<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Calvin Klein, this is NOT better.</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.about-face.org/calvin-klein-this-is-not-better/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.about-face.org/calvin-klein-this-is-not-better/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 13:40:07 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: HeatherB</title>
		<link>http://www.about-face.org/calvin-klein-this-is-not-better/#comment-546</link>
		<dc:creator>HeatherB</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Jun 2009 04:33:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://about-face.org/blog/?p=676#comment-546</guid>
		<description>I&#039;ll take your Not Better and raise you one: Does anyone else think this ad is actually WORSE than the original? I sure as heck do.  Yeah, both ads are guided by the ever lucrative sex factor, but at least the sexuality expressed (and, naturally, exploited) in the first ad has some directionality; that is, the sexuality of the depicted female is pointed toward two, if not all, of the males in the picture. To some extent she&#039;s active and engaged in the scene and has ostensibly chosen to receive the lusty advances of the pictured others. By contrast, the model in the replacement ad is supposed to receive the lustfulness of anyone and everyone by pure virtue of her barely dressed, glistening bikini bod. No one knows what she&#039;s doing or thinking and no one cares - She&#039;s sexy. And wet. And fifty feet tall. Who needs to know anything else, right?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ll take your Not Better and raise you one: Does anyone else think this ad is actually WORSE than the original? I sure as heck do.  Yeah, both ads are guided by the ever lucrative sex factor, but at least the sexuality expressed (and, naturally, exploited) in the first ad has some directionality; that is, the sexuality of the depicted female is pointed toward two, if not all, of the males in the picture. To some extent she&#8217;s active and engaged in the scene and has ostensibly chosen to receive the lusty advances of the pictured others. By contrast, the model in the replacement ad is supposed to receive the lustfulness of anyone and everyone by pure virtue of her barely dressed, glistening bikini bod. No one knows what she&#8217;s doing or thinking and no one cares &#8211; She&#8217;s sexy. And wet. And fifty feet tall. Who needs to know anything else, right?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dc_united_15</title>
		<link>http://www.about-face.org/calvin-klein-this-is-not-better/#comment-545</link>
		<dc:creator>dc_united_15</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Jun 2009 01:22:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://about-face.org/blog/?p=676#comment-545</guid>
		<description>hahaha I like the writing style. but you are right. i want someone to challenge me, won&#039;t happen though.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>hahaha I like the writing style. but you are right. i want someone to challenge me, won&#8217;t happen though.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
