I haven't seen that one yet! And it is atrocious! *gag*

I feel this way about all of the Twix commercials lately.

Like this one: http://youtube.com/watch?v=cQZxF3fuTlA

Hate!! These are so awful.

I find it insulting to the intellect and maturity of most of the women I have dated that the idea that I can appreciate physical beauty in other women would somehow be hurtful. As a point of fact it has been my experience that so long as I'm not leering lasciviously and that I don't mind fair play from my partner(s) in regards to them checking out other fellas (or ladies) then the women in my life are completely cool with me looking at a beautiful feature, be it a car or a flower or a pretty lady.

Im kinda split on this one. I think its still kind of insulting, but on the whole "looking at a womans ass" thing, I have seen an advert also for a chocolate bar where it is three women in a cafe. One of them likes the waiter, so she throws some litter of the floor so he will pick it up, and then all three women peek over and get a good look at the guys ass. Which is worse?

That said though, I dont buy into advertising much anyway, particularly ones that rely on asses, male or female, to make a point.

I'm a little offended by this, honestly.

As a guy, the idea that I would be housebroken with icecream is a little bit bothersome.

Well, first off, since my SO is bi-sexual, she's as likely to be checking out someone as I am. Heck, she points out women she thinks *I'd* like all the time. And, secondly, I'm always up for a Klondike bar!

Thank being said, this commercial really sucks on so many levels that I don't want to waste space on it here.

OMG! I was just talking to my husband about this commercial last night! I was like, "WTF, he gets rewarded for NOT being a flaming asshole? Hey honey, next time I don't look at some cute hot guy/gal, you hace to give ME ice cream. Actually I'm not looking at one right now. I demand ice cream!"

"denigrating men"... Lol. Someone is feeling a little inclusive today.

Why does looking at someone whom you find attractive make you half decent? 5 years ago his "wife" was the lady walking by.

I've been meaning to email in about these ads. There's another one about a husband listening to his wife's stories.
Do men needed to be rewarded for paying attention to their SO when they speak? Just utter crap.
I find these ads completely offensive and just unfunny in general.

i saw this commercial for the first time with my boyfriend the other day. after it was over, we just looked at each other in shock and he said "i guess we're not eating klondike bars anymore..."

Maybe this commercial should just cut to the chase and use a little clicker and treats like I do to train my dog. Focus! *click click* Good boy! *treat*

This reminds me of when my SO and I stayed for a weekend in San Antonio.

After lots and lots of hotel sex, we got some fresh air and strolled the Riverwalk. As we were passing the Hooters, a waitress was leaving. She was gorgeous, tiny, blonde, and *ahem* well-qualified to work there. There was no way my SO didn't notice her, but his eyes went unfocused, his jaws clenched, and stared straight ahead as we walked by her.

I told him that I wouldn't have minded if he had looked. She was beautiful and I sure stared at her.

leah - So looking at another woman means a husband is a "flaming asshole"? Wow.

If he does a head swivel stare while he's in the middle of a conversation with his wife? Yes.

A straight man who doesn't so much as try to catch a glimpse of the other woman? That guy doesn't need a dessert; he needs his eyes examined.

I don't mind if my S.O. lusts after George Clooney or scopes out some dude she sees in a restaurant. But then, normal people are not so insecure.

First let me say that looking at another human being while with their SO (short of a full-on, creepy leer) is quite excusable in my opinion. Problems arise, however, when someone chooses to stare open-mouthed at a stranger at the expense of interaction with their SO.

The problem with this commercial is that it doesn't bother to make this distinction. In this case, it's just assumed that this man (who seems to be presented as a sort of average joe type) is accomplishing a mighty feat just by showing simple courtesy to his SO by keeping his attention on her and the their conversation. So mighty a feat, in fact, that he deserves to be rewarded in the same way that one rewards an animal who has just performed a trick.

I don't think that this commercial is necessarily saying that it's inherently wrong to glance over at a pretty girl. The impression I'm getting from this ad is that men are such simple-minded, animalistic dolts that most of the time they can't help but stare slack-jawed at any Paris Hilton-type that walks by. They are just too stupid to have things like manners or self-control. However, since we're trying to train these silly donkeys, we should reward them with food when they do something that pleases us.

Oh, and let's not forget that Klondike also implies that women should be grateful when their men display what I think is pretty basic self-control.

Ugh. Just... ugh.

As a guy, the idea that I would be housebroken with icecream is a little bit bothersome.

