Ah, American society and sex. For the number one producer of pornography, American society sure doesn’t tolerate sex. We already have Steve Jobs going the ‘think-of-the-children’ route, and now it seems Google has similar problems – Google is banning so-called “cougar” dating sites from advertising via its network, while on the other hand, it does not have a problem with ads where older men can seek younger women. Hypocrisy, thy name is society.
For those of you who have been living under a rock for the past few years, a “cougar” in this context is an older woman looking for a younger man. Or, as Wikipedia puts it eloquently, “a woman, 35 years of age or older, who pursues younger men, typically more than eight years her junior. The origin of the word is debated; however, it is thought to have first appeared in print on the Canadian dating website Cougardate.com and has been used in TV series, advertising and film.” Speaking of Wikipedia, could someone please enlighten these guys? I mean, that acronym should retain its happy meaning.
In true internet fashion, several dating sites exist that cater specifically to women and men who prefer these kinds of relationships. As someone from The Netherlands, according to some neo-conservative American puritans the home of Satan (we party all night every night – honest), I really couldn’t care less about this kind of thing. If two (or more) consenting adults of whatever sex want to do the nasty then by all means go ahead. What happens in your bedroom isn’t anyone’s business – especially not the government’s.
A majority of people in the United States see things differently, and have a lot of trouble openly dealing with sexuality; ‘nipple-gate’ really confirmed that one. As such, American companies know how to score big bags of brownie-points by taking a stance against anything even remotely related to sex; the well-known ‘think-of-the-children!’ approach.
Only a few days ago, Apple CEO Steve Jobs said that one of the strong points of the iPhone, iPod Touch, and iPad is that it provides “freedom from porn” – something which obviously isn’t true (Safari has a Google search field, after all), but will score well with said demographic. While I have no problems with Jobs adhering to standing morals in the US, it’s sad they have to be exported to countries that are a little ahead in these matters.
Apple, however, is not the only major technology company struggling with sexuality. Google, too, is having issues in that it doesn’t really know what to do with the concept of the aforementioned cougar dating sites. The website CougarLife.com has told The New York Times that its advertisements have been removed from Google’s ad network because the search giant deemed them “nonfamily safe”. All advertisements containing the word “cougar” are now labelled as adult.
“We can’t comment on specific advertisers, but our policy is that adult dating ads are classified as nonfamily-safe, meaning that they will not show on the Google Content Network,” Google told The New York Times in an email.
The crazy thing is, however, that similar sites that cater to the reverse type of relationship are not being banned. Websites that serve older men seeking younger women (that sounds wrong on so many levels) are not banned, nor are sites where younger women can seek rich older men.
CougarLife.com offered to alter its advertisements to show older women and younger men together, or even just showing the company’s president, Claudia Opdenkelder, who is 39 years old and lives together with her boyfriend who is 25 (yes, The New York Times mentions this, and if it’s good enough for the ‘Times, it’s good enough for us). Google then informed the company it wasn’t the advertisement itself that bothered them – it was the cougar dating concept in and of itself.
“It’s just wrong all around,” Opdenkelder told The New York Times, “It’s age and gender discrimination. It’s just about older, successful, independent, strong women who enjoy someone that’s younger. Some of the men sites, they are borderline prostitution, and Google has no problem having them advertise.”
The way I see it, the problem we are facing here is as follows. Before the internet, the prevalent morals dictated the type of content you saw in the media, and anything deemed immoral – no matter how innocent – would simply be kept out of the public’s eye. That way, people could comfort themselves with the idea that such immoral behaviour simply didn’t exist.
Now that the internet is here, that has changed. Everyone has a soapbox now, including people whose morals might not align with those of the majority. The end result is that these two worlds now collide with one another, causing friction all over the place; companies like Google and Apple have to walk a tightrope to keep both sides reasonably happy.
According to Google, I can just about date Fiona Apple, currently 32 years old. There’s just a 7 year age difference there, so I guess I’m safe. Now that’s a load off my mind.
Yeah well, welcome to America.
Are you sure there isn’t something more to the Cougar dating sites? Anyway, I am constantly seeing dating ads of all kinds everywhere else… Facebook is particularly bad.
I don’t see anything wrong with dating, unless they are throwing up pics that leave little to the imagination. On the other hand if you google just about any word that might have to do with the human body, or clothing or anything slang… you come up with all kinds of photos of pornography!!!
Internet rule #1.
If something exists, there’s porn of it.
I thought that was #34?
I think you are thinking of rule #69.
Ba-dum-TISH.
Thank you, thank you, thank you very much! I’m here every night ’til midnight!
