People may have had their freedom of personal expression stymied back in the days when gender roles were rigid, but many of them felt comfortable knowing what was expected of themselves and of others. What remains from the "bad old days" is the feeling that if one gives without getting then one is being "used," and this goes for a woman who "gives of her favors too freely" just as much as it goes for some poor schlub who is being used by women as a meal ticket when they have no interest in him whatsoever.

Back about 25 years ago, I knew a few men who seemed to be happy just to take me out to dinner and have me seen on their arms. Granted, most men wanted some intimate alone-time with me as an "understood" part of the deal (and I didn't date such men unless I had some sincere sexual interest in them), but there were a few who seemed to want nothing more in return.

And, during that same time period, I knew one young woman who made so little money on her job that that if she didn't go out on dates that she didn't get to eat during the last week of the month. Granted, she didn't stand up for herself and demand a raise that was commensurate with her value to the company, so I'm uncertain as to whether to blame her for her own victimization or whether to blame our former employer for not being proactively appreciative of a valued employee. She "used" men because our employer "used" her--and both she and the men seemed to be willing victims.

I have also known a few men who reacted with out-and-out hostility when I suggested "going Dutch" or paying for alternating dates (something that I have as a pretty firm policy, as it's consistent with my feminist values), and I'm not sure where they were coming from with that hostility, unless they were expecting to get an upper hand in the relationship by setting up some sort of a "tit-for-tat, now you've gotta scratch MY back" obligation scenario. Or maybe they just hated ANY expression of feminist values?

I have known all sorts of men (and women), who've had a wide range of attitudes around the connections between monetary gifts, sexual favors, no-strings sex, etc., and the only valid conclusion that I have reached is that the whole thing is like a very complex minefield, one that's impossible to cross without making some near-fatal missteps. Speaking as a feminist, non-traditionalist woman, I can tell you that my behavior and attitudes are welcomed by some men, mistrusted by others ("OK, when is the other shoe gonna drop? There has to be some catch!"), and met with outright hostility by others. Furthermore, sharing sexual pleasure with someone without having favors given to the woman in advance makes that woman a bigger "whore" in the eyes of many men than a woman who participates in an understood-from-the-outset out-and-out-exchange of dinner-and-entertainment for sex.

The inherent lack of respect for people who would "use" others--OR engage in "mutual obligation schemes"--is discouraging, to say the least. The idealist in me had hoped that this sort of attitude would have gone out of fashion long ago.

At least this ad campaign--as poorly-placed, as ineffective, and as big a waste of money as it may be (according to the other posters here--I haven't seen them, myself)--doesn't have a potential to cause traffic accidents.

And then there was the "Stop The Spread" billboard on Hwy. 237--also a long while back--that was blatantly anti-gay rights. I had more issues with that one than I did with the anti-abortion one, mostly because the one on 237 seemed to be advocating open hostility against individuals and their supporters, as well as a rollback of already-granted civil rights. (I was informed that this billboard--like those of the anti-abortion campaigns--was also church-sponsored.)

Both campaigns were saying, "We don't like the law, and we want to see it changed." But the at least the anti-abortion faction doesn't seem to be advocating violence against women (at least not YET)--it just wants to "guilt" women into making what they feel is a "better" choice.