A California mother and PTA president has touched off a debate as to the double standards in racy advertising that has a strong sexual undertones. Stripped of all else, it seems her complaints boil down to not wanting to have to explain to her children that yes, indeed, gays exist and that some men are sexually attracted to other men. Meanwhile, of course, we see any number of sexually suggestive and racy ads featuring heterosexual couples - the image at right above is from a Michael Kors billboard ad. Is it a double standard? It surely seems to be. The Atlantic looks at the ensuing debate triggered by Ms. Kelly Cole. Here are some highlights:
For the record, I don't belong to Manhunt and I don't use any apps - I don't even have a smart phone. Similarly, I don't condone promiscuous sex of any kind. But I do agree with the argument that as long as same sex intimacy is treated as something dirty to be hidden from view, homophobia prevails and full LGBT equality will lag behind. The heterosexual world is full of casual sex - just ask Tiger Woods. The same standard should apply accross the board.
The Players: Manhunt, a gay dating site founded in 2001 with over 6.5 million members and their new, racy, gay billboards; Kelly Cole, co-president of the Valley View elementary PTA who thinks those ads are too racy and gay.
The Opening Serve: . . . "You try explaining the “Zero feet away MANHUNT MOBILE” phone application to your 9-year-old son. A 9-year-old who loves Army guys, and so noticed the dog tags right away." She explains it's not the "blatant porniness" or that the ad is gay-focused which bothers her: It’s the fact that I am forced to figure out a way to frame to my fourth-grader the fact that some people like to find casual sex partners fast using their mobile phones... I know I could have lied to my son, which I don’t typically condone, but honestly I couldn’t come up with a suitable story fast enough to fit that image and service. . . . . I wrote to the executives who own and run the billboard company, Lamar Advertising: “No matter what one's politics, religious beliefs, or moral compass says about this, does it not seem obvious that this ad is inappropriately placed when it becomes forced viewing for hundreds of children daily?”
The Return Volley: . . . Gawker's Brian Moylan, went a little further. "This writer is trying to paint herself as a liberal, sex-positive, feminist, but, guess what, the fact that the billboard depicts two men is the entire story here," wrote Moylan. "You say that you would hate it if it was hetero but, since we still live in a very heterosexist society, you wouldn't even notice it ... Most companies are too ashamed to put them up there because they're afraid of people like you, people who lose their fucking minds as soon as a kid might see a display of normal, natural adult homosexual sexual expression."
Which brings us to another Manhunt point. On their official blog (NSFW) they point out that just a few blocks away, there's a Michael Kors billboard featuring a woman putting her hand down a half-naked male model's underwear. "No, we don’t have any evidence that there weren’t any complaints to Michael Kors, his ad agency, or to LA political officials. But we highly doubt that several media outlets approached them like they did us. Because, for some reason, gay sexuality is still scary and controversial for many people."
Who's Winning Now: Manhunt. . . . So where exactly is the op-ed slamming the Michael Kors ad that's a few blocks away? It's hard to see a difference between the two, and if anything, a woman preparing to fondle her shirtless partner seems a bit racier than two shirtless men non-kissing. Instead of providing an argument that racy ads, regardless of sexual orientation aren't child-appropriate, it seems like Cole (to her own detriment) and the rest of the complaints are singling Manhunt out.
For the record, I don't belong to Manhunt and I don't use any apps - I don't even have a smart phone. Similarly, I don't condone promiscuous sex of any kind. But I do agree with the argument that as long as same sex intimacy is treated as something dirty to be hidden from view, homophobia prevails and full LGBT equality will lag behind. The heterosexual world is full of casual sex - just ask Tiger Woods. The same standard should apply accross the board.
2 comments:
From her statements, it looks to me like her only problem is that she doesn't want to have to explain to her kid that some people use services to find a person to have casual sex with. It's not what the ad depicts, but the service it's advertising for, that she doesn't like. And it doesn't even appear that she has any moral objection to the service; it's just that she doesn't want to be forced to have that conversation explaining the fact that some people use services like that to procure casual sex with her child. She even seems to imply that it's a topic she probably would have talked to him about anyway, at some point in the future, and it was just that this ad seems to be forcing her hand that she's upset about.
As someone who has been i the hot seat for years answering questions I'd rather not to my sons, I became a master at framing things to fit their understanding and current world view. I would have simply said, "it's a dating site for men." He didnt need to know its for casual sex, that understanding will come later on when he figures out sex.
She is just a homophobe., and made it look as if she wasnt. And really, the guy/girl ad I would think would be much more tricky to explain, all kids know about dating, but sex to someone that really isnt aware of it, can be tricky.
Post a Comment