Are TV commercials too homophobic?

[Superdude]

As I was watching a baseball game on ESPN last night, there was a beer commercial where three gentlemen stood up and sucked their guts in to impress the female beer vendor. She pours the beers rather slowly, and finally moves on. The guys return to normal stature, when one of them seems a little woozy. His buddy says, "We're losing Bob," then says to Bob, "I know mouth-to-mouth." Bob snaps out of it, says "I'm good." and the commercial ends. This isn't the first such instance of this I've noticed. I understand the need to appeal to the average beer drinker, but there seems to be an undercurrent of homophobia attached. Since when did it become commonplace to poke fun at sexual orientation (without resorting to stereotypes) in the mass media? Are TV commercials too homophobic?

[Patty O'Furniture]

Maybe the buddy just wasn't cute enough. Drew Carrey would have had the same reaction if the mouth-to-mouth offer came from Mimi (I think that's her name- the heavy woman with the clown makeup).

Advertizers would be foolish to turn off the gay population at large, since it weighs heavily in the DINK households category. Lots of disposable income, there.

[Superdude]

Originally posted by Attrayant
Drew Carrey would have had the same reaction if the mouth-to-mouth offer came from Mimi (I think that's her name- the heavy woman with the clown makeup).

Yeah, Mimi. And I will concede that point. But, there's an inherent difference in that that's a sit-com. In a beer commercial for a different brand (I think), that same woman (Mimi) was having love professed to her by several men just because she drove a beer truck. Seems to me that there's an element of equality missing. In commercials, just as in real life. But that's just MHO.

[gobear]

I dunno; some commercials contain homophobic elements and others seem homo-friendly. I like the beer commercial with two women sizing up a hot guy in a bar and sending him a beer. Then another guy sits next to him, and the women think they have corralled two hot men until they see the guys holding hands. It's a humorous commercial treating being gay as normal. IKEA has featured gay folks in their commercials as well.

I don't think the commercial in the OP is anti-gay; it seems to me that the spot is more about that straight guys don't enjoy having mouth-to-mouth contact with other guys.

[Scylla]

I don't think the commercial in the OP is anti-gay; it seems to me that the spot is more about that straight guys don't enjoy having mouth-to-mouth contact with other guys


Bingo.

[Scylla]

But, I will mention that I've been reading Tom Clancy's Bear and Dragon.

I'm going all through this political intrigue stuff, and all of a sudden, Clancy's protagonist Jack Ryan has one of these interior monologue moments where he's despairing for America's morals because "In Public schools they're teaching our children that homosexuality is ok."

Not only that, but Clancy has gotten increasingly jingoistic as his books progress, and the way this treats the Chinese is racist in the extreme.

[Mekhazzio]

Clancy's intended audience eats that kind of crap up, Scylla.

[Danimal]

Originally posted by Scylla
But, I will mention that I've been reading Tom Clancy's Bear and Dragon.

I'm going all through this political intrigue stuff, and all of a sudden, Clancy's protagonist Jack Ryan has one of these interior monologue moments where he's despairing for America's morals because "In Public schools they're teaching our children that homosexuality is ok."

Not only that, but Clancy has gotten increasingly jingoistic as his books progress, and the way this treats the Chinese is racist in the extreme.

I believe Tom Clancy admitted in public to being a "homophobe," but I think he also admitted that it was an emotional reaction, not something he was particularly proud of. I also recall in one of his books - I think it was The Cardinal of the Kremlin - where the Americans use the anti-gay bigotry of a Russian intellignece officer against him, making the bigot look rather stupid. I haven't read The Bear and the Dragon, but it could be that Clancy did not intend for Ryan's anti-gay thoughts to be construed as a good thing.

I haven't seen racism in Clancy's previous books, and I'm disappointed if he has turned to it now. What I have seen is a major drop in his books' quality. The Hunt for Red October was a superb thriller. Debt of Honor was just absurd.

I agree with Scylla and gobear that it isn't homophobic to portray straights as viscerally averse to anything that feels like homosexual contact. Straights can be perfectly tolerant of what gays do with each other without wanting to indulge it in themselves.

[andros]

but it could be that Clancy did not intend for Ryan's anti-gay thoughts to be construed as a good thing.

Reagrdless of Clancy's motives, I find it refreshing that Jack Ryan is less than divine once in a while. Cripes, that guy was getting to seem like Superman's and Bond's love child.

[andygirl]

Some are, some aren't. I recommend http://www.commercialcloset.com for an excellent overview of positive and negative gay ads.

[astorian]

Apparently, Superdude doesn't think a standard "live and let live" attitude is good enough. No, he seems to think blue-collar heterosexual men must REVEL in the idea of kissing their male friends, or they're bigots.

