Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Stops Ads For "Cougar" Sites

Posted by samzenpus on from the here's-to-you-mrs-robinson dept.

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.'"

12 of 319 comments (clear)

  1. Someone who's not lazy... by sakdoctor · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    1. Re:Someone who's not lazy... by Moblaster · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

    2. Re:Someone who's not lazy... by sakdoctor · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    3. Re:Someone who's not lazy... by lorenlal · · Score: 5, Funny

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

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

  2. We do not care :( by notommy · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    1. Re:We do not care :( by Kabada · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:We do not care :( by sorak · · Score: 5, Funny

      If you can't laugh at yourself...

      We'll do it for you.

  3. Re:Disgraceful, if true! by elewton · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  4. It seems to be google being sexist by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:It seems to be google being sexist by canajin56 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
  5. Re:why by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
  6. Re:Well... by macbeth66 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hand in the bush, and all that.

    There, fixed for ya.