> Women are attracted to men and men are attracted to women. This is basic nature and no one can change it.

Except when, you know, they are gay or on the asexual spectrum.

> Using either to sell a product is not exactly sexism. For example, many deodorants use both male and female models to promote their products.

People aren't objecting to the existence of ad, but rather that this marketing reduced women's bodies to a commercial commodity. Lack of self agency and a women's body as property is a very sexist issue that is present in US culture today and affects many.

> Sexism in my definition would be when given the same opportunity, when one gender is being paid or treated better than another gender, that would be sexism, because someone is being treated unfair.

This is the case today. We have well documented instances of individual sexist treatment and systemic sexist treatment, mostly towards women.

> What hypermac (the company in question) did was not wrong. They hired models who were for god's sake ready to do it. They were ready to accept money and stand nude on their product exhibit. It would have been unfair if they were treated unfair, or against their will, none of which had happened.

Getting a job isn't some kind of process that occurs in a cultural vacuum, a lot goes into why people take on jobs that are sexist in nature. Also, just because the company can hire models for sexist marketing doesn't mean they should.

> The real problem about women being objectified is that women are ready to be objectified - either for money or for some other form of compromise.

This is victim blaming at its prime. You are blaming cultural objectification of women on women.

> So, if you want this to stop, you have to revolt when someone from your own gender (male/female) is ready to represent your gender infront of a public audience and accept to be objectified for money.

This directly against what feminism is even about in the first place. Feminism doesn't proscribe that you attack women who exercise their self autonomy. In fact, telling women to attack other women who act in a way they don't approve of is a common way to sow discord and distract people from the larger social and cultural issues that affect their lives. That is, you are telling people to ignore context and attack other people who are just as affected by our society as they are.

> Don't go after the corporation that hired them, instead ask these people why they let them objectify you, on behalf of you/your gender in the first place. This is the real problem.

That you see no problem with ignoring corporate behavior and attacking individuals speaks a lot about how you feel with regards to corporate domination and control over people's lives.

> I love the way that these rogue women go after men (and vice versa) only because they want an apology to feel superior and write a blog post about it.

Lol "rogue women"

> There's a great saying - Any publicity is good publicity. I hope these feminists realize this and stop fucking themselves up like this, publicly.

So now feminists are fucking themselves up because a company engaged in sexist marketing and people called that out? What's really fucked up here is how willing you are to defend companies and marketing over the actual lives and experiences of people who are directly affected by that kind of sexist marketing.