CBS Doesn’t Want You to ‘See BS’…At Least Not During the Super Bowl
In what must be one of the easiest and most intelligent decisions in TV history, CBS, has refused an ad by a gay dating service called mancrunch.com.
Earth to the gay superiority advocates:
1) The Super Bowl is a FAMILY event. Look at your ad you idiots at mancrunch! You’ve got two guys mauling each other. Do you think that’s healthy viewing for a kid watching the game with his or her Dad or Mom? Yes, there have been ads with a smoking hot Cindy Crawford leaning up against a Pepsi machine, etc. But she wasn’t performing a radical tonsillectomy on her on-screen partner, now was she??
2) I would be just as offended if it were two heterosexuals going at it like that. It seems that sex sells, yes, but this is the Super Bowl folks, and not ad space for ‘Desperate Housewives’.
3) The reaction by the morons at mancrunch.com only serves to illustrate how some in the gay community only WEAKEN their status by demanding superiority and not equality (the latter of which, I support fully, wholeheartedly). Claiming that CBS is “anti-gay” is such incredible horse manure. They’re in business for everyone’s dollar. You want them to showcase a behavior of about 6% of the American population and surely risk offending any good portion of the remaining 94% of the people likely watching??? Would you do that if it were your business? What sanctimonious pish!
Now if CBS would spare us that dimbell Katie Couric, too, they’d certainly move in the ratings…
Watch the rejected Super Bowl ad, here. Warning: If you’re squeamish about watching two men kiss, don’t click and then blame me. You were warned.
Alex, I haven’t seen the ad you seem to have seen, and actually am surprised that mancrunch or whoever even thought there was any chance in hell of CBS airing it anytime, much less during the SuperBowl. BTW, this must be a VERY successful manly dating service if they can afford over $2,000,000 for a thirty second spot aimed at an audience whcih I wouldn’t consider the most likely to respond with registrations. Perhaps their money would be better spent with hourly rotation on the Home Decorating channel, or maybe creating some contraversy was the intent all along and they never thought they would have to come up with the money.
It is my understanding that the same Mormon powers that be that try to run the USA from Salt Lake City have a major interest in CBS. These are the same people who from Utah poured $8,000,000 into the proposition 8 campaign to overturn the same-sex marriage law in California last fall. This is yet again costing the state that is broke more money as it is almost guaranteed to be overturned due to the current constitutional appeals to the Prop 8 Law.
My opinion about same sex marriage is – if you don’t want to marry someone of your sex DON’T DO IT. I could care less who anybody else marries. The world would be so much better if people worried more about their OWN behaviour rather than their neighbor’s.
I do find it ironic, though not surprising, that the Super Bowl will be having an ad from one of the groups like Family Focus or some other anit-gay, anti-choice pro-”family” organization featuring Florida Gator QB Teabow promoting family values. Maybe they should get Lord Gord as a spokesman – with Lara in a swimsuit!
The best games are past for this year anyway, it is rare for the Super Bowl to equal the Wild Card and Conference Championship games – and often they seem to be pre-ordained as well, i.e. the year the Sea Hawks were robbed by the refs late in the game – I guess cuz Pittsburgh needed something good to happen in a bleak decade – and it was nice that the Bus was able to retire with a Super Bowl ring. I would have loved to see Vikings-Saints, but alas!
Usually the Super Bowl itself is anti-climatic, though Saints-Colts could be a rare good one. I doubt it will be as entertaining as watching the Canuckleheads spot the Maple Laffs three goals last night and then putting in the goalie the Leafs are still paying to stone them while the Sedin triplets put on a clinic for the last two periods. All in all an excellent start to a month and a half in the wilderness for the Canucks.
[Translate]
I agree. I have no idea why the Tebow add is being allowed. I haven’t seen it, but if he was simply promoting family values, no problem, but once we start preaching about abortion and other matters, I’m off to the fridge for another Red Stripe. Also, I think you’ll be surprised. The Colts seems a little nervous in their last outing. Most commentators identified this. And I think the Saints will be primed. Should be a good game. Let me know what you think.
[Translate]
Can’t say as I disagree with much of anything you have said here, though I think the figure of 3% with another 3% ambivalent would be closer to the mark. Of course that’s not counting the probably 10% of men who would screw a rock pile if they thought there was a snake in it!
