Appz 2 Alienate Ur Female Customerz? Pepsi Haz It • • •

[Triana]

Pepsi’s latest foray into social media is certainly bold and controversial, but does it go too far?

The company recently launched an iPhone application for its AMP energy drink called “before you score,” with “score” meaning (to put it in the most subtle of terms) having a successful night with a woman.

Beyond the premise of the app being rather risqué, it’s when you drill down to the specifics that it becomes much more, breaking women down into 24 types and suggesting “lines” to lure each one of them. If “successful,” the app also encourages users to brag about it over email, or even on Facebook or Twitter.


http://mashable.com/2009/10/12/amp-before-you-score/

[rd_kent]

1. And this is any different from how men are portrayed in Cosmo, or Marie Claire, or...

any of those "womens" magazines?

[redqueen]

12. Example?

That seems like it would be a fairly wide variety of portrayals.

The only thing I can think of is the 'sex tips to drive him wild,' which there seems to be some version of on every Cosmo cover. Is that what you mean?

[rd_kent]

16. You know what I'm getting at....

either you are just playing me or you really dont know.....either way Its not that important to me to get into it with you, sorry.

[redqueen]

19. I don't read those magazines. Really no idea what you're referring to.

Not sure what you mean by "get into it"... but, er... ok.

[rd_kent]

22. Then go read a few, thats all it will take.

It will become very obvious very quickly.

By "get into it" I mean having a discussion on the subject. Have a nice day.

[redqueen]

24. LOL... not a chance.

Glad you enjoy them though. ;)

[rd_kent]

26. I didn't, I find them to be sexist and full of misandry and deceitful behavior.

[redqueen]

31. Why not just give an example then?

If you've seen enough to make that call, then just share what you're talking about.

[seabeyond]

32. i dont read them either. so i dont know. just a bunch of conditioning to create a society

to sell sell sell to.

[redqueen]

40. Fashion tips I won't follow...

sex tips I don't need... and a buch of fashion crap that I just find annoying. Yeah, let me run right out and get a copy. :P

I dunno what the point is, I find it idiotic in the extreme. Like you said, it's all for the advertising. I wonder what percentage of those magazines is advertising. What a load.

[seabeyond]

43. except pepsi is a co. selling to two genders. the promote something to entice one gender, repels

the other gender.

has nothing to do with a magazine selling to a specific gender.

[omega minimo]

76. repels or

pressures the other gender to feel bound to conform to those "24 types" and pander to the male gamers.

Hopefully, some of the males as well as females will be repulsed by the "game."

[Neecy]

90. or fail miserably

I'm sure the pickup lines are stupid and boorish. Hopefully after a few crash-and-burn experiences they'll realize that women don't particularly fall for smarmy, smart-ass crap.

[rd_kent]

35. You want to debate on a subject that you admittedly know nothing about.

What would be the point?

[redqueen]

38. Um no... I want to know if it's really comparable.

You asked if it was the same... and I'd like to know if it is.

The only things I know for sure are in those magazines is the ubiquitous 'sex tips' features, beauty tips, and fasion crap.

If you're going to make a claim, you might consider actually being prepared to back it up. This is a pretty sad display you're putting on, trying to turn your failure to cite even one measly example to back up the assertion that you made. It is kinda funny though, so thanks for that.

[rd_kent]

44. Why are you being so obtuse?

The magazines THEMSELVES are the example. The whole magazine and the content found inside. Just as if i supplied a like to a news stiry that backed up my claim, I point you in the direction of your nearest checkout counter to find one of those magazines. Go read it and get back to me.

[seabeyond]

45. are they wanting $ from both male and females.... or is it for female $?

pepsi wants females to buy their product. then puts something out offensive to females. does that make any fuckin sense to you???

[rd_kent]

95. To pepsi, it makes no difference.

Loss of a demographic here will be made up for in a different marketing strategy. Pepsi could give a SHIT about who it offends.

[redqueen]

47. You don't even know what's in the magazines.

Here's what I *know* is in them: fashion tips, makeup tips, sex tips, etc.

You're just rattling off crap about something you know nothing about. Genius.

LOL... obtuse.

[rd_kent]

97. You have contradicted yourself.

Uppost, you say you have never read one, now you say you "know" whats in them. You make my point, again. You either know NOTHING about our conversation and are talking out of your ass, or you DO know what were talking about and are being willfully obtuse. Which is it?

[redqueen]

99. I know what's in them... I don't see an analogy to the Pepsi thing.

I was hoping you'd be able to provide whatever it is that you think makes your analogy make sense.

And work on your reading comprehension. I didn't say I never read them... I said I don't read them. Tense, and all that.

LOL... this has been somewhat amusing. Thanks.

[rd_kent]

105. My last attempt.

Lets start over, really. Here's my point:

I fail to understand the anger and outrage at this iPhone app from women due to it's obvious sexism when many of those same women read womens magazines that are filled with the same sexism. Thats all Im saying, nothing more, nothing less.

Is that better?

[redqueen]

112. Sorta... where's the "anger and outrage"?

It seems more like some people are put off... but is there really anger and outrage?

Anyway... as has been pointed out... your analogy would make more sense if this were a thread about people being outraged with magazines like Maxim.

[rd_kent]

114. It was my take upon reading the story in the OP.

Thats what I took away as the authors intent.

[redqueen]

117. "Alienate" is far from "anger," let alone "outrage." (nt)

[rd_kent]

119. OK, I can agree with that. Do you see my point though?

[redqueen]

121. Yep. There is stupid sexist crap aimed at both sides...

that's no secret. The thing is when the sexist stuff is aimed at everyone, but the target is less than half the audience. That's when it goes beyond stupid sexist stuff into 'WTF are you thinking?' territory.

But hey... if it worked for Hardee's... or was it Carl's Jr.? :P

[rd_kent]

125. It was Carls, Jr.

I thought they got it wrong by using paris hilton, though. Zero sum gain...attract the male demographic with an overtly sexual ad, then turn them right off with a sleaze bag.....

