I'm a little surprised that during this whole conversation, no mention has been made of Benneton's controversial advertising. Their constant use of politics, sex, violence, and other controversial issues in their print ads has done them more harm than good over the years, I believe. Then take a look at Abercrombie & Fitch. Their use of the words "boy candy" on their pre-pubescent girls' underwear enraged parents of pre-pubescent girls like myself, who found that the limits of ANY decency or moral standard had been overstepped all for the sake of a buck. Advertising is always going to be "controversial" in some sense, in order to be noticed or heard (says me, the worldly and wise copywriter). But when it becomes potentially damaging or dangerous (as I fully believe Abercrombie's product was), I think we have a responsibility as humans to use some wisdom. As a professional in field, I deplore the bastardized use of exploitive advertising. It gives a bad name to those of us who have quality products to offer with honest value. NOW then. I don't mind the article in the NYTimes. It wasn't shoved down my throat, and wasn't espousing or advocating a particular message. I could choose to read it or not. What gets ME riled is when one forum is manipulated for gain in another (i.e., the examples I've just mentioned, or constant political speeches at Academy Awards presentations, etc.). You wanna' sell suggestive toddler girls underwear? Find a good porn site; I don't wanna' see that crap used in the general public arena.