“She put a gummy worm in my apple! That gets me so HOT!”
Fox News has a new feature on its website that focuses on relationships and romance. The style and beauty editor has authored a jaw dropping post entitled “10 Pranks That Will Spice Up Your Relationship,” with love-making advice like this:
“Put a small piece of masking tape on the bottom of his mouse, making sure it covers the trackball or optical sensor. Watch as he struggles to read his e-mail — and don’t forget to write “Gotcha!” on the tape.”
..or this:
“If your guy is shy but has a good sense of humor, take a picture of the toilet in your bathroom, then plug your digital camera into a computer or TV and load the picture onto your screen. When he comes out of the bathroom, start laughing and pointing. He will see the picture and think you saw him in there!”
Yes, she is an idiot. I don’t know what her love life has been like, but a significant other who keeps annoying me with crap like this is going to find herself laughing in an empty bed room pretty damn quick. Feeling similarly unimpressed by Milt’s idea of foreplay was humorist Seanbaby, who wrote a scathing article about her piece over at Cracked. A sample of his intentionally uncivil criticism:
“How has Amber Milt survived this long without a witch hunter imprisoning her inside a ring of salt and drowning her in a sack? Am I the only one worried that the Aztec god of bad comedy walks among us in human form and writes makeup tips for FoxNews.com? This monster can’t even go to the dentist without someone asking her why there are Dora the Explorer underpants caught in her second row of teeth.”
Seanbaby also has a scoop: about half the “erotic” pranks listed by Amber Milt come from a kids’ website, in an article about practical jokes. She doesn’t list the source, and he calls that plagiarism. He writes:
“FoxNews.com’s style and beauty editor Amber Milt found an article for children, stole it, and presented it to Fox News readers as erotic material. [She] thinks ethics are the pustules that form on her skin when blessed weapons strike her. Amber Milt is a leech attached to the swampiest armpit of our culture. She and Fox News are such a drain on society that when they’re done murdering and eating their victims, the children they leave behind don’t even bother becoming Batmen.”
Since Seanbaby brings it up, is Milt’s article really unethical, or is the critic more unethical than the criticized?
Your Ethics Quiz Question:
Is Amber Milt’s erotic advice essay more unethical than Seanbaby’s critique of it, or vice-versa? Or are they both just fine?
My take? Seanbaby’s over-the-top bile made me laugh, I confess, which was the point. His piece is vulgar and arguably misogynist, but his central thesis, that Milt’s advice is insane and her idea of flirtatious practical jokes mark her as a menace, is correct. She is, at very least, guilty of advice malpractice: if any of these stunts lead naturally to wild, wonderful sex, I missed a key hygiene class. I think they are more likely to lead to a career in library science and a life of celibacy. Still, none of her pranks are harmful or dangerous, and Seanbaby is dead wrong about the plagiarism. Milt didn’t copy any text from the kids article that was the source of many of her pranks and arguably the piece itself. She did use the article without credit, and that is wrong, but it doesn’t sink to the level of plagiarism.
As for Seanbaby, his attack seems more motivated by hatred of Fox News than anything else. My assessment is that Milt’s piece is ridiculously dumb, and Seanbaby’s is overkill, even for a humor piece. But unethical?
Naaaaaa.
_______________________________________________
Sources:
Graphic: Fox News
Ethics Alarms attempts to give proper attribution and credit to all sources of facts, analysis and other assistance that go into its blog posts. If you are aware of one I missed, or believe your own work was used in any way without proper attribution, please contact me, Jack Marshall, at jamproethics@verizon.net.
Ethics Alarms 
I didn’t see the misogyny in the cracked piece. I’d put also put it safely in the ethical bounds of hyperbolic criticism.
Now, the original piece? Seriously suggesting that terrorizing your man with childish pranks is going to get him hot? I think that crosses the line. Just think if we switched these around: pretending to watch your girlfriend go number 2? Sending her out with a shopping list of made up crap? I think we normally call those things emotional abuse.
Solid take, tgt. This is clearly the spark for Sean’s article, and I can’t say I disagree very much, if at all. The question ethically is whether advice malpractice this stupid rises to the level of unethical, since it is questionable whether anyone in their right mind would take it seriously. But we know that there are people who will take any advice seriously.
To “clean”: I would have been happy to post your comment, careless as it was, had you the courtesy to follow the minimal requirements of commenting here: give me your real name, and a real e-mail address. Since you couldn’t commence this relationship with even a modicum of openness, coorperation and respect, get lost. You’re banned.
———- The Management
Now the cleverly named “Joe Somebody,” also with a fake e-mail address, the watermark of a jerk on an ethics blog, writes, puffed up with indignation: “So tgt is a real name (no offense to whoever tgt is)? It honestly sounds more like a justification for not publishing a comment you didn’t much care for. I’m sure this won’t be published either, but that’s beside the point. I just thought I’d chime in that your own comment has you coming off looking a bit of the fool, first acknowledging a comment that you agree with, which apparently violates the same arbitrary rules which caused you to delete another a few days later. And banned? First, how are you accomplishing that on an open comment system exactly, and second, I doubt “clean” is horribly bothered. I’m sure you’d be happy to throw this one up as well, IF ONLY I’d left a legitimate name and email which, frankly, aren’t any of your business.”
How I run choose to run my own blog is “none of my business”, but yours? Complete arrogance seasoned by stupidity….though being called a fool by someone capable of such a fatuous statement IS a compliment, so thanks for that. “Joe” apparently doesn’t just fail to comprehend basic ethics principles like honesty, respect and fairness, he also understands little else.
1) I know tgt’s name; I know his e-mail address; I even know where he lives. That’s what matters. I’d prefer everyone here use their own name, and I make that clear in the blog’s rules. I accept the compromise of allowing screen names to readers who let me know who I’m talking to.
2) Once I spam you, you’re spam, and WordPress’s nifty little spam-blocker puts you in a queue with “commenters” like “Methods to make your formal dresses more modest,” who really was impressed with this “review.”
3) In three years I may have banned ten commenters. If someone gives me a genuine e-mail, I contact them and point out that I have to know who they are, and most comply. I ban trolls, abusive commenters,and people, like Joe, who refuse to play by my entirely reasonable rules. Sometimes i relent and bring back banned commenters. Have there been inconsistencies, depending on my mood? Absolutely. Deal with it.
4) I mentioned that I agreed with the previous deleted comment only to make the point that I thought it had merit. Obviously, comments that I don’t agree with also have merit—look around.
Bye, “Joe.” You can return to leaving anonymous obscene comments on TMZ now.
Hard to believe. Does this “Joe” character actually believe he has a”right” to dictate the rules of somebody else’s blog? News for Joe: the 1st Amendment’s Free Speech provisions do not apply. Sheesh!
“Stupid is as stupid does.” (Forrest Gump).
But Forrest is welcome to comment here any time at all.
So long as he provides a valid email address.
The best part will be his face when you explain that he wrote that suicide note with a butt pen. Gotcha.