Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Twilight of Ahmadinejad | Palin Looks to God for Advice ... »

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

Campaign Ads

posted by on November 11 at 12:45 PM

Gay people recruit—that’s the charge, leveled against us most recently by “Yes on Prop 8” forces in California. But what would it look like if gay people really did recruit? The UK’s Gay Times asked five ad agencies to create gay recruitment campaigns. My favorite:

just_common_detail.jpg

My first runner up:

she_can_do.jpg

An interview with the editor of Gay Times and rest of the ads are here.

UPDATE: Is the first ad, above, sexist? I don’t think so. It plays off of typical straight male bitching about women. (Straight women gripe in extremely unflattering-to-males ways about straight men too, just as gay men bitch about gay men, lesbians bitch about lesbians, etc.) But whatever gripes straight men have about women, it would be ridiculous to suggest that straight men could solve all their problems by simply “choosing” to be gay. Straight men can’t “choose” homosexuality because sexual orientation—despite what the folks who throw around accusations of “recruitment” would have us believe—is not a choice.

And what would happen if sexual orientation were a choice? Isn’t it obvious? Based on the griping that goes on, it’s safe to say that straight men would choose to be gay, straight women would choose to be lesbians, gay men would choose to be straight, and gay women would chose to be straight. (I’m not sure what bisexuals would choose—zoophilia?) And everyone would be happy for, oh, about a month.

And then everyone would choose to go back.

RSS icon Comments

1

Jesus!

This sentence means what? "But would it look like if gay people really did recruit? "

P.S. Hot mouth.

Posted by Proof your fucking posts! | November 11, 2008 1:00 PM
2

That first one is sexist as hell.

Posted by w7ngman | November 11, 2008 1:01 PM
3

The misogyny is unfortunate. Homophobia and sexism go hand in hand. To mainstream culture, fear of gay men = fear of the feminine. The biggest insult between boys in middle school is "fag" and "pussy." And of course, a dyke is perceived as "unfeminine," and therefore unnaccepting of a subordinate position in society, right? I feel sorry for your son if this is the kind of bullshit you're teaching him Dan.

Posted by Sigh | November 11, 2008 1:14 PM
4

That first one should read "Be a Gay Man" rather than just "Be Gay". Being female, I had a to read the ad several times to understand it. That's a bad sign, it should be easier for everyone to underestand.

I thnk the other ad is too suggestive to go mainstream.

Posted by la | November 11, 2008 1:18 PM
5

Uncle Sam Wants You!*

*No, really.

@3, I agree to an extent (about homophobia and sexism), but I don't think these are meant to be taken as actual positions, but mockeries of supposed agendas.

Posted by lusk | November 11, 2008 1:20 PM
6

The "runner-up" is fall-down funny. I'll never be able to do head-hangin'-over again without chuckling.

Posted by rob | November 11, 2008 1:20 PM
7

Why all the hatin' on the ladies? The best message some of them can come up with, even jokingly, is "go gay: you don't have to pretend like or respect women ever again! wheeee!" Really?

Posted by Seriously | November 11, 2008 1:29 PM
8

Eddie Izzard or the Little Britain boys need to rip this to shreds. The Pythons would have had a field day.

Posted by tomasyalba | November 11, 2008 1:31 PM
9

I didn't have any issue with the first one, but mostly because I didn't take any of it seriously. I see the potential point about sexism though.

Posted by Julie in Chicago | November 11, 2008 1:54 PM
10

It's not so much that the first ad is sexist (the GA Why? one on the link is much more sexist), but that clearly lesbians weren't included in the campaign.

Posted by genevieve | November 11, 2008 2:07 PM
11

The first one is sexist because it acts like gay females don't even exist.

Posted by EmmiG | November 11, 2008 2:43 PM
12

It it can really do all "she can do" I'd like to see the guy in the second one pass an 8 lb baby out of that mouth.

Posted by Westside forever | November 11, 2008 2:57 PM
13

Because having children should be a conscious choice and not the price of doing business or the result of too much booze.

Posted by Vince | November 11, 2008 3:10 PM
14

I’m not sure what bisexuals would choose—zoophilia?

Danny, that's just not nice. Bisexuals would just keep doing what we've always done -fuck everything in sight.

Sheesh! You'd think bisexuals passed prop 8 or something...

Posted by Mike in MO | November 11, 2008 3:38 PM
15

I think the first ad is trying to be clever, but fails.

Also, the line "Because Responsibility is Easier to Avoid" is annoying. What about HIV? Just because you are a gay man doesn't mean you get to throw away your condoms and avoid responsibility.

Posted by argh | November 11, 2008 4:10 PM
16

The first one is sexist. Dan, you know that women's bodies and sexualities are mocked and derided in ways that men's bodies and sexualities aren't--I've heard you say so on one of your most recent podcasts (in relation to a woman being uncomfortable with a man going down on her). And as you said this has real consequences for women in relationships, particularly heterosexual relationships--our bodies get ugly when we get old we're told over and over again (and lo and behold 90% of all cosmetic plastic surgery is done on women at great cost to women). We're told over and over again that we must be absolutely hairless in virtually all places, or we are "gross." (And, voila, women get nervous about men sniffing our crotches).

And this isn't "gay people bitching about straight people" it's clearly a male voice (the writer may or may not be gay) bitching about women in order to bond with other men, and doing so as if he's representing a universal voice, which also suggests that women aren't even worth taking account of--either as readers or as gay people. So, yes, sexist.

Posted by OH | November 11, 2008 4:24 PM

Add Your Comments





Please click Post only once.