88 Comment

  • I heard about this! WTF?! Hadn’t realized it was .org – how did they get that? I am not going to the site to find the answer.

  • Whatever keeps the fares down right?

    • I mean, yeah. WMATA should be selling every inch of space on every train/bus/streetcar/metro stop to pay for maintenance. Why the hell aren’t they??

  • .orgs need to be NFPs, but I am not going to this webpage to check it out….

    • Wrong. Anyone can register a .org domain name.

    • .orgs don’t have to be non-profits. Many are, but there is no requirement for them to be.

    • I thought that was no longer a requirement.

      • Yep. Wikipedia sez: “The domain was originally intended for non-profit entities, but this restriction was not enforced and has been removed. The domain is commonly used by schools, open-source projects, and communities, as well as by for-profit entities.”

    • That may have been the case years ago, but anyone these days can buy a .org domain on GoDaddy or the like.

      I did visit the site and looks like it is for exactly what it advertises.

  • WILL SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?

    • as a mother of 4 I don’t think any of them would “get it”. They are not fighting- although I’m not sure it’s mutual 🙂

  • I Dont Get It

    Somethings got to fill the void until the J Crew opens.

  • Wow, pretty bad ad I must say. Further perpetuating stereotypes that are trying to be fought against..

    • What, that gay people (like straight people) hook up occasionally? How is this very different than Tinder honestly?

      • I doubt that many men have “Not looking for a hookup!” “Looking for a long term relationship on Squirt.org” “If you’re looking for a hookup – SWIPE LEFT!” on their profile…

        • Do a lot of people have that on Tinder? Most of my girlfriends and straight guy friends hook up with people from Tinder on the regular. Better point being it’s not really your damned business one way or the other.

    • If multiple gay hook up sites+ places like the crew club and craigslist m4m weren’t thriving, I’d agree with you.

  • The fact that Metros advertising people agreed to advertise this is a little shocking. I’m not exactly a prude but this has no place in the second largest rail transit system in the nation.

    I went to the site, it is exactly what it looks like. Metro would never post a Penthouse or Pornhub advertisement. How did this one get through?

    • I don’t know, you kind of sound exactly like a prude.

    • Would the ad be OK on the third-largest rail transit system in the nation? What about the fourth-largest?

      And what bothers you about the ad? That two men are showing affection or that it acknowledges the existence of gay people?

    • HaileUnlikely

      I am rather prudish and I’ll own that. I have no problem with gay people or gay dating websites or advertising either of the previous. I’m a little bit disappointed to see such such overt promotion of promiscuity, though, regardless of the orientation.

    • I am a prude. It’s kind of embarrassing to look at. I wouldnt want to stand next to my mom while waiting for the train near that sign!

      • Clearly it depends on the mom in question. I was at the farmer’s market with my mom, and she kept pointing out the phallic shaped vegetables to me. (What can I say, I rolled my eyes at her 50 shades of gray box set and she tried to justify, and I told her if she was going to read repackaged fanfiction, she should at least read less terrible fan fic, and then showed her how to find it. Truly my own fault.)

    • I think the fact that you’re uncomfortable with the ad says more about you than the ad, frankly.

      Does this ad also offend you?

      https://carafem.org/about-carafem/carafem-ads/

    • There’s nothing really obscene about it, though… except perhaps the name.

      • What if it were the same ad, but the website/app name were something like hookup.net? Or guys.net? Or encounters.net?

    • If you’re prudish or put off or embarrassed by this advertisement, that seems to be your own internalized problem. Considering how many half naked women are used to sell pretty much anything, sex or otherwise, and you don’t bat an eye, that should tell you something.

      Gay men have sex. Gay men have sex outside of monogamous relationships (or even in them). Guess what, so do straight men and women. As a gay men, I get really tired of hearing all my straight friends brag constantly about getting laid every weekend with someone cute (male or female) and then people clutch their pearls over this benign ad feature two men fully clothed not even kissing. Like gay people are so salacious.

      • Ashy Oldlady

        The only thing that’s kind of icky to me is the “squirt” part, which paints a vivid picture of male ejaculate. Though it’ll be pretty amusing seeing parents trying to explain it to their children.

        • So my kids would see this ad and most likely associate “squirt” with squirt guns. They would see the two men and probably have the same reaction as they would to seeing my partner and I in a similar embrace. As far as the gay thing? So what. No need to explain. My kids already get that loves comes in many versions. As far as the implication of casual sex? So what. Casual sex happens. The younger kids don’t get it and for the older ones who do? The ‘Talk’ in my household includes a whole part about casual sex. There’s nothing wrong with casual, SAFE sex. For men or women, gay or straight, and anything in between.

        • This. Sex is natural, but “squirt,” like diarrhea, vomit, hocking up a lugy or sneezing out long wet buggers, is one of the natural efluvial events that we would rather not have to think about on the subway.

          • Ashy Oldlady

            EXACTLY. Everybody needs to relax, because being opposed to graphic references to bodily secretions does not automatically equal a vehement opposition to homosexual activity.

          • binpetworth

            Yes, this is my reaction as well. For the person who references the Carafem ads above, I have no objection to mentioning birth control, abortion, etc. because those are merely services provided, but if a gynecological agency ad started talking about the viscosity of cervical mucus, I’d have a similar “eww…” reaction.

        • I Dont Get It

          Maybe it’s a dating site for men who are “perceived to be insignificant, impudent, or presumptuous”?* Must we be so judgey?