[even sven]

Yeah, thats it astorian.......NOT!

I think one of the problems is that our concept of masculinity is closly tied to homophobia. So, anything that wants to present a "manly" image is likely to present a homophobic one as well.

[Sea Sorbust]

I don't watch much TV, and even less Drew Carrie, but I always thought that Mimi was a man. (?)

As to the OP, my thought has always been that it's really hard to find a TV ad that doesn't pander to a male viewer's subconscious homosexuality.

(Do all males have a subconscious homosexual component? Don't know. But the advertisment industry must think so.)

Can't say that I've EVER seen a TV ad that I thought was homophobic.

But then, I've always thought that Mimi was a man.

[andros]

As to the OP, my thought has always been that it's really hard to find a TV ad that doesn't pander to a male viewer's subconscious homosexuality.

Errrr . . . examples?

[astorian]

Okay, Sven, since you find my analysis lacking...

The OP is angry because a blue-collar guy in a beer commercial wasn't enthusiastic about the idea of kissing his buddy! WHY that should bother the OP, WHY he thinks it's insulting to the gay community to suggest that not every man is dying to kiss another man, why that constitutes bigotry, he never says.

In this day and age, screaming "homophobe" is equivalent to calling someone a Klansman or a neo-Nazi. If you're going to make a charge like that, I think you need a LOT more evidence than squeamishness about physical contact with other men.

[serack]

It's the fact that we as the audience are supposed to identify with this man's discomfort, as if his feelings are universal.

[Sea Sorbust]

Originally posted by andros
As to the OP, my thought has always been that it's really hard to find a TV ad that doesn't pander to a male viewer's subconscious homosexuality.

Errrr . . . examples?

Well. During daytime TV: ads about breakfast cereals; female stuff (tampons, beauty soaps, skin goo); baby things (diapers, toys, the ludicrously expensive Pediolyte, talc powers, goo-foods); uh; err; aaaah; Sunny-D and other sugar-loaded beverage ads (usually aimed for consumption by teen-agers); toilet tissue ads; aaah; errr; ummmm; ah; others.

[Lamia]

Originally posted by astorian

The OP is angry because a blue-collar guy in a beer commercial wasn't enthusiastic about the idea of kissing his buddy! WHY that should bother the OP, WHY he thinks it's insulting to the gay community to suggest that not every man is dying to kiss another man, why that constitutes bigotry, he never says.


It wasn't kissing, it was mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. The commercial wasn't suggesting that "not every man is dying to kiss another man", but rather that "many men would prefer risking their health to even appearing to kiss another man".

I think the effectiveness of this ad does rely on male homophobia (I don't think the ad would work at all if the characters were women), although it could be seen as spoofing it rather than encouraging it.

[OneChance]

Originally posted by Superdude
Are TV commercials too homophobic?No, you're reading too much into it. Pointing out heterosexuality doesn't mean putting down homosexuality.

[OneChance]

Originally posted by Lamia
(I don't think the ad would work at all if the characters were women)That could be said for a lot of commercials. For example, the two women sitting on a park bench trying to guess what kind of underwear the men walking by are wearing (the one with Jordan). Reverse the roles there and you'd have a commercial that probably would've never happened.

[Crunchy Frog]

Originally posted by Sea Sorbust
Originally posted by andros
As to the OP, my thought has always been that it's really hard to find a TV ad that doesn't pander to a male viewer's subconscious homosexuality.

Errrr . . . examples?

Well. During daytime TV: ads about breakfast cereals; female stuff (tampons, beauty soaps, skin goo); baby things (diapers, toys, the ludicrously expensive Pediolyte, talc powers, goo-foods); uh; err; aaaah; Sunny-D and other sugar-loaded beverage ads (usually aimed for consumption by teen-agers); toilet tissue ads; aaah; errr; ummmm; ah; others.
And where is the pandering to the male veiwer's subconscious homosexuality? You've simply listed a bunch of products that get advertised without backing up your statement at all.

And can't you just think the words "er, aaah, ummm" without typing them?

BTW, the "female stuff" catagory: If it's "female stuff" why would advertisers be pandering to any men? I don't care how gay a man is; he will never need tampons, with or without wings.

[Lamia]

Originally posted by OneChance

That could be said for a lot of commercials. For example, the two women sitting on a park bench trying to guess what kind of underwear the men walking by are wearing (the one with Jordan). Reverse the roles there and you'd have a commercial that probably would've never happened.

Yes, but that's an ad "that probably would've never happened" because it would likely be considered too offensive to air. An ad where a fainting women reacts in horror at the thought of a female friend giving her mouth-to-mouth wouldn't work for a very different reason -- it just doesn't make sense.

