Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft Quickly Revises "Sexting" Ad For Kin Phone

theodp writes "Microsoft's Kin mobile phone project came under fire as Consumer Reports and others pointed out that a promotional video looked like an inappropriate endorsement of 'sexting,' prompting a quick edit and an apologetic tweet. 'The video,' observed Consumer Reports, 'includes a downright creepy sequence [beginning around 0:33] in which a young man is shown putting a Kin under his shirt and apparently snapping a picture of one of his naked breasts. The breast is then shown on the phone's screen, just before the guy apparently sends it to someone. Next we see the face of a young woman, seemingly the recipient, with an amused expression...'"

35 of 298 comments (clear)

  1. LOLwut? by PhxBlue · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Okay, I could see a problem if it were a female breast ... but who the fuck thinks that sending a picture of a male breast is "sexting"?

    --
    !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
    1. Re:LOLwut? by causality · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Okay, I could see a problem if it were a female breast ... but who the fuck thinks that sending a picture of a male breast is "sexting"?

      If they think a man's bare chest is in any way a private part or constitutes nudity, then I imagine these prudes would have a heart attack if they went to any beach.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    2. Re:LOLwut? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Okay, I could see a problem if it were a female breast ... but who the fuck thinks that sending a picture of a male breast is "sexting"?

      Women? Gay people?

    3. Re:LOLwut? by lul_wat · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hello? Also this ad is terrible. Atleast cover some of the features of the device, I can already put my current cellphone up my shirt o that's not a selling point

      --
      Divide a cake by zero. Is it still a cake?
    4. Re:LOLwut? by AnonGCB · · Score: 4, Informative

      As mentioned elsewhere, male breasts are generally not considered a private part, regardless of who they are attractive for.

      --
      http://CryoLANparty.com/ A lan I'm staff on!
    5. Re:LOLwut? by ArundelCastle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As mentioned elsewhere, male breasts are generally not considered a private part, regardless of who they are attractive for.

      Which is clearly a cultural and societal double-standard that topfree-rights advocates oppose. Of course back in my day, males didn't have breasts, they had pecs.
      Lets use this example: Is a pierced male nipple somehow less sexual than a pierced female nipple, purely because a man can display his chest freely? The result and motivation for the wearer is arguably the same regardless of gender or sexual preference. Sexy is whatever gets you hot, not what a ratings board or a family advocate group says.

    6. Re:LOLwut? by tsa · · Score: 4, Insightful

      She looks nice. She's got a beautiful face and body. But I bet you didn't see that, focused as you were on her breasts.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    7. Re:LOLwut? by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You can pretend the US is some how leagues above everyone else in freedom but it doesn't make it true. You're less likely to see women walking on the beach topless in the US, you're more likely to get sued (in fact lawsuits the subjects of numerous TV shows), you're more likely to be attacked for holding different religious beliefs, especially if you believe in no god.

      And here are some examples of Europeans freedom of speech:

      Pat Condell http://www.youtube.com/user/patcondell

      Nigel Farage http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bypLwI5AQvY

      Nick Griffin http://bnp.org.uk/

      Sure Europe has twats, like Nick Griffin, crying about their rights being trampled on but the mere fact he can hang out with the David Duke, hasn't been stopped for his comments on Muslims and has been allowed to even participate in politics says to me that European free speech is doing fine.

      Gun laws aren't even as restrictive as some Americans make out. Very few countries ban guns out right. Even the NRA has stated that, for instance, 10% of Austrians own hand guns compared to 16% of Americans. http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=72

      I do support the freedom to own guns and don't think own even automatics should be completely out of the question (though it should be quite hard to get them) but I understand why the laws exist and in a free society if vast majority do agree with the laws then where is the issue with the law? Some people value things differently. The Japanese may think the US is odd for not having public baths but that doesn't necessarily make the US wrong (or right).

      There are some limits to freedom of speech just as there are some limits in the US and every other country. Europe is by no means perfect but the US certainly isn't either and it isn't

    8. Re:LOLwut? by ultranova · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I do support the freedom to own guns and don't think own even automatics should be completely out of the question (though it should be quite hard to get them)

      Either automatic weapons in the hands of citizenry are okay or they are not. Which one is it?

