We can't say we're surprised. The readers of ATL probably have a higher-than-average tolerance for things that push the envelope (or the bounds of good taste). But for what they're worth, here are the results of our most recent reader poll:

Reader opinion is consistent with that of Dahlia Lithwick, who had this to say about the controversy:

Help me out here. Because I consider myself a feminist and I am always one to fetch a pail of water in the service of gender equity. But can someone please explain what it is about this particular ad that "demeans women" and undermines our success in the workplace?

Can someone help me understand why the president of the Women's Bar Association wrote in to the publication in question, calling this ad a form of "gender discrimination"? Am I supposed to be outraged about the fact that this nearly naked woman is using her near nakedness to seduce a colleague (a trick that goes back to the first fig leaf, I believe) or that a clothing company is using the promise of uncontrollable, spontaneous workplace sex to seduce clients (a trick that goes back to the first Fig Leaf Emporium)? Not much about the ad suggests that women are disempowered, after all. This couple could be married. The man might be the woman's secretary. He may well be billing her by the hour....

"The man might be the woman's secretary." An excellent point. And kinda hot, too.

Is the Jiwani ad sexist only if you approach it looking for sexism?

Jurisprudes? [Slate]

Earlier: The Jiwani Ad: Hot or Rot?