[seabeyond]

123. i dont see the point because, these mag are not out for male $. they are to grab female $

by any means they can

pepsi is alienating a gender. that is not good business sense, regardless of you saying they dont care... that is a whole other argument. but doesnt behoove them.

if they dont care to lose my $ that is fine. today son picking up soda (mon and friday) he says dp, if not then a pepsi. i say nope. no pepsi. why??? he asks, and i tell him. not gonna give my money to promote this crap.

[rd_kent]

127. But this one ad (the iPhone app) is targeted at one demographic.

You can find products advertised in womens mags that market to both male and female demographics, but alienate men when they advertise in those magazines. Will you find a pepsi ad in Cosmo?

[omega minimo]

157. What products?

"You can find products advertised in womens mags that market to both male and female demographics, but alienate men when they advertise in those magazines."

What products?




"Will you find a pepsi ad in Cosmo?"

Huh? :shrug:

[rd_kent]

128. .

You can find products advertised in womens mags that market to both male and female demographics, but alienate men when they advertise in those magazines. Will you find a pepsi ad in Cosmo?

[seabeyond]

129. still not the same. pepsi ad in a cosmo isnt the same as pepsi in cosmo dissing male. nt

[rd_kent]

130. But it is IN a magazine full of sexism.

[seabeyond]

133. i am sorry. i know you want it to fit. but doesnt. not the same. pepsi is a co. for all

it promotes for male something insensitive to female and say, all buy my product

cosmo promotes to women. pepsi has ad in mag. just not the same

[rd_kent]

139. Look at it another way....

Do you agree or disagree with advertisers pulling their ads from Glenn Beck's show? If you agree, then you should see my point that a company that advertises on a show like Beck's (or in a magazine like Cosmo) ENDORSES what the show (or the magazine) has to say. If you think that advertisers are RIGHT to pull their ads from Beck's show, you should be ANGRY at pepsi for advertising in a sexist magazine like Cosmo, just as you are angry at pepsi for making a sexist iPhone app.

[Scout]

145. advertisers control the content of many women's magazines....

they publish what their advertisers will allow.

[Gwendolyn]

149. That's a big load of bullshit. n/t

[Scout]

177. you are obviously in need of education

here's a start....
http://www.publishingbiz.com/html/articlebysteinem.html

and

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3065/is_n12_v16/ai_6153759/

Selling ads against complementary editorial in women's magazines hurts both advertiser and editor, Ms.cofounder asserts

Laguna Niguel, Calif.-Buying space next to good journalism pays off just as well as buying space next to service articles that complement advertising-but many women's magazines compromise editorial in an effort to please advertisers, Gloria Steinem said at a recent conference of the Western division of the American Association of Advertising Agencies.

Steinem, a founder of the 16-year-old Ms., which was recently sold to Fairfax Publications Ltd. of Australia, pointed out in her controversial talk that "there's no reason why the ethical standards and editorial range of some women's magazines can't be at least as high as those for some men's, general interest and news magazines-if advertisers just let it happen. The trust and credibility and increased intensity of reading will create an excellent forum for ads, probably a more effective one.

<snip>

One of the reasons why Ms. had an uphill battle selling advertising, Steinem explained, is that the magazine's editorial content wasn't dictated by the ads. "We didn't run recipes to get food ads, or articles about how to wash your hair in order to get shampoo ads, or little diagrams of where to put your blush-on in order to get beauty ads, or credit the invisible fragrance in a cover photograph in order to get fragrance ads. Yes, we did skin care when there was something to say and articles about food and style when they were news-but we didn't let traditional categories determine most of the editorial.

"The readers loved it. Many advertisers loved it less. I suggest to you that there's something wrong in a world in which women readers and advertisers trying to reach them don't want the same thing."

Steinem noted that Ms. is not the only publication paying the price of accepting advertising on the basis of complementary copy. Although her magazine gave up some ad pages and revenue, other women's magazines have had to pay a higher price by giving up their editorial credibility, she said.

<snip>

[Gwendolyn]

180. Ummm... reserving complementary space is a far, far cry...

from your comment that "advertisers control the content of many women's magazines...they publish what their advertisers will allow."

That's nonsense. I work in the promotion dept of a large corpie which publishes several mags, including women's health, cooking, human interest, blah blah blah. I can tell you that no advertiser has EVER sat in on an editorial meeting and none have ever told an editor-in-chief what articles they can and can't print. Are some pages reserved for ad-flow type of copy and fauxish articles? Yes, of course. For women's health and the like it works out seamlessly well, since the products advertised are often in the same ballpark as the articles they border. Like a body wash/skin hydrating product ad next to a spa vacation article. But this isn't even close to what you implied.

[Scout]

207. you didn't even read the articles, did you.

and if you didn't put those "fauxish" articles, would the advertisers advertise?

if you wanted to run an article proving that the product made by your major advertiser was harmful, you'd just go ahead and run it and they wouldn't mind at all, right?

you think because you don't see something at a board meeting that it doesn't happen? :rofl:

"since the products advertised are often in the same ballpark as the articles they border."
you don't even realize what you are saying...

ETA: One of the reasons why Ms. had an uphill battle selling advertising, Steinem explained, is that the magazine's editorial content wasn't dictated by the ads. "We didn't run recipes to get food ads, or articles about how to wash your hair in order to get shampoo ads, or little diagrams of where to put your blush-on in order to get beauty ads, or credit the invisible fragrance in a cover photograph in order to get fragrance ads. Yes, we did skin care when there was something to say and articles about food and style when they were news-but we didn't let traditional categories determine most of the editorial.

"The readers loved it. Many advertisers loved it less. I suggest to you that there's something wrong in a world in which women readers and advertisers trying to reach them don't want the same thing."

[Gwendolyn]

209. I think I know better about what goes on one floor below me than you do.

But don't let that stop you from pontificating about something you know nothing about.

Yes, I read the articles. Yes, I know exactly what I'm talking about. But you obviously don't.

To answer your questions, yes, the advertisers would advertise anyway. That being said, when you put out a mag that is bought as much for the info and selling of products as it is for the latest info on cancer treatments, vitamins, stress-beaters, exercise, then it's no biggie. It's synergistic. Same with cooking mags. And exercise. Do the Dove people give a shit that you're publishing an article on reflexology versus foot odor. No, they fucking don't. They care about circulation. When you have circulation and one advertiser doesn't like articles on foot odor, they're instantly replaced by sponsors that do. (As an aside, I'm sure you know a lot about what goes on at "board" meetings, but at most offices they're called editorial meetings. Just a slight difference.)

