Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Stops Ads For "Cougar" Sites

samzenpus posted more than 4 years ago | from the here's-to-you-mrs-robinson dept.

Censorship 319

teh31337one writes "Google is refusing to advertise CougarLife, a dating site for mature women looking for younger men. However, they continue to accept sites for mature men seeking young women. According to the New York Times, CougarLife.com had been paying Google $100,000 a month since October. The Mountain View company has now cancelled the contract, saying that the dating site is 'nonfamily safe.'"

cancel ×

319 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Well... (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32252870)

What happened to "Do No Evil"?

Its become "Do No Evil (*)"

(*) Except on Mondays, Wednesdays, Thursdays, Saturdays, Sundays, after 4pm, if it makes us lots of money or if we just cant be bothered with our fake holier than thou image.

Re:Well... (2, Insightful)

magarity (164372) | more than 4 years ago | (#32253206)

Except on Mondays, Wednesdays, Thursdays, Saturdays, Sundays, after 4pm, if it makes us lots of money or if we just cant be bothered with our fake holier than thou image
 
Wow, you didn't even bother to the summary or even the headline before you gratuitously bashed Google. This is about turning down ad revenue because of some holier than thou impulse, not making more money no matter what.

Re:Well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32253750)

This is about turning down ad revenue because of some holier than thou impulse, not making more money no matter what.

a.) Look for the word 'or' in his post.

b.) Apple is 'evil' when they turn things down because of their 'holier than thou' impulse, so Google is too.

Re:Well... (3, Funny)

miggyb (1537903) | more than 4 years ago | (#32253290)

You do realize you just volunteered yourself to take one for the team if a cougar ever approaches a group of your friends, right?

Re:Well... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32253502)

I prefer bears you insensitive bastard!

Re:Well... (1)

lorenlal (164133) | more than 4 years ago | (#32253510)

What would one do if a cougar (not the large kitteh, but the type that's referenced in this story) ever came up to him? She'd have to find his cube, dorm, or DM's basement. I'd be more impressed that she'd even know where that is.

Re:Well... (3, Interesting)

coniferous (1058330) | more than 4 years ago | (#32253574)

Theres a guy in every group thats into cougars. He may not admit it, but he's there.

Re:Well... (1)

matt_gaia (228110) | more than 4 years ago | (#32253962)

Theres a guy in every group thats into cougars. He may not admit it, but he's there.

And I think that said guy is the one that started this thread...

Re:Well... (3, Interesting)

BobMcD (601576) | more than 4 years ago | (#32254000)

Theres a guy in every group thats into cougars. He may not admit it, but he's there.

And why not? Of that group of friends, the one that 'takes' the cougar is definitely going to get lucky. The others get the thrill of the hunt, sure, but only maybe half of them will successfully hook up.

Bird in the hand, and all that.

Re:Well... (3, Insightful)

brainboyz (114458) | more than 4 years ago | (#32254244)

As much as guys complain about the drama, they really should look at Cougars. Sure, they have drama, but orders of magnitude less than the young models. They're single, have their own life, and don't need you mucking it up; do your thing and then she doesn't care until next week.

Re:Well... (1)

Kugrian (886993) | more than 4 years ago | (#32254078)

It's tuesday...

Someone who's not lazy... (5, Funny)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 4 years ago | (#32252876)

Please drill down into TFA and tell me if this is a slashvertisment for CougarLife, an unrelated violation of googles TOS, or really google being evil so I can be outraged accordingly.

Re:Someone who's not lazy... (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32253076)

hard to call it a slashvertisement since the article is from NY Times. No mention of a TOS violation, basically Google decided that anything using the word 'cougar' is automatically classified as Adult and thus no eligible for GCN. Main issue raised in the article is that 'sugar daddy' has not been similarly classified despite being a common term for the reverse relationship. Not sure I'd necessarily call it 'Google being evil' and I highly doubt sexism is the real reason here, but it's a bit strange, and I think Google definitely needs to give a real explanation here.

Re:Someone who's not lazy... (5, Funny)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 4 years ago | (#32253212)

Outrageous. Won't someone think of the legitimate websites that sell mountain lions.

Re:Someone who's not lazy... (1)

GameMaster (148118) | more than 4 years ago | (#32253372)

Or, the ones selling mountain lion repellent. Sure, I've never seen a mountain lion around here, but don't you think we're about due for one?