      • HaileUnlikely

        Honestly, I’m quite put off by straight people bragging about constantly getting laid as well. If this were an advertisement for straight people to get laid and were overtly promoted as such (e.g., getsome.org), I’d find that objectionable as well. (I don’t have any problem with advertising the existence and features of tinder or grinder or anything else. That facilitating promiscuity is itself the point of the advertisement is the part that I’m put off by.)

      • I’m with you here. There are far more sexually provocative and revealing ads around.

    • Yes, you are a prude.

  • Outside of the questionable site name, why are people weirded out by this ?
    Hookups and sex are pretty much natural and present everywhere. How is that worse than a couple kissing on the metro or a Nikki Minaj video with butts everywhere?
    Geez, I didn’t know someone in DC would freak out for that stuff…smh

    • Prince Of Petworth

      I just thought it was hilarious that it’s called squirt.org

    • Its considered worse, and shocking, because while sexual images of straight people are acceptable, gay sex is still the sex that dare not speak its name (even while gay love, within marriage, is now acceptable to most.) Hypocritical much, popville?

      • While overall your point definitely stands, I think Popville posted it because it was giggle worthy. If it was a guy and girl it would still be giggle worthy. I mean, the site is called squirt. SQUIRT. Come on.

        • I was referring more to the popville commenting universe than popville’s owner. Though I do think that it was posted presumably to draw just the sort of comments it has, and that I do (even as a lesbian who does not do one night stands, and never has) find to be highly hypocritical, if not overly homophobic.
          .
          People just don’t realize how unused they are to seeing depictions of gay sex, and how used they are to seeing depictions of straight sex.
          .
          And while I’m not into lots of partners or hookups, I’m not about to tell others they can’t be – it isn’t really my business.

      • For what it’s worth… I suspect that most PoPville posters don’t find the concept of gay hookups any more (or less) shocking than straight hookups.
        .
        I think most people who find this ad eyebrow-raising would find it equally eyebrow-raising if it were a site/ad named squirt.org that was geared toward heterosexual hookups. The name “squirt” is just plain suggestive (and brings out one’s inner 13-year-old).

        • HaileUnlikely

          I agree with this, and suspect the reaction would have been similar had it depicted a heterosexual couple and the site was squirt.com or getsome.com or letsfvck.com or any such thing.

          • you should trademark letsfvck.com

          • HaileUnlikely

            I should be more entrepreneurial. I first used “go fund yourself” in a college essay about need blind admissions at universities that did not also offer adequate need-based financial aid long before Richard Branson used it when he launched Virgin Money.

    • No, it’s not homophobic. I don’t talk about bodily fluids ever. with anyone. for any reason. After my dentist asks about my saliva, I have to kill him. Honestly, what possible reason could anyone ever have to talk about bodily fluids anywhere but in the bedroom? Or the doctors office? On the train? yeah…keep your fluids to yourself.

    • I think it’s worse because it is just blatantly about hook ups. They’re not even trying to down play it. And the name is the opposite of romantic.

  • So what station is this located in?

  • Isn’t Metro’s position that it’s basically a free speech zone? I remember seeing some strongly anti-abortion adverts on metrobuses.

  • Hopefully their promotional items include condoms. Were grindr, jackd, etc this forward when they were starting out?

  • I saw this same ad posted in the steel mill just outside town.

  • I saw it in U St. Subtlety aside, the ad is just poorly made…the guy facing front looks tired and annoyed, probably not what they were going for.

    • I thought he looked like he was playing hard to get with the subtle smile and confident disposition.

  • Ok, here goes…. I first came across that website when I was a closeted teenager in the suburbs circa 2000. (I believe I found it via Yahoo–remember when that was a thing?) Its primary purpose then was as a forum for gay men to post and rate discreet public places for hookups. Every mall, large park, and college campus seemed to have at least one listing. I think it’s easy to forget that not so long ago many closeted gay and bi men resorted to this sort of venue for hookups because Grindr and the like didn’t exist and these settings provided a great deal of anonymity. I think I last visited that website in about 2002 (yay for coming out!) and now it seems they’re trying to adapt to new technology and remain relevant to their core audience.

  • Eeeeeew, that name! So icky. I fee about this the way people seem to feel about the word moist, except “squirt” also has an onomatopoeic element to it that I think makes it much worse.

  • According to Google, some people in Dallas freaked out a bit last year when an ad for this company appeared there. The cynical side of me wonders if this was paid by a political group so that news outlets can post photos and say, “look what the liberals are doing to our children!”. I know that this is unlikely to be the case, but LGBT issues are a huge dog whistle in some circles.

  • justinbc

    So is this an ad for choking or what?

  • There’s some Pokemon Go crossover potential here. Gotta catch those Squirtles!

  • I think that ad is hilarious. And awesome in its directness. And I’d have no trouble explaining it to my (little) kids. People have sex! That’s ok! And some people look for casual sex. That’s ok too, unless you’re committed in a monogamotic relationship (then you may hurt your partner’s feeling but otherwise is novody else’s business either). Really can’t understand the aghast reactions here. Must be because I’m European.

    PS prudishness: It always astounds me when my son’s daycare caretaker tells me when my (2-year old) son uses the word “penis” (in that “I have one! Boys have one and girls don’t! Do you have one? Etc. – toddler-level revelations) – she laughs about as if it’s funny and unusual yet CLEARLY a bit embarrassing. What is one expected to do around here? Not disclose names of their obvious body parts to one’s children? Not answer questions about body parts at all when they ask? It really baffles me.

    • Sorry about the typos, phone typing…

    • Yes, that is what they expect you to do here. Which is why they tell little girls their vulva is called the vagina – because god forbid they should teach them the right names for part of their bodies.

Comments are closed.