But then there is the Plastic Pam, Only Fools and Horses type and are just abused for the sex act and then those very worrying companion types that they dress up and sat in chairs and give a name and talked to.
Both types sound pretty worrying to me. Can't say I'd much fancy a bloke who I knew had been 'abusing Plastic Pam for the sex act'. :eek:
On the subject of sex toys (how did we get here?) in the male gay world their is such a device as a F***ing Machine, (Just DO NOT Google that!!! Don't do it!!! ) and seems almost exclusively in the domain of the gay male world - Why are females of all types not using these?
On the subject of sex toys (how did we get here?) in the male gay world their is such a device as a F***ing Machine, (Just DO NOT Google that!!! Don't do it!!! ) and seems almost exclusively in the domain of the gay male world - Why are females of all types not using these?
Your Google must be broken, those machines have been used by women for decades (both in private and in the world of porn).
Perhaps you have ticked the "gay male only" box in your search function?
Both types sound pretty worrying to me. Can't say I'd much fancy a bloke who I knew had been 'abusing Plastic Pam for the sex act'. :eek:
To be fair - before the advent of things like the flesh light or those replica vagina things - there was little else around.
I think the sex doll part is actually incidental in some ways - its merely structure that holds the "receptacle" in the correct orientation for hands free masturbation.
As a man, I used to work at big musical events/ sporting events. If you found a lost child you had to stand still, get a member of the public to escort the child to reception with you. Under no circumstances were you to be alone with the child. Is it fair that society assumes I am a danger to a child because of my gender?
That is as much for your protection as the child's safety. It's not unknown for children to make false accusations. Nowadays even women would be sensible to do the same.
Particularly following this mornings suggestion by the Director of Public Prosecutions, which may lead to a few "guilty until proven innocent" moments.
Not if he's underage she doesn't, she gets called what she is... the p word. Rightly so.
Not on DS they dont
With stories about older women seducing under-age boys or girls, the language used to describe them isn't anywhere near as harsh as it is in cases where the sexes are reversed. There have been several threads on DS over the years discussing stories of this nature - words like paedo, nonce, scum etc very rarely if ever get used. Such words seem to be reserved for describing male child sex abusers.
Well I would! But yes, the usual suspects would pop up with the H word or even the E word!
Women who do get prosecuted for having sex with underage boys do often get similar sentences to men though, and that's what matters - not what certain people pop up with on DS!
As a further example (but not in the way the OP originally meant), we've had women practically giving a flake bar a blow job for years on TV (sometimes naked in a bath too) and that's been all well and good.
Yet I would imagine an advert that implied a man was indulging in some cunning linguistics* would cause quite a stir.
So I'd say there was certainly a double standard there, in men's favour.
Women who do get prosecuted for having sex with underage boys do often get similar sentences to men though, and that's what matters - not what certain people pop up with on DS!
I thought we were discussing what they get called - not what sentences they get given.
It is not the same thing. Whilst it is not fair for all men to be labelled for the sins of a few - it is men that commit the bulk of reported sex crimes.
Fixed that for you.
Personally, as a man if I were to offer to help a child that had gotten lost in a shopping centre, or was walking about with my toddler nephew, or was walking along the street at night and there was a woman ahead of me, it would be *me* that is seen as a bad person by society. It's insane. It's the same for things like divorce, parental leave, bringing up children. Men are assumed to either not care (the suggestion there being that men don't love their children!) or that women are somehow better. Pretty much the entire care and legal system is geared towards women.
In terms of sex, a lot has already been said. I don't buy the whole 'women see strippers for a laugh; it's not as seedy as if men do' thing. Women get their rocks off to nakedness just as much as men, I'd imagine otherwise how would the human race continue?
And if you think it's bad for straight men, just imagine what it's like for gay people. We have a choice of trying to be helpful or doing nothing - both of which get criticised.
We either have gender equality or we don't; and to be honest we don't.
So I'd say there was certainly a double standard there, in men's favour.
On the flip side - can you imagine an advert where a group of men throw a can of pop to a woman who is simply trying to do her job - opening said can of pop causes the woman's top to get soaked through - and the group then letch and giggle at her while she removes it.
That's the basis for the current diet coke ad (sexes reversed obviously).
Quite. It is a known fact that sex crimes perpetrated by women on children is under reported - and up until fairly recently in history - wasn't even considered to be possible (and as such wasn't taken seriously).
Some studies actually indicate that for male children - women pose a higher risk of offending than men do.
On the flip side - can you imagine an advert where a group of men throw a can of pop to a woman who is simply trying to do her job - opening said can of pop causes the woman's top to get soaked through - and the group then letch and giggle at her while she removes it.
That's the basis for the current diet coke ad (sexes reversed obviously).
That's kind of my point, what is being done now is just the reverse of what was done before.
The use of women's bodies in advertising has gone on for so long that it rarely raises an eyebrow, it's accepted as part of everyday culture. It's the norm.*
But now men are being used that way, and it's new and gets attention. Eventually the shock of the new will wear off and frankly no one will give a damn about seeing anyone in their underwear.
Yes, some of the adverts can be seen as sexist towards men either in a "men as sex objects" way or in a "men are rubbish and never cook and always catch man flu" kind of way. But it's not like women haven't been portrayed in similarly sexist ways in the past, it's payback if you like or a reversal of the norm done in that way to catch the attention...which after all is what an advert should do.
EDIT - *Indeed, as demonstrated ably below. Geeky male sprays Lynx, semi clan babes appear and drape themselves over him. Women are therefore sex crazed creatures driven to lust by a whif of Africa. Is anyone up in arms at such a simplistic sexist generalisation? No, they are too busy going CWORRRRR! This doesn't jump out as a terribly sexist advert because it's what adverts have "always been like".
On the flip side - can you imagine an advert where a group of men throw a can of pop to a woman who is simply trying to do her job - opening said can of pop causes the woman's top to get soaked through - and the group then letch and giggle at her while she removes it.
That's the basis for the current diet coke ad (sexes reversed obviously).
As a woman I love that new Diet Coke advert.
Look at the various Lynx ads, a man sprays himself with Lynx and gets what seems like hundreds of hot young semi naked girls flocking to him.
They're just ads, I find it hard to get offended by that kind of stuff tbh.
I'm all for equality, but the job should go to the right person, regardless of sex or colour, and should not be forced on us by laws etc. What annoys me is when we get these "Power Women" coming on tv moaning that they didn't get the job as Director of "Such and Such Company", it seems a lot of women want equality, but just the glamourous jobs, never see them complaining that there's no female "bin men or person" or sewage pipe cleaners etc..
They're just ads, I find it hard to get offended by that kind of stuff tbh.
Me too - but we are discussing double standards not offence.
What is acceptable in an advert aimed at women - wouldn't necessarily be acceptable in an advert aimed at men if the sexes were revered (and vice versa).
That's kind of my point, what is being done now is just the reverse of what was done before.
The use of women's bodies in advertising has gone on for so long that it rarely raises an eyebrow, it's accepted as part of everyday culture. It's the norm.*
But now men are being used that way, and it's new and gets attention. Eventually the shock of the new will wear off and frankly no one will give a damn about seeing anyone in their underwear.
Yes, some of the adverts can be seen as sexist towards men either in a "men as sex objects" way or in a "men are rubbish and never cook and always catch man flu" kind of way. But it's not like women haven't been portrayed in similarly sexist ways in the past, it's payback if you like or a reversal of the norm done in that way to catch the attention...which after all is what an advert should do.
EDIT - *Indeed, as demonstrated ably below. Geeky male sprays Lynx, semi clan babes appear and drape themselves over him. Women are therefore sex crazed creatures driven to lust by a whif of Africa. Is anyone up in arms at such a simplistic sexist generalisation? No, they are too busy going CWORRRRR! This doesn't jump out as a terribly sexist advert because it's what adverts have "always been like".
Just to be a pedantic so-and-so, those Diet Coke adverts with a few women ogling a 'builder' type bloke have been around since at least mid 90s.
Look at the various Lynx ads, a man sprays himself with Lynx and gets what seems like hundreds of hot young semi naked girls flocking to him.
They're just ads, I find it hard to get offended by that kind of stuff tbh.
As a further example (but not in the way the OP originally meant), we've had women practically giving a flake bar a blow job for years on TV (sometimes naked in a bath too) and that's been all well and good.
Yet I would imagine an advert that implied a man was indulging in some cunning linguistics* would cause quite a stir.
So I'd say there was certainly a double standard there, in men's favour.
*yes I know that's not the real phrase
How is that in men's favour? Surely its another thing which goes against men.
The woman simulating a blow job on the flake bar is portrayed and perceived as attractive and desirable. That is the reason for the advert because it invokes a positive image for the product.
If an advert showed a man simulating "cunning linguistics" on say a cream cake, I'd imagine that the general perception would be that the man was a sad, disgusting pervert.
Which is why adverts like that don't exist because advertisers know that it wouldn't give a good image for their product.
Comments
Both types sound pretty worrying to me. Can't say I'd much fancy a bloke who I knew had been 'abusing Plastic Pam for the sex act'. :eek:
Perhaps you have ticked the "gay male only" box in your search function?
To be fair - before the advent of things like the flesh light or those replica vagina things - there was little else around.
I think the sex doll part is actually incidental in some ways - its merely structure that holds the "receptacle" in the correct orientation for hands free masturbation.
Yep - there is a site called sexmachines dot co dot uk who retail these. They seem very much aimed at the female market.