Super Bowl tickets, maybe.

"But then, normal people are not so insecure."

Whoa, dude. That's seriously out-of-line. Can't someone object to something they find disrespectful without being accused of being insecure?

Every person on this earth is insecure, though in varying degrees. Can't someone also have a problem with something because they find it discourteous?

Then the women in my life are completely cool with me looking at a beautiful feature, be it a car or a flower or a pretty lady.

A woman is not a car or a flower! She is a person, not an object for your viewing pleasure.

I have seen an advert also for a chocolate bar where it is three women in a cafe. One of them likes the waiter, so she throws some litter of the floor so he will pick it up, and then all three women peek over and get a good look at the guys ass. Which is worse?

They're both objectifying ("The Patriarchy has never seen an uneven bar that couldn't be lowered for everyone."), but the Klondike bar commercial has the added dimension of - well what Feliza Navidad said.

"There was no way my SO didn't notice her, but his eyes went unfocused, his jaws clenched, and stared straight ahead as we walked by her."

What blows me away is the number of men who will defend the "normalcy" and "health" of reacting that strongly to a woman's appearance. If I found myself reacting that strongly to the sight of a person going peaceably about their business, I'd figure (correctly) that I needed therapy.

Accepting being that disrupted by someone walking past doing nothing threatening is absurd. If your head is in that big a mess, get professional help.

Speaking of icky commercials:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUHT-p8svkc
Your little brother is a perv, but it’s your friends’ fault because they’re too pretty. Ugh.

"If your head is in that big a mess, get professional help."

Dont you think you're exaggerating just a little bit?

Glancing at a person, being interested in the opposite sex is, is a mental disorder?

"If your head is in that big a mess, get professional help."

Dont you think you're exaggerating just a little bit?

Glancing at a person, being interested in the opposite sex, is a mental disorder?

"Glancing at a person, being interested in the opposite sex, is a mental disorder?"

Strawman. No one said anything remotely like that.

"First let me say that looking at another human being while with their SO (short of a full-on, creepy leer) is quite excusable in my opinion. Problems arise, however, when someone chooses to stare open-mouthed at a stranger at the expense of interaction with their SO."

Feliza Navidad has hit it on the head. It's not so much whether or not you look at someone, it's how you look and when.

And yeah, the "doggie treat" thing is insulting, too.

i would hope that you didn't mean that.

Personally, I find it disrespectful of you to spend so much time on the computer, all of which would be better utilized attending upon your parter. Stop it this instant. If you don't, you're a flaming asshole.

End of demonstration of why we should at least attempt some nominally objective definition of reasonable.

Whoa, dude. That's seriously out-of-line. Can't someone object to something they find disrespectful without being accused of being insecure?

Not in this case. All the talk about how "atrocious" it is that the guy would look at another woman's backside while his wife is talking gives away the game. Unless the people who overreacted in this thread are severely sexually repressed or insecure, and the typical hetero male stolen glance at the blonde's ass really would offend them so much; then they are assuming that the man is some kind of knuckledragger who is going to act like a total boor.

But there's no basis for that assumption. How many married men in the same situation are going to say to the Mrs "Honey, would you go ahead and place my order? I've just got to get me some of that chick's ass!"

So what we're talking about here in the VAST majority of cases, is a guy noticing the other woman and maybe doing a doubletake. Apparently that is "atrocious" and makes some people "gag".

As I said before, normal people aren't so insecure that they construe a stolen glance as some kind of threat or insult.

Every person on this earth is insecure, though in varying degrees. Can't someone also have a problem with something because they find it discourteous?

Posted by: Feliza Navidad

Let's assume that something like what's depicted is going on in real life. Probably happens countless times a day. What is discourteous about looking (not leering, smacking lips or making animal noises -but looking) at another woman while in the presence of a wife or S.O.? They go to movies together, don't they? Is it an insult when he sees Nicole Kidman and does a double-take? Is it also an insult if the husband or boyfriend is momentarily distracted by Jessica Biel's ass on a TV show?

Yes... because women love babies so fucking much they want to date them, too.

Pardon me while I vomit.

I suspect that ogling, head swiveling, etc goes beyond lack of respect or harmless appreciation of beauty.

I would say a good 80% of adults somehow manage to master looking at people without being obvious or disrespectful (and I'm not talking about times when you want to be obvious like mutual flirting).