Re:Someone who's not lazy... (5, Funny)

lorenlal (164133) | more than 4 years ago | (#32253472)

Sure, I've never seen a mountain lion around here...

Isn't that a sign that it's quite effective?

Re:Someone who's not lazy... (1)

nextekcarl (1402899) | more than 4 years ago | (#32253526)

That would be due to my mountain lion repelling rock. I'm willing to sell it for $500 obo.

Re:Someone who's not lazy... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32254018)

Are you selling mountain lion repellent, or mountain lion insurance?

Re:Someone who's not lazy... (1)

BobMcD (601576) | more than 4 years ago | (#32254034)

Or, the ones selling mountain lion repellent. Sure, I've never seen a mountain lion around here, but don't you think we're about due for one?

That's not nearly so funny if you're a parent or a child [google.com] living near their habitat...

Raising money for big cats (2, Interesting)

olddotter (638430) | more than 4 years ago | (#32253608)

So if I start a non-profit caring for big cats (there really is one near me) I can't advertise for donations on Google? What is the Microsoft ad contract like?

Re:Someone who's not lazy... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32254178)

If they don't allow mountain lions then at least allow a little pussy.

Re:Someone who's not lazy... (1)

canajin56 (660655) | more than 4 years ago | (#32254264)

Not true, "Sugar Daddy" is also a forbidden adult term. TFA says that "arrangement" is not banned, when that's code for paying tuition in exchange for sex...their site even lets you fucking list that. A man goes on, lists how rich he is and how much he's willing to spend for sex. Girls advertise what kind of minimum bid they need. Just their rent? Rent and tuition? Also need expenses? Do they expect jewelry? Fuck. Hopefully now that google knows what that site is actually about, they'll ban it, too.

Re:Someone who's not lazy... (5, Funny)

Moblaster (521614) | more than 4 years ago | (#32253130)

It is none of the above. It is a sneaky coordinated attack on an innocent cat-lover's web site, probably instigated by a vicious cabal of dog people.

Re:Someone who's not lazy... (1)

gyrogeerloose (849181) | more than 4 years ago | (#32253288)

It is none of the above. It is a sneaky coordinated attack on an innocent cat-lover's web site, probably instigated by a vicious cabal of dog people.

So right! What's next--LOL Cats?. It's a conspiracy, I'm telling you. Where's my roll of tin foil, I'm feeling the need for a new hat...

Re:Someone who's not lazy... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32253140)

Please drill down into TFA and tell me if this is a slashvertisment for CougarLife, an unrelated violation of googles TOS, or really google being evil so I can be outraged accordingly.

you just want to bang some old bitches. hey at least if they are post menopausal you cant possibly knock them up!

It seems to be google being sexist (5, Interesting)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 4 years ago | (#32253238)

Google has simply labelled "cougar" to be an adult term, and adult ads are not allowed on its network. Yet other ads with the same or even stronger adult theme are allowed. The same company has a site for older men seeking younger women, and that one is allowed.

So it seems Google is being very sexist about it. Probably not a high level decision, just someone who let his/her own personal views put a word on the banned word list. I don't think Google really wants to ban all the adult themed ads, it is a lot of money they would be throwing away. 100k in advertising for one site only. Even Google is going to feel it if its puritans stance is now going to force it to block all the sites aimed at men as well.

Re:It seems to be google being sexist (2, Insightful)

mea37 (1201159) | more than 4 years ago | (#32253868)

A large organization has a subjective policy that defines a keyword list on which they base ad acceptance.

You think it's more likely that an inconsistency in that list is based on sexist attitudes, than that it's based on a lack of central quality control?

Don't anthropomorphize bureaucracies. They hate when you do that.

Honestly, I don't care about their motivation (1)

sean.peters (568334) | more than 4 years ago | (#32253972)

The key issue here isn't what's going on in the collective heads of the bureaucracy of the Google AdWords team. I'm sure they're all very fine people who love their mothers and volunteer for the poor, etc. The issue is that the effects of this policy are sexist.

It's much the same story as for racism. I don't know what people really think about members of minority groups, and I honestly don't particularly care. But I do care about their actions and words. It honestly doesn't make any sense to say to a person or organization "you are racist/sexist". But it's totally sensible to say "this behavior is racist/sexist". It's about the effects.

