@Milkman: Holy non sequiturs Milkman! Did you respond to the wrong person? I said none of the things you reject in your response, and you sure ain't addressing what I did write. The main theme was tolerance, and very specifically not "don't be offended".
But you've made it clear your emotions need to be understood by strangers, so let me say I thoroughly understand why you and others feel this booby-trap is cheap and beneath you. I agree, which is why I don't click on boobnails and don't frequent sites catering to an audience that isn't me (boobs). But that's where the bounds of our righteous indignation ends.
You know, the kids seem to enjoy Justin Beiber, Katy Perry and all sorts of "idols" I'd consider dumb or offensive when pressed to consider at all. But I also understand, and can happily live with, not everything being directed at me or being so inclusive to my sensibilities that the music industry be held to task every time some pop-star rhymes "lady" with "baby". So I implore you to tolerate my feelings as I express no cause for one to crusade around the internet decrying everything that isn't one's bag, and outright slandering those who's bag it is. That's the definition of "hater" if I'm not mistaken.
But let's be clear, I'm fine with big_jon's offence and the existence of this very topic. All okay by me, or I'd have said otherwise in my first comment (which stated it offended me on the basis of it being marketing, therefore offensive by default, thereby putting me in the offended camp, therefor unable to decry offence, thereby rendering your reply moot). But the comment you appear to want to address was directed at you and not OP. You should read it, sometime.
Oh, and it can often be taken as an offence to assume the character of a person based on gender, or gender based on character. I'm not bothered by it myself (not that there's anything wrong with that), but it might be a trigger to someone else.
Log in to comment