John - peace through understanding!   Aside from being the motto of the old New York World's Fair, I think it fits here.   It is very easy to misread intent and tone in e-mails. It is also easy for the writer (me) to not fully explain thoughts. I thank you for the post and I too apologize if MY words were interpreted as insulting, that was not my intent.

I do see your points John and I know that people consider him to be a "sellout", but I go back to an earlier point that people place too much on Dylan to be a "spokesperson" or hold him up to ideals that he never created. Sure there was an image, but how much of that was open to interpretation? How much did he really create and how much did the media and OUR generation thrust on him? There are numerous examples where he shunned the title of being a spokesperson. In a way, we all fell victims to "corporate masters" by turning Dylan into an idol instead of a great songwriter and performer, which is all he ever was.

I do understand the issues with corporations and people should question the motives.   However, I don't think we should always pre-judge or disregard a commercial just because it comes from a large company. Victoria's Secrets sells bras and panties - they aren't trying to change the world. They want to showcase their product in the best possible light and they aren't taking themselves too seriously. We all try to sell our own product in many ways, and I can't fault anyone for that. Dylan is having fun, he isn't pushing a product that will harm us.    I do respect your views on how the media sells sex, but in this case I personally feel the commercial is different.   Having a beautiful woman in a skimpy outfit is not an invitation to be a plaything and I don't feel the commercial treats it as such.