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Rule+34
😀 Thank you for that! That’s great!
It is. Here’s a nice XKCD about it: http://xkcd.com/305/
Still no real albino pornstars though. =P
Are you sure?
There is at least one. Her porn star name is “Ice” and she’s a real albino of the OCA2 type (blue eyes but no pigments in skin or hair). You’ll find three movies by searching for “albino” on cheggit.
Here is an albino girl with dyed hair (NSFW):
http://xhamster.com/movies/49147/the_holy_grail_albino_girl.html
“The end result is that these two worlds now collide with one another, causing friction all over the place”
Hilarious! If not-intended, even more hilarious!
Anyway, I’ll leave the morality alone for a second and just say this: I really like most of what you have to write, Thom, EVEN in the cases when I disagree. I find it generally funny and pretty genuine. The one I can’t help notice, though, is a consistent anti-American streak that seems to lurk not-so-deep below the surface. Take a chill pill on that stuff, will ya? Its really a turn off to some of your US readers. Its like everything that you don’t like is “Oh here goes America again” and everything you do is “Oh those dumb Americans got ONE thing right finally”. Come on…I’m not asking for unbiased, just for not unfairly and illogically biased.
Just as there are things wrong in America, there are things wrong in The Netherlands, or any other country. I don’t think me pointing that out is in any way me being anti-American.
Quite the opposite actually. Ask any of my real-world friends, and they’ll confirm without a doubt that I’m somewhat of an America-lover (to keep in the spirit of this subject). I really like Americans, and have nothing but positive experiences with them – and I’ve dealt with all manners of Americans, from Californians to devout Christian Texans.
In fact, many of my friends don’t want me to go on vacation to the US again, because they’re afraid I might not return.
Edited 2010-05-18 17:11 UTC
Thom, you do point out a lot of stupid things in the US and good on you for that, because there is a lot of stupid crap going on here. Just saying that as an American myself, I’m not bothered when other people point out flaws with our nation. There seems to be a consistent group of people in our country that call anyone, even Americans, who point out flaws “anti Americans.” I didn’t think there were any of them on OSNews though. The more people who point out our flaws the better imho, it’s certainly a contrast to the average American public who probably couldn’t pull themselves away from the TV long enough to care about an issue like this. There, see?
I think it’s just a general sense of “you criticize your country and I’ll criticize mine”. I’m not saying it’s right or wrong just that it’s a common reaction. Every country has plenty of flaws. Most people would just prefer you stick it to your own. I love my country in many ways but there are still some things that I absolutely loathe.
Right. That’s why you implied America was less “civilized” and “developed” in your recent post about the lost iPhone prototype.
In some areas, yes. In other areas, America is ahead of us. That’s how it works.
Well, this might be related to journalists’ ethics: must not cover the truth.
But seriously, what might be going on over here and I can second is a fear, while we all have our own little ways, not every country/its corporations might have the same imperial ambitions to spread (nay sometimes force) those idiosyncrasies on others (or even better everyone).
This particular one is more of an amusement subject, but things like DMCA -> ACTA get folks over in EU seriously concerned about there freedoms. The so called anti-Americanism may be just normal human fear my ways of life (and my own idiosyncrasies perhaps) are endangered.
(Oh, and btw. that iPhone stuff really was pretty wild and otherworldly.)
LOL, are you shitting me? If somebody in America (especially a minority) drops out of school, has 3 kids before they’re 20 and/or gets hooked on drugs, and ends up leeching off the taxpayer, it’s not conservatives that want to take money out of your pocket and provide for these people, blaming that person’s upbringing for their lot in life, blaming the rich, blaming ‘whitey’, and anything/everything else but the individual. If anything, conservatives are the exact opposite to what you just described.
That being said, conservatives would do well to be a lot less concerned over what consenting adults are doing behind closed doors. Assuming I’m not molesting children or forcing somebody to do anything against their will, what goes on in my bedroom is none of your damn business.
In my opinion conservatives are a little too quick to blame immigrants, “big government”, and minority groups for all their woes. Just look at all the states that complain so much about illegal immigrants. I live in the northeast with a lot of cities full of immigrants (legal and otherwise) and it’s not an issue here. No one throws a fit about them taking all the less-than-mininmum-wage jobs.
Or the fact that we took God out of our schools? Those kinds of things are more about societal ills I think than about the individual. If somebody goes out and makes a mess out of their life, conservatives are more apt to put the blame where it belongs, unless it has to do with mass murder, then the conservatives will blame it on the video games he/she was playing
Or they’ll look at what Ted Bundy did and blame it on porn:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAHgJFPcOvY
Even still, somebody on the left pointing out the conservative blame list is like the pot calling the kettle black.