      I have nothing but contempt for people who don't have the guts to ban something outright but try to make it de facto banned by forcing people to jump through hoops.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  2. Was it hairy!? by Merakis · · Score: 5, Funny

    Mother's hide your daughters. I hear 'The Nippler' is in town.

  3. Uptight much? by Rog7 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Oh good lord, how uptight does our society need to be?

    It's a contradiction too, because sexualized youth seems to be perfectly acceptable as long as it's from a Mickey Mouse Club alumni that promises abstinence.
     

    1. Re:Uptight much? by gmhowell · · Score: 3, Funny

      TPIUWP

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    2. Re:Uptight much? by gmhowell · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No shit. Considering how often we hear about porn moving technology, how big 'The Valley' is, and so forth, can we please shed this neo-Puritanical bullshit in the US?

      Guess what: normal, healthy people like to fuck. Normal, healthy people (especially men) like to look at other normal, healthy people. Just because your version of the FSM said it was all "eww, icky, gross" does not mean the rest of us should suffer.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    3. Re:Uptight much? by hey! · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That rule is for Jews only, like the rule against eating milk with meat. A gentile can eat a cheeseburger, or wear cotton-poly blends, without being unrighteous.

      The milk rule has to do with a verse in Exodus listing some religious rituals Jews were commanded to perform and others that that were forbidden. One of the forbidden rituals was boiling a baby goat in its mother's milk. Aside from considerations of cruelty, 20th Century archeology discovered that the Ugarites, one of Israel's neighbors, practiced precisely such a ritual.

      The prohibition against seething a kid in its mother's milk prevented the incorporation of this foreign ritual into Jewish life. Later, when that law was no longer needed, it was reinterpreted to forbid mixing milk and meat at all, even though each was allowed separately. It was a commandment, and since there is no mechanism for repealing a divine law, the Jews had to find a way to obey it. The prohibition on mixed fibers is probably of the same nature. It probably addressed a specific threat of cultural assimilation or religious syncretism.

      The function of many of the commandments of Jewish religious law seems to be maintaining a distinct Jewish cultural identity. If the Pentateuch were still open to additions today, they'd probably add a prohibition against Jews setting up live trees in their house. To us, the intent would be clear: Jews should not let Christmas holiday practices creep into their culture. Two or three thousand years from now, long after people stop setting up Christmas trees, that prohibition might seem weird and arbitrary.

      In an ironic way, it is the arbitrariness of such a law that justifies it. The entire point is to prevent the Jewish people from assimilating into the cultures that surround them. Laws against killing or bearing false witness are sensible laws for anyone, but were all Jews to follow only such laws, it would be doubtful that Jews would maintain their distinct cultural identity for thousands of years more.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    4. Re:Uptight much? by Klinky · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So basically it sounds like someone bending the word of "God" to really just be a way of telling other people what to do/not to do and that the divine word isn't really divine after all.

  4. Fucking Puritans by QuantumG · · Score: 5, Insightful

    People have bodies.. get over it.

    Sexting is a "phenomena" of prudes having to face the fact that not everyone experiences the same reservations as them about nudity. No-one is forcing them to participate.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
    1. Re:Fucking Puritans by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 4, Funny

      Fucking Puritans



      Amusing choice of adjectives.

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    2. Re:Fucking Puritans by Jeremi · · Score: 4, Funny

      Sexting is a "phenomena" of prudes having to face the fact that not everyone experiences the same reservations as them about nudity. No-one is forcing them to participate.

      Clearly you've never received a visit from "Mr. Goatse" on your cell. I had to soak mine in bleach for an hour, and Verizon wouldn't honor the warranty after that.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    3. Re:Fucking Puritans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Puritanism - the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy." - Henry Mencken

    4. Re:Fucking Puritans by pushing-robot · · Score: 4, Funny

      People have bodies.. get over it.

      As the spokesman for the brain-in-vat segment of the Slashdot community, I submit that you are an insensitive clod.

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
  5. Depends on the man-tit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
  6. Sexting by MichaelSmith · · Score: 3, Funny

    Clearly I was a teenager in the wrong millennium.

