SEARCH

Entries in Sex (5)

Sunday
Mar102013

At SXSW, New Sex App Focuses on that Other Type of Festival Networking

Hemera/Thinkstock(AUSTIN, Texas) -- At SXSW Interactive this year one sex-related start-up knows their audience, and they are marketing to the techie and social media savvy, yet carefree and sexually amped crowd.    

The service doesn’t need much explanation, thanks to its very blunt name. Bang with SXSW is a spin-off of Bang with Friends, a service that launched last month to much Internet scrutiny, criticism and excitement.

Started by three young twenty-somethings, Bang with Friends allows you to sign into the service via Facebook and then select the friends of the opposite sex you’d like to, well, bang. If that friend also selects you, you will both receive a notification that the other is “down to bang.” Forget match-making, this is Internet sex-making.

“SXSW is just a place for people to meet other amazing people and usually some of those people have sex and hook up,” the founder of Bang with Friends, who prefers to be identified right now as C, told ABC News. “We thought, how can we make that a better experience for everyone?”

Since launching at the end of January, “Bang with Friends” has gained 750,000 users and according to C, there have been 180,000 successful pairings. Not that they confirm the actual sex acts: “We don’t follow them into the bedroom no,” C said.

The main service, while controversial in many regards, requires that you are friends on Facebook. The company says that that ensures people are using information they are already sharing with friends; it just allows friends to discreetly see if the other is sexually interested in them.

The SXSW version of the site, however, shows all the people who have registered for the service at the event; you don’t have to be friends on Facebook to select someone you might want to “bang” in Austin for the next few days.

“Bang with SXSW” isn’t just trying to make sure SXSW attendees “bang,” it is also focused on promoting safer sex in Austin this week and is marketing the site by handing out thousands of condoms across the city.

Copyright 2013 ABC News Radio

Tuesday
May012012

Man Sues BMW, Blames Motorcycle for Embarrassing Problem

ROBERTO SCHMIDT/AFP/Getty Images(SAN FRANCISCO) -- San Francisco biker Henry Wolf has sued BMW, claiming his 1993 motorcycle from the German manufacturer has left him with an erection lasting two years.

In paperwork filed in San Francisco Superior court, the San Francisco Gate reports Wolf is claiming "mental and emotional anguish" because the bike's "ridged seat" left him with a "severe case of priapism" -- or an erection that can't subside -- after he took a four-hour motorcycle trip.

Wolf maintains he's suffered wage loss and racked up medical bills from his condition. He's seeking an unknown amount in damages.

Working in BMW's favor is the fact that the seat wasn't made by the manufacturer. It was added later by the claimant.

Copyright 2012 ABC News Radio

Monday
Jul112011

'Cosmo' Magazine to Begin Selling iPad App for Men

Apple, Inc.(NEW YORK) -- Cosmopolitan magazine is going after a new demographic with an iPad app. Next month, it will start selling CFG -- Cosmo For Guys.

It'll advise young men on everything from dating etiquette to sexual preferences.

Apparently, the magazine has long had a following among men. As the editor put it to The New York Times, “it’s like having the opposite team’s playbook.”

Copyright 2011 ABC News Radio

Monday
Jun202011

High Court Sides With Wal-Mart in Gender-Bias Lawsuit

Spencer Platt / Getty Images(WASHINGTON) -- The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday stopped one of the largest employment discrimination cases in history from going forward. The case was brought by six female Wal-Mart employees who said they had been paid less than men in comparable positions despite having higher performance ratings and greater seniority.

The case had blossomed into a class action lawsuit involving hundreds of thousands of female employees. The court was unanimous in saying that the case should not have been certified by the lower courts because it failed to meet the certification requirements for seeking damages of monetary relief.

However, the court's five conservative justices went further. They found that the women also failed to demonstrate that there were questions of law common to the entire class of nearly 1.5 million female employees.

"The court rejects the notion that Wal-Mart had a policy of discrimination that could form any kind of fair basis for a civil-rights class-action case," the ruling stated.

The plaintiffs had claimed they could prove Wal-Mart discriminated against all women employees by statistics, by alleging that the company's corporate culture was suffused with gender stereotypes, and by pointing to the company's practice of allowing local managers wide discretion in hiring and promoting, which supposedly allowed those stereotypes to impact the lives of women employees.

In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg summed up the argument: "Managers, like all humankind, may be prey to biases of which they are unaware. The risk of discrimination is heightened when those managers are predominantly of one sex, and are steeped in a corporate culture that perpetuates gender stereotypes."

Scalia laughed this argument out of court, essentially. He called it "unbelievable," "worlds away from significant proof" of discrimination, and declared the court could "safely disregard" everything the plaintiffs' key expert had to say.

"In a company of Wal-Mart's size and scope," Scalia wrote, "it is quite unbelievable that all managers would exercise their discretion in a common way without some common *direction.*" (emphasis added) "Merely showing that Wal-Mart's policy of discretion has produced an overall sex-based disparity does not suffice."

This is strongly pro-business ruling. It will make it harder for plaintiffs' lawyers to construct class actions in many fields, since what the court does here is tighten the law's demand that members of a class have suffered a truly, provably "common" wrong.

Walmart said the class action could include "every woman employed for any period of time over the past decade in any of Walmart's approximately 3,400 stores….the millions of class members collectively seek billions of dollars in monetary relief."

The action stems from a sexual discrimination suit filed by six women who worked in 13 stores who alleged they had been paid less than men in comparable positions, despite having higher performance ratings and greater seniority.

In court papers, lawyers for the women said that the case needed to proceed as a class action because Walmart exercised a strong centralized corporate culture, and that class litigation "may be the only means of obtaining the broad injunctive relief necessary to address the allegedly discriminatory policies challenged."

The women were seeking injunctive relief, back pay and punitive damages.

Copyright 2011 ABC News Radio

Monday
Apr112011

Dating Website Lets Members Buy, Sell First Dates

Comstock/Thinkstock(NEW YORK) -- Maybe money can't buy you love but, if you name the right price, it can get you a first date.

At least that's how it works on WhatsYourPrice.com, where members who label themselves "generous" flash dollar signs to bid for the chance to take "attractive" members out on a date.

The buying and selling of beautiful singles may sound like prostitution, but the site's founder, Brandon Wade, insists that WhatsYourPrice is about paying for first dates, not paying for sex.

"If you look at the way charity events are held, you have these firemen and beautiful prom kings and queens [up for bid]," he said. "People are already doing this around the world, obviously for charity, but a similar concept would apply here."

But this site isn't just for people seeking so-called "mutually beneficial relationships" – Wade says it's for anyone looking for relationships.

For "attractive" singles, he said the site provides a more efficient way of reaching only the most serious, most desirable candidates. For "generous" singles, WhatsYourPrice.com says it guarantees they date only the people who meet their high standards.

Offers typically range from $20-$100 a date, although Wade said he knows one member who tried to offer $1,000 for a date. As the members go through the negotiation process, all they can see are each others' pictures and profiles, which include their net worth and income.

When two members agree on the price of a date, the site takes a small percentage of the cost and then "unlocks" the conversation between the two parties.

But what about the notion of true love? Doesn't paying for a date get a couple off to a superficial start? Not so, according to Wade. Paying for dating is simply more efficient, not more materialistic, he said.

Copyright 2011 ABC News Radio







ABC News Radio