for "love" with the closest unsuspecting target on a crowded Metro train—sometimes non-consensually—is this really a selling point of ditching the car? Say what you will about the economic and health benefits of public transportation, but at least car-drivers don't have to deal with close-proximity leering. [Photo via Nikolas Coukouma].

In an e-mail last week, Sexist reader Ari Sahagun wrote in objecting to some "incongruous" advertising accompanying a Sexist blog post. She writes:

So I was reading some articles in The Sexist blog; mostly about feminism, women's rights, women's issues, etc.  I came to this page, where I was shown an ad about weight loss with a skinny, busty, blond woman in a bikini.  I'm attaching a screenshot for your reference [it's above -ed].

Can you, writers and hosts of a feminist blog, create a healthy space for feminist discussion, or must our entire lives be littered with this unhealthy imagery of women?

Good question! The short answer, unfortunately, is: No, I can't create a safe space here free from the encroachment of busty advertising. But I can write at length about my thoughts on that busty advertising! Below, a more involved rumination on sexist ads on a feminist Web site:

At the Washington City Paper, the newspaper that employs me and hosts this blog, the editorial and advertising ends of the paper are completely separate operations. The two sections of the paper are so uninvolved with one another that I generally have no idea who advertises in the paper; I simply pay no attention to it.

In many ways, this is a very good thing. Because the ads have nothing to do with my job, I can write about any subject I like in any way I like without fear of offending an advertiser. And if I do offend an advertiser, I don't care.  Last year, for example, I wrote a long story that took a critical eye to Catholic University's student sex ban. At that time, Catholic U. had a healthy advertising contract with the paper—a contract that was severed when my story hit, the university immediately ceased advertising in the newspaper, and  all copies of the City Paper were removed from its campus.

The busty dieting ad is far from the most problematic ad you'll find in this paper. After I wrote a blog post mocking local prostitution enthusiasts, one so-called prostitution "monger" informed me in the comments section that he had "found out about [several] massage parlors from their ads in the City Paper, and I have paid for sex with several prostitutes whom I found through their advertisements in the City Paper." If I cared about who advertised in the paper, I would have to determine that, because my salary is paid by these ads, it is in my self-interest to encourage support for massage parlors that offer "happy endings," and not write blog posts mocking people who frequent them. Thankfully, I don't care, so the mockery stands.

What does the City Paper's advertising department think of my blatant disregard for the advertisers who pay my salary? I don't know, because I don't care enough to ask, but I do know that no one has ever approached me and asked me to print something positive about an advertiser, or to not print something negative about an advertiser. And I afford our advertising department the same professional courtesy: I don't take issue with the ads they decide to book. And so, when an advertisement appears next to my blog which tells readers to "Learn the FREE tip discovered by a mom to turn their flats into a sexy body that they dreamed of," I have a lot of personal reactions to that ad. Like, how does a "mom" have "their" flats? Who are "they"? What are "flats"? Why do I have the sneaking suspicion that this tip is not truly free? I might even deem the ad enough of a train wreck of misogyny and copy editing to warrant commentary on my blog. What I won't do is go down to our advertising department and ask them to remove it.

Our advertising department does have its own internal standards that it uses to determine which ads are acceptable and which ones aren't. Again, I don't generally concern myself with those standards, but City Paper managing editor Andrew Beaujon did unearth some of the paper's classifieds guidelines last year: "In a City Paper ad, says [Classifieds director Heather] McAndrews, you can't post a photo of genitalia or penetration. 'Nipples are kind of on a fence,' she says." That being said: If you, as readers and potential consumers of the products advertised on our Web site, are ever turned off by any of the ads here, please contact our advertising department and let them know. I'm sure they'll be happy to hear your concerns.

