Comments on Today in Homophobic Advertising

Reaching SO HARD.

This is about being DUNKED ON. This is basketball trashtalk for being dunked over and on.

Get a grip, gays. Let's pick our batles and not our bitchfests.

"God damn!"... " I can almost see the inside of an expensive hollywood movie set saying 'I pitty the poor fool who mistakes the "War Wagon" with Uma Thurman and Mr. T because of a tee-bag scandal with mr.speedwalker and the bill for Ann Coulters Hairstylist.

I don't care who you are, accidental analingus ain't right.

Oh, please: an unsolicited sweaty rim job pretty well falls in the territory of things that, "ain't right." At least for the dude in red...

That snickers ad is awesome. I mean, really. "Snickers. Get some NUTS"

Just to be clear: The ending was awesome. The rest was stupid.

Page 178 of before mentioned scientific exactions in today's SLOG, Stephen Hawking and the relative mixture ratio of slanderous missives is now the recorrect on this quote, chosen at random with my magic finger technique of

"....just open the page and read what comes first."

and

"GOD WILL TAKE CARE OF THE REST OF YOUR HOMOPHOBIAS".

The sectional fortuitous glancing award goes to ...

" from the north pole get bigger, corresponding to the universe expanding with imaginary time ( fig.8.11)."

Mr T needs to keep his mouth shut.

He's a disgrace to every race...

and,

analingus should ALWAYS be intentional...you need time to prepare for it.

That's taint, right?

If you go through Towerload and go to the link of the advertising company, the other, almost identical ads, are anything but homophobic. One of the ads shows a basketball player who's face is in the crotch of the guy dunking on him, and the caption reads "Say Hello."

i don't follow the biblical aspect of the first ad. and i disagree with @1, the focus of this ad is a dude getting his face crotched, clearly what "ain't right" is a guy getting ass faced. but the fact is that it's actually correct in that it ain't right, mainly because the dudes just trying to play basketball and now he's been tea bagged.

I think you're looking at the ad world through rose-colored glasses.

Not everything is about gay.

But it's sweet you think we straights care that much about you ...

straight man's face + straight man's uninvited sweaty ass = disgusting!

straight man's face + gay man's uninvited sweaty ass = disgusting!

straight man's face + straight woman's uninvited sweaty ass = disgusting!

straight man's face + gay woman's uninvited sweaty ass = disgusting!

gay man's face + straight man's uninvited sweaty ass = disgusting!

gay man's face + gay man's uninvited sweaty ass = disgusting!

gay man's face + straight woman's uninvited sweaty ass = disgusting!

gay man's face + gay woman's uninvited sweaty ass = disgusting!

straight woman's face + straight man's uninvited sweaty ass = disgusting!

straight woman's face + gay man's uninvited sweaty ass = disgusting!

straight woman's face + straight woman's uninvited sweaty ass = disgusting!

straight woman's face + gay woman's uninvited sweaty ass = disgusting!

gay woman's face + straight man's uninvited sweaty ass = disgusting!

gay woman's face + gay man's uninvited sweaty ass = disgusting!

gay woman's face + straight woman's uninvited sweaty ass = disgusting!

gay woman's face + gay woman's uninvited sweaty ass = disgusting!

Have I missed anything?

So what some of these comments are trying to say is that either the commenter has been successfully desensitized to hate for whatever reason or that they're just plain insensitve?

I'm going with the latter, since this is Slog.

Bigoted ads suck. Bigoted ads that pit straight black people against gays of all colors in order to sell shoes, like these ads do, suck really hard.

Bob Garfield is better known as the co-host of On The Media, and as a great and punchy interviewer. I didn't know he was still writing for Ad Age.

That is *clearly* unintentional tee-bagging, not analingus.

Jesus Schmader you're as bad as the fat-bloggers. Unless that man is consensually receiving the other mans cock into his mouth then this ad is not homophobic.

Who beside me thinks the punch lines should be reversed? The speed walker is definitely not right, and it looks to me like the guy in red is getting some nuts.

Technically, Mr. T is using a gatling gun, not a bazooka

It wasn't a bazooka, it was a Gatling gun.

Sorry about the bazooka mix-up. I don't know my guns.

And about these ads: I'm don't think either is particularly anti-gay, but both are textbook homophobia.

