Slog
News & ArtsTuesday, February 2, 2010
Homo In Theory Equality Means...
Posted by Dan Savage on Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 8:50 AM
...equal treatment, Jonathan, and in practice equality means that mindless, salacious, and moronic ads targeting specifically gay consumers shouldn't be treated any differently than mindless, salacious, and moronic ads targeting targeting straight consumers. I agree that the stupid Mancrunch ad shouldn't be "elevated to lunch counter status," and I haven't spilled many pixels on this, but CBS broadcast a blatantly homophobic ad during a past Superbowl that featured a more explicit man-on-man lip-lock. CBS's willingness to broadcast the 2007 Snickers ad makes CBS's rejection of the stupid 2010 Mancrunch ad galling.
Yes, it would be great if SLDN bought an ad during the Superbowl, one that made the case for the repeal of DADT and equal treatment under the law. But SLDN didn't seek to buy ad time during the Superbowl. Mancruch, for better or worse, did. And unless a "good taste" standard is applied equally to all Superbowl ads regardless of the target market, CBS's rejection of Mancrunch's ad is discriminatory in theory and in practice. And that's worth pointing out, worth spilling a few pixels over, and I think the folks who've written about the Mancruch ad have kept it in perspective.
No one has proposed a sit-in at CBS's lunch counter, right?
2
I agree, Dan. We get to be as mindless and ridiculous as everyone else gets to be. It makes me think of that whole "minorities have to project better than to win equal rights" stuff.
3
Look on the bright side, at least they have gone to great lengths to make sure we do not see a brief out of focus glimpse of a tit.
4
If they applied a "good taste" standard to Superbowl ads a fair number of them wouldn't make the cut.
Compared with many of the Superbowl ads that have aired, the Mancrunch ad was almost high brow.
Compared with many of the Superbowl ads that have aired, the Mancrunch ad was almost high brow.
5
Allowing an SLDN ad would be noting short of political advertisement, one whose only purpose would be to the diminish the role of the Joints Chief of Staff and the policy assessment that they need to make.
9
Allowing an SLDN ad would be noting short of political advertisement
You mean like the Tim Tebow ad that CBS is allowing to be broadcast during the Superbowl? Oh, wait, I forgot, Loveschild, it's okay when it's a position you agree with. You only have a problem with people being allowed to espouse opinions contrary to your own.
You mean like the Tim Tebow ad that CBS is allowing to be broadcast during the Superbowl? Oh, wait, I forgot, Loveschild, it's okay when it's a position you agree with. You only have a problem with people being allowed to espouse opinions contrary to your own.
10
Was Mancrunch actually hoping to get their ad on teevee? It seems like they already got a ton of publicity (for free) among gay audiences.
I think it was never their intention to air, but to get free publicity from this.
Also, the name "Mancrunch" sucks.
I think it was never their intention to air, but to get free publicity from this.
Also, the name "Mancrunch" sucks.
11
I've proposed a sit in at CBS Lunch Counter - to protest their depiction of adult males as idiots to be mocked by teh gayz, their wives and girlfriends, and kids.
Plus all those Super Bowl tailgating stereotypes.
WE ARE NOT ANIMALS!
Plus all those Super Bowl tailgating stereotypes.
WE ARE NOT ANIMALS!
13
You are correct, Dan.
When this first came up, I mocked it. I mean, seriously, the Mancrunch ad is just so bad on so many levels. A large part of me is glad this will not show during the Superbowl. The ad is an embarrassment to the entire gay community.
As much as it pains me to defend it, however, the rejection of the ad is completely discriminatory and homophobic. CBS deserves to be called on the carpet for their wrongheaded decision.
When this first came up, I mocked it. I mean, seriously, the Mancrunch ad is just so bad on so many levels. A large part of me is glad this will not show during the Superbowl. The ad is an embarrassment to the entire gay community.
As much as it pains me to defend it, however, the rejection of the ad is completely discriminatory and homophobic. CBS deserves to be called on the carpet for their wrongheaded decision.
14
Sigh. Dan, you're supposed to be more savvy than this. The Mancrunch ad is nothing but an (extremely successful) attempt to gain free publicity.
Let's walk through this:
Mancrunch: CBS rejected our ad because they're bigots!
CBS: The ad was rejected because they couldn't pay.
Mancrunch: It was homophobia!
CBS: Where's your proof of funding?
Mancrunch: Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!
(This would be a good point for anyone with two critical thinking cells in their head to rub them together, make a spark, and ask, "Where is an internet dating site, especially a niche site in an already overflowingly crowded market, going to get the capitol to spend 2.5 million dollars on an ad during the Superbowl?" That kind of money didn't actually exist at the height of the dot-com bubble.)