According to one employee from an ad network solicited by Tucker Max, everyone's favorite rape culture scholar has been shopping around some ads for "I Hope They Serve Beer In Hell" based on his fratty "fact" catchphrases. Sample Tucker Max "facts": "Sexism isn’t the same as misogyny, you stupid bitch," and "The best thing about fat girls is heart disease."

Apparently, some ad networks don't like "facts"! According to the employee, the firm rejected the above mock-up, deeming it too "offensive" and "ignorant" for general distribution. The employee says that each of Max's "facts" proved contrary to the network's terms of service, as the advertising firm dos not tolerate "garbage."

UPDATE: Max confirms that his "I Hope They Serve Beer In Hell" ads have been rejected by firms, and has this to say:

"Fuck them. I definitely had some agency pull some holier-than-thou trip a few weeks ago and I went elsewhere. I'm not paying them money so they can tell me what my ads are supposed to be like. Fuck them, and anyone who thinks they can tell me what to say or not say."

Rarely am I moved by a feat of advertising, but this Amnesty International anti-domestic violence ad managed to resonate with me. The bus poster is equipped with a camera which uses some sort of futuristic technology to know when it's attracted your eye. The gadget aficionados over at Gizmodo are moved as well, in their own way:

Amnesty International has installed a new anti-domestic-abuse ad fixture in Hamburg, Germany which is equal parts clever and shocking: when you look at the photo, it's a smiling couple; when you look away, it's a dude punchin' a lady.

The high-tech ad, which is unlikely to make it to a bus stop near you, succeeds on an "ooh, shiny" tech geek level. But the new technology helps Amnesty's Ad register a more basic achievement: conveying a simple truth about domestic violence cases in a moment's glance.

Hollaback D.C., which has chronicled countless incidents of harassment on D.C. public transportation, appreciates Amnesty's effort as well —but rightfully wonders if the ad campaign would help anything if installed on the D.C. streets. The short answer is: Probably not. But it's nice to know that intelligent copywriters and cutting-edge technology are being put to use for more than just selling candy bars—and that the problem of domestic violence is worthy of attention from brilliant minds.

AdFreak has discovered these sexualized advertisements for Davidoff cigars. Each ad is accompanied by a photograph of a male model appearing to orgasm upon catching a whiff of some fine Davidoff cigar smoke. The ads read, "Every Man Has a D-Spot."

Finally, you may be thinking. Men reduced to sex objects in order to sell phallic shit, and not women this time around! [See female "O" faces in advertising: Exhibit A, Exhibit B, and a bonus nonconsensual orgasm ad in Exhibit C]. So is this gender equality? Is it regressive? Or is it just icky?

I say it's gender-equalizing regressive ickiness, but gender-equalizing regressive ickiness that reveals an interesting dynamic in mainstream sexist advertising. In traditional sex-sells ads, women's bodies are used to grab the attention of potential buyers whom admen assume either a) desire these women or b) want to be these women in order to be desired by men. The focus, then is always on male pleasure.

And these ads are no different, as this collection of orgasm faces attests:

Still, focusing the imagery directly on male sexual pleasure is helpful for a few reasons. First of all, the ads are specifically not focusing on women/objects as a means to that pleasure. Great!

Second, this conscious inversion of the male gaze is visually disturbing enough to serve as an implicit commentary on our collective comfort with exploiting female sexuality in advertising. We're comfortable looking at the boobs, but looking at the people looking at the boobs? Yuck!

And then, there's the whole cigar thing. If you buy into the idea that a cigar is not just a cigar, these men are getting off on the perceived sexual potency of their own dicks, and that's pretty funny. I really hope that's what you were going for, Davidoff!

Still, while I appreciate the attempt at sexist imagery switcheroo here, I'm not sure I ever want to be comfortable being persuaded to buy something by looking at a David Duchovny look-a-like experiencing a contact high orgasm:

Via Feministing, a photo of a new ad in New York subways for Manhattan Mini-Storage—and against Sarah Palin. When will the kitschy pro-choice advertisement strategy hit the District?