[Translate]
Okay, now THAT was funny…
[Translate]
I think that they have already accomplished what they set out to do. It’s doubtful that they expected to be accepted or whether they could afford the cost. What they have accomplished is that they have gotten their publicity for free. I think PETA used the same tactic last year.
You are correct, the Super Bowl is definitely the wrong venue for an ad of this type, and no I didn’t bother watching it. Your description was visual enough for me.
[Translate]
It just astounds me that they pull this crap. It only hurts gay rights, and doesn’t help them.
[Translate]
Good points, Alex. As a gay man myself I think this ad is a good thing (exposing the fact that homosexual activity does exist) but agree it’s in the wrong place. The cynic in me thinks they just put this ad forward as a publicity stunt and never intended for it to actually go to air during the Super Bowl.
My main point of irritation with this whole thing is that really… if we’re worried about what these sorts of things teach our kids during a “family” event, they shouldn’t then turn around and give air time to a pro-life ad that is preaching untruths about abortion and women’s rights; that is unless they’re willing to do the same for a pro-choice organisation that can argue the other point of view. But then, as we know, Focus on the Family and all the other hyper-fundamentalist ilk would go nuts and lead a boycott on CBS.
I think it’s a good thing to expose children to homosexuality. This particular ad isn’t the best, that’s for sure, but do you expect CBS would air an ad that gets a message of tolerance and education across without the tonsil hockey? Fact is, they probably wouldn’t.
Regardless, America still has a long way to go in the drive for tolerance and understanding, appropriateness of the ad aside.
[Translate]
I agree with you. If the FOF advert in question was simply about family values, well, great,I know some gay couples that are HUGE on family values… but if they’re preaching hate and that abortion is a crime, then they lose me right there. It is a most complicated issue, and most certainly NOT one that I would want to have to explain after three beers, a chili dog and the Colts down by a touchdown at the half (Go Colts!)… And I had a discussion about what gay means with both my six year old daughter and eight year old son. My four year daughter is still a tad young for that chat. It is very important to teach acceptance. I do not like the word tolerance. What’s to TOLERATE? The gay community sometimes does it to themselves. I tolerate paying taxes, I tolerate a rash. But there is nothing to tolerate in letting someone live their lives in the same peace I enjoy. Thank you so much for your comment. Means a great deal to me to have you here. I wish you well.
[Translate]
I think acceptance is still a little way down the road when we can’t even guarantee universal tolerance in Canada and around the world. We would be fools to assume that acceptance is universal even here in Vancouver. And, sadly, some people do make the assumption; the result is ads like this.
Publicity stunt, verifiable ad submission or both (or neither), it severely harms any empowerment and equality of LGBT people in society by perpetuating misunderstandings. I would even go so far as to say this ad stereotypes gay men (i.e. it’s just as bad as the image that all gay men are effeminate lip gloss-wearing nancy-boys with a comical lisp), and in truth that’s one reason why I agree the ad has no place broadcasting to a very mainstream “average Joe” audience of millions and millions.
I don’t want to be stereotyped thanks to a silly ad that offers a service that only a select group of individuals will end up using. If we want to convince the so-called silent majority to not only tolerate gay people but to accept us, it’s pretty darn foolish to start testing the waters with ads not necessarily in poor taste but, definitely, poorly placed and targeted to the wrong audience. “See, honey, we were right. They do have no shame! Pass the Doritos!”
There are plenty of places on the internet for this website to advertise, taking xtra.ca as an example – they advertise their own gay chat and casual encounters services right on the front page. Nobody raises an eyebrow about that; it’s a gay publication. So there is definitely a precedent for online advertising; not only that, I’d say it makes sense to advertise a website online. But that’s just me!
The LGBT community makes no friends by acting petulantly and assuming that the majority is just going to *be* okay with gay people. We have to earn respect and understanding, precisely because it’s a two-way street. This ad is one very good example of a setback to the cause.
I am so glad to hear you having such important conversations with your children about what it means to be gay and how that’s not wrong. I can see they’re going to grow up with commendable ethics and values.
Thanks for the excellent reply and your warm words!
[Translate]
My pleasure. It’s why I objected to it to begin with. The stereotyping of gay men in particular is so utterly offensive. Terry, the friend my pals and I lived with was nothing like the effeminate, limp-wristed sort. And most of my gay friends don’t act or talk like that.