It's also odd that you try to make a point by posting a quote from Steinem that says they *didn't* publish to please advertisers. But I guess that makes sense to you. :crazy:

You've definitely given me pause though, so thanks. Now that I know it's really Calvin Klein who's running Vanity Fair, not Graydon Carter at all, I'll HAVE to cancel my sub. I wonder if Carter knows his secret is out. :eyes:

[Scout]

211. because Ms. was ADVERTISING FREE ... so they didn't have to kow tow

to advertisers.

you are hopelessly wrapped up in your own self-importance :eyes:

[Maru Kitteh]

147. So, because a few women read X in a magazine NO women may express outrage at Pepsi Co. for

this marketing campaign?

With X being some manner of content you are apparently unable or unwilling to define. HELL. You haven't even been able to define the magazines themselves.

And you ask, "Is that better?"

How could you think that was better?

[omega minimo]

156. It's not the "same," it's not "the same sexism" and it's not the same medium at all.

[Maru Kitteh]

159. I haven't even seen him provide a single example of sexism to begin any real debate.

All he's done is point a finger and say GAH! UGH!

[redqueen]

168. Please see this response:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6758255&mesg_id=6760067

[Maru Kitteh]

173. .

:rofl:

Well no shit.

[omega minimo]

77. Your replies are perhaps

the most masturbatory I've seen on DU, clearly being willfully "obtuse" for your weak amusement.

[rd_kent]

98. One needs only to look at the long history of YOUR posts to know where YOU come from.

Pot, meet kettle.

[omega minimo]

150. Wank wank. You arent' saying anything and you're playing games

:boring:

[LanternWaste]

103. Lots of people would rather win a point rather than be correct...

I would have phrased it as "circular reasoning" (as his arguments do appear to fall squarely within that particular fallacy) rather than masturbatory, but I think the difference is merely six of one and half a dozen of the other.

:hi:

[omega minimo]

151. Understood. Though he isn't making any arguments at all

just effing with people.

[rd_kent]

176. And just what are YOU doing?

You have made zero attempt to understand my point or even make rational argument yourself. All you do is insult.

[omega minimo]

181. After a time

and after just messing with the people who were replying to your posts, you actually started saying... something.

I had already and continued to post as if there was some discussion possible there.

If you are not just playing games, I apologize. if you are just playing games, you apologize.

(Actually your comment about "misandry and deceitful behavior" regarding Cosmo magazine is probably explanation enough................ :scared: )

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6758255#6759175

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6758255#6760436

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6758255#6760315

[rd_kent]

187. NO, not playing games.

ANd I stand my by statement of what is contained in those magazines.

[omega minimo]

189. Which you never actually stated or showed clearly.

Apparently you also stand by your right to not share in the discussion on common ground. Perhaps if you didn't view the misogynist, sexist commodification and exploitation of women as "MISANDRY" :evilfrown: you'd be more communicative.

Somehow, the majority of males who speak up in threads on sexism, have it worked out to be ALL ABOUT THEM. :crazy:

[Scout]

190. wah! you women aren't really interested in equality unless you put men first!! n/t

[omega minimo]

191. when you talk about inequality of women, it's a put down of ALL men, especially widdle me WAH!!!

[rd_kent]

195. That makes no sense.

[omega minimo]

197. Sure doesn't. But that's the attitude of SOME men and it shuts down/hijacks discussions

[rd_kent]

194. I think misandry IS the correct term.

It is the term used for the hatred or distrust of males, just as misogyny is the hatred or distrust of females.

mi⋅sog⋅y⋅ny
  /mɪˈsɒdʒəni, maɪ-/ –noun
hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women.

mis⋅an⋅dry
  /ˈmɪsændri/ –noun
hatred of males.

Perhaps if you didn't view the misogynist, sexist commodification and exploitation of women as "MISANDRY" :evilfrown: you'd be more communicative.

That is misogyny. Im talking about misandry. Just trying to keep the terminology correct.

Otherwise, I'm not following you......

[omega minimo]

198. You're the one who said it about the magazines.

Reread. I'm not going to repeat.

[existentialist]

53. The MO you're describing is par for the

course for this particular poster. Nothing new to see here.

Although I will agree that the women's mags he cites are generally crap.

ETA: ooopps, just discovered I'm posting under hubby's username. I'd better log out and post under mine, liberalhistorian!

[redqueen]

62. Oh yes, I definitely agree that they're crap.

I just don't see the analogy unless it's just, "well, women buy crap stuff too."

[omega minimo]

78. "Although I will agree that the women's mags he cites are generally crap."

That's why posters here are saying WE DON'T READ THE CRAP!! :rofl:

[rd_kent]

100. How can I say ot MORE plainly for you?

The WHOLE MAGAZINE is the example. I tire having to repeat myself over and over. I will admit defeat today, only because you wore me down with your repeated acts of stupidity. You win, score one for the obtuse.

[redqueen]

106. LOL... you already replied to that post.

:rofl:

[EOTE]

213. This might be what you're looking for.

I just googled: cosmo catch man, and below I have pasted the first result. I don't know if this Pepsi app is more or less offensive, but I see stuff in women's magazines all the time about the best "tricks" to catch a man. I'm guessing that's what the poster you're discussing with is referring to. In general, I think the tips referring to men are extremely ignorant of how men work. Especially when I see things like "101 ways to please your man". Men are fairly damn easy to please, if one hasn't figured that out how after spending a month with one, I can't imagine a magazine is going to help. When I see those articles about catching a man advertised in the check out line, I don't get offended by them, but perhaps I would if I read them. Likewise, I don't get offended by this Pepsi app, but I might if I actually used it.

http://www.cosmopolitan.co.uk/Sex-&-Relationships/How-to-get-a-man/v1

[Raineyb]

86. Well, you could enlighten us instead of complaining but you've already

refused to do that. So what do you want from anyone debating you?