Many men seem to be championing all of these little passive behaviors, such as this and catcalling, which typically have negative consequences or are at best neutral.

I guess until we address the payoff to the male psyche we won't really get anywhere in the conversation, since many men refuse to hear us out on grounds that they are entitled to do as they please.

Newbaum Turk, I see what you're saying here. Like I said before, I don't personally think that it's such a terrible thing to see another human being (other than one's SO) and find that human being attractive.

I'm not trying to imply that finding someone attractive is, in itself, "atrocious." I draw a line, however, when what could just be a simple glance in someone else's direction turns into an excuse for leering stupidly at a stranger when, presumably, one is spending time with their SO.

The problem is, this commercial does NOT bother to make this distinction. It's certainly up for interpretation. When I watch the commercial, I believe that it portrays men in a negative light for the reasons I have previously stated. That's just how it seems to me.

"Unless the people who overreacted in this thread are severely sexually repressed or insecure, and the typical hetero male stolen glance at the blonde's ass really would offend them so much; then they are assuming that the man is some kind of knuckledragger who is going to act like a total boor."

Are we really talking about a "typical... stolen glance at the blonde's ass"? I assume that by "typical" you mean just a casual glance rather than a full-on creepy leer. The commercial itself (again, just my opinion) seems to imply that by NOT stopping his conversation with his wife to gawk stupidly at the passing stranger, this man has achieved something highly unusual and amazing. To me, that then implies that most other men are dumb cave dwellers. And to reward this man with food (the way one rewards a dog that has just learned to sit) is also highly annoying to me.

Regarding your use of denigrating labels, I tend to take exception when anyone accuses someone else of being "insecure" or "sexually repressed." Personally, I just find these accusations to be rather dismissive of the other person's opinions. Labels like those just aren't appropriate for a mature dialogue since it seems to dissolve into good, old-fashioned name-calling.

And, as a feminist, I'm kind of getting tired of people telling me that I should just loosen up and stop being annoyed by all the little bits of sexism (including this commercial) present in our society today. There's nothing that chaps my ass more than being accused of being "sexually repressed" just because I don't agree with something or find something distasteful. If I don't go around telling people that they are "sexually maladjusted" or "sexually perverted" for disagreeing with me, why can't they afford me the same level of respect?

What's with all the strawmen?

There's a big difference between *noticing* an attractive woman while you're with your girlfriend or wife and turning your head, staring, and gawking at another woman as though your girlfriend or wife isn't even there. Stop conflating the two.

If the presence of an attractive woman sends you into a state where you have to *focus* really hard NOT to leer or oogle ("...jaws clenched, and stared straight ahead as we walked by her"), you might be fucked up in the head.

I just love the insinuation that women who don't appreciate being treated like walking T&A (or being ignored by their s.o. when an attractive woman is near) are "sexually repressed." Of course MEN get to define "healthy" sexuality, right?

This is precisely what men don't get about sexual objectification. Whenever you're out in public and feel compelled to admire a woman's tits, ass, etc., you've turned her into something less than human, something that has popped up on your radar screen indicating "sexually stimulating visual material HERE, lookie, lookie!" This is one of the most societally detrimental ramifications of the porn culture, IMO, that women are casually reduced to objects for a man's viewing pleasure. Did it ever occur to you fellas that maybe that gorgeous woman that just passed your table in the restaurant doesn't *want* your eyes on her ass? That maybe she'd prefer to *not* be treated like a sex object? Doesn't she get a vote? It's always been my experience that a Real Gentleman (tm) does not behaviorally distinguish between men and women while navigating the public sphere. It is so classy, so refreshing, so wonderful to be with a man who isn't constantly reminding you, via leers, stares, stolen glances and lascivious comments, that he's just another sleazified product of the porn culture. Bring on the Real Gentlemen who treat women like human beings 24/7, who refuse to do the sleazy macho ogling crap. And just for the record, I am more visually stimulated, sexually, than all the men I know and have ever known, and I am somehow able to refrain from glancing at a tight, firm male backside, or muscular biceps, while out and about. That some guys think this sort of control is beyond them is just more of the usual BS.

How interesting that a discussion on the actions of a man has been turned around to focus on the deficiencies of women. If you have a problem with your male partner disrespecting you then it's obviously because you're insecure, ladies.

Yet again, men are trying to define reality and frame the conversation in a way that makes them comfortable--by focusing on what's "wrong" with women.