Re:It seems to be google being sexist (2, Interesting)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | more than 4 years ago | (#32253930)

I bet it boils down to one man who has ego issues about women sleeping with younger men. Perhaps he feels it is "gross" as I've heard some say, perhaps his wife or girlfriend left him for a younger man.

This is a dumb choice. Especially with a TV show called "cougar town".

Re:It seems to be google being sexist (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32253942)

Seems kind of strange that Google are the ones being sexist considering the staff they employ numbers shows no bounds in selection.

Probably is just one sour grape in the bunch who is being a bit of a dick.

Re:It seems to be google being sexist (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#32254128)

I don't understand why men would want to date an old woman. Pot-bellies, non-firm breasts, hugh jass butts. Maybe it's the aspect of gaining access to lots of money.......... hmmmm......... where do I sign up?

Re:It seems to be google being sexist (1)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 4 years ago | (#32254154)

Google has simply labelled "cougar" to be an adult term, and adult ads are not allowed on its network.

Well, its ad network at least. For now, that is.

Re:It seems to be google being sexist (5, Insightful)

canajin56 (660655) | more than 4 years ago | (#32254202)

It's not sexist. Some posts in this thread are outright lies. "Cougar" is banned for being an adult term. So is Sugar Daddy, contrary to what some claim. Not sexist. There ARE sugar-daddy style sites that have slipped through, by being surreptitious about it. They call it "arrangements" and "friendship deals" and all kinds of other things. Google can look at keywords and decide that a site named for an old woman who prowls bars looking for easy sex, and maybe an ongoing boytoy for when her husband is away, is an "adult site" but they can't look at a picture of an older man holding a young woman that says "Make that special arrangement" is a sex site. Their software just isn't that smart. (There are "cougar" sites that are allowed, too. They don't use the word cougar or sex in their ads like cougarlife does, and that's why they're allowed. They call it "age gap" and so on. The same company also runs a "height gap" sex service, allowed to run in that they don't call it a sex service up front.) At any rate, some cougarlife.com ads were mild, but some were borderline pornographic. Not that it bothers me in GENERAL, I just don't want porn if I'm browsing a tech site in the office, looking for reviews. There ARE ad aggregators that allow porn, and if you want porn banners you deal with them. You don't whine to every newspaper in the entire world about how Sexist google is for banning you.

I, for one, welcome our leopard clad overlords. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32252878)

Cougar life? Psh, that's so last year. Tell me about some sabretooth action!

And now what? (3, Informative)

courteaudotbiz (1191083) | more than 4 years ago | (#32252888)

If the site still exists, and am looking for an older woman to have some fun at night, I'm sure that Googling "Cougar dating" should give me satisfaction, instead of having an ad displayed from time to time making me think that I like to be a toy boy...

Re:And now what? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32253598)

You stupid or something? Ditto for whoever modded that up... incredible.

Try reading the story, it's really not so hard.

Disgraceful, if true! (2, Interesting)

elewton (1743958) | more than 4 years ago | (#32252898)

I've seen a lot of spam for these kinds of site, so there may be a valid reason for closely examining them, but if this is an editorial decision, it's repulsive.

Re:Disgraceful, if true! (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32252940)

...so there may be a valid reason for closely examining them...

I'll get right on it!

Re:Disgraceful, if true! (5, Informative)

elewton (1743958) | more than 4 years ago | (#32252948)

I just searched for some sweet cougar action, and google was happy to advertise appropriately. CougarLife.com, however, comes up a fair amount in spam, and isn't advertised.

Re:Disgraceful, if true! (1)

canajin56 (660655) | more than 4 years ago | (#32253994)

A fair bit??? In all kinds of blogs that allow comments, they're absolutely flooded with dissociated press transformed into an ad "Yeah, I love (random phrase pulled from article/blog post). If you like this article like I do, you'll love cougarmatch.com, it's where I found my hot milf lover!"

Re:Disgraceful, if true! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32254232)

I like 'fair bits'. If you also like fair bits, you'll love cougarmatch.com! It's where I found my hot milf lover!

cougars daddies (3, Funny)

Kabada (1436459) | more than 4 years ago | (#32252910)

Well, cougar do pose a greater risk to family safety than most daddies.