On edit: fixed verb tense

[omega minimo]

160. Perhaps a disclaimer in his sigline, like his view on certain women's magazines:

:scared: "....I find them to be sexist and full of misandry and deceitful behavior." :scared:

[omega minimo]

75. oh goodness

that last one sounds like it could come from the sewing guy in Silence of the Lambs........... :scared: while working on a Halloween costume.......

[hfojvt]

136. I am not seeing this from Cosmo online

http://www.cosmopolitan.com/

[Quantess]

33. That was pretty weak.

You should at least have one concrete example of what you are talking about.

[rd_kent]

36. My examples are the mags themsleves. If one has not ever read one, any example I give would be

pointless.

[seabeyond]

41. or the point. we are talking about the sexism in this country/co. and you bring up magazines

i suppose you are talking about articles in the magazines. which isnt anything like a company trying to sell product to both gender using something that will entice male customer and turn off female customer

you see a comparison with a womans magaizine? for real? or is your argument flat?

[rd_kent]

82. No I think it is a direct comparison.

The sexism is those mags are just as bad as the sexism in this iPhone app. Thats my point.

[Raineyb]

91. It's not the same. The women's magazines would be on par with the men's

magazines such as maxim. This app is being marketed in a gender unspecific way but deliberately offensive to women.

Your analogy, such as it is, is lacking.

[rd_kent]

92. Each of those mags markets directly to a target audience.

How is that any different?

[redqueen]

96. lol

[redqueen]

94. ... "such as it is," indeed. (nt)

[omega minimo]

163. You're wrong. If you think it is a direct comparison, you have not said anything but you "think it"

It's a new app, a new medium, a new marketing scheme, a new low for sexist shite building male self esteem by degrading females (and there's no comparison there, no matter how much you "think it") and new way to program human behavior with electronic gizmos, as well as data mine and wallpaper the inside of the target's brain with their branding.

If you wanted to make you case -- which you haven't -- or if you wanted to talk about the similarities in the sexism that is alienating (THE REASON SO MANY IN THE THREAD DON'T LOOK AT THOSE MAGAZINES) that could lead to a discussion, rather than you hijacking the thread with one liners.

[omega minimo]

164. .

[redqueen]

42. If that was your comparison, then your attempt at an analogy failed. (nt)

[rd_kent]

48. Nah, its just a failure on your part to grasp what I am saying. Or willfull ignorance.

either way, Im done here.

[redqueen]

52. Nope. Not even close.

One of us knows the difference between a good analogy and a bad one. Also, one of us knows how to back up an argument.

Have a good one. :hi:

[rd_kent]

84. I guess that that person would not be you, as you have failed to back up a single thing.

[Scout]

143. gee, in post #48 you said you were done here ... trying to get the last word?

:rofl:

[redqueen]

148. Nah, he's trying to understand and be understood.

I'm glad he stuck around. :)

[Maru Kitteh]

165. And post #105, so far. Keeps promisng to leave, still refusing to cite any examples,

Utter - complete - failure.

[rd_kent]

196. For the last time...

I will put this as plainly as possible for you as you seem to not understand English.

Womens magazines, like Cosmo, Marie Claire, Ms., etc.....THOSE are my examples...the ENTIRE magazine.....ALL of the content found in them.....not specific articles, but THE ENTIRE MAGAZINE......any issue...pick one.

Now, please stop saying that I refuse to cite examples. There they are, right there.

[Scout]

200. the fact that you lumped Ms in with those others PROVES beyond any shadow

of a doubt that you know not of what you speak.

[rd_kent]

201. Whatever...you are being willfully obtuse.

Maybe Ms. doesnt fit, but the rest do, as well as others I did not mention. At any rate, I think this discussion had devolved about as low as it can get, we dont even have room left on the sub-thread.... so I bid you a good day and look forward to sparring with you on another thread sometime.

[seabeyond]

203. what you dont get, what you dont consider, and it is lack of knowledge cause you dont

read the magazines.... they are not about creating independent women, but their goal is to work on the insecurity of female for a dependence on male, .... in many ways

maybe you ought to buy a cosmo and spend a weekend reading and seeing if you really see a desire to create male as enemy, or if maybe that magazine isnt playing off women insecurities.

kinda like the "guy needs lines" to get a woman. again. playing on male insecurity

this pepsi thing is more an insult to male, but it does use female to play off the male

[Scout]

208. and to be so ignorant as to lump in "Ms." with those stupid

magazines for silly insecure women who can't live without a man and his approval, is just, well, ....

[seabeyond]

202. some think oprah is/cause/creates manhaters too. rw knuckledraggers scared to death

of......

oprah

lol

[omega minimo]

79. You're not saying anything. And you're completely transparent.

:wow:

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rd_kent]

132. Wow, you got my message deleted? Truth must hurt.

[omega minimo]

152. Don't know what you're talking about. Must have been a vile post on your part, eh?

[Scout]

178. nooooo, YOU got your post deleted by breaking the rules duh n/t

[Quantess]

46. Well, it has been over a decade since I have even opened a Cosmo mag in the grocery store line

But I remember that Cosmo articles are idiotic, banal, and leave you with an IQ lower than before. They give either really stupid, or, incredibly obvious, advice.

So, I can sort of see your point.

[rd_kent]

49. OK, thanks.

At least SOMEONE sees where I am coming from here.

[liberalhistorian]

57. Very true. Which is why I will never

pay a cent to read them.

[liberalhistorian]

60. Look, two wrongs don't make a right. Just because

those women's mags are full of shit and reverse sexism (and they are), that doesn't excuse pepsi from pulling this shit. Not by a long shot. But what I see you saying is that it DOES excuse them, because SOME women's mags are idiotic and reverse sexist. It doesn't work that way. They're BOTH wrong. Yet I only see you condemning the women's mags. What about the horrible sexism and misogyny of pepsi in this case? Or does it not matter to you because you're a man who'd rather just condemn women's magazines and not address the even more entrenched and rampant sexism in many other aspects of the media?

[omega minimo]

80. There's no there there. He hasn't actually said anything at all.

He's just wanking his chain.

[rd_kent]

87. And the only thing you have said are insults. WHO are YOU try cry foul when you ARE foul?

But thats the way you operate, Im used to it.