I can't believe Lostboy spent so much time on his post and it isn't the slightest bit interesting or funny...

hmm, i'm not sure. if the dunker was an attractive female sports model, i'd bet you'd see a different caption. might sell more shoes, too.

not sure if that homophobia, though. it it partially. but it's also about the unexpected, and the undesired: straight guys don't want dick in their face any more then gay guys want pussy.

uh, yeah, they ARE homophobic.

All these ads say the same thing, that gay is gross, unmanly and to be avoided. They aren't really doing it in a mean and overtly vindictive way, but it's still a negative connotation and it's still homophobic.

Just because it's cute and funny doesn't mean it's right and harmless.

that's

Schmader @21, as far as the Nike ads go, the one slim leg you have to stand on is that all of the posters feature men.  Even there, though, Nike concern that the more conspicuous innuendo of male/female pairings could too easily offend customers seems as plausible an explanation as homophobia.

I still contend that unwanted sweaty crotch on face is viscerally gross all by itself, regardless of gender or orientation, and the grossness is fully explained by the excretory aspect of crotches and asses.  The ads' point can be entirely deconstructed without touching on sexuality at all.

i don't think it is cute, funny or intrinsically homophobic.

this ain't right, either:
http://pitchinvasion.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/vinniejones.jpg

michael @22, my comment @13 took less than 2 minutes to toss together.

As for it being neither interesting nor funny, mea culpa.

note: in my posts above, i'm only speaking to the nike ad pictured.

a guy doesn't have to be homophobic to not want a surprise face cock or ass experience. you'd have to assume the intent of the dunker to make it wrong.

what would be a homophobic add would be if it said the same thing, but showed the defensive player grinning in delight...

you know, i think everyone is right. it is homophobia, it is about the undesired, it isn't right, it is about getting dunked on, and so on. everyone's a winner! except lostboy, he's clearly having a bad day.

You don't have to be effeminate to be gay.

Maybe I should have spent some real time on the table and gotten it tight and clean enough to digest at a glance.

OMG. That's some funny stuff. I'm gay and thought that snickers commercial was hilarious. :)

There's a guy who runs our sales dept that is pretty much exactly like the speedwalker. I thought he was gay for two years until I saw his family. His wife and two kids might just be an elaborate beard though.

Can't gays make fun of effeminate men, too?

Throwing candy at someone out exercising.

Or shooting a gay man with a huge gatlin.

Either way, I hear down in Enumclaw they love that shit.

strangeways: You ought to man up and quit whining.

Another possibility:

Perhaps NIKE objects to the poor angle of approach here for this cloth-covered felatio. "No, no, guy's you're DOIN' IT WRONG! Take your drawers off first, then go to town..."

K @ 36 wins!

A very interesting take on this series of ads:

http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-33-80/That-Ain-t-Right.html?post=true

I'm on Team T with this one. I had those speedwalkers as much as I hate fanny packs, recumbent bikes, drum circles, face-painting, renaissance festivals, wolf t-shirts and art cars.

bring.
it.
on.
mother.
fucker.

I've never wanted to teabag Mr. T until now.

Isn't it possible that the Nike ad represents an acknowledgment of the homosexual panic in straight men, and makes fun of it, in a way that signals awareness moving into the mainstream?

Fnarf, sure you can argue that the ad is deliberately satirizing gay panic. But a) that doesn't foreclose other, less apologetic meanings; and b) that's cold comfort to gay men when the ad has two much more obvious (and obviously anti-gay) interpretations: 1) one man fellating another man ain't right; and 2) winners are dominant, losers are submissive, be a winner, wear Nike, don't be a dick sucker, don't be a loser. Furthermore, since unreflective homophobia is indeed a part of many sports (especially a team sport like basketball, and especially when trash-talking is involved), then it seems more likely that Nike is manipulating male sexual anxieties rather than satirizing them. Finally, if you seriously think that your interpretation is valid, then perhaps you could offer an argument for why we should think the ad is just a lampoon. I for one do not see how the ad actually supports that conclusion.

The ads are complex. The viewer is supposed to not want to be the guy with the uninvited sweaty nuts/taint in his face.

Conversely, the viewer is supposed to WANT to be the man who sticks his crotch where it's not wanted, enough that we would want to buy the shoes he is wearing.

Kudos to Fnarf @44, for coming in with an original take so deep in the thread.

I really like Diana's take @46, though.  The Nike ads aren't homophobic--they're pro-sexual assualt!  (Or really, pro-domination with sexual assault as an incidental manifestation.)

