TLC Tugger? Did I just see that?

The BBQ Pit
41

Hang on a minute…Google ads have advertised mail order brides, essentially women for sale, and you’re getting upset about a device that allows consenting adults to stretch a small piece of skin, illustrated by a picture of same?

It’s a picture of a penis…woopdedo. It’s advertising a device that appeals to people like JDT…who frankly need all the help they can get.

I spend my working day examining real life genitalia and I could seriously care less if a picture of an erect penis is one click away…the internet being what it is, I imagine that is the status quo.

It’s a body part, it can’t be offensive simply by existing and IMO a site selling a device which exerts traction on the foreskin is no more offensive than a site describing genital piercings or one selling speculums for recreational use.
Yourskin…spawn of Tugahoy!

42

I am not involved with the administration of this site in any way, but I suspect that the management is worried that if they start exerting “editorial control” over the Google ads, they could be held responsible (i.e. liable) for their content, so they are making it a policy to wash their hands of the whole matter.

I, for one, don’t find that particular ad offensive, but I can see how some people would object to its violating the two-click rule.

43

Oh, come on. If you don’t like the ads you’re paying to see, I’m sure there’s a plan in the works that would let us pay more to see them.

Anyhow, given the amount of time the members have spent worrying the topic like a terrier with a bone, this board may be one of the most appropriate places that ad will ever appear.

It’s not as if the pages and pages of reason, passion, scholarship, invective and even culture we’ve brought to bear have settled the matter, even (apparently) to our own satisfaction.

44

I think the issue is that the general rule for nudity here has always been ‘two clicks’ and the Google ad does not conform.

45

[QUOTE=irishgirl]
I spend my working day examining real life genitalia and I could seriously care less if a picture of an erect penis is one click away…
[/QUOTE]
They say that people who begin work in candy stores are encouraged to eat as much as they like, because they will eventually tire of the novelty.

Do your employers have a similar policy?

46

[QUOTE=tdn]
Nope. I googled it to see what you’re talking about, and right there was a big tumescent wang on my monitor.
[/QUOTE]

Well, I went to the homepage, tlctugger . com, and there was no “big tumescent wang” so it probably was at least another click away. You either went to the product demo page (shudder) or maybe your imagination got away from you.

You are when you act like you know what you’re talking about.

47

Heh, my employer is the NHS and I’m working in O&G.
It’s safe to say that no, we don’t have a similar policy :slight_smile:

48

[QUOTE=The King of Soup]
Anyhow, given the amount of time the members have spent worrying the topic like a terrier with a bone
[/QUOTE]

Heheheheh…
Sorry. hangs head in shame

49

[QUOTE=irishgirl]
Hang on a minute…Google ads have advertised mail order brides, essentially women for sale, and you’re getting upset about a device that allows consenting adults to stretch a small piece of skin, illustrated by a picture of same?

It’s a picture of a penis…woopdedo. It’s advertising a device that appeals to people like JDT…who frankly need all the help they can get.

I spend my working day examining real life genitalia and I could seriously care less if a picture of an erect penis is one click away…the internet being what it is, I imagine that is the status quo.

It’s a body part, it can’t be offensive simply by existing and IMO a site selling a device which exerts traction on the foreskin is no more offensive than a site describing genital piercings or one selling speculums for recreational use.
Yourskin…spawn of Tugahoy!
[/QUOTE]
I agree with every word you say irishgirl. I have no problems with pictures of body parts, or of machines designed to stretch them. I also think it’s less offensive than mail order brides.

But the powers that be on this message board have made very clear, time and again, that material which might get someone into trouble at work should not be available with a single click. I’ve reported quite a few NSFW links to moderators, not because i care about the content of the links (and i work at home anyway), but because it’s a board rule, and there are some people who work in places with rather strict internet use policies.

The last time i reported such a link was just a few days ago, in the Burning Man thread, when the OP gave direct link to a site that contained some pictures of naked people. I looked at all of the pictures, and i thought they were great, but i still reported the link for the reasons given above.

Furthermore, the rule against active NSFW links applies whether or not you warn people. So, even if you put in big, bold letters: THIS LINK CONTAINS BOOBIES AND IS NOT SAFE FOR WORK, the mods will still disable your link. The argument that warning people should be good enough, and that people shouldn’t be stupid enough to click on links when they get a warning, has never been acceptable to the people who run the board, so why should the policy be different for the advertisements? If it’s unacceptable to expose people to turgid penises in posts, it should also be unacceptable in the ads.