Yeah, my feeling on that is if they’re willing to come to this country and work hard, let ’em in. And if somebody can come into this country with little to no education or knowledge of English and can be trained in a week or two to do your job, then they should deport YOU just for being a waste of space. Ain’t no reason why you should get a free pass just because you were born here.
But didn’t you JUST say this:
I don’t think that’s true at all. You’re being just as hypocritical. I personally never claimed that liberals are more apt to put the blame where it belongs, just that conservatives play the blame game too.
Conservatives haven’t been doing a very good job as it lately either. They blame Obama for higher taxes when taxes are actually lower than under Bush. They blame the left for “big government” when Bush and Reagan doubled and tripled the national debt respectively, yet they remained quiet during those presidencies. They blame immigrants for everything from terrorism to lost jobs. They blame public schools for so-called “indoctrination”. I sense that you think conservatives are somehow morally superior. I hate to break it to you but they’re not.
No, not really. I think they suck pretty much equally
If indeed they are in any way ‘superior’ to liberals, that would be like saying that the shit I took last night was better than the shit I took this morning.
Newsflash, it ain’t “these people” who cost your average honest farming boy Joe his tax dollar fortune. How wrong you might feel it is to provide for people in need, it’s tax breaks to big oil, big scale public spending (like military in case of US, or for instance inefficient freeways construction/maintenance in case of others) that’ll cost you lots of mullah. But yeah, as long as the hate towards people bellow is successfully fueled, our handsomest politicians and their friends will be able to keep there big buck games on. Poor will be busy struggling for their living and middle class will be busy envying poor how cozy their poverty is with fraction of my tax dollars spent. Same stuff happens all over the globe.
Great, so conservatives wanting to give my money to rich people is somehow worse than liberals wanting to give it to poor people?
Ha, I got no hate for people ‘below’… I just don’t want the government handing them blank checks on my dime (the rich neither).
See, you might be getting the point.
There’s no point of taking more care of the rich, they are very well positioned to take care of themselves. Favoring those better of over those worse of is wrong on its own.
Welfare does not only serve the people it targets, but also makes sure masses do not grow too desperate, being forced to criminal activity to be able to provide or even overthrow the social system. It is not only fair, but even more effective then poor paying for police to protect rich from themselves.
currently, the system of most industrialized countries is setup very much in favor of very rich people. Hence I go with your liberals at least until a balance is reached.
It sure does not sound like that. Learn to respect people regardless of their social status. You’d be surprised what a mess world would be if we were all rich or even only middle class. Take for instance cleaning our office restrooms. I do not want to do it let me assume you don’t either (and I know very few middle class people who would want to or want their children to), but it needs to be done. I value work of people who do. And I wish those people well. Same goes for a lot of services and goods you might just be taking for granted.
Loving America isn’t so important to me. You can love it, hate it or be completely indifferent. As an American, I support your right to say what’s on your mind 100%! Sometimes, when one is a little distanced, the view is clearer. I learned this while living in Germany back in the 1980’s and then in Mexico in the 1990’s. Hearing a different point of view on your home nation’s events is an eyeopener and very useful. The new ultraconservative, McCarthyism in the United States is sickening. Thank you for saying what’s on you mind.
I am an American, and I have high expectations of my country. I am extremely proud when the United States lives up to those expectations, and disappointed when it doesn’t.
Thom’s comments make sense to me.
You have it coming. Really. The world is getting really tired of the U.S’ self-importance and how you’re the self-appointed the pillar of freedom in the western world. You’re proud of your country, fine, we know and that’s ok. Now stop pushing your pride down everyone else’s throat all the time.
I don’t recall pushing pride down anyone’s throat. Get off your high horse. As an American I’m sick of peole generalizing the entire 300 million populace as arrogant pricks. Yes we have them, just as every other country has them. The difference is we let them say whatever they want because we don’t limit speech. Instead we must battle with ideas.
Edited 2010-05-19 13:59 UTC
The less trashy ads preying on delusional men and women the better. Here are a couple of examples that have been served up to me, on the OSNews site, after clicking on your article –
http://imgur.com/CXByx.png
http://imgur.com/hUxQm.png
I just see QNX ads: http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/10/20/
Try clicking the “Read More” link then look at the ads at the bottom of the page, near the copyright footer. Refresh browser to serve new ads as necessary ….
OSNews is no longer “OSNews”, but really? Welcome to SlashDot.
Ah, quick to generalize the entire American society, aren’t you? Perhaps you should get out more often.