I'm not attempting to forward the old myth that women are all accepting of homosexuality (many are not), but it is rare to find a woman with such a strong aversion to any physical contact that might be remotely construed as homoerotic, an aversion that is fairly common in straight men. The commercial in question relies upon the latter to make sense and to provide whatever humor it has.

[Mockingbird]

Originally posted by andros
As to the OP, my thought has always been that it's really hard to find a TV ad that doesn't pander to a male viewer's subconscious homosexuality.

Errrr . . . examples?

How about the Miller Lite campaign that relied on men dressing in drag for ladies' night so they could get free beer? It was relying on stereotypes of gender to try and get people to remember their brand.

The commercial with mouth to mouth does rely on homophobia.
The fear to appear as if one might kiss another man IS pandering to homophobia.

As long as commercials rely on gender stereotypes that reinforce false concepts of feminity and masculinity, we will see homophobia and heterosexism in our commercials.

It is by pandering and reinforcing these stereotypes that they stay in business. Were it not for men who want to come off as more manly, we would not have seen the battery commercials in the 1970's with Robert Conrad daring us to try and knock that battery off his shoulder.

We wouldn't have seen the Miller Lite commercials of the 1980's trying to assuage the men of America that drinking their beer would not impinge on their masculinity.

Women aren't spared the indignity either. Their are told that they need to be fresher, prettier, and more able to balance cooking and their job than any other woman. Women don't need to just be able to attract men... nope. They also need to be able to defeat and defend from the other women who have seen the same commercials.

Homophobia is in commercials. It is in commercials by the massive absence of gay images, by slights about the fear of seeming gay, and in the rare instances: positive gay images, which are rare. Most commercials sell compulsory heterosexuality, and play hard sell through the images they send of masculinity and femininity. They use fear messages that you aren't male enough unless you buy their brand, and you aren't woman enough to snag a man unless you douche with Massengill.

It isn't just the homophobia that needs to be dealt with in these commercials. It is the fear based message of rigid gender roles that they sell with impunity, keeping divisiveness alive and well.

But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

[Sofa King]

Hastur, you might be exactly right for all I know, but I don't think anyone in this thread has addressed the most basic principle which underlies it.

It's all about money.

Just this month, I went to a number of bars that cater primarily to the lesbian and gay community--a first for me. One thing I noticed right off the bat was that these bars had gay- and lesbian-themed beer posters on the wall, and just like any bar I've ever been to, they had free ad-driven magazines by the doors. And these advertisements were good, I mean professionally done, slick, well-thought out ads, targeted for gay and lesbian readers. Companies don't seem to be shy about printing themed ads, as long as they know they're hitting the right audience.

Unfortunately, since it's all about money, advertisers are conservative. Unless I'm very wrong, even though the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities represent a lucrative segment of the population, there are also a lot of people out there who might form a negative opinion of a product if those communities are overtly targeted. Homophobes buy a lot of crap, too.

The "fear based message of rigid gender roles" will change when it becomes profitable to do so, and probably not before. I get the impression that sort of thing is declining already. Continued vocal opposition to homophobic ads might be one way to change things, but only if that opposition is worth its weight in gold. Gold is the only thing the advertisers care about.

[Sea Sorbust]

To Crunchy Frog: I was responding to andros' request for specific examples. He hasn't re-posted so I don't know for sure what he wanted, but I was giving examples of ads which I believed contained NO PANDERING to any inner homosexual needs or desires, whether conscious or un-conscious.

You were exactly right: There was NO PANDERING is the ad-types that I listed; THAT's the list I made. Maybe andros wanted examples of PANDERING; maybe I misread his request.

As to the ummm's and errr's: I put them deliberately to illustrate that I, for one, (and seemingly the only one), find the NON-PANDERING ads to be nearly (but not quite) as rare as gold-plated mare's teeth. :)

I hate TV, seldom watch it, and am out of my depth on this question; I withdraw from the debate/discussion in ignominy.

[Crunchy Frog]

Originally posted by Sea Sorbust
To Crunchy Frog: I was responding to andros' request for specific examples. He hasn't re-posted so I don't know for sure what he wanted, but I was giving examples of ads which I believed contained NO PANDERING to any inner homosexual needs or desires, whether conscious or un-conscious.

I see now. When andros asked for examples -- in the context of the phrase he quoted, "As to the OP, my thought has always been that it's really hard to find a TV ad that doesn't pander to a male viewer's subconscious homosexuality." -- I thought he was asking for examples of pandering, I failed to see where the pandering was in the examples you gave, wherein lies the confusion. That's now cleared up though.