But no, jump to:
Liberal Blogsphere: CBS is oppressing them and let me ride my hobby horse about the ads they are running, especially the morally reprehensible lying one about choice that was Paid in Full by a powerful lobbying organization with more money than God.
Now, about Mancrunch (VERY NSFW link):
The story is about how the traditional media and the blogsphere got played by someone with a website, a press release and a YouTube account, not about CBS, equality, the Superbowl, or Superbowl ads.
More...
Let's walk through this:
Mancrunch: CBS rejected our ad because they're bigots!
CBS: The ad was rejected because they couldn't pay.
Mancrunch: It was homophobia!
CBS: Where's your proof of funding?
Mancrunch: Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!
(This would be a good point for anyone with two critical thinking cells in their head to rub them together, make a spark, and ask, "Where is an internet dating site, especially a niche site in an already overflowingly crowded market, going to get the capitol to spend 2.5 million dollars on an ad during the Superbowl?" That kind of money didn't actually exist at the height of the dot-com bubble.)
But no, jump to:
Liberal Blogsphere: CBS is oppressing them and let me ride my hobby horse about the ads they are running, especially the morally reprehensible lying one about choice that was Paid in Full by a powerful lobbying organization with more money than God.
Now, about Mancrunch (VERY NSFW link):
Mancrunch isn’t a LGBT-owned business and it isn’t a "gay dating site" at all.. it’s just the "gay niche" site made by a clueless straight company for publicity. It appears to be from the same gold-digging skank who brought you Establishedmen, ArrangementSeekers and CougarLife. Those are owned by Simone Dadoun-Cohen, and this is probably just another way for her to manipulate people for money.
This company seems to be just using the gay community’s political strength for some cash. It looks like they made a "gay" commercial they knew would be rejected so the gay community would get angry and generate a lot of free press for them.
Stop playing into their hands.
The site is horrible... shows zero understanding of the gay community at all. There’s no way to call yourself a "top" or a "bottom" and there’s no understanding of how gay men relate to each other. The commercial in question is homophobic and vile. It depicts gay men as out-of-control sex freaks and depicts us as confusing and shocking and "gross" to straight men.
The story is about how the traditional media and the blogsphere got played by someone with a website, a press release and a YouTube account, not about CBS, equality, the Superbowl, or Superbowl ads.
15
14, I know it may seem that misrepresenting the facts makes your argument stronger, but unfortunately others actually know them. First, they had to submit a credit application verifying their ability to pay before the ad was even considered. Second, CBS never suggested that the ad was rejected due to an inability to pay; on the contrary, they specifically said it was rejected for content.
16
@15, The version I read yesterday was that the content issue was secondary to irregularities in their credit application (it was largely lost in the hubbub over the content comment, but it was given as the primary reason in the first iteration of the story I came across). An Internet site coming up with 2.5 million doesn't pass the smell test in this economy (Amazon doesn't have that kind of capitol to throw around right now). Yes, CBS are dicks. This is news? This whole thing is a manufactured controversy to generate free publicity, and I wish some of the people who are supposed to understand how this sort of scam works approached it from that angle instead of helping someone tap into anger over discrimination against gays for their own fun and profit.
17
Once again, maybe it's because I don't quite see the world with gay eyes, but the Snickers ad is more parodying homophobes than it is gays. Certainly the kiss was more believable than the Mancrunch ad.
On the other hand, it is offensive in that it plays on the stupid (white) male American stereotypes, not only that we're insecure about our sexuality, but also that like starving dogs, we are compelled to gulp down any food that is dangled in front of us.
In this case I have to agree with Capehart; I don't want this Mancrunch ad being the flag we fly as the example of a pro-civil-rights ad getting rejected from Superbowl Sunday.
On the other hand, it is offensive in that it plays on the stupid (white) male American stereotypes, not only that we're insecure about our sexuality, but also that like starving dogs, we are compelled to gulp down any food that is dangled in front of us.
In this case I have to agree with Capehart; I don't want this Mancrunch ad being the flag we fly as the example of a pro-civil-rights ad getting rejected from Superbowl Sunday.
18
@16: If credit was the problem, why would they even mention content and risk the backlash this is getting? Are they that stupid?
... eh, they might be.
... eh, they might be.
19
I have to agree with Uriel. I saw that kiss commercial during the Super Bowl and I definitely laughed at how stupid I felt it made homophobes look. These guys are trying out-man each other to prove that they're not gay, even though they really really enjoyed their little embrace--and they do so by hurting themselves. I took it to be obviously insulting guys who are scared of themselves, who desire to hold fast to the stereotype of a Man. Which is, of course, stupid and hurtful. I understand the argument otherwise, I just didn't see it that way.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (19) RSS