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?
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.
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.
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.
Bingo.
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.
Clancy’s intended audience eats that kind of crap up, Scylla.
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.
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.
Some are, some aren’t. I recommend http://www.commercialcloset.com for an excellent overview of positive and negative gay ads.
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.
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.
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.
Errrr . . . examples?
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.
It’s the fact that we as the audience are supposed to identify with this man’s discomfort, as if his feelings are universal.
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.
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.
No, you’re reading too much into it. Pointing out heterosexuality doesn’t mean putting down homosexuality.
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.