[omega minimo]

153. You are FOS

:rofl:

[rd_kent]

212. I guess you recognize your own kind.....

[rd_kent]

85. Nope, just trying to point out the hypocrisy of the poutrage from this pepsi thing

from women yet we NEVER hear complaints about the sexism in those magazines. Not justifying anything.

[seabeyond]

110. well but you do. the one time on du we even had anything remotely sexist toward men, women were

calling bullshit.

there was a supposed (and stupid at that) study done ranking male lovers. u.s. didnt fair well. women called bullshit and how stupid the study adn no way they could measure anything like that and full of stereotypes.

threads on rape in prisons, it is the women telling the MEN that it is not a joking matter, all rape wrong

so again

you are not correct

[redqueen]

155. That is one area where it seems women have it over men.

We seem to be more comfortable expressing ourselves beyond our prescribed gender roles.

Men seem to be hesitant to do so. It's a shame, really.

[LanternWaste]

107. Cosmo incites female readers to marginalize and control the male?

Cosmo incites female readers to marginalize and control the male?

Or does it suggest to women how to better live and fit in a male dominated culture and how to better kowtow and please those men whom they "serve"?

I'm going with curtain number two.

Ed: sp

[rd_kent]

108. UH, yes.

[Raineyb]

118. Uh, NO

It'll show you how to conform to a certain view of how women should fit into society but to dominate? Not so much.

[rd_kent]

122. Really?

I have seen headlines on the cover stating things such as "How to control you man in bed" or "get you man to do (insert topic here)". Those mags try and tell women how to use their sexuality to control men.

[seabeyond]

124. oh... now see. one of my biggest bitches with females. using sex to get and manipulate

i am all on your side on this one.

[redqueen]

126. And that shit does seem to be

propagated by those magazines.

My eye is usually only caught by the sex tips stuff though. :P

[seabeyond]

131. but this is the breakdown between the two genders today. promoting both. hurts both

males continually being conditioned to see women as things to be used. and women saying fuck it, .... use too

it doesnt bode well for either gender.

it. makes. no. sense.

[rd_kent]

134. Really? You agree now?

or are you being sarcastic?

[seabeyond]

135. i get more mad at females that do this than males that objectify. pisses me off big

and if someone gal i know has this attitude i am all over her ass, calling her out on her shit and respect her NOT

[redqueen]

140. I don't mind it, as long as they're honest...

and don't pretend like they're not prostitutes.

[seabeyond]

144. ok, ... if they are emotionally wrapped up, then it is using. and i am never into that. this for

that.

if it is not emotionally wrapped up, then it is selling. simple as that.

[redqueen]

146. Yes, that's an important distinction.

If they actually care about the guy, though, that's even worse. Cause they're manipulating someone they allegedly care about.

[seabeyond]

137. and it isnt NOW. it has always been. you just never mentioned this.

i would have agreed with you on this post one of yours. still not the argument you are looking for comparing cosmo and pepsi, .... but this behavior,. .... hell no i dont like it.

i have NEVER used sex

jsut period

to get what i want or anything else.

i dont want sex to be contaminated with manipulation

but then i am not big on manipulation period. it is dishonest

[Scout]

179. poor boys, those evil women make them lose control of their penis n/t

[Raineyb]

138. By conforming to a rather narrow definition of femininity. One that apparently

necessitates conforming to whatever sexual knots necessary regardless of whether or not it is a know that she'd want to put herself into. This is no different then the men's magazines which treat women as sex objects.

What you've failed to demonstrate is how magazines which are targeted at a single gender are the equivalent of an app which is sold in a format that is targeted at everyone yet deliberately insults one gender. Or is the assumption that only men can handle the technology that is the iphone?

[redqueen]

141. "s the assumption that only men can handle the technology that is the iphone?"

:rofl:

[rd_kent]

142. I make no assumption like that.

But I do see where my argument comparing the two is flawed.

[Gwendolyn]

171. The app is targeted at males. Just like a mag dedicated to male interests would be.

They plan to market it through links on branded Web pages, and through ad campaigns. Just like a special interest mag would. Magazine publishers often acquire mags of different interests, and only target those customers that would be interested in the product. Cosmo is put out by Hearst. Esquire is also published by Hearst. If the Hearst people know what they're doing, you and I won't get the same e-blasts or mailings.

Companies fork their marketing efforts all the time. I wonder how many of the outraged women here have thrown all their Dove products into the garbage since the company that owns it and pushes the Dove campaign "for real beauty" also owns Axe which foists the worst objectifying stereotypes onto the public through its teevee ads.

[LanternWaste]

158. I think you apply literalism to mere metaphor.

I think you apply literalism to mere bumper-sticker metaphor (happens in churches all the time).

That aside, I believe Cosmo instructs women how to better please a male not to make the male inferior and subservient to his partner, but rather to prevent the male from wandering too far from his own barn.

Much like many wives and partners will do their best to cook a meal which best pleases our mates-- not out of a desire to control, but out of a desire to prevent the male from looking for a better cook.

But in the end, I imagine many of us are wedded to our preconceptions, and view with distrust (if not outright hostility) opposing view viewpoints which may invalidate our own.

[seabeyond]

111. good point, lol. maybe that is why i havent picked one up in a couple decades, lol

that is funny. but probably true.

[liberalhistorian]

56. Don't bother. This particular poster can't be bothered,

his MO is to make such claims without providing examples, then slam people for not "getting" what he's saying and for not doing his work for him. Although I do agree that the women's mags he cites are generally full of shit, including reverse sexism.

[rd_kent]

88. What is with the "he provides no examples" BS? I HAVE provided examples.

The fucking magazines are my examples. One only needs to open one to see what I am talking about.

[Maru Kitteh]

102. "the magazines themselves" is a total shotgun fallacy fail. You have provided nothing. The burden

rests upon you since you made the assertion, and it's become apparent you are completely unprepared to lend any merit to that assertion.

[rd_kent]

120. I dont know how to be any clearer.

The content of the magazine IS my example. Not certain parts, or certain articles, but the ENTIRE thing. Any one of them, any issue. How can I be more clear?

[Maru Kitteh]

154. Such limitations must present quite a challenge to you.

Let's start at the primary level. Why don't you explain to us what a "woman's" magazine is?

