Yep - that’s it. Military term for a toiletry kit. My dad carried one, and used the term. It’s pronounced like “drop”.
“The name derives from early 20th century leather craftsman Charles Doppelt, a German immigrant to the United States, who invented his toiletry case in 1919.”
That must be it and me remembering wrong. He was in the Navy.
In French, “douche” means “shower” which is probably the intended meaning for your dad’s “douche bag.”
My assumption is “douche” as an insult is just a shortening of “douchebag” as an insult. A used douchbag would be a worthless, possibly dirty item to be disposed of, a thing associated with something that was dirty and sexual, not a bad basis for an insult. If there was such a thing as a “foreskin swab,” that could be a comparable insult related to male anatomy.
I also showed the picture to my wife —who is from another nearby SE Asian country— and she just saw someone who is really surprised at how big the burger is … And then got a “You white people have really, really dirty minds!” lecture for my pains when I explained — which does maybe demonstrate that the model is probably reading more into it than was intended by the ad agency …
I figured that was the case with the ad itself. BK doesn’t typically hyper-sexualize their ads (they’re no Carl’s Jr.). For example http://www.whoppervirgins.com is all about people who have never tasted hamburgers before having a taste test between a Whopper and a Big Mac.
How did "scum"and “scumbag” come to be a major insult? Is it because men hate semen?
Well, that’s why I try to get rid of mine.
“use the Content in a fashion that is considered by iStock (acting reasonably) as or under applicable law is considered pornographic, obscene, immoral, infringing, defamatory or libelous in nature, or that would be reasonably likely to bring any person or property reflected in the Content into disrepute;”
use the Content in a fashion that is considered by iStock (acting reasonably) as or under applicable law is considered pornographic, obscene, immoral, infringing, defamatory or libelous in nature, or that would be reasonably likely to bring any person or property reflected in the Content into disrepute;
Which is hilarious:
And so on. Just a few seconds searching finds stuff that’s clearly meant to be blowjob innuendo. A search for “porn” gave me a video of a female model eating a banana.
Basically, that’s their disclaimer to avoid liability if an image is gotten without someone’s knowledge - or if they were underage or drunk or, well you get it. Any stock photo site will carry a similar claim. I posted two (including the one you reposted) earlier. The other one was from Shutter Stock - the company that actually housed the stock photos she’s in. The notice in the contract removes the site’s liability if a person posts an image that is then used in a way that the model never signed off on.
The other images in this model’s photo shoot (which have also already been posted here) show that she really had no problem with being raunchy. Since the ad only uses a double entendre, and doesn’t actually stick any more graphic object in her mouth, she can’t claim they used the image inappropriately or sullied her image. All her images were placed on the site for general use.
It’s pretty impressive how many people here are slut-shaming this woman simply for wanting to have some measure of control over how her image is used.
Sure, she’s modeled in some kind of wild poses. Guess what? That doesn’t automatically mean that she wants to be photoshopped into an image that’s clearly implying oral sex.
Seriously, I’d like to say it’s surprising how many people are slut-shaming her over being photoshopped, but of course, it’s no surprise at all.
I don’t think anyone slut shamed her, they just pointed out that selling the rights to your photo online so that anyone can use it for their own advertising or illustrative purposes is kind of what Shutterstock models do. If you want to sign off every use, you’re in the wrong business. In addition, the other photos in her shoot made it quite clear that she was aware that her image could be used in a sexualized way. In fact, the photo itself is more than a little suggestive. What do you think it was intended to depict? It’s not quite surprise, it’s more… well…
Please note: I would support her if she was no longer comfortable with her image being on Shutterstock or if she was objecting to her image being used in pornography or something, I just think the shoot was already pretty suggestive and BK didn’t make it much more explicit.
I don’t think there is such a thing as a “Shutterstock model.” It’s the photographers who sell their photos to stock photography sites, and when the model signs the release she may well have no idea what it’s going to be used for or if it’s going to appear on a stock photography site.
And I don’t know how else you can characterize a lot of the photoshopping or search for compromising poses that’s going on here other than slut shaming. I mean, the implication seems to be that she can’t complain because she’s really a dirty girl. To me this is like saying that prostitutes can’t be raped, they can only have their services stolen: being willing to pose in a provocative way doesn’t mean that you are OK with those images being used in every possible way (note that this is not a legal argument, and that she was not making a legal argument in her video).
And since people feel that she was posing in a provocative way, would it be OK to photoshop an actual dick into the picture, instead of just a sandwich? Maybe photoshop some semen on her face, too? I mean, she should have known her photograph could have been used any way, right? (I know @jsroberts has addressed this specifically, but for those who are relying on more legal/contractual/practical arguments as opposed to the moral argument, what is the point of differentiation? I also think BK did make it more explicit/suggestive, because I have my doubts the model would have agreed to that shot if someone had placed a phallic prop in front of her mouth like that.)
A sandwich cannot be a reference to oral sex. With oral sex, you are NOT supposed to bite pieces off.
That’s merely envenomation. If something were bitten off, there’d be some noticeable blood.
It’s pretty impressive how a one can completely misrepresent a topic by using a emotionally loaded term like “slut-shaming”.
No one in this thread has called her that name, no one has suggested the photographs she posed for were an inappropriate expression of sexuality.
What people in this thread have said is that there is a clear disconnect between the narrative of sexual innocence she presented in here YouTube video, and the overtly sexual tone of the photo set she has put up for sale on the internet, not to mention the tone implicit to the profession of modeling.
She equated being photoshopped next to a double-entendre laden sandwich with being raped. It’s irresponsible and emotionally manipulative to conflate a seriously heinous sex crime with having one’s image placed suggestively adjacent to a sandwich.
It’s an absurd expectation for a model to think their image won’t cross paths with Photoshop.
It’s an absurd expectation to think you are entitled to creative control over imagery you sell with a generic license on the internet.
It’s an absurd premise to pretend that working as a model doesn’t go hand in hand with exploiting sexual imagery to sell shit.
If you insist on giving this thread a rhetorically manipulative label, I’d like to suggest “out-of-touch-with-reality-shaming”.