Re:cougars daddies (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 4 years ago | (#32253558)

Statistically improbable!

We do not care :( (5, Funny)

notommy (1793412) | more than 4 years ago | (#32252938)

Once again, another story that has NO impact on the readers of /. Neither "hot older women" nor "cute young men" can be found here. Thanks for reminding us you jerk!

If would be a different story however, if google had banned a site for women seeking basement dwelling fat people.

Re:We do not care :( (5, Interesting)

Kabada (1436459) | more than 4 years ago | (#32252966)

I sometimes can't decide whether comments like this are supposed to be funny (which they admittedly are) or whether they're an honest expression of deep self-loathing.

Re:We do not care :( (4, Insightful)

qoncept (599709) | more than 4 years ago | (#32253476)

If you can't laugh at yourself...

Re:We do not care :( (5, Funny)

sorak (246725) | more than 4 years ago | (#32253722)

If you can't laugh at yourself...

We'll do it for you.

Re:We do not care :( (1)

zach_the_lizard (1317619) | more than 4 years ago | (#32253726)

They can be both. I've made comments like this in jest, but there have been times where I've been depressed and made them while being halfway serious. Having suffered from depression for about a third of my life, there have been times where I truly felt undesireable at any level.The depression is (mostly) gone now, so it would be safe to assume jest on my part now, though.

Re:We do not care :( (1)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | more than 4 years ago | (#32253966)

Depression sucks. You have my sympathy.

Did your depression just drift away or did you find something that helped?

oh wait. have to be on topic.

Did depression just drift away or did you find something that helped like being wrapped in the arms of an older woman?

Re:We do not care :( (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32254258)

It could be both!

Re:We do not care :( (1)

teh31337one (1590023) | more than 4 years ago | (#32253004)

I'm an insensitive clod. I'm sorry :(

Re:We do not care :( (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32253176)

Yes you are! You submitted the story, you insensitive clod!

Re:We do not care :( (2, Funny)

vlm (69642) | more than 4 years ago | (#32253342)

basement dwelling fat people.

Aka "trolls" on at least two levels. Maybe three if they're WoW/RPG players.

So, who's gonna register "troll-life.com" or whatever, point it to slashdot.org, and submit some google ads?

Re:We do not care :( (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32253362)

First they banned cougarlife.com, and I didn't speak up because I couldn't get a date with a cougar.

Then they banned jdate.com, and I didn't speak up because I couldn't get a date with a Jew.

Then they banned makeoutclub.com and thestranger.com's boards, and I didn't speak up because I couldn't get a date with a hipster.

Then they banned okcupid.com, and I didn't speak up because I couldn't get a date with semi-nerdy girls in their teens to thirties.

Then they banned the appliance section at Sears, and I didn't speak up because even electric mixers and toaster ovens refuse to go out with me.

Then they banned...

Re:We do not care :( (1)

hesiod (111176) | more than 4 years ago | (#32253904)

Then they banned the appliance section at Sears

It looks just like a Telefunken U47...

Re:We do not care :( (1)

bickerdyke (670000) | more than 4 years ago | (#32253800)

I bet there wasn't a site for that until 5 minutes after your posting.

http://www.wetriffs.com/ [wetriffs.com]

Quaker Oats wants the domain (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32252950)

For their new Cougar Life, the first cereal to stay completely dry in milk.

When did Jobs buy Google? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32252972)

Did I miss the announcement? Heck, this isn't even a pr0n site.

The best advertisement for them for free (1)

xednieht (1117791) | more than 4 years ago | (#32252982)

Never heard of them before.... until now.

why (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32253038)

why do we always need to self-censor? Who said the web needs to be "family safe"? Why are companies voluntarily following 1950's morality codes that the FCC imposes on broadcasters?
and what's offensive about women looking for some love'n?
It seems like in this country love is the biggest taboo of all

Re:why (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32253226)

why do we always need to self-censor? Who said the web needs to be "family safe"? Why are companies voluntarily following 1950's morality codes that the FCC imposes on broadcasters?
and what's offensive about women looking for some love'n?
It seems like in this country love is the biggest taboo of all

Because people have complained loudly enough that it became Google's (and others) best interest to self censor.

