« My post-colonial fantasies of adopting Haitian orphans | Main | Should merry (ultra right) pranksters go to jail? »

01/30/2010

Comments

jake brodsky

In fairness to CBS, this could be just a simple business decision. They have refused other ad revenue for lesser reasons.

Keep in mind there will be children watching. The SuperBowl is not the appropriate time to have to explain to my six year old girl why two men are kissing each other. The abortion issue I could explain if she asks. If I knew that this ad was coming, I would probably avoid watching the game altogether because I would rather not have this as a pretext for all these difficult topics.

I like to share my activities with my children, but I'd rather not share this conversation in context of a major sporting event.

ncfrommke

Setting aside the cultural issues and controversy for a moment, this brouhaha represents a big win for Mancrunch and their advertising agency- LOTS of totally free publicity, and no hideous Super Bowl advertising rate to pay. In fact, the commercial may have been designed to be just transgressive enough to be rejected by the network. That may seem cynical, but so is the advertising industry.

Laurie Essig

As a parent, I don't like to give parenting advice. But it seems to me that if you raised your daughter to know that men can and do love other men (in the way that men can and do love women) then the ad would be far less upsetting than having to discuss abortion. One is a beautiful thing: love. The other is an awful and difficult decision: terminating a pregnancy. (But of course I don't watch football with my children. I wouldn't want to expose them to that sort of homoeroticism at a young age ;-)

Laurie Essig

Of course it was a publicity stunt. Very clever kids over at Mancrunch. All the name recognition and thanks to people like me, it's FREE. Not a bizillion dollars for 30 seconds or whatever the going rate for Superbowl ads is this year.

renzob

Ms Essