What is loveliness?

I read the letter 'Victorian morals' (September 13) regarding sexist advertising, and have some observations.

Joanna Hor-wai Ching Barnes' suggestion that columnist Luisa Tam needs to recognise how physically lovely men and women are is grossly patronising (as only 'one of authority in the advertising world' could be).

Isn't it the advertisers that try to tell us, from season to season, year to year, what physical loveliness is? By the way, there is a fitness machine, diet plan or gymnasium to help us achieve it, for a few dollars of course.

Are advertising models picked at random from the 'physically lovely' people walking round Hong Kong every day or are they hand-picked from huge portfolios to provide the image you want to sell? Maybe, Ms Barnes, for your next photo shoot I can assemble some real 'physically lovely' people, hairy backs, acne, beer bellies - and that's just the women.

Surely it is a given that the advertising industry has an exploitative culture in almost every way, including sexual exploitation.

Its basic aim is to exploit the consumers' emotions and desires in order to make them spend more dollars, regardless of whether the campaign is run by a man, woman or trained monkey.