I don’t see what this has to do with anything.
It helpfully demonstrates that Strollen may be coming from a weird place. A weird, sexist place.
I like how you posed it as a question, like you weren’t entirely sure.
Let’s review
The article and the OP complain that Google is acting in a sexist manner and use as an example DateAmillionaire which is allowed as proof that Google is a sexist organization.
Jason and others point out that Couger site screams sex and the other doesn’t, so perhaps an alternate explanation for Google action is that Cougar site is really an adult website.
I point out that reality is less important than perception. The perception for Cougartown is it is a site for older woman to met younger fuck buddies, and dateamillionaire is perceived as place for trophy wives to meet husbands and more people are likely to be offended by the former than the latter. Google needs to balance the needs of both their advertisers and the content providers on the web and their goals often conflict.
While, I am happy to be helpful. Let me be even helpful, there are lots of adjectives used to describe people who make ad hominem attacks on the internet, immature is the kindest one- grow up.
They use that for starlets over 28 who aren’t skinny.
But Google be damned if I’m going to quit using these useful terms properly to categorize the chicks I’m ogling. MILF means MILF and one knows a cougar when one sees her in a hotel bar. Hell yeah?
So basically you’re saying that dating sites are immoral unless they promote marriage as the end result?
That’s pretty much it, yeah.
Looks like he’s saying that that’s public perception.
That’s quite different from the Penthouses we used to sneak into my best friend’s room when I was a teen.
I’m sure the double meaning of the word cougar is at least part of the reason why Google had to take this step. Everyone who posts here is familiar with ads that are hilariously off-topic for what is being discussed but are placed due to keywords where you CAN see the connection even though it is very superficial.
Imagine you’re running a site with a forum for middle schoolers for discussing the local zoo and there’s a thread about the new cougar exhibit. Guess whose ads are going to be all over that shit?
In any case, I support Google’s right to stop accepting $10k a month from any advertiser for any reason anyway (even if I may think the reasons are silly), this isn’t like they are filtering search results or anything like that.
I tried to imagine this, a forum for 12-year-olds where they discuss the zoo, but it was impossible. Maybe it would be a forum for kindergarten kids?
In any case, I love the premise that Google would cut the advertiser rather than figure out a NOT filter of some sort. Those dummies at Google.
I wasn’t. I thought I might have been confusing them with Hustler. Thanks to the internet, I haven’t looked at either magazine in years.
Yeah, I think the takeaway here is “people still buy Playboy and Penthouse?”
As a long time Playboy subscriber, you are very wrong. Playboy is so tame it’s disappointing. Some pictorials won’t even show the pubic area, just boobs and ass.
I get it for the articles, honestly. I get some quality throne time in. I think it’s the best middle-class “men’s” magazine available, despite the prudishness (but I could be wrong). And by middle-class, I mean “GQ” might be a better men’s magazine, but I’m not sure it would appeal to me. I don’t wear suits to work every day or anything like that.
They still make magazines with naked women in them? Someone needs to tell Quagmire about the internet.
The thing about Esquire and GQ is that they’re so fashion-focused as to be metrosexual; Details, I’m told, has been crypto-gay for years. Playboy is a good, general-interest magazine for educated heterosexual men.
That said, I stopped reading it maybe 10 years ago now, because the naked girls were all fake blondes with hardbodies and breast implants. Give me the softer, more varied naked girls of 1968-1982!
It’s gotten worse, actually. I used to read it fairly regularly and there would normally be something interesting, but whenever I’ve flipped through one in the past few years it definitely seemed a lot less intellectual, the sole exception being a posthumous Vonnegut short story that they ran in advance of the collection in which it appeared.
Actually we are all wrong, the reason Google banned cougar ads and not sugar daddy ad is to protect woman’s health. :)
His baby face and taut torso may make her the envy of her friends. But a toyboy husband could send a woman to an early grave.
Research shows that women who tie the knot with younger men tend to die before their time. And the younger her beloved is, the harder it is on her health.
Men, on the other hand appear to thrive when they marry someone younger. In fact, the more youthful his wife, the longer a man lives.
he finding will be a shock to growing numbers of ‘cougars’ - middle-aged
For instance, a man with a wife seven to nine years his junior - often nicknamed a ‘sugar daddy’ - is 7 per cent less likely to die at any given time than one who picks a woman of the same age.The disparity was revealed by an analysis of the marriage and death records of two million Dutch men and women.
It showed that men who marry younger women live longer than those who choose a spouse of their own age.
And the bigger the age gap, the longer his life. In contrast, a woman who snags a man seven to nine years younger is 20 per cent more likely to die than one who tied the knot with a chap of her own age.And for any woman ‘lucky’ enough to marry a man more than 15 years younger, the risk soars to 30 per cent, say the findings, reported in the journal Demography.
Read more: Cougars 'die young' (but Sugar daddies may live to a ripe old age) | Daily Mail Online
They run an interesting moderately-heavy article 4-6 times per year. The last couple I can remember were: one on using psychotropic drugs as a treatment for the terminally ill; one about the drug war in Mexico; and one about … shit, I forget.
Stephen King contributes about one piece of fiction a year. His last one, a “poem” was pretty interesting.
The Playboy interview is usually great, if it’s someone you’re interested it. They wiffed it on the Keanu Reeves interview, but I suppose that’s to be expected.
A few years ago, there was huge series going into deep detail about the human reproductive system, which was pretty interesting. And the one 5-6 years ago about Saddam’s Sons was great.