Sexism: Can you really have it both ways?

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Well I personally would not make a big deal about it if it was me. But I'm not everybody.

Men's rights activist be all like "why is it always 'yo momma so fat...'? No one cares about dads health issues."

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Entreri06

If you want to go by the letter of the law it could be assault both ways, not sure your point.


Or are you getting at it would be easier for the women to get the charge to stick?
Which I would still disagree with in the context of that commercial.

I'm saying a reversed ad would never have been allowed and wouldn't be considered harmless. You would have countless women's group bash it and say it was down playing sexual assault.

A chic rubbing on random guys is funny.


A guy rubbing on random chics is a felony. (Maybe a mister meaner :p).

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Elton

Exactly.

a reply to: Mister_Bit

In the context of this commercial, I would have to disagree.

We are talking someone grabbing an arm, context is everything.

Grabbing an arm in an unwanted sexual advance....actually.

a reply to: Entreri06

Could be, could not be, we don't know and can't say for a fact cause it hasn't happened yet..

I am sure you understand how that works.

Cause what if it rained lemon drops and malt balls?

originally posted by: daskakik
Am I the only one that sees that the fact that she has to offer an excuse shows that her actions are not seen as OK?

She gets busted.

But it's seen as a harmless busted by the "hero" of the commercial your supposed to root for. Where the "hero" or lead would never be considered harness if the sexes were reversed.

originally posted by: Entreri06
But it's seen as a harmless busted by the "hero" of the commercial your supposed to root for.

No, it shows that she messed up big time. She had to run out of there before they beat her down for being a sexual predator.

Where the "hero" or lead would never be considered harness if the sexes were reversed.

You are jumping to conclusions.

a reply to: Entreri06

" In a reverse situation with an invisible male feeling up women. Wouldn't it be considered assault?!? "


Yes . She was Also Guilty of Sexual Assault on a Male . Equality goes Both ways Baby.............')

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Entreri06
But it's seen as a harmless busted by the "hero" of the commercial your supposed to root for.

No, it shows that she messed up big time. She had to run out of there before they beat her down for being a sexual predator.

Where the "hero" or lead would never be considered harness if the sexes were reversed.

You are jumping to conclusions.

Fair point. I still don't think that was the over all feel of the commercial... But I guess they put enough of the negative reaction from the basketball players to elude to that as well.


Stil think there is a major gap on how we would precieve the same event.

And yet....all the expert "Body Language" professionals both male and female, tell you that to pick up women and flirt with them, it is desirable to look them in the eyes and touch their forearm.......shows interest etc.
Apparently women do this naturally, to show interest....sexually or whatever.
So this advert shows that the woman wants sex with the man........
Yet walk up to a random woman on the street and touch her arm? She will scream assault/rape/etc etc........unless she desires you.
I always read social stories about people being married for 60-70-80 years and how the met...inevitably in nearly EVERY case, the woman wasnt initially interested in the fellow, but the fellow chased the woman, sometimes literally, following them home, bugging them to go to a dance, sending notes, singing at their window ledge, generally always doing the chasing, being chivalrus........and these are the ones that last.
Nowadays that innocent (well we know) behaviour would be considered stalking, harassment, sexual predatory, deviate etc etc...Im surprised that people actually get together at all nowadays.
What a crazy situation it has become.

a reply to: Entreri06

Well I was exaggerating a bit but if you take a look at the whole commercial she goes around taking food from peoples plates, public nudity, steals sorbet and eats it in the store, dries her hands on someones dress and walks through a car wash. There are more than a few laws broken there but it is suposed to be just a funny commercial

Here is another version with Matt Damon without the ball players. Without her line about being touched by a woman, it's hard to see it as sexist, although it's the same basic idea.

Not that I think the silly advert warrants such a discussion, but the double standard mentioned by the author of this thread does indeed exist.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Entreri06

If you want to go by the letter of the law it could be assault both ways, not sure your point.


Or are you getting at it would be easier for the women to get the charge to stick?
Which I would still disagree with in the context of that commercial.

He's pointing out the hypocrisy that Liberals like yourself are always looking for and scratching the bottom of the barrel on incidents to incite racism*cough-Michael Brown-cough*/sexism/anti-another religionism, etc. but don't abide by it yourselves.

If this was a guy trying to cop a feel on a woman, Libs and Feminists would be up in arms demanding the commercial be taken down.

originally posted by: Elton
A world where the government screens all advertisements before airing for unapproved content sounds a lot worse to me than the occasional commercial that makes a few men uncomfortable.

You wouldn't say the same thing about a sexist against female commercial.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Elton

Exactly.

a reply to: Mister_Bit

In the context of this commercial, I would have to disagree.

We are talking someone grabbing an arm, context is everything.

What about if a man were trying to touch a womans leg? How far are you willing to let it go before it's inappropriate?

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Entreri06
But it's seen as a harmless busted by the "hero" of the commercial your supposed to root for.

No, it shows that she messed up big time. She had to run out of there before they beat her down for being a sexual predator.

Where the "hero" or lead would never be considered harness if the sexes were reversed.

You are jumping to conclusions.

Sorry bud, watch the commercial. The men were absolutely passive.

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
Not that I think the silly advert warrants such a discussion, but the double standard mentioned by the author of this thread does indeed exist.

Talk to the libs. They are the ones bringing up absolute nonsense on an almost daily basis about non-issues.

If I am not mistaken, this commercial was written and cast by women. It is the closest thing to opposite of the video in the opening post. At least that comes to my mind. In _this_ one the man gets a magic pair of glasses that lets him see underwear, and he drifts through the room enjoying being noticed by all the sensuous girls.

The girls seem to have zero problem with it.


Mike Grouchy

a reply to: chuck258

Guess you missed the follow up post.