If the presence of an attractive woman sends you into a state where you have to *focus* really hard NOT to leer or oogle ("...jaws clenched, and stared straight ahead as we walked by her"), you might be fucked up in the head.

I'm the one who brought this up and it wasn't to illustrate that my SO is fucked up in the head. I wouldn't be with my SO if he was the type to leer and ogle. His struggle was against the casual glance that he thought might make me mad at him.

We had a conversation about it later where I said that I don't mind if he finds another woman attractive and looks at her, even if I'm around, and that I'd only get mad if he was an asshole about it.

Back to the OP, it is offensive that the commercial plays upon the stereotype that men have to be rewarded when they treat the women around them with respect.

Ellestar, I know that's not why you posted that. There's nothing unusually freaky about your husband.

I noticed what you said, because being an engineer surround almost entirely by men my whole adult life, I can't help noticing how universal both your husband's degree of reaction is and how universally men agitatedly defend such extreme disorientation as "healthy".

That's what's freaky. If a single individual is that disrupted, that freaked out, by other people simply going peaceably about their business, then that person has a real problem they need to deal with. In your case it sounds like it'll be pretty easy for you and your husband to iron out between you, since he's clearly trying to deal with it and just hasn't quite got the knack of it yet.

Your husband isn't trying to claim spazzing out because OMGPeopleAreWalkingAroundOMG is behavior he wants to keep. A lot of guys, including a number of strawman-spewers here, are. And not only are they saying they want to keeps spazzing out, they're saying it's OhSoHealthyAndAnyoneWhoDoesn'tAgreeIsANastyPrude.

Yeah, they need some serious help. Your H doesn't. I'm sorry if I stood your hair on end.

An awful lot of the arm-wrestling on this thread seems to be centered around the definition of "looking." One one side are those claiming it means a stolen glance only detectable by the most jealous of partners; on the other, those for whom it means a ga-ga paroxysm worthy of a Tex Avery cartoon character. Surely the vast majority of "looks" lie somewhere in the middle. More importantly, though, is anybody actually defending the Tex Avery Wolf reaction as acceptable? Why has anyone even bothered to stake out that end of the spectrum as a debate position?

My reaction to the story of the guy who made a visible effort not to visibly notice was that he probably had gotten his head bitten off sometime in the past over the issue. Not necessarily by ellestar, who apparently has a sense of proportion on the subject. (Apparently Novella does not, lumping stolen glances into the same list with leers and lascivious comments.)

I have to ask Novella: what if I'm out in public and I happen to enjoy the sight of my wife? Have I made her less than human?

As far as to whether she doesn't want to be looked at: if she has gone to the trouble of selecting a neckline on her blouse that displays her cleavage to advantageous effect, supported by a WonderBra(tm), and decorated with gold and/or gems ... yeah, obviously she doesn't want anybody to look there. Anything you say.

If you ever catch me leering, feel free to call me on it. Not likely to happen, though; I know the difference between a leer and a stolen glance.

Newbaum Turk, I see what you're saying here. Like I said before, I don't personally think that it's such a terrible thing to see another human being (other than one's SO) and find that human being attractive.

I'm not trying to imply that finding someone attractive is, in itself, "atrocious." I draw a line, however, when what could just be a simple glance in someone else's direction turns into an excuse for leering stupidly at a stranger when, presumably, one is spending time with their SO.

I agree.

The problem is, this commercial does NOT bother to make this distinction. It's certainly up for interpretation. When I watch the commercial, I believe that it portrays men in a negative light for the reasons I have previously stated. That's just how it seems to me.

It could go either way. Either people assume (letting the Freudian Slip show) that the man is going to whip his head around, whistle, make catcalls or otherwise make a fool of himself; OR they believe that if he looks at her from the corner of his eye or does a double-take (neither of which are disrespectful to his wife or the other woman as far as I’m concerned) that he’s a pig.

Are we really talking about a "typical... stolen glance at the blonde's ass"?

In most cases, yes -though the commercial leaves it up to the viewer.

I assume that by "typical" you mean just a casual glance rather than a full-on creepy leer.

Of course.

The commercial itself (again, just my opinion) seems to imply that by NOT stopping his conversation with his wife to gawk stupidly at the passing stranger, this man has achieved something highly unusual and amazing.

But there’s no reason to assume that’s the case. It could be, but it’s also possible that the guy’s wife might get angry for a quick, non-creepy glance.

