though i do agree that this blog is often sloppy in research, generalization and logic leaps, in this regard at least the spirit of this post is right on. One could get the impression reading high tomes, cannabis culture and the myriad of other blogs & sites that 13-year-old douchebags are grossly overrepresented in the population of users.

I dispise lots of advertizing because it distorts, generalizes and just plain mis-directs the consciousness around decision times. It is pure cynical crap and it dehumanizes me even as I look and compair or whatever I am supposed to be doing but am surrepticiously drooling at an impossible sex goal of a woman.

What freaks me out is the bastards that dip the first quarter inch of cigarettes into nicotine juice and then pack em up and advertized the evil for women because they are such great, independent thinkers as to smoke cigarettes. And I am not a bit keen nor proud to see pictures of a Chinese old man smiling his beautiful smile out in the countryside with a damned ciggy hanging out of his mouth.

Ladies, can we all try to make conscious how we train little sons? Behavior doesn't come out of the air. We guys need to work on it, too.

If we don't like or want attacks on our individuality and choice making energies tapped on by cynical exploitation of our genuine instictual and unconscious needs, then we need to turn this gently because I assure you, no sudden jerks of rejection or such can possibly work.

Did I just say men's sex is often triggered by unconscious expectation? There are no exceptions from this for either gender.

I am Christian and to me, these titty ads are attacks on my integrity and my self determined flow and rate of experiences. This crap highjacks everybody for money.

Just because the advertisements show partially naked females doesn't mean weed culture is dude culture. If that's all it took to make something "male oriented" Victoria's Secret should sell nudie magazines and blow up dolls.

But if you are going to use this as "evidence," at least say it's directed towards bi, pan, questioning, curious, or straight men as well as bi, pan, questioning, curious, or lesbian women.

Generalizing isn't cool.

It's not normal for people to have to struggle to control themselves, in any way, and definitely not with sex. In a proper and balanced environment sex shouldn't be a moral battle ground.

There's no reason for us to think that those pictures above are gross, or terrible. What those who find it objectionable are really objecting to is the fact that it simply doesn't make sense. Why have almost nude girls promoting weed. It really just doesn't make sense. The only reason they think it's wrong is because they are just as mentally warped about sex as the guys who are enticed to buy the magazines because of the girls, just to a different extreme. What if they had a bunch of photos of weed covered in spaghetti, all the time. The only people it would attract would be people from strange alternate universe where everybody loved spaghetti, but they never learned but from birth they were made to fear staring directly at it, and could only eat it after 20, and even then it was hard to come by, unless you went put on industrial goggles, because it can kill you, and ate it once a week in a dark room. And if they ever tried to talk about it they were flushed with awkward feelings. Hope that makes sense, it was supposed to show the strange taboo obsession we have with sex is.

Anyway though if you don't like it don't buy it. But not buying something because of sexual content is just as weird as buying it because of it. It's part of the oversexxed state of mind.

Anyway, if any women out there want to share the female perspective on marijuana culture regularly, I could use your help at bakedlife.com

The culture in and of itself is very masculine, and that the culture has been shaped by masculinity, and that means- just like hook up culture, drinking culture, and professional fields like law- women are playing by a rulebook written by men. The idea that it's caused by images like these is debatable, although I am no stranger to hearing Sublime echo that "date rape is the only way I get laid," and I definitely think there's merit to the idea that women aren't perceived as classic "stoners." Idolatry for smokers means Jim Morrison, Bob Marley, not Janis or Grace Slick.

No need for defensives here; claiming marijuana and blazin' teens is feminist is almost sillier than laying the leaves on someone's anatomy.

I dated another girl a couple of years ago who was wake and bake - guess what? She was heavily into girls, too.

Amanda, look up the definition of the favorite word of women today, "misogynism," which you use (or its derivations) multiple times with respect to this issue. From Webster's online it means "Hatred of women." The ad is appealing to - people, guys, lesbians and bis - that LIKE women. You have it backwards. Maybe that explains why you and so many others see misogynism everywhere, including places where guys and girls who like girls flock.

A real misogynist would hate the girls in the advertisements for the fact that they can make big money posing naked - they wouldn't buy products they endorse, or support their causes. In your book I'm a "misogynist" if I like naked women - fine, then, I'm a "misogynist," and proud of it. Its about time us guys - and the Guyinism movement- took ownership of the word, anyway. Thank you. I'm now happy to scream "I am a misogynist" from rooftops.