50

[QUOTE=Plynck]
They say that people who begin work in candy stores are encouraged to eat as much as they like, because they will eventually tire of the novelty.
[/QUOTE]

I hope candy stores offer good dental plans.

51

[QUOTE=auRa]
Heheheheh…

Heheheheh…
Sorry. hangs head in shame

Sorry. hangs head in shame
[/QUOTE]

And you missed THIS? you SHOULD hang your head in shame (heh. Heheheheheh.)

52

[QUOTE=mhendo]
If it’s unacceptable to expose people to turgid penises in posts, it should also be unacceptable in the ads.
[/QUOTE]

I still haven’t seen any evidence that the ad in question was NSFW. There are no penises, turgid or otherwise, on the main page of the site in question. Was that not the page linked in the ad? If not, what page was lnked?
.

53

[QUOTE=andros]
I still haven’t seen any evidence that the ad in question was NSFW. There are no penises, turgid or otherwise, on the main page of the site in question. Was that not the page linked in the ad? If not, what page was lnked?
.
[/QUOTE]
I haven’t either. I haven’t even viewed the ads. I was simply going on what others had said. I use Firefox + Adblock, so i don’t even see the Google ads.

Obviously, if the ads were not NSFW, then my point is moot. But some folks seemed not to care if advertising links were NSFW, and i was simply making the point that, if there were NSFW ads, it would be inconsistent with the rules that are applied to board members.

54

.
Agreed.
.

55

So I’ve been thinking about tumescent wangs all weekend, thanks tdn. And I have come to realize that these devices that attempt to modify a penis can be viewed simply as a “male hygeine” product. Would you agree?

Pharaoh knows woman have all sorts of body modifying products to choose from in addition to the usual line up of femine hygeine products. Though I haven’t seen any feminine hygeine products advertised here, douches, diva cups, gynazole-1? Anyone? I guess if its widely available in retail stores a mail order set up wouldn’t be necessary.

Can I find a TLC tugger at Walgreens? Do straight guys go for the cone and tugger? And who do men and their partners have to thank for inventing such a device?

My initial reaction was one of “ewww” but one must have sympathy to the foreskinless amongst us.

56

[QUOTE=mhendo]
I haven’t either. I haven’t even viewed the ads. I was simply going on what others had said. I use Firefox + Adblock, so i don’t even see the Google ads.

Obviously, if the ads were not NSFW, then my point is moot. But some folks seemed not to care if advertising links were NSFW, and i was simply making the point that, if there were NSFW ads, it would be inconsistent with the rules that are applied to board members.
[/QUOTE]

Unless of course you step past the zero-tolerance mindset and understand that rules for posters need not be the same as rules for ads.

See, the two-click rule is there to prevent someone from accidentally clicking on something that is NSFW. Someone could post a link and not describe it well (hey guys, look at this!), and then you click on it and get a screen full of hairy ass or something, and your boss sees it and fires you.

But when a banner ad advertises a penis enhancement in bold type, just what do you think is going to happen if you click that ad? Why would you even consider clicking it if you’re at work?

I can’t believe the outrage being generated over this. It’s an ad on a message board, for Christ’s sake. A message board full of very adult topics. Don’t click it if you don’t want to find out about penises. If you do, and you happen to see a picture of a penis, don’t bitch about it. Life’s too short.

57

[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
But when a banner ad advertises a penis enhancement in bold type, just what do you think is going to happen if you click that ad? Why would you even consider clicking it if you’re at work?
[/QUOTE]
I happen to agree with his.

But, as you apparently decided not to read the part of my post that specifically addressed your argument, let me reiterate what i said:

Why, if such a warning (or its equivalent) is good enough in an ad, wouldn’t it be good enough in a post? The links work pretty much the same way in both cases.

Nothing to do with “zero-tolerance,” although i’m sure it made you feel manly to use the phrase, inappropriate though it is for this situation.

Simply a question of consistency. Either a bold-type warning is good enough to prevent people from clicking on NSFW links, or it isn’t. If it is, then bold-type warnings should be sufficient in both posts and in ads. And if it isn’t, and such warnings are considered insufficient by the powers that be, then it should be the case for both posts and ads.