To me, that then implies that most other men are dumb cave dwellers. And to reward this man with food (the way one rewards a dog that has just learned to sit) is also highly annoying to me.

It’s a failed attempt at humor. Nothing more. I use Commercial Skip, so I would have never known about it were it not posted here. Annoyances on TV are best handled with a remote control.

Regarding your use of denigrating labels, I tend to take exception when anyone accuses someone else of being "insecure" or "sexually repressed." Personally, I just find these accusations to be rather dismissive of the other person's opinions. Labels like those just aren't appropriate for a mature dialogue since it seems to dissolve into good, old-fashioned name-calling.

I believe in good manners too, but someone who gets angry and uses words like “gag� and “atrocious� (I’m not referring to you, but others) over a commercial revolving around a failed attempt at humor about a guy who doesn’t “check out� a woman in a restaurant in exchange for ice cream, is being ridiculous. To start from a dubious premise (the assumption that the man is going start whistling and shouting “Yeah, Baby!� at the woman), and to extrapolate from there that the people making the commercial think men are baboons who just have to make fools of themselves (or are entitled to do so) when they see a woman they think is “hot�, is a real leap in logic, and to get angry over it is absurd.

And, as a feminist, I'm kind of getting tired of people telling me that I should just loosen up and stop being annoyed by all the little bits of sexism (including this commercial) present in our society today. There's nothing that chaps my ass more than being accused of being "sexually repressed" just because I don't agree with something or find something distasteful. If I don't go around telling people that they are "sexually maladjusted" or "sexually perverted" for disagreeing with me, why can't they afford me the same level of respect?
Posted by: Feliza Navidad

I wasn’t just referring to you, but my point still stands: If you think a straight man catching a glimpse of another woman while he’s in a restaurant with his wife/girlfriend/S.O. is “atrocious� then that really does show a repressed attitude about sex. If this does NOT describe you, then what are you arguing about?

Eesh. Do not like. I'm bothered both by the fact that even glancing at the woman walking by is seen as a Bad Thing, and by the way managing to not look is portrayed as an accomplishment worthy of reward. Ridiculous from both angles.

avast2006: "As far as to whether she doesn't want to be looked at: if she has gone to the trouble of selecting a neckline on her blouse that displays her cleavage to advantageous effect, supported by a WonderBra(tm), and decorated with gold and/or gems ... yeah, obviously she doesn't want anybody to look there. Anything you say."

It's not really safe to say that someone wants to be looked at because they're dressed a certain way. Your wife may dress a certain way in an attempt to attract attention, someone else may wear the same outfit because it makes them feel good to wear it even if no one sees them in it.

Example: I enjoy seeing Goth kids dressed up in their finery, but I'm not arrogant enough to assume that they're dressing that way for me, to attract my attention, or to solicit compliments (or harassment) from strangers. Seeing a girl dressed in black vinyl with purple dreadlocks may make me smile, but I'm not going to stare at her or approach her because hey, she's just doing her grocery shopping like everyone else, and her clothes do not constitute an invitation.

As far as to whether she doesn't want to be looked at: if she has gone to the trouble of selecting a neckline on her blouse that displays her cleavage to advantageous effect, supported by a WonderBra(tm), and decorated with gold and/or gems ... yeah, obviously she doesn't want anybody to look there. Anything you say.

Right, because whatever this hypothetical woman does must be ALL ABOUT YOU, huh? Ego problems much?

What I get from that description is:

1. She's big chested enough to need a serious support bra.

2. Those serious support bras are uncomfortably hot to wear -- it is padding strapped to your chest, after all. And a big chest is a whole lot of insulation on it's own. So she's probably warmer than she likes to be already, and the only tops she can find that remotely fit and don't make her roast even more show her cleavage.

3. So she's wearing her grandmother's pretty necklace. So what?

But nooooo, it has to be all about some wild fantasy of affecting you personally, not her own health and comfort and family memento.

This is precisely what men don't get about sexual objectification. Whenever you're out in public and feel compelled to admire a woman's tits, ass, etc., you've turned her into something less than human, something that has popped up on your radar screen indicating "sexually stimulating visual material HERE, lookie, lookie!" This is one of the most societally detrimental ramifications of the porn culture, IMO, that women are casually reduced to objects for a man's viewing pleasure.

By that logic, when I watch sports I’ve “reduced� the athletes to objects since I pay attention to their statistics and physical attributes.

By the way, men have been admiring women’s bodies for millenia -long before “porn culture�, whatever that is.