[LanternWaste]

161. Cite specific articles from within the magazine itself

"I dont (sic) know how to be any clearer"

Cite specific articles from within the magazine itself, and entertain a number of quotes taken in context would be a good beginning.

As for the here and now, you're simply engaging in petitio principii, (assuming the initial point), a logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise.

[Scout]

27. so you don't know what you're talking about here then?

show us, how is it different or the same?

i don't read those stupid shit magazines either :shrug:

[rd_kent]

28. Apparently, you are the one that doesn't know what I'm talking about.

But thanks for playing.

[Quantess]

34. I have no idea, either.

We can't read your mind.

[rd_kent]

37. Thats a good thing.

[Maru Kitteh]

104. It would appear to be very light reading at best.

[rd_kent]

116. I guess for you it would be, since you have been able to add SO MUCH to this thread

oh, wait, it was all insults. MY bad.

[Maru Kitteh]

172. No. The greater balance consist of questions you are not willing or capable of answering,

and challenges that remain unanswered to the multitude of logical fallacies you've presented. You're "bad" indeed.

[existentialist]

50. Leave it to you to defend this

bullshit. What a (not!) surprise.

And for the record, I don't agree with a lot of the women's mag crap, either. Which is one of the many reasons I generally don't read them.

ETA: I just discovered that I'm posting under hubby's username. I'd better log out and post under my name, liberalhistorian!

[seabeyond]

55. bah hahahah

on the eta. lol

[liberalhistorian]

63. I know, I feel really stupid! I didn't know he'd been on here

earlier, after I'd been on (he has today off from work) and didn't actually look before posting. That's okay, he's done the same with my username.

[rd_kent]

89. I'm not defending anything! Just pointing out the hypocrisy of the poutrage, thats all.

[Gwendolyn]

59. Yes, you're right. Absolutely the same schlock!

Only Cosmo and the women's mags have been at it a hell of a lot longer.

This is maybe a bit more useful, since you can link to a girl "type's" interests and at least be informed. Cosmos's lists of "the best types of lays" or "how to totally steal your best friend's guy" and "how to pick a future billionaire out of the losers" etc... never offer anything remotely concrete.

What to do. Pepsi supports gay people but now this. Oy vey, life is hard. :cry:

[redqueen]

67. lol

[omega minimo]

71. Well you figure out the first part b/c that's a stupid question and the interactivity is the other

aspect -- programming people via their hand held gizmos vs. reading a magazine article.

[hughee99]

169. You mean just because any article on men could be labeled

"Men are simple and easy to manipulate, here's 10 ways to get them to do "X""

I've always wondered, though, if they were written by women, or by men who are trying to trick women into doing stuff.

[fasttense]

2. So, do women "score" too? n/t

[NoPasaran]

3. The East German judge gave this one a three

[Ian David]

4. Women don't need something like this. Men are easy and simple.

It's like putting instructions on a shampoo bottle.

[Hello_Kitty]

6. Perhaps you should get to know some actual people

Rather than getting your ideas about them from TV stereotypes.

[Ian David]

20. And porn. Your forgot porn. n/t

[Regret My New Name]

182. I'm a man(of sorts) and I think he's right on,...

[Hello_Kitty]

192. Must make your life easy

No need to deal with people as individuals when you can just plug them into their gender stereotype.

[Regret My New Name]

204. Just men... I find many women to be very complex and difficult to figure out...

You're all different. It makes it really hard to be a two-dimensional character like myself.

[Fridays Child]

10. Ha!

So true! :rofl:

[Mist]

5. Actually, I'm not offended by this--it's kinda flattering how men work at

impressing women. And it's kinda funny how they always think there are surefire ways to do this, other than just being themselves.

[redqueen]

7. "work at impressing"? Reading lines is working?

Repeating them is impressing?

Yeah... I'm not following you on that one.

[Kalyke]

64. If I were still on the dating circuit, I'd hold up a glass of water

after having one of those lines used on me and say, "You made the wrong choice, baby. Uh-huh," just before I horse-laughed in his face.

[Mist]

183. The point I'm making is that some guys think there's a "formula" that will work. nt

[redqueen]

205. It seems to me that's the opposite of "working"...

that's wanting a short cut to get ... whatever.

[Triana]

8. I think it illustrates their issues with ego and insecurity as men. n/t

[seabeyond]

9. absolutely. nt

[omega minimo]

81. Assessing, not "impressing." Competing for sport (or product?) with prepackaged "lines"

:thumbsdown:

[NYC Liberal]

11. If you go to the app page in iTunes

You can see the first 10 or so reviews (out of like 15) are all obviously written by Pepsi PR flacks.

Really lame.

[Triana]

13. Pffft! Oh, that's pathetic! LOL! n/t

[NYC Liberal]

14. I know right? You can usually spot it too:

[seabeyond]

15. cant wait to try this out on some chicks. that alone is loser material, should never get a "chick"

just cause he is so obviously an "ass"
are guys really saying they are this stupid

[NYC Liberal]

17. I don't know, it'd be pretty pathetic if someone actually used this app

I can tell you as a guy I'd never use this crap.

Though I guess there are women who go for that kind of stuff .. :shrug: ..

[seabeyond]

18. i dont know women that go fro any "line" per se. either like a guy or not, but a line

stupid.

[NYC Liberal]

23. Never met any myself but then ..

I've been with my gf 3 1/2 years so it's not like I've tried recently or anything.

This thing really pathetic though.

[seabeyond]

30. so, you never knew a female to go for line. i am a female, dont go for line, know no female

go for a line.....

is this another illusions males live by that is just not a reality?

i am finding so many of them of late. now that i have been paying attention.

why aren't men calling these things instead of believing them and perpetuating them

[Gwendolyn]

74. I don't think it's meant to be taken seriously, even by the target market.

On the download page they basically make a joke about cheesy pick-up lines getting you somewhere (but nowhere you want to be), so I think most people understand you're supposed to read them and laugh.

And only a Frankenstein dweebish virgin of the highest order would actually admit to any of his friends that this is where his game comes from. Don't you think?

"Is your dad an astronaut? Cause someone took the stars and the moon and put them in your eyes."
"Do you believe in love at first sight... or should I walk by again."