Re:why (2, Insightful)

2obvious4u (871996) | more than 4 years ago | (#32253274)

It is a shame that a vocal minority can spoil something for another silent minority. Hell it sucks that a 60/40 split can dictate to a large minority.

Re:why (1, Flamebait)

canajin56 (660655) | more than 4 years ago | (#32253820)

Yeah, if you want sex-search ads on your website, you can contract with an adult advertising provider instead of with google. Meanwhile, people who don't want banner ads with naked women in them can stick with Google. I'm just glad YOUR vocal minority is thus-far unsuccessful in forcing Slashdot to run pornographic ads, too.

Re:why (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32253528)

The sexually repressed right hand of puritanism has its grip on the balls of America. And is squeezing them at every available chance.

*this post contains no sexual innuendo

Golden Rule, Son: It's The Golden Rule (1)

RobotRunAmok (595286) | more than 4 years ago | (#32253556)

Who said the web needs to be "family safe"?

The Web is just following the Golden Rule: Those with the Gold, make the Rules.

And Moms and Dads with small children have more money to spend on ads and media than teens and 20-something hipsters.

Re:Golden Rule, Son: It's The Golden Rule (1)

tsm_sf (545316) | more than 4 years ago | (#32253910)

And Moms and Dads with small children have more money to spend on ads and media than teens and 20-something hipsters.

No they don't. Where would you get an idea like that?

Re:why (5, Insightful)

Reality Master 101 (179095) | more than 4 years ago | (#32253830)

why do we always need to self-censor? Who said the web needs to be "family safe"? Why are companies voluntarily following 1950's morality codes that the FCC imposes on broadcasters?

Why do many neighborhood grocery stores not stock porn magazines? Who says grocery stores should be "family safe"? Why do the owners voluntarily follow 1950s morality codes?

Because it's their damn store, and they don't want to. They don't like it, they don't want to see it, and they don't want to deal with the people who supply it.

Freedom includes the freedom to sell what you want, not just buy what you want.

Re:why (2, Insightful)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#32253898)

Well, with most of your population infected with religious schizophrenia, and a giant industry exploiting it, it’s no surprise that this is still strong. (You know that the reason sex became a taboo, is that literally every human by definition likes it, and so everybody becomes a “sinner”. Which is very useful, because if you then paint some horror scenarios of how “sinners” will be punished, you got a nice way to command your servants, by telling them how to “free themselves from their sins”.)

Truth VS Advertising (4, Insightful)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 4 years ago | (#32253082)

The problem is that the two are not often compatible. The site for older men trolling for younger women likely intentionally does some obfuscation to hide what they are after. The cougar site, however, is relatively unambiguous by name. In the same light we seldom see political advertising that pushes facts, most political ads (the ones on slashdot being excellent examples) instead push rumors, half-truths, and outright lies.

Re:Truth VS Advertising (1)

Exitar (809068) | more than 4 years ago | (#32253782)

The cougar site, however, is relatively unambiguous by name.

Could not be the opposite for young people? I assume that for a 8 years old child, the name "CougarLife" would seem related to big cats habits.

Actually... (1)

sean.peters (568334) | more than 4 years ago | (#32254064)

I think the Sugar Daddy site is WORSE than Cougar Life. The former is explicitly about young girls hooking up with old guys in exchange for money. It's barely camouflaged prostitution. Cougar Life, at least, isn't explicitly about money changing hands.

on the one hand google jumps ship on china (3, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#32253160)

because of the pervasive censorship, and announces a strong anti-censorship stance, even in engaging in a hopeful (although a little hamstrung) effort to show themselves as friends of transparency:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/apr/20/google-google-street-view [guardian.co.uk]

but on the other hand it engages in a strange, fossil pre-'The Graduate' sort of hysterical moral panic that doesn't even exist (as a compelling widely believed opinion) in western countries anymore:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Graduate [wikipedia.org]

even if you are so cynical as to say google has no real allegiance to transparency and truly fights censorship, that it's just a pr campaign, the contrast here is so galling as to nullify even the pr campaign on a surface level

therefore, this has to be a case of google losing some coherence in internal corporate guidelines. there's going to be some meetings, some people are going to get a stern email, and this decision will be reversed by higher ups

as to say this decision is hypocritical of google is putting it mildly

heh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32253182)

no intarwebs for teh cougars. They must do LOLCATS.