Did it ever occur to you fellas that maybe that gorgeous woman that just passed your table in the restaurant doesn't *want* your eyes on her ass? That maybe she'd prefer to *not* be treated like a sex object? Doesn't she get a vote?

You make it sound like men have death rays shooting out of their eyes and they’re burning the woman’s ass with them. Unless the guy is being a pig about it, how would the woman know he’s looking at her ass? People look at the bodies of others. It’s normal and natural, and as long as someone isn’t being a jackass about it, I don’t see the harm. I used to resent being ogled by gay guys and women when I was a teenager but now, I kinda miss it.

It's always been my experience that a Real Gentleman (tm) does not behaviorally distinguish between men and women while navigating the public sphere. It is so classy, so refreshing, so wonderful to be with a man who isn't constantly reminding you, via leers, stares, stolen glances and lascivious comments, that he's just another sleazified product of the porn culture. Bring on the Real Gentlemen who treat women like human beings 24/7, who refuse to do the sleazy macho ogling crap.

Thanks for proving my earlier point.

And just for the record, I am more visually stimulated, sexually, than all the men I know and have ever known, and I am somehow able to refrain from glancing at a tight, firm male backside, or muscular biceps, while out and about.

Why deny yourself? If you enjoy looking at others’ bodies, do it. It’s harmless fun. Who knows? He might notice and return the favor and next thing you know…

How interesting that a discussion on the actions of a man has been turned around to focus on the deficiencies of women. If you have a problem with your male partner disrespecting you then it's obviously because you're insecure, ladies.

If you think your S.O. is being disrespectful because he or she looks at another person’s body, then yes you are the one with the problem. It’s creepy when men get all jealous and possessive of their partners and it’s no less creepy when women act that way.

"It's not really safe to say that someone wants to be looked at because they're dressed a certain way....Example: I enjoy seeing Goth kids dressed up in their finery, but I'm not arrogant enough to assume that they're dressing that way for me, to attract my attention, or to solicit compliments (or harassment) from strangers."

If I'm enlightened enough not to leer (see previous comment), I'm certainly not going to make comments in their direction, let alone harrass them. Seemed obvious to me, but the internet is a difficult medium of communication.

I likely would have the reaction you just described (make me smile, but nothing further). Believe it or not, I think we may be in agreement here.

Hmm... So, I'm not quite sure if I'm doing the italics thing right (my HTML is really rusty) but here goes. I'm going to join the cool kids and abandon my quotation marks.

But there’s no reason to assume that’s the case. It could be, but it’s also possible that the guy’s wife might get angry for a quick, non-creepy glance.

True. Hypothetically, she might be treating her hubby to a Klondike bar because even a casual, non-creepy glance would have bothered her. The commercial DOES leave this up for interpretation--mainly because the man doesn't glance at the stranger at all. And for this, he gets a tasty treat.

I guess it all boils down to what one thinks the man would have done if he hadn't been looking forward to a tasty Klondike bar. Based upon past sexist portrayals of men in Klondike bar commercials, I'd say that this commercial is most likely no different in its casting of men as oafs. There's a particularly annoying one on YouTube where a man "earns" a Klondike bar for drinking from a glass (GASP!) and putting it into the dishwasher. To me, that's something a five-year-old can do. So, given my past grievances with Klondike, I assume that the man has "earned" a Klondike bar for NOT acting like a cave dweller at the sight of a pretty girl.

I wasn’t just referring to you, but my point still stands: If you think a straight man catching a glimpse of another woman while he’s in a restaurant with his wife/girlfriend/S.O. is “atrocious� then that really does show a repressed attitude about sex. If this does NOT describe you, then what are you arguing about?

Looks like we've got our wires crossed here. In my opinion, it's not very fair to expect someone (male, female, and everything in between) not to glance casually at other people when being present in a public space. However, what I DO believe is "atrocious" and impolite is the creepy caveman leer, that's all.

I would say that the terms "repressed" or "insecure" do not describe me--at least in this context. I suppose what bugs me about using these labels (in this context) is that feminists are so often accused of being sexually repressed or whatever just as a means of getting them to shut up and accept the patriarchy. It's along the same lines as waving the "ugly stick" at a woman by calling her "ugly" to keep her quiet, which Jessica described superbly in FFF. I think that anybody who has ever openly expressed negative opinions about a widely accepted cultural movement--Girls Gone Wild, the objectification of young girls, and a host of other things--has been told at least once that they only feel this way because they are just too "repressed" or "insecure."

