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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.