As for the kids, yeah, my wife and I thought it best to have that conversation since they were coming home wondering what “gay” was. So we sat the two oldest down and explained without, of course, having to go into in depth specifics. We concentrated more on the ‘love’ angle. I think it’s part of a healthy discussion to have with children who are mature enough to handle it. Sure it’s confusing. Their mother and I are obviously wired differently from those who are gay, but so what? I think it’s important for them to respect and accept others the way they are born. Do I think some people have a predisposition…not sure. I just think those who are gay are born this way and this tolerance bullshit or “homophobia” are simply contrived slanders. I have never met anyone who is afraid of gays and I repeat: Why are we in need of being “tolerant”? I tolerate a migraine, I tolerate those jerks who collect my garbage and throw the tops of my cans at my neighbors’ gate.
I am delighted that you commented here. I am always cognizant of the reactionary gay man or lesbian who wants to plead the equality argument while embracing some fringe policy or initiative (in this case advert)
And I am continually amused by the fact that the President of the United States does not believe in gay marriage or gay adoption, has taken the VERY slow boat to eliminating ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ in the U.S. military, but former Miss California Carrie Prejean gets pilloried for the exact same position(s).
I wish you well. Blessings to you and yours. And thank you again for the privilege of such a great exchange. Please come by again. I’m sure I’ll write something to annoy you at some point.
[Translate]
I watched the linked video. Yes it’s implied that they’re making out, but do you actually see the two men locking lips? no. Do you see tongue? no. Their crotches aren’t even anywhere near each other. Hell, towards the end their mouths are clearly nowhere near each other. The ad is stupid and obviously doesn’t fit the target demographic of a football game, but it’s not offensive. You’re offended by a guy rubbing his hand up and down another guy’s back?
On the other hand THIS ad actually AIRED during the Super Bowl a couple years ago: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcLrAL1-ZMI Later on that ad was pulled from re-airing on television because gay people complained based on what happened AFTER the liplock.
I also think the childish name calling of Katie Couric was rather off topic and unnecessary to this particular post
[Translate]
Jason, let me give you a piece of advice: If you don’t like being here, don’t come here. What does one STUPID Brokeback Snickers ad have to do with what I blogged about? I’m talking about appropriate content. And the ad you cite was also pulled because of the blowback Snickers got for filming it. I am TOTALLY against that kind of advertising, particularly with respect to products that are primarily geared towards kids. I think we push them to grow up too fast sometimes.
And I’m not offended by any of it. I just see it as completely offside. I used to live with three other guys in a house off Harwood and one of them was gay. A great friend and good guy who died of AIDS two years later…. Spare me the bullshit about the details. That kind of advertising, hetero, gay or otherwise is totally inappropriate for the Super Bowl. That’s my point.
And I guess you’re a fan of Katie Couric. She’s an utter fool. Better now?
[Translate]
I think you’re right on the mark here Alex. I also support gay rights like you but I do not feel this is the place for them to be showing off. My brother is gay and lives in Toronto. I sent him your link and he agrees with you totally. Well done for sticking up for gays and telling it like it is. Man you are a total breath of fresh air.
[Translate]
Thanks Reg. I appreciate your kind words. I trust you’re doing well.
[Translate]
Glad this ad was brief.
Would rather be eating a manwich or two while watching the Super Bowl and keeping the backdoor locked.
Keep the blog smokin’. Kicks ass. You get your rear in gear. No butts about it.
[Translate]
Stop that!
[Translate]
Alex, another “gay ad” that aired was the interview on Global TV, one in which Gordon Campbell was trying to sell us the HST.
Gay ad I say? You bet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIFyMqJSRos
I dunno about you but every time he was looking at me through those rimless glasses it felt like he was already thinking of ways to screw me over, somehow.
Sun tanned, blue open shirt, coordinated jacket, smooth talker, white veneer smile in the end; I’m telling you, he was reaching out…of the closet. My opinion.
We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.
[Translate]
I loved the last wee bit in Gailus’ intereview. “Premier you KNOW we are inclusive in our coverage on this (the HST)” AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Even Gordon himself couldn’t keep a straight face. But what a complete ass he is. Gailus rightly brought him front and center on the issue of taxpayer benefit versus corporate break and he slithered back to corporate benefit. Unbelievable. I would have gone after him right then and there. Gailus knew he had five minutes there, he could have gone for it. But you can’t blame him, since Campbell is well known to stay away from any media source that asks tough questions…um, okay, not sure who that would be anymore…
[Translate]