Best advertising yet (3, Insightful)

Atmchicago (555403) | more than 4 years ago | (#32253196)

Considering I had never heard of them before, I'd say that by cancelling the contract Google has done the service the biggest favor yet! I imagine most people out there hadn't heard of it, either.

Re:Best advertising yet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32253604)

Which are you? the boy toy or the attractive older lady?

Re:Best advertising yet (1)

canajin56 (660655) | more than 4 years ago | (#32253944)

Ha, if you ever read cracked.com articles, you'd know that their filters are in a never-ending war of escalation against cougarlife.com spambots who pop in to every comment section to brag about the hot milf they're fucking, who they found on cougerlife.com ;) Bizarrely, the other dating site locked in this war is some site that goes after tall women who like short men...

Nonfamily safe (1)

VorpalRodent (964940) | more than 4 years ago | (#32253338)

It's probably just me, but the phrase "nonfamily safe" doesn't seem to parse all that well. Personally, I read that as "safe for non-families". So, if I wanted to go to that site with some friends, so long as I am not related to them, it would be acceptable. However, once my wife enters the room, it becomes non-safe.

On second thought, that's probably an accurate interpretation.

Re:Nonfamily safe (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 4 years ago | (#32253390)

However, once my wife enters the room, it becomes non-safe.

On second thought, that's probably an accurate interpretation.

Oh that's awkward alright, but its even worse when Mom walks into the room, given the purpose of the site. Now, that's "nonfamily safe".

Re:Nonfamily safe (1)

smashin234 (555465) | more than 4 years ago | (#32253646)

hey, if your daddy passed away or left you, even your mommy needs love...think of her happiness you insensitive clod!

Re:Nonfamily safe (1)

bickerdyke (670000) | more than 4 years ago | (#32253842)

She probably already knows about that site.

Bracketing paradoxes (2, Informative)

Estanislao Martnez (203477) | more than 4 years ago | (#32253854)

It's probably just me, but the phrase "nonfamily safe" doesn't seem to parse all that well. Personally, I read that as "safe for non-families".

This is called a bracketing paradox [wikipedia.org] , and it's commonplace in natural languages. The classic textbook example is nuclear physicist, which doesn't mean "a physicist who's nuclear," but rather "an expert on nuclear physics."

Cougar? (1)

Itninja (937614) | more than 4 years ago | (#32253352)

You know if other parts of the world it's called MountainLionLife.com, Puma.com, or even PantherLife.com

Suddenly snow leopard seems a bit suspicious (1)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 4 years ago | (#32253914)

And what to say of Lycid Lynx? Icanhascheezburger.com?

My god, women looking for sex are EVERYWHERE!

Thank god for slashdot, the one safe sanctuary free of sex! No change of running into a horny woman lusting after my body here.

They have FamilySafe backwards! (4, Interesting)

N0Man74 (1620447) | more than 4 years ago | (#32253354)

A coupling of an older man with a younger woman has a greater chance of bearing children than that of an older woman and a younger man.

It seems to me that the Cougar scenario contains more safety from creating a Family than the other

Re:They have FamilySafe backwards! (1)

canajin56 (660655) | more than 4 years ago | (#32253872)

Cougar Life advertises to WOMEN as "Look for a caring young man to love" with a picture of a man and women holding hands and smiling. Nice and family safe, I'd agree, except for the accepted definition of a "cougar" being an older woman on the prowl at the bar for a quickie. But the ads targeting at Men (i.e. on tech sites) are pictures of naked women covering their breasts with their hands. And they're not advertising "love and a steady relationship" they're advertising "hot women who need you BAD". They're sex site ads. And that's fine, I just wouldn't want them in one of my site's rotations!

It's about Apple (4, Funny)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 4 years ago | (#32253396)

This is just a tactical move in Google's spat with Apple. They're banning the term "Cougar" before Apple can use it as the name of its next OS X release.

Re:It's about Apple (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 4 years ago | (#32254174)

Certainly a possibility [google.com]

Google should play fair (1)

Pigeon451 (958201) | more than 4 years ago | (#32253450)

Actually searching for Cougar still brings up ads for Cougarlife.