Lets be honest, for once - you and many of the other women that don't like the ads don't like them since you don't look like the girls in the ad. Just be honest. I don't like the ads that are all over the place with hot guys in them, and I'm not too keen on all the ads featuring rich guys, either - I admit it - why can't you, without spewing forth venom at people that don't deserve it?

There are plenty of ads with mostly-naked women in magazines catering primarily to women - go complain about them, and the "misogynism" of their nearly all-female readerships.

And to Kris, I've always purchased my own bags. All of my male friends mooch off of me. I'm waiting for THEM to chip in one of these days.

That's is right there Cash. Men don't think women's opinions matter.

Let the boys have what they want...but can't we get some too? Ladies? Anyone...? Bueller?

Why can't advertisers show sexual images?

To the commenters like Steven: How can you say this isn't an issue when there are women commenting before you, telling you that it did have an impact on them? Doesn't that make it a problem, for at least some women? Or do you think their opinion and experiences don't count?

There's plenty of sexist things you can fight against in this country. If Legal Buds, Coors Light and Carl's Junior want to market their products towards men, they have every right to. Men respond to images of the female body and sex. That's what we like. Leave pot and pot culture out of this debate.

Also, have you ever been to a pot rally? Anecdotally, I know just as many female stoners and activists as male ones. Do some research before you make these claims, I'm glad you've received the comments you have, this simply is not good journalism.

Does this imply that women campaigners are only safe and acceptable if they have a man supporting them? How many women out there are big figures in the politics of prohibition on their own?

Whether you accept it or not, the constant message that our ass is what matters is alienating, disappointing, and isolating. And it is UBIQUITOUS. Not only that, it really hammers home the message that this is not a woman's domain-it discourages us from achieving. I'm not saying this because I am an angry feminist who hates men (I am an angry feminist who LOVES men!) but I am really surprised at how some men can NOT understand some of the mindfucks women go through (not that you don't get your share, too) and then it occurs to me that many don't seem to care, and many just constantly parrot "There's no sexism anymore! It's all better now!" Well, if that helps them sleep at night....

Ads that have this sort of advertising (and, more specifically, AN OVERREPRESENTATION of this sort of advertising) are really being blatant about the role women have to play in this context, and frankly, that's a message many of us have heard enough of. I know it's marketing; I know sex sells, but to me, boobs aren't sex. And yet I am supposed to read them as such, everywhere I see them. Like, is that supposed to turn me on, too? (Don't answer that.) Getting to define 'sexy' is a power I would like to have, too. But I am not encouraged to do so--I am encouraged to cover my face with paint and keep my body as thin as possible. Sex being used to sell has a lot of pernicious effects on our minds and bodies, and by 'our' I mean both men and women.

With regard to your comments to Crow, I don't believe the fear of disregarded comes from women's minds--I believe it has been put there, and reinforced, and reinforced....And I think 'disregarded' might have a slightly different meaning for the two of you: this doesn't necessarily mean 'rejected', it means 'not given a platform'. Seriously, 'hot' women being given more of a platform than normal looking women DOES happen. If you don't see that, then I'll drop this whole thing because we clearly inhabit different realities.

The pictures you posted were all from one site, not that I doubt you could find others elsewhere, I'm just saying. legalbuds.com does not sound like a "weed culture" site at all. In fact, they probably don't want weed legalized, considering the fact that if something that actually got you high were legal, they'd probably go out of business in a heartbeat. This is marketing - and we all know that sex sells.

Now, again, I'm not at all denying that guys, and especially stoned guys, like tits. This is a given. But to say that it dominates the culture any more than anywhere else, to say that "Weed culture is dude culture" is totally unfair.

I don't know that I can think of a more female-friendly group of people than potheads. In what other group can a girl show up in baggie pants and an oversized hoodie and be welcomes with open arms? NORML does not have a centerfold. The MPP is not paying women to pose nude and say, "I'm naked for weed!" (A parody of a series of PETA ads, as I understand it? What sexist bastards.) No. For the large majority of respectable "marijuana culture" groups, this article could not be more off base.

She's not saying that there are none at all--that's closer to the point made by the original question she's responding to.

Next

The counterculture as whole, however, is much more feminist and progressive, especially when compared to mainstream culture. Hippies really don't care what you look like, which is awesome. Any culture that supports hairy legs and armpits isn't sexist.

The kind of images & associations made by the images above are sexist, objectifying and gross. Period.

There are several prominent female activist who will find this post insulting and counter-productive to the hard work they have performed. Shame on you...we think you owe people like Jodie Joanna Emery (http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/jodieemery) and Michelle Kubby (http://www.kubby.com/), to name just two, an apology for your stupidity.