It’s hardly a taboo, maybe just to the vocal minority? Isn’t there an ABC TV show about cougars too?
If the minority could easily affect 60+% of the content on the Internet as easily as they’ve just managed to affect 60+% of the advertising, I’d be worried.
In this case, I’m not worried yet and I would side with Google if the decision boiled down to the category being overwhelmed with crappy ads stooping to no depth to pull clicks. “Cougars” is hardly a category up for nomination in the advertising awards.
I’ll tell you what Google do need to ban—about 90% of their results for “drivers”.
Damn, I was wondering where all my “cougar” ads went .. Nothing I want more then a horny woman that is 20 years older then me lol.
Damn, I hadn’t thought of looking for Cougars on the net! I mean really, older, hornier women all over the net looking for younger dudes?
Isn’t that like a total dream?
Younger women have always kind of annoyed me in their attitude and thinking.
Got to love the hypocrisy here. But it’s always been that way. Those rich Southern old men who would marry their business partner’s 14 year old daughter.
Or in the case of the Mormons, marrying 30 women from 18-12. Older than 18, they are considered old crones!
Or in the case of the Mormons, marrying 30 women from 18-12. Older than 18, they are considered old crones!
You’re referring to the splinter groups that still cling to polygamy, not the LDS church at large. Leadership repeatedly has disavowed any connection to them and they are not considered to be part of the membership, not to mention the practice was banned by the church many years ago.
Even secular journalist sources have been able to make that distinction, so what’s your excuse?
My wife is 6 years older than me. Some of us value a woman with more maturity (and a hot bod!)
it seems like this really isn’t a case of Google singling out anyone or being sexist or whatnot. Rather, they found a new term which designates sites which they term adult and therefore can’t use google for ads. The male version of such sites are equally banned. They’ve just found terms to use which aren’t flagged as adult. The “cougar” sites will figure it out soon enough and be around just as much as their male counterparts.
Particularly good slashdot comment:
Incorrect Thom. A majority of American’s do not view sex in the way you described. A very vocal, very powerful minority views sex that way. Though there influence is rather limited to those who are already of a similar mindset.
Have you been to the States? If so, where? Please, take it from someone who lives in the States, we are not all backwards conservative folk. I live in a region of the country known for being incredibly Liberal (Portland, Oregon) though I have traveled across many places in the States and am constantly surprised that no matter where I go, people are for the most part incredibly tolerant and accepting of others.
One thing that must be kept in mind in reference to American culture and politics is the game the Right has played over the years to encourage people to join their fold. For people who are having a hard life, the Right gives them someone to blame, they convince them that minority groups, or homosexuals, or the government themselves are the reason their life is hard. Once they are convinced of these, they influence the citizens in other ways to share views. They use populism to push their hate-filled agenda. The good news is, however, most people are beginning to see through this. Most people agree that adults should be able to do whatever they please as long as it does not directly harm others.
So, excuse my rant, but please understand that us Americans are not all backwards puritans.
Also, Portland, Oregon makes Northern Europe look like the bible belt, so its all relative
Edit to fix logical error
Edited 2010-05-18 19:53 UTC
Northern Europe as in Sweden, where 86% does not believe there is a god “at all” according to recent polls?
Spelling error btw?: Does harm to others. Don’t you mean does NOT harm others? Otherwise it might be a dangerous alternatively a silly place to live.
Fixed the error you pointed out
That is a fallacy that belief in a God in any way takes away you Liberal card. In fact, if you were to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ (not saying I do, just playing Devil’s Advocate (which is actually a funny term in this context)) you would be very, very “Liberal”
The only way to make the Jesus of the bible liberal is in the same way that he’s made conservative. By cherry picking quotes. It’s about a middle eastern jew in a society from two thousand years ago. You can’t fit people that far removed into our political context in anything close to a meaningful way.
I’m afraid many of the readers here are wrong about US demographics. Both conservatives and Christians are in the majority here; however, liberal and secular demographics are dominant in the media, urban environments and, of course, the internet, which may give many unknowing individuals the wrong impression.
No. Conservatives and Christian Fundamentalist are NOT in majority here. And the media sways right. “Liberal Media” does not exist.
Well, you are sort of right. I don’t know what the statistic is, but I think 80-90% of folk in America would label themselves as Christian, but they are only Christian by association. What that means is, they will claim Christianity as a rule, but only live by its tenants whenever it is convenient for them to do so. In other words, they bend Christianity around their own moral compass, beliefs, and ideology, instead of the other way around. Most of these people haven’t opened a bible or seen the inside of a church in years, but still won’t hesitate to call out for God if they happen to be hanging off the edge of a cliff, or in a plane that’s about to crash land, nor will they hesitate to condemn others for violating the specific laws of Christianty that they themselves happen to live by. Most folk just assume they will end up in heaven ‘just because’, and really have no farking idea about what the bible teaches about heaven and how to get there.