Works every time. :rofl:

[Stargazer09]

174. Oh brother!

Someone went to a lot of trouble to sign in under different user names for that.

Yes, I'm sure the "chicks" are looking forward to having lame pick up lines thrown at them by a bunch of idiots too stupid to make conversation without the help of an iPhone app.

If I were in the dating scene, I'd get the app and memorize which lines go with each category. I'd then be able to figure out which type of woman the guy thought he was picking up. That might be good for a few laughs.

[Ian David]

21. WHO would buy such a thing?

Oh, yeah.

[rd_kent]

25. And whats with the abbreviated and misspelled texting lingo?

IMO, it makes all users of this, outside a 160 character (or less) texting program, seem childlike and stupid.

[Posteritatis]

29. It's great for annoying language purists, though. (nt)

[rd_kent]

39. You are right, it is annoying to see people WILLFULLY make themselves look ignorant.

[Posteritatis]

51. Imminent death of the English language predicted! (nt)

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

54. LOL

Too funny.

[Sinti]

58. Why so serious?

If it offends women, women won't buy their product - and they won't be "picked-up" by the men using the app. It's frat-boy goofiness - they often have poor communication skills. Women try to find ways of attracting men also, the push-up bra, for instance? They're just much more subtle, and better communicators at a younger age.

FWIW, you always sell to the personality type, and in most relationships you're selling yourself.

How does the app violate you? I don't mean to insult you at all, or question your reasoning. You have every right to feel that way. I'd like to have a better understanding of what you find so offensive, aside from the stupid and the fail nature of it :)

Personally, "Before You Score" should be an app that delivers condoms to young men - but they don't have the Willy Wonka TV delivery thing quite perfected yet.

Edited for grammar violation

[Kalyke]

65. It violates women because it assumes women are only here for men

to score upon.

True, women (and men) do things to enhance their attractiveness, but a woman wearing a push-up bra isn't put on this earth to be a cum receptacle.

[seabeyond]

66. touchdown! score! spike ball.... raise arms, boo yah. ya, complimentary. nt

just grow up already.

on edit: not talking to you. just making a statement per your post

[Sinti]

68. Thank you

Would it be fair to say then that you're offended by the fact that the company is taking advantage of, and encouraging the college boy obsession with sex, and general insensitivity? Hence, the company is being low-minded and insensitive, but they probably think it will help them make the $$$ - and that is their real intention.

[seabeyond]

69. yes. you are right on. and for the insensitivity and making a buck off it, they can lose the buck

that the female puts in their pocket. a little tit for tat always works for me.

[omega minimo]

167. its sxst

you used a whole lot of words to ask a question you (should) already know the answer to:

It's sexist.

[Sinti]

184. You caught me :) but sexist is so vague

I wanted more detail. They're trying to be "edgy" and very highly targeted. Epic Fail on their part. I wonder where their marketing folk were schooled. :smoke:

[Boojatta]

101. This was explained long ago by General Ripper

General Ripper: "In addition to flouridating water, there are studies under way to flouridate salt, flour, fruit juices, soup, sugar, milk. Ice cream, Mandrake! Children's ice cream. You know when fluoridation began? 1946! How does that coincide with your post-war Commie conspiracy? It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids. Without our knowledge. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Commie works."

Mandrake: "Jack ... tell me ...When did you first become ...develop this theory?"

General Ripper: "Well, I ...I first became aware of it ... during the physical act of love. A profound sense of fatigue, a feeling of emptiness, followed. Luckily I was able to interpret these feelings correctly. A loss of essence. I can assure you it has not recurred. Women sense my power ... and they seek the life essence. I do not avoid women, Mandrake. But I do deny them my essence."

[omega minimo]

166. It programs the boys and it objectifies (dehumanizes) women

[damntexdem]

61. I just saw 'The Invention of Lying.' Great soda commercials.

'Pepsi, when they don't have Coke.'

'Coca Cola, it's just brown sugar water, but please don't stop buying it.'

[omega minimo]

70. Programming customers to be sexist bigot idiots, hooked on the product, data mined and wasting $$$

:freak:

[tammywammy]

72. Last week, drink all the Pepsi you can and this week boycott it

Sometimes DU would just make up it's mind.

[seabeyond]

73. last week, embrace the gays, this week, fuck the females. maybe pepsi

ought to make its mind up and has nothing to do with du

[Jim__]

93. The worst part of the ad is the presumption ...

... that if you're going to meet someone, you need your phone to feed "lines" to you. How dumb are we?

[seabeyond]

113. hoooorah to your post. i have been waiting for a long time for a male to be offended being treated

so stupidly.

that any guy would even buy into it.

hey chick sittin at the bar, let me whip out my sell phone.... just hold on a minute, ya ya here it is......

and precede to give the line

[sentelle]

109. LOL

First lets look at the first deception. AMP energy drink.... what???

Why is every over-sugared beverage with 'nutrients' now an energy drink. I call bullshit. If you are an athlete then you know you don't need energy drinks all the time, only after the glycogen levels have started to drop, like in, after long extents of workouts (the classic example is after two hours of bike riding, and you have trouble walking)... This stuff is called energy drinks because it sounds trendy.

Now, here comes the next line of crap. Energy drinks to get laid? why does anyone need to be overly caffeinated and on a sugar rush to get laid? Second is, how is an energy drink supposed to help? Maybe if you feed it to her, along with a drink, but that might just qualify as date-rape, dude...

This is typical of an industry that will go to great lengths to attempt to associate anything with sex. Ridiculous.

[redqueen]

115. Heh... you made me think of this:

[Gwendolyn]

162. They aren't called energy drinks for the sugar and nurients. It's for the caffeine.

And they aren't marketed to athletes, although athletes are generally spokespersons. The products pack about 7 zillion times the caffeine in a cup of coffee and are used by young people who stay up clubbing all night but then have to be at work by eight. Or students who study 30 hours a day. Truck drivers apparently use energy drinks as well, although I don't think they're the primary market.

And not sure if it is still so, but mixing energy drinks with alcohol was a popular past time a few years ago, as you could keep drinking longer without falling over. Not sure how they tie in with sex exactly, although you could say that the whole clubbing scene in general is associated with eventually getting laid at the end of the night.

[sentelle]

170. They certainly aren't called 'tasty' drinks.

and why oh why do they all have to taste like sweetened Mountain dew? I mean I like caffeine as much as the next guy, (I live just outside of Seattle, so i *have to*, but I digress). Caffeine is energy the way Cocaine is energy. Awake, yes, energetic, no.

They might make people be awake, but it doesn't seem to do anything for the 'early morning stupids', that disease that seem to infect people.

Maybe thats the reason, because they will drink this sludge, think themselves cool, play this game all night like the geeks they are, and get up out of their basements with a case of the stupids.

After all, its the formula that works with beer, right?

[Gwendolyn]

175. Hah! :-D

You pretty much called it from my own perspective. I've only tasted one once, and it was sort of sticky, sickly sweet.

There was one guy at our NYC office who used to come in looking like death a few times a week, with gray lizard skin and red-rimmed eyes requiring frequent visine waterings. He'd guzzle red bull or one of the other ones out of his coffee cup. We used to ask why he didn't ever just leave the club earlier and he always said, because the one time he left some really freaky, awesome, earth-shattering thing would no doubt happen, and he'd miss it. He was definitely basement dweller material. :D I was almost thinking, considering the sampling of guys I know who drink the stuff, maybe AMP was actually implementing this attention-whore campaign in an effort to go for a better crowd. :)

[sentelle]

185. The thing was

For research purposes, I looked at the app on my ipod.

for about 30 seconds.

and what I saw.... was the silliest thing I'd seen in a while.

its all oriented as: if she is this sort of woman, here's what to say:

Geez, can't people just say what they mean?
The only technique I ever tried on a woman was to cook her a nice meal at home.... and you know what? it works for me.... and even when women know that I am doing it, it still works.... you know why? because its real, and you can tell that in the food. (Because good food takes time and attention, two things that the guy who is just looking to get into someone's pants doesn't bother with... to him its just a numbers game)

[seabeyond]

186. see. you got it. that is all it is. not a hard one. obvious. and right on

that is what is so stupid about this. and so offensive to both genders

hubby is the cook. he always cooked for me. i worked massive hours. we were older. i never cooked. was. lovely.

i would sit, chat and watch. he would pff chest and shine. was fun

still, 15 yrs later and i do the abundance of cooking, he comes in the kitchen to cook and the best.

[Gwendolyn]

188. Of course it's silly. It's supposed to be. It's a joke campaign.

We researched it at the office for about 60 seconds too, and it's clearly obvious it's meant as a laugh. The download page says as much.

When I was on their emailing list, Harliquin used to send me quizzes which supposedly could foretell what "type" of guy I should be with. On two separate occasions the results indicated that my bedded and wedded bliss depended on lassoing me a rugged, hunky cowboy. His type won out over the well-dressed exec, the sensitive artist, the luscious lifeguard, the rebel bad boy and many more. I'd send it to my office friends, they'd have a laugh, then off into the trash it went. That's it. Same with the Cosmo articles that give women the ten sure-fire tips for finding the best lay in the room, or what kind of chances they have of snagging a millionaire. They're objectifying and sexist... and no one takes it seriously.

You making dinner for a woman is on the opposite end of the spectrum of what this app is about... a one minute laugh and then forgotten. The AMP people don't expect anyone to actually use it, anymore than Harliquin expected me to load up the truck and move to Montana to kidnap a cowboy.

[ismnotwasm]

193. Stupid

And joke or not, lets not dick around, it's common enough attitude. Why folks pretend-even on-line-- where nobody knows who the fuck you are, that we have an equal sexual playing field is beyond me.

I see a discussion on magazines up thread. I subscribed to Muscle and Fitness for a while. Very interesting, very sexist ads, the weirdest being an ad for "Muscle Milk-- a supplement drink. Involved a woman and a breastfeeding baby, I shit you not

In a woman's magazine--I forget which, The show "Nip and tuck" has a recent ad showing the attractive back of a women in high heels, wearing what is apparently a body suit-- ala silence of the lambs-- withs laces all the way down the back. The end of the laces were in the hand of some man, I presume he plays a surgeon on the show. Some other dickwad is looking on. That one belongs in the no comment section of Ms. Magazine.

Men's magazines are interesting in how they approach their specific demographic, but all use women's bodies to sell shit. Women's magazines use the insecurity of women about their bodies as well as "sex appeal" to sell shit.


What we are dealing with in using sex in general to sell shit is also heterosexism, pure and simple and based on fairly rigid gender roles. Irritating yes, but ultimately very destructive to everybody

[omega minimo]

199. Spot. On.

Great post/rant and it does get frustrating having to restate the obvious for a world apparently regressed SO far that there's some "sexism is nature" meme upthread that I don't know about and don't want to know about.........

Re: your pickup on the Nip/Tuck ad, check this out:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6758255&mesg_id=6759248

regarding this comment on Cosmo, etc.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6758255&mesg_id=6758689

[redqueen]

206. Hear fucking hear. SO tired of the people who bend over backwards

to avoid acknowledging this stuff.

It's kinda funny though... how committed they are to not seeing what stares us all in the face nearly 24/7.

[MellowDem]

210. I really don't see...

how this is only offensive to "females". The idea that "males" always have to be the "hunters" and the insanely idiotic drivel that males are supposed to say is just as offensive, it's just that males generally take less offense to being steryotyped, because we are supposedly "privileged". The truth is, males and females are both being compartmentalized with such ads and neither in a flattering light, but in this case, considering that it is aimed at males, the offense really should be with the male gender. It plays off of the insecurity men should supposedly feel if they don't "score" enough and pushes an uber-masculine image.

The truth is, very few males take this stuff seriously, mostly I think it's just a joke for entertainment, and that's also probably a part of the lack of offense on the part of males, but I really don't see how this is any more potentially offensive to males than to females or why it is taken any more seriously by females. I've seen plenty of ads for women on how to attract men, and they are no more friendly to males, believe me. Generally, all ads that push their product based on its ability to attract the opposite sex are based on shallow idiotic things that actually have no effect on "having relations", but it does mention sex and sex sells.