It also brought up a Google ad for "cougarfling". I wonder if Cougarlife has done something to annoy Google, or if Google is legitimately trying to be family safe -- if so, they should be refusing to display any ad of this sort.

Re:Google should play fair (1)

smashin234 (555465) | more than 4 years ago | (#32253738)

TFA says they simply banned them from google adds. Don't worry, you can still surf for pron on google and such. Just don't go do illegal searching now!

"nonfamily safe" (1, Troll)

spmkk (528421) | more than 4 years ago | (#32253548)

If I may play devil's advocate for a second:

In most cases, an older woman seeking out a younger man is looking for a hook-up (women aren't morons, they know that men 10-20 their junior won't marry them). I don't have enough interest in this subject to do in-depth research, but I'm willing to bet a significant portion of CougarLife's clients are married women with children looking for something on the side - which is indeed "nonfamily safe".

In contrast, an older man dating a younger woman is much more likely to end up in a relationship or marriage, and while an older man actively looking for a younger woman is clearly looking to hook up as well, he is also much more likely to be looking for something more substantial, which means he's in a position to do so - meaning, not married and not in a situation where the outcome of the services provided by [his dating site of choice] will be a threat to his family.

Turning down CougarLife's ads might be wrong based on other factors, but the "nonfamily safe" rational itself seems pretty sound to me.

Re:"nonfamily safe" (1)

Jawnn (445279) | more than 4 years ago | (#32253790)

Well...
That's the most moronically sexist thing I've ready today. Suggesting that sexual congress between older men and younger women is somehow "safer" WRT "families" is more than a bit of a stretch. It is an absurd rationalization made by someone who needs to have a hard look at his views on gender.

Re:"nonfamily safe" (1)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | more than 4 years ago | (#32253996)

I concur with your assessment. I was going to post something directly, but yours was much clearer and succinct.

One thing I was going to add was that *I* met my wife in 1985 when I was 22 and she 41. It was just one of those things, and we were very happy and together for 20 years until she died of a brain tumor in January 2006 (just seven weeks after diagnosis). I consider myself very, very lucky to have met her and been able to spend our time together.

Re:"nonfamily safe" (1)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | more than 4 years ago | (#32254062)

As an young man in my 40's, there is no way I would marry a young woman in her 20's.

It's the recipe for financial AND emotional ruin.

I am for some reason not attracted to them (all but one of my gf's have been a year or two older than I am- the one who was 12 years older was too young and uptight) but if I were, I would use a catch and release approach. Spend a couple years, have some great sex, share travel and dinners and then leave with happy memories while they still love you before they get bored and start cheating on you.

alright ! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32253656)

a site with older woman, desperate for young guys. I am getting laid tonight !

I wonder if Google's action is due to (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32253696)

outcry from "feminist" groups over the use of the word "cougar?" The misguided misandrists nearly succeeded in having that term banned from DemocraticUnderground. I don't think these same groups ever raised an eyebrow over "sugar daddy."

Hypocrisy? (1)

YesDinosaursDidExist (1268920) | more than 4 years ago | (#32253708)

They leave China because they can't stand the idea of censorship - and now are censoring themselves (and by extension, my searches and ads I see)...sounds like a load of bullshit to me. Family Friendly? The Internet is not the play place at McDonalds - its (or was) the Wild West and thats the way it should stay...

Re:Hypocrisy? (1)

Mister Whirly (964219) | more than 4 years ago | (#32254176)

When a private business decides not to take advertising dollars from a site, it is not censorship. It is doing business. Google is free to take or not take money from anyone it chooses. Forcing them to take or not take money would be more akin to censoring their freedom to choose. Why should someone else get to decide what is best for a private business?

SWINGERS! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32253746)

Will someone please think of the swingers?

Google Slap (1)

Boona (1795684) | more than 4 years ago | (#32253826)

In the online advertising world you generally try and avoid Google. Not only is it really expensive but they change their rules at every turn, blacklist some of their good clients without notice and offer vague to no reasons as to why they have done so. We think "CougarLife will just have to advertise somewhere else, no biggie." But what we must realize is that they surely have spent lots of money researching what forms advertising work on Google's system. It's quite an expensive process to research and to optimize a campaign so that you are not just bleeding money. And now Google simply says "not our problem". I realize it's their systems and they can boot who they wish. But disposing of their clients as they please is catching up to them.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?