THE hopelessly chauvinistic views of Peter Lavac ('Happy to be sex objects', South China Morning Post, July 10) sink to even lower depths of sexism than the Carlsberg ad on which he is commenting.
Not only does he praise the ad for 'portraying life as it really is', he implies that this is life as it should be.
After all, according to him, 'physically gifted women' are happy to be sex objects and ugly women who are jealous are the only ones who want to change the status quo.
Such sweeping generalisations just go to show how rarely Mr Lavac looks beyond women's vital statistics and asks the opinion of those he speaks for.
I have a friend whom many people deem stunningly attractive; yet she longs for a man who is interested in her personality and is more cynical of men's motives than anyone I know. Another friend has a figure which would not turn heads but whose sense of humour attracts lots of men.
These two examples alone prove that you don't have to be ugly to complain about being treated as a sex object and that you can't categorise a person's attractiveness purely according to how 'physically gifted' they are.
Mr Lavac is missing the point in this whole Carlsberg debate, which is that there is a difference between men appreciating women's sexual appeal and treating us like sex objects, which Mr Lavac does even more effectively than the Carlsberg ad.
The most offensive aspect of the ad is not the fact that the men in it are making comments about women's legs; it is the fact that Carlsberg is so blatantly using women as sex objects to sell beer to an assumed male market.
JENNY BUCK Discovery Bay