Yes, kudos to Fnarf, agreed. And thanks, lostboy.

To clarify, though, I do think the ads are both homophobic, and pro sexual assult.

Are you all functional retards or just being really sarcastic? If the ads are both homophobic and pro sexual assault then you're implicitly defending sexual assault as homosexual sex.

@49. that is stupid. if an advertisement somehow advocated raping gay men, it would be both homophobic and pr sexual assault while not "defending sexual assault as homosexual sex." that is, in effect, what diana is saying this ad does. instead of rape, however, it is merely forcing your genitals into someone else's face.

Hmm, karst, I'm not so into arguing and name calling on the internet, but I'm aware that other people like to. I think I'll just say I would never ever defend anything about those ads.

I started by saying that my interpretation on the ads was complex. I think those ads are fucked up on numerous levels, not all of them internally consistent.

I am probably also personally fucked up on numerous levels, not all of them internally consistent, but mental retardation is not one of my problems. Thanks for your concern.

Not homophobic... but somehow I can't believe that slog has not commented on this in some capacity...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuQIoxSNtfc

I Tivo, so I never (never) ever watch TV adds, but I saw this one at the gym the other night and almost shit myself...

@50&51

Look, the fundamental issue here is consent. Let me break it down for you. A man's face is unwillingly, accidentally, and asexually hit by another mans crotch. The text overlay says "That ain't right". Now, unless you can show me that that was a consensual act, let alone a sexual act, then there is no homophobia in the ad.

If you still insist on putting some kind of sexual bent on the ad and calling it homophobic you are using homophobia to defend sexual assault therefore sexual assault is part of gay sex by your standards.

The rape ad hypothetical is ridiculous. If this ad were explicitly showing sexual assault then you should be applauding Nike for taking a firm stance ("That ain't right") against sexual assault.

Mr. T. is shown blasting through someone's house to land his snickers-machine gun truck and chase the unmanly run-walker. Does that mean it is ok to destroy property or cause tens of thousands of dollars in damage just to prevent another male from appearing effiminate? If that was my house that was destroyed you can bet I'd have Mr. T. thrown into jail, where his new name will be Mr. B as in Bottom.

Hmm.  I've been arguing that the Nike ads are (puerile and crass but) not specifically homophobic.  Given karst's contributions, though, can I switch sides?

karst, the "that ain't right" is actually a compliment -- one of the best you can get during a game. it is an insult to the "victim" and a compliment to the "offender".

it allows you to laugh at the situation while still expressing offense.

for instance, in this case, nike isn't saying, "don't dunk on your opponent." nike is saying, "get these shoes and humiliate others." you are wrong if you think "thank ain't right" means not to dunk, or were it in my hyperbolic rape example, that it would mean rape was not good.

you have to have this understanding of the nike ad or the conversation will fail.

your other observations, that there has to be sexual element (bent) for there to be homophobia, or that there has to be consent for it to be homophobic, are both incorrect as well.

an accidental man-on-man encounter is the butt of many jokes. almost all involve no consent or intentional sex. yet the joke may work because of homophobia, or because it is recognized as unexpected and not desired.

I have never heard anyone use "that ain't right" in that way. Somehow I don't think players are intentionally slamming their genitals into the foreheads of other players instead of getting a basket.

an accidental man-on-man encounter is the butt of many jokes. almost all involve no consent or intentional sex. yet the joke may work because of homophobia, or because it is recognized as unexpected and not desired.

Yes, thats exactly my point. The image can work either way. But since there is zero evidence that it should be interpreted sexually why add that excess baggage?

- not instead of making a basket... in addition to making a basket. and it is a compliment and the ultimate way to humiliate your opponent (see here)

- it is not adding excess baggage. the baggage (as you refer to it) is already there: a homophobe is uncomfortable touching another man's junk even if done accidentally.

Okay that's pretty fucked up. But again I don't see any homophobia there. You'd have an even stronger "that ain't right" reaction if he was kicked in the face.

I don't even know what to say about that definition...

no you wouldn't. a kick in the face is not acceptable. when playing basketball, you say, "that ain't right" when something totally demeaning but legit happens. a kick to the face would not sell sneakers and would not be acceptable on court.

you can't say you do or you don't see homophobia in this situation if you are unfamiliar with the subtle nuances of this bit of slang terminology.

that is one acceptable usage. you can say it when "that's just wrong" stuff happens, too, but that is not the context implied here.