Just a link, I don’t care what people believe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States#Christia…
Wishful thinking. That may have been true 30-50 years ago but it isn’t anymore. The majority of people in the US live in cities and the majority of them are liberals. The only reason conservatives hold as much power politically as they do is because even sparsely populated states get the same representation in the Senate as largely populated states (which tend to be more liberal).
Self identified Christians may be in the majority but a lot of them are nothing more than cafeteria Christians who don’t believe anything that comes out of their priest/pastor’s mouth as literal but just give in to the tradition of religion. Just go out on Sunday and see what people are doing that would result in eternal damnation if they actually beleived that stuff.
Edited 2010-05-19 01:45 UTC
I could pull up any number of polls and statistics that say conservatives are in the majority. Here’s one for example, look up the rest if you want:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/120857/conservatives-single-largest-ideo…
If you’re determining whether a person is conservative or liberal based on how they vote down party lines, then your results will be flawed. The factors that determine how a person votes is a lot more complex than simple political ideology.
You may be correct about many Christians being lackadaisical in their religious beliefs, however, this doesn’t change the fact most American’s are Christian and profess belief in a standard set of moral values. Whether they follow through on this in their daily lives is a different matter.
Edited 2010-05-19 13:11 UTC
Self identification is not the best way to look at this issue. “Liberal” was made a bad word in the 80s. If you look at policy, most people are actually liberal. I know a lot of self identified conservatives that are for abortion rights and gun control. Self identifying conservatives from the northeast are often more liberal than moderate Democratic politicians from the midwest.
The values American’s hold are decidedly NOT Christian. Our whole system of government and society is based on enlightenment ideals. We don’t always live up to them but I hardly think people value the so-called morals of Christianity. A lot of people claim they base their morals on Christianity but when it comes down to it no one is stoning their neighbor for eating meat on a Friday.
My point all along was that what people profess and what they actually do are two totally different things. That’s the reason a lot of people think the US is some kind of right-wing backward ass country. There are a lot of loud voices that claim we’re a conservative, Christian society and there are a lot of people willing to parrot that line but when push comes to shove they don’t actually ACT like that.
While I won’t bother arguing against unsupported points, I would like to point out that the reason “liberal” is considered a dirty word by many is precisely because it describes a set of values and political beliefs that aren’t accepted by the majority of the US population (although this is gradually changing).
Also, your understanding of Christian morality appears severely distorted.
Edited 2010-05-19 15:27 UTC
A majority of people in the United States see things differently, and have a lot of trouble openly dealing with sexuality; ‘nipple-gate’ really confirmed that one. As such, American companies know how to score big bags of brownie-points by taking a stance against anything even remotely related to sex; the well-known ‘think-of-the-children!’ approach.
Not a majority, but as another said, a vocal, rich, majority. Money is what makes the rules sadly, and nothing else. Now granted I live in the “bible belt” area of the US, where there are more churches than people. These areas are a minority in the US. I moved here for work, and still can’t believe how backwards a good chunk of these people are.
It’s more of a dysfunctional perspective: far too many things have been sexualized, and people are afraid to touch or get close because it might be misconstrued to be about sex.
At least in the U.S. The more conservative views seem to prefer to think of physical intimacy as a very private and personal matter. I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing, but I tend to say, “It’s too late.” The option is pretty much gone– I tell them “you need to be talking to your loved ones what your views are, or they will be getting them elsewhere.” It’s not like the messages weren’t around before, but as more and more people are coming online, it’s a whole lot easier to spread them widely and quickly.
That sounds pretty hypocritical given that they’ll allow a well know fraud site ( http://icebidz.com/ ) via their advertisement network and yet when it comes to something a little risque apparently that crosses the line.
So according to Google; fraud is ok but cougar dating is bad. Sounds a bit like the US system in a nutshell.
I know when it is spring in the northern, when Tom talk about sex and Fiona Apple in his articles.
;-P
Edited 2010-05-19 08:36 UTC
Yeah, very predictable.
Press loves to feed hormoned up people in spring/summer. Every summer, the tablods in finland have the same stupid statistics and questionaires about “one in five has engaged in profane activities utdoors”.
Ad views++
Never seen cougar ads, but have dated a few cougars. Very fond memories…
Benny Hill had a skit about cougars a long time ago.
Edited 2010-05-19 12:24 UTC