• Yup, they sure would!
  • I'm a woman, it would piss me off and I think that ad should piss any man off.
  • When I saw that, I read it twice in case I got it wrong! I guess it is to be expected from a company that see's nothing wrong with OMG as a feature on their menu.
  • no. right before u have sex, ring a little bell. do it alot then in a probably in a few years everytime u want sex u'll just ring the bell. becomes instinct.
  • probly....i'm sure some men got upset over the other one...i would just like to hear the suggestions so i could laugh :)
  • yes because women are over sensertive and men can take a joke.
  • If it was aimed at women, it would be 'Breaking News' on CNN and we wouldn't hear the end of the protests.
  • Sit BooBoo Sit..Good Dog:):) Do you want a scooby snack for figuing that out all by yourself:):)
  • ooooh...thered be hell to pay. i foresee sex withholding and rampant bra burning if that ever happened. haha. frankly, i think that is insulting to either sex.
  • Actually, I'm a woman and either one would piss me off pretty badly. It's insulting to human intelligence, and I don't understand why there's such a disconnect between so many men and women (which is usually full of stereotypes like "nagging prude of a wife" and "lazy slob of a husband") and why so many people encourage it. Don't they have opposite sex friends?
  • I think you are right. More people would get upset if it was the other way around. Girls take offense to things like that more easily.
  • A marriage counselor once told me to get a dog training book to understand how to treat my husband. I swear! So, I guess it's not so quirky after all. My experience (and I have a bit) is that men have very simple needs; food and sex. And if you give them both when and how they want those things, they are happy guys. We are the ones that complicate the heck out of everything. :)))))
  • The thing about it is... I think the fact that it'll upset some people and intrigue others is what they want for a headline. Even in elementary school... we learned about "attention getters" for our titles and the opening line of our pieces. This article(didn't see the one on Yahoo!) is pretty much about the same, I think... at least the article is about that. There's actually lots of research put into it and it's not at all what I expected the article would be like. It actually makes sense. "Reward him for good behavior" seems like a pretty good idea to "train" someone to act how you'd prefer them to. It says nothing about punishing for bad behavior or smacking him on the head with a rolled up news paper like the title suggested to me. I'm actually thinking about making sure I show my boyfriend appreciation and reward him when he treats me well and shows he cares instead of taking it for granted.
  • Yeah, that is pretty patronizing for both genders. Check out this little chesnut from the article: "One caveat: Timing is crucial. Be sure to reward him at the exact moment he engages in a positive behavior; otherwise, he won't be able to make the appropriate connection." Of course we've all seen the t-shirt that says "My wife says I never listen to her. At least I think that's what she says", but the idea that the man won't recognize why you're praising him is pretty extreme. I think the average man has a longer memory span than a goldfish (even if some tend to practice selective memory with their wives :)). The only reason I can think of that men don't react poorly to the article is that in popular media, men revel in acting like animals, as if it's part of their masculinity (think "The Man Show").
  • Yes, that would cause alot of women to get pissed off. As a guy, I am not offended by women trying to train us using animal tricks. If the headline was different, women would be up in arms. Double standard? I think so!

Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy