I wouldn't have even noticed it. I'd never have used the terms he used, but I don't have any real issue with the way it was framed.
I find it odd that would be the thing to pick out within the statements, but perhaps I'm not as sensitive to the language as I should be?
Edit: I can't seem to reply to a level deep, so I will put some remarks here.
Re: over - In my view it was just an analogy, and had no deep insight into the views of marriage. Just my impressions
Re: th0ma5 - Boys doesn't have any negative connotation, but I understand the point you're making. I don't have much to add except that I didn't read it as anything other than an analogy.
Re: zepto - I keep saying bar because that's often where you'll hear this sort of language, but it isn't limited there. I respect your views that it isn't appropriate, and again, I would never use that language to explain it.
But I don't take offense to it. Again, perhaps I should. I may not be as enlightened as I should be.
But then again, it does reflect a lot of marriage decisions, particularly in high society, so it's probably appropriate. This is actually what happens when personal life starts to look like business life. So probably... better not to be so brazen about it because it's a bit chauvinistic. Honesty isn't always the best policy, sometimes you have to consider people's feelings and reactions.
The problem comes when an executive is speaking on the record in the way he would speak off the record.