Common themes represented here:
Normalize porn/prostitution. Female sexuality as commodity; using “sex” to sell things.
Pornify girl children/infantilize adult women. Yay ice cream! I’m a grown up but I love ice cream, give me more ice cream.
Woman as “useful object”. Applies in all contexts where women are used as objects, where their utility decreases over time. Here, a young woman is being used to sell things, and her worth or earning potential in this context will decrease over time, even though she is gaining experience, and in other contexts would have seniority and increased value.
Additional notes: A liberal analyst might point out that Dove is utilizing “sexuality in advertising” here, or something generic about objectifying women, or using “sex” to sell things. But why is the ”objectification” of women in advertising unacceptable to liberal analysts at all, when they seem okay with the sexual objectification of women in every other situation? In other words, how can liberal feminists and others simultaneously hawk a lipstick-and-stilettos pro-consumerist rhetoric as being “empowering” for women, and do so independently of the misogynist empornulated imagery that accompanies it, and which deliberately targets women to keep us poor, and therefore permanent members of the disadvantaged sex-class? And how, at the exact same time they are saying that actual porn is okay, can they say that empornulated images in advertising, particularly, are a problem?
The real reason, of course, that these empornulated images are problematic for women is that they highlight, encourage and “sell” heterosexual PIV-centric sexuality to both women and men, which is the very foundation of male dominance, and of female submission to men. And where media images are a force, and both the (literal) text and the subtext in our culture, where particularly city-dwellers are exposed to some 5000 advertising images a day. Empornulated images in advertising are problematic because they are PIV propaganda, and PIV is harmful to women and not to men. And the female-specific harm of PIV represents the key to the patriarchal kingdom.
To be clear, empornulated imagery in advertising is not problematic in a feminist context because its ”unfair” to women, or because it causes disordered eating, or anything else. Even though these things might be true, issues of “fairness” and unfortunateness that could theoretically befall anyone, regardless of sex – like eating disorders — might be of humanist, but not of radical feminist concern.