That is as much for your protection as the child's safety. It's not unknown for children to make false accusations. Nowadays even women would be sensible to do the same.
Not if he's underage she doesn't, she gets called what she is... the p word. Rightly so.
Otherwise, Saskia44 is right, in post #2. It's just how things are and it won't change as long as more men than women are sexual predators.
Not on DS they dont
With stories about older women seducing under-age boys or girls, the language used to describe them isn't anywhere near as harsh as it is in cases where the sexes are reversed. There have been several threads on DS over the years discussing stories of this nature - words like paedo, nonce, scum etc very rarely if ever get used. Such words seem to be reserved for describing male child sex abusers.
Well I would! But yes, the usual suspects would pop up with the H word or even the E word!
Women who do get prosecuted for having sex with underage boys do often get similar sentences to men though, and that's what matters - not what certain people pop up with on DS!
Yet I would imagine an advert that implied a man was indulging in some cunning linguistics* would cause quite a stir.
So I'd say there was certainly a double standard there, in men's favour.
*yes I know that's not the real phrase
I thought we were discussing what they get called - not what sentences they get given.
Fixed that for you.
Personally, as a man if I were to offer to help a child that had gotten lost in a shopping centre, or was walking about with my toddler nephew, or was walking along the street at night and there was a woman ahead of me, it would be *me* that is seen as a bad person by society. It's insane. It's the same for things like divorce, parental leave, bringing up children. Men are assumed to either not care (the suggestion there being that men don't love their children!) or that women are somehow better. Pretty much the entire care and legal system is geared towards women.
In terms of sex, a lot has already been said. I don't buy the whole 'women see strippers for a laugh; it's not as seedy as if men do' thing. Women get their rocks off to nakedness just as much as men, I'd imagine otherwise how would the human race continue?
And if you think it's bad for straight men, just imagine what it's like for gay people. We have a choice of trying to be helpful or doing nothing - both of which get criticised.
We either have gender equality or we don't; and to be honest we don't.
On the flip side - can you imagine an advert where a group of men throw a can of pop to a woman who is simply trying to do her job - opening said can of pop causes the woman's top to get soaked through - and the group then letch and giggle at her while she removes it.
That's the basis for the current diet coke ad (sexes reversed obviously).
And I was pointing out that it doesn't really matter what they are called as long as they get what they deserve if they commit a crime.
Quite. It is a known fact that sex crimes perpetrated by women on children is under reported - and up until fairly recently in history - wasn't even considered to be possible (and as such wasn't taken seriously).
Some studies actually indicate that for male children - women pose a higher risk of offending than men do.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/sharp-rise-reported-in-child-abuse-by-women-1817509.html
Why bring it up then
The use of women's bodies in advertising has gone on for so long that it rarely raises an eyebrow, it's accepted as part of everyday culture. It's the norm.*
But now men are being used that way, and it's new and gets attention. Eventually the shock of the new will wear off and frankly no one will give a damn about seeing anyone in their underwear.
Yes, some of the adverts can be seen as sexist towards men either in a "men as sex objects" way or in a "men are rubbish and never cook and always catch man flu" kind of way. But it's not like women haven't been portrayed in similarly sexist ways in the past, it's payback if you like or a reversal of the norm done in that way to catch the attention...which after all is what an advert should do.
EDIT - *Indeed, as demonstrated ably below. Geeky male sprays Lynx, semi clan babes appear and drape themselves over him. Women are therefore sex crazed creatures driven to lust by a whif of Africa. Is anyone up in arms at such a simplistic sexist generalisation? No, they are too busy going CWORRRRR! This doesn't jump out as a terribly sexist advert because it's what adverts have "always been like".
As a woman I love that new Diet Coke advert.
Look at the various Lynx ads, a man sprays himself with Lynx and gets what seems like hundreds of hot young semi naked girls flocking to him.
They're just ads, I find it hard to get offended by that kind of stuff tbh.
Me too - but we are discussing double standards not offence.
What is acceptable in an advert aimed at women - wouldn't necessarily be acceptable in an advert aimed at men if the sexes were revered (and vice versa).
Just to be a pedantic so-and-so, those Diet Coke adverts with a few women ogling a 'builder' type bloke have been around since at least mid 90s.
No point to be made though
Agreed.
How is that in men's favour? Surely its another thing which goes against men.
The woman simulating a blow job on the flake bar is portrayed and perceived as attractive and desirable. That is the reason for the advert because it invokes a positive image for the product.
If an advert showed a man simulating "cunning linguistics" on say a cream cake, I'd imagine that the general perception would be that the man was a sad, disgusting pervert.
Which is why adverts like that don't exist because advertisers know that it wouldn't give a good image for their product.
Nothing would induce me to go in the men's toilets.