4 ms·

Manservants is explicitly not an escort service (http://www.citylab.com/work/2014/07/the-manservants-service-is-not-for-sex-but-it-should-be/375355/ http://www.

Manservants is explicitly not an escort service (http://www.citylab.com/work/2014/07/the-manservants-service-is-not-for-sex-but-it-should-be/375355/ http://www.citylab.com/work/2014/07/the-manservants-service-...) (http://manservants.co/become-a-manservant.html http://manservants.co/become-a-manservant.html), though. In both instances it's simply trading on the sexual market value of men or women (just because it's not sex doesn't mean the sexual market value of the person in question isn't relevant, see booth babes, ad et al). If you consider this to be misogynistic or misandrist in either instance, it ought to be in both.

jacalata 12y ago
Sure, I forgot the non-escort bit - although as you say, it is definitely about sexual attraction. However the defining point I made was that ManServants is explicitly joining that market of sexual market value, but Uber is adding that service to their existing commodity service which did not express interest in it. I consider it unnecessarily sexual to do the latter, but not the former.I consider it misogynist because they have looked at a large mixed gender audience and decided to cater to the sexual desires of the men in it. If you can point out the existing mixed gender non sexual audience that ManServants has started pushing their product on, I might consider it comparable.
- etherael 12y ago
  Avions was a marketing promotion for uber lyon where people could sign up for a free 20 minute ride with one of the models. I don't know if I see how that is "pushing" the service on the unwilling, but I acknowledge its not the same as having specifically gone to a single outlet vendor for a specific kind of service. More like offering to have your photo taken for free with a cosplaying booth attendant at a convention for a non sexual product or using sex for advertising (terribly uncommon right?)
  - jacalata 12y ago
    Are you making that comparison in actual ignorance of people objecting to booth babes, or in a deliberate attempt to invoke their objections?
    - etherael 12y ago
      It's a deliberate attempt to force people into consistency. If you object to sex being used for marketing of unrelated products that should always be true. Whether that's uber with avions, car or game companies with booth babes, or the "just squeezed" juice ads with continuously flexing male glutes or voodoo stocking etc etc etc.
      - jacalata 12y ago
        Well, I do object to booth babes and the Uber promotion, I'm not familar with the others you mention. So no need to force anything. Many people have previously objected to boothbabes with the exact same arguments, and I don't see anyone saying one is OK but not the other, so I don't know why you are acting like there is some hidden inconsistency to be exposed.
        etherael 12y ago
        You don't find it the slightest bit interesting that you're intimately familiar with the foremost examples of female objectification that spring to mind, but male examples of the same are so beneath your awareness that you don't even notice them generally speaking? That's the way it is for most of society. Frankly I don't particularly care, I don't really understand why people get incensed over these things. There is a market for them and where there is a demand that demand will be met. Complaining about it bitterly won't change that fact. We may as well attempt to wish away our sex drives. I bring up the inconsistency between the two not because I think that the war on female objectification should be expanded to the male counterpart thereof, but just to expose the difference in the views on the two subjects by society at large.
        jacalata 12y ago

jacalata 12y ago

Sure, I forgot the non-escort bit - although as you say, it is definitely about sexual attraction. However the defining point I made was that ManServants is explicitly joining that market of sexual market value, but Uber is adding that service to their existing commodity service which did not express interest in it. I consider it unnecessarily sexual to do the latter, but not the former.I consider it misogynist because they have looked at a large mixed gender audience and decided to cater to the sexual desires of the men in it. If you can point out the existing mixed gender non sexual audience that ManServants has started pushing their product on, I might consider it comparable.

etherael 12y ago
Avions was a marketing promotion for uber lyon where people could sign up for a free 20 minute ride with one of the models. I don't know if I see how that is "pushing" the service on the unwilling, but I acknowledge its not the same as having specifically gone to a single outlet vendor for a specific kind of service. More like offering to have your photo taken for free with a cosplaying booth attendant at a convention for a non sexual product or using sex for advertising (terribly uncommon right?)
- jacalata 12y ago
  Are you making that comparison in actual ignorance of people objecting to booth babes, or in a deliberate attempt to invoke their objections?
  - etherael 12y ago
    It's a deliberate attempt to force people into consistency. If you object to sex being used for marketing of unrelated products that should always be true. Whether that's uber with avions, car or game companies with booth babes, or the "just squeezed" juice ads with continuously flexing male glutes or voodoo stocking etc etc etc.
    - jacalata 12y ago
      Well, I do object to booth babes and the Uber promotion, I'm not familar with the others you mention. So no need to force anything. Many people have previously objected to boothbabes with the exact same arguments, and I don't see anyone saying one is OK but not the other, so I don't know why you are acting like there is some hidden inconsistency to be exposed.
      - etherael 12y ago
        You don't find it the slightest bit interesting that you're intimately familiar with the foremost examples of female objectification that spring to mind, but male examples of the same are so beneath your awareness that you don't even notice them generally speaking? That's the way it is for most of society. Frankly I don't particularly care, I don't really understand why people get incensed over these things. There is a market for them and where there is a demand that demand will be met. Complaining about it bitterly won't change that fact. We may as well attempt to wish away our sex drives. I bring up the inconsistency between the two not because I think that the war on female objectification should be expanded to the male counterpart thereof, but just to expose the difference in the views on the two subjects by society at large.
        jacalata 12y ago