To use a personal anecdote, I once wrote a letter to the editor of my local paper regarding the increasingly sexualized marketing campaigns aimed at young girls. There was an absolute groundswell of people who wrote in saying that I was just "insecure" and was obviously too "fat and ugly" to fit into a mini-skirt and so was obviously just resentful--because why else would a woman have a negative opinion about something? Never mind that the article didn't include a picture. Go figure.

And why did these lovely people write such nice things about me? To shut me up by calling me names that women are taught from birth that they should do their damnedest to avoid. I guess that's why I have such a problem with dismissing someone as "insecure" or "repressed."

It's too bad this thread devolved into a debate over what constitutes rudeness towards one's s.o., whether or not leering at a stranger's body in public is acceptable, etc.

The whole point of this post was so condemn the popular notion that men are thoughtless jerks who can't control themselves (unless they're given a "reward" for doing so).

Soooo many commercials feature this type of set-up (to say nothing of sitcoms!) - The mature, responsible, conscientious woman and her lazy, inconsiderate baby of a husband/boyfriend. Why are so many men so eager to shut feminists down when we critique these depictions of men and women? It's offensive to men!!
But at the same time, it completely relieves them of responsibility as partners, fathers, and individuals; they're just so helpless and clueless so who can blame them!? Maybe some men like being let off the hook for indecent and irresponsible behavior and think these depictions *help* them. It probably does, to be honest.

Maybe some men like being let off the hook for indecent and irresponsible behavior and think these depictions *help* them. It probably does, to be honest.

You nailed it.

"If you think your S.O. is being disrespectful because he or she looks at another person’s body, then yes you are the one with the problem. It’s creepy when men get all jealous and possessive of their partners and it’s no less creepy when women act that way."

Keep pointing your finger at "jealous and possessive" women all you want. It is disrespectful in pretty much any social situation to turn away from, ignore, or interrupt someone who you are having a conversation with. But if it's to check out someone's butt, it's OK?

No one gets a cookie for NOT being a jerk. The commercial focuses on HIS behavior but somehow, in these comments, it's been turned around on the woman sitting across from him at the table. Just like pretty much any conversation I've seen online that dares to point out problems with men's behavior.

And the little What about Teh Menz?! comment is unnecessary. I haven't seen anyone say it was OK only for women to have a problem with this kind of behavior. This thread is filling up with strawmen.

“This is precisely what men don't get about sexual objectification. Whenever you're out in public and feel compelled to admire a woman's tits, ass, etc., you've turned her into something less than human, something that has popped up on your radar screen indicating "sexually stimulating visual material HERE, lookie, lookie!"� – Novella

Most humans have asses. Many humans have tits. Many humans appreciate tits and asses. I don’t think I will ever understand the argument that admiring these human traits in this human manner can supposedly turn another person “into something less than human�.

Keep pointing your finger at "jealous and possessive" women all you want. It is disrespectful in pretty much any social situation to turn away from, ignore, or interrupt someone who you are having a conversation with.

Bullshit. If a waiter had dropped a plate and it shattered, causing the man to turn his head, is he being disrespectful? Of course not.

But if it's to check out someone's butt, it's OK?

Yep.

No one gets a cookie for NOT being a jerk. The commercial focuses on HIS behavior but somehow, in these comments, it's been turned around on the woman sitting across from him at the table.

If you had bothered to actually READ the previous comments, you'd know that it could be a case of the woman overreacting (in which case she is the one with the problem), or it could be a case of her husband being a jerk (which would be his problem).

This thread is filling up with strawmen.

You'd know -you're the one who keeps setting them up.

You'd know -you're the one who keeps setting them up.

Hah! Like your little shattering plate scenario?

Being startled by a loud noise and inadvertently turning your head is completely different than being "startled" by a nice body and IGNORING your partner in order to look at it.
How can you not think it's jerky to interrupt or ignore your partner in order to look at another person's ass? I guess women's voices just sound like the mom from Peanuts to you or something; who knows.

Furthermore, the whole debate re: whether this-or-that is offensive or jerky is a strawman.
Klondike thinks it's jerky to ignore your partner in favor of staring at a stranger's body; that's clearly the implication of the commercial. And they think you deserve a tasty treat if you can, by some miracle, control yourself in the presence of attractive women.

