Last edited Fri Aug 31, 2012, 07:03 PM - Edit history (1)

...I made several cracks about soccer as I do all the time. I was not referring to sexuality directly or indirectly regarding the David Beckham ad, and I'm sorry folks took it otherwise. It was meant to be a deliberately over the top and sarcastic crack about soccer; I do not advocate violence of any kind against anyone gay, or not. As anyone who follows me on Twitter knows, anytime soccer comes up during football season it's another chance for me to take a playful shot at soccer, nothing more.

was Roland the big, proud sexist, or was Cent?

when it comes to women. he will always parade naked women and then go on and on and male all powerful, all awesome sexuality. reduces women to a fuck often and always. then he ha a show talking about the underwear layout and the fucker couldnt handle having the picture up for 15 seconds. take it down, take it down, we get it.

was a hoot

he was talking about when he thought his kids could have sex, one time. if he had a boy and girl. this is the man that declares himself progressive. yet in this conversation he says, he wouldnt want his son to have sex until about 16 and his daughter 18.

what? why the difference? not a sexist? girls mature earlier, more mature. she should be having the sex at 16 and the son 18, surely.

I just wasn't completely sure.

He couldn't take the underwear ad for more than a few seconds? Since he's apparently proud of his sexism, I could always be a little evil, turn the tables a little and call him a pussy for whimping-out over a 30 second long male underwear ad.

but i am very bad, to see if there is anything about the reception of this ad, during the superbowl, amongst the parties of men.

what they did in this ad is what they do so often to women. and we dont have it very often.

From what I've heard and always understood, is that when it comes to being turned on, men respond visually and women respond verbally.

Whether that's a stereotype, I'm not sure. But it's true when it comes to myself. So, maybe that's one of the reasons advertisers don't objectify men? I mean, you have to realize these people use MRI machines to see what people like and don't like.

It is considered an almost forgone conclusion across research disciplines, among pop psychologists of all stripes, and in the general population that men are more “visual” than women when it comes to the way they get turned on. Men, we’re told, are visually aroused, whereas women just need a good sense of humor, and possibly a strong jaw, and they're on board.

This misguided, but pervasive belief can be linked to a host of other gender stereotypes which are further complicated by sexual politics and differences in social power. So arguments which should be challenged, such as the “fact” that men leer more than women do, that they objectify women’s bodies more than women do men’s bodies, and that they just can’t stop watching porn, are explained as somehow being related to a mix of genetics, patriarchy, and simple mindedness.

Challenging these ideas can be a monumental task. Researcher bias being what it is, science rarely offers support for these "counter-intuitive" ideas. What's worse, when research does start to complicate matters, the media, and even smart bloggers who should know better, distort the findings beyond recognition.

Nonetheless, a recent study published in the journal Brain Research is offering the first preliminary but important evidence to dispel the age old myth that visual imagery is more important to men than it is to women. And it's worth considering without hyperbole.

http://sexuality.about.com/b/2006/06/19/new-brain-research-challenges-the-myth-that-men-are-more-visual-than-women.htm
_____________________-

myth. in 80's they did a study with questionairres and not controls. asked if they got turned on by pictures. surprised. me said yes. women answered according to societies niceties of them. hooking the brain up they see a different story. not only are women as sexually aroused, they will be sexually aroused by woman on woman, woman on man, man on man. men will only get aroused by sexual preference. which again, can be dictated by social conditioning. homophobia.

they have used this giving men excuse for male privileges, stroking their ego and telling women to suck it up, when it comes to their ego.

i like men with muscles. always have. a family of highly competitive athletes. be it on men or women. tight and hard. works for me.

It might come down to the individual on that one.

really.

I wouldn't be surprised if it's connected to being literary. I don't imagine many porn fans are reading much. More likely to watch porn.

a porn watcher. i read tons.... and tons. book a day or every two days.

yet

lol

i was raised in a real physical family.

that if only they'd objectify men more, things would be better. More fair, at least, right?

I used to attempt to balance the objectification scales in the lounge, so to speak (usually getting a lot of upset men posting pictures of ugly guys in the thread, if not getting my thread locked, which was always amusing)... but I have come to realize that two wrongs don't make a right.

Not to say that there should be no beautiful people celebrated anywhere, and if there's a place for it underwear ads would be the kinds of ads that would seem to justify it... although I'd rather they be celebrated for non-advertising reasons, because I hate advertising and the psychological tactics they use to prey on people's subconscious.. but I digress.

My point is, men are indeed being objectified more and more, still 5x less often than women, but it is increasing. And what just so happens to be rising along with that? Eating disorders in men. What a shock, right? Like, who could have seen that coming, like, ever. Just a random coincidence anyway, I'm sure. Like everything else connected to the patriarchy's bullshit.

angry when they do it equally, is then boys and men are given an opportunity to FEEL what it is like for their gender to be created as women so often are. the way this ad did it, carressing the nakedness of his body thru out, made a lot of men FEEL very uncomfortable. one has even been fired because he was FEELING so uncomfortable.

unless they experience the feeling, they will not truly be able to understand the other side.

that is why i am more curious about what happened across the nation when this ad was on tv. as the men sat on their couches, eating their food, enjoying the game and commercials to have this come on, ..... and what their reactions were.

and I'm curious as well.

Unfortunately they will not feel what it's like until it takes over their world for at least 24 hours. Complete reversal.

500% more objectified men than women, everywhere around them.

Oh, that would be a sight to behold... I would love to see their reactions if they were ever actually able to feel what it's like.

look at you man. look at me. now look at your man. look at me......

when that first came on, my mouth dropped open and i got all excited. look i said to hubby, LOOK what they did. can you BELIEVE. lol

my youngest son, 14 (the one teacher called on), love the commercial. we discussed it and why i like it so much. everyone in my house has a good handle on this, so it is not about battle. anyway, the other day in the store, he had to buy his own perfume.... cause he didnt like my choice, axe...

he got old spice deodorant. lol. i hugged him in the middle of walmart for five minutes telling him what a good boy he is.

much is in play and fun. we are odd that way.

and

the treat

the stuff smells yummy, too