    1. Re:Sexting by codepunk · · Score: 3, Funny

      Why do you dream of being a teen again and your friends sending pictures of man boobies to you?

      --


      Got Code?
    2. Re:Sexting by feepness · · Score: 4, Funny

      I dunno. If you're chicks had junk I'm not sure I'm all that envious.

  7. It could have been worse by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 3, Funny

    They could have shown the Blue Balls Of Death.

    --
    No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
  8. Easy share, easy go... by LostCluster · · Score: 3, Funny

    The Kin series of phone seems to be all about easy sharing with a green button dedicated to that called the "Kin Spot"... but well, that can be taken the wrong way, can't it?

  9. Sexting with kin? by bipbop · · Score: 5, Funny

    Sexting with kin? Now your incest can have more manboobular visuals? What?

  10. This keeps happening by Gadget_Guy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I am sure that it is part of the advertising plan to be "forced" to withdraw sensational ads as a way of gaining extra publicity. I have never seen this ad, and only once heard about the Kin phone, but now I have been exposed (oh dear) to the campaign as a news item.

    I am sure that if nobody complained then the ad executives would plant their own complaints in the news just to get people to talk about it. How many times do you hear news reports about people being outraged without ever saying who those people are. I imagine that it is rare to need to resort to doing their own complaints, because the people who get offended by this are so predictably vocal. And who cares if you piss them off, because the target market are young people who think sexting is OK and who would be quite happy to rebel against the prudes.

  11. Re:Why is this even an issue? by AlamedaStone · · Score: 5, Funny

    Seriously? Is people who think like this a large enough fraction of their market base that they actually feel like they have to appease them?

    The only reason to defend sexting is if you like child pornography. You aren't a ... pedophile... are you?

    I mean, think of the children.

    The children know that Freedom is what we believe in our hearts to be morally right! And we here in America love our freedom, no matter what some experts would like us to believe! After all, 9/11 happened because they hated our Freedom, so anyone that can't think of the children might as well be terrorists. It's about Family Values.

    Family, Faith and Freedom are what separate us and make us the greatest nation in the world!

    God Bless America.

    --
    "All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
  12. Creepy? by tomthepom · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Creepy? Really? What exactly is 'creepy' about it?
    Unless you mean 'likely to make a large section of the population feel uneasy because they've been cowed into a pathetic state of guilt and self-censorship in the face of a narrow-minded and hypocritical moral hysteria of a small minority'. Yeh you're right, that is creepy.
     

  13. Re:Why is this even an issue? by deniable · · Score: 4, Funny

    I mean, think of the children.

    The Thought Police would like a word with you. Come along please.

  14. Re:Why is this even an issue? by OrwellianLurker · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing. " ~ Poe

    --
    'Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.' - Mao Tse-tung
  15. Quick edit? by Stan+Vassilev · · Score: 4, Insightful

    prompting a quick edit and an apologetic tweet.

    How quick was it? Was it so quick, that you'd think they had the edit prepared in advance, just waiting for the "outrage"?
    Come on guys, those are old, old tricks.

    So, anyway, Microsoft have a new mobile device again with a hip ad again, awkward name again, that's trying to compete with a similar device from Apple again. Best of luck to them.

    "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein

  16. Microsoft's 'kin mobile phone project by itsdapead · · Score: 3, Funny

    Microsoft's Kin mobile phone project

    Hate to be a 'kin grammar Nazi but there's a 'kin apostrophe missing there (to indicate missing letters - actually there should be one after as well, but that looks silly and the "g" is usually silent anyway).

    As in: "'kin hell, some 'kin perv has sent me a 'kin picture of his 'kin moob! Ugh, its 'kin mingin'!"

    They've failed to 'kin notice that, but they're worried about 'kin man tits?

    (Plus, Kin Sexting sounds a bit incestuous...)

    (To appease Pratchett fans, perhaps the next Android phone will be the "-ing"...)

    --
    In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
  17. The point by wisnoskij · · Score: 4, Insightful

    While the ad only showed a mans chest, that is not the point of the controversy.
    The point is that the ad was basically advocating sexting.

    I am pretty sure no one was mad about the ad containing a males chest.

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.