Ugh. Way to nitpick everything to death guys. For God's sake, don't let feminists sympathize with you when a commercial reduces you to morons with little impulse control.

About the commercial: I feel sad that this is the dynamic that gets rehearsed over and over again in the mainstream. The part I hate most of all is that this commercial assumes that the woman is policing the man's behavior, and the only reason he doesn't act like an ass is because his schoolmarm wife is over-seeing the encounter. And possibly waiting to give him a cookie if, by some miracle, he manages not to be an ass. It insults everyone.

I'm married. My husband doesn't noticeably ogle attractive women. I'm sure he notices, just as I notice attractive men. But our love and respect for each other means that we don't want to make each other uncomfortable or unhappy. Also, neither of us wants to make strangers uncomfortable. So we control ourselves.

The control that we both exert requires no policing or prizes. Or, I suppose the prize is that we have a great relationship.

I love that so many men on this thread are arguing against having to control themselves or behave like reasonable adults. Good luck with that in the real world, guys.

I agree with all the comments about how this commercial is offensive, but I don't find it atrocious - just typical of how the media plays into sexist stereotypes.

Here is the "man-boy" being overseen by his "wife-mother". Stupid.

Absolutely: oggling another woman while you are sitting with your wife/girlfriend/partner is rude.

david

Let's take the wife/girlfriend out of the equation for a moment.

Someone reasonably important -- a friend, a co-worker, a relative -- is talking with you, and while they're talking you turn and stare at an attractive person walking by.

That's undisciplined, selfish, and RUDE.

sgzax: "But our love and respect for each other means that we don't want to make each other uncomfortable or unhappy. Also, neither of us wants to make strangers uncomfortable. So we control ourselves."

Damn skippy.

And: yet another thing that kills me about this commercial and most TV family sitcoms: The wife is a perfectly lovely woman- in some cases incredibly lovely- and the husband is an average, tubby, balding joe. The wife in this commercial is thin and blond and well dressed. So what I see is exactly that: the wife used to be the girl he was checking out, and now, even though she's perfectly thin and attractive STILL, (even though apparently she's a married old hag) the other woman is more exciting. Why can't it just be that a husband loves his interesting and pretty wife?

Huh? Would it be somehow less offensive if the wife was less visually attractive than the women walking by? I'm not following that logic at all.

A dinner date typically lasts 1-1/2 to 2 hours. If a man looks away from his wife for perhaps an aggregate ten seconds of that time, that means he's a pig, he doesn't love his wife, and he thinks she's uninteresting and not pretty?

This is what I was talking about when I referred to a sense of proportion.

A dinner date typically lasts 1-1/2 to 2 hours. If a man looks away from his wife for perhaps an aggregate ten seconds of that time, that means he's a pig, he doesn't love his wife, and he thinks she's uninteresting and not pretty?

I don't think anybody said that GLANCING at another human being meant that one's interest in their significant other is somehow deflated. We're talking about staring at a stranger without any consideration for the comfort of the stranger or one's SO. The first is a normal part of being human; the latter is just plain rude.

I'm not exclusively referring to avast2006 (who I quoted earlier), but it seems that somehow this thread has been hijacked by people who appear to be ready to fight to the death to defend their right to stare at a stranger's ass. Note that I said STARE, not "glance," not "notice." I'm seriously baffled as to how a thread that began as a frickin' protest to a commercial portraying men as sex-obsessed oafs (a pretty sexist and unfair portrayal, in my book) has now turned into an another great example of how often female bodies are regarded as somehow available for anyone's viewing pleasure.

There are some things I think we can agree on:

1) A general idea of the quantity and quality of viewing that differentiate a glance from a leer or a stare;
2) That unobtrusive glances are probably not a big deal;
3) That people are made uncomfortable by being leered at or stared at, and shouldn't be subjected to that sort of treatment;
4) Than people who do subject others to leers or stares are being offensive, not only to the ones being watched, but to the social partner (if any) of the watcher;
5) That it is offensive to depict men as needing treats in order to behave as decent human beings. Way to make us out as trained seals, Klondike.

Any objections to those general points? None from me.

pure stupidity.
they just destroyed the image of one of my favorite ice creams.

Thanks so much for posting this. I'm reading The Women's Room right now and it got my mind jogging. I remembered this awful commercial and typed it in on Google hoping others found it just as distasteful. I'm glad I'm not the only one.

When I first saw it, I said it was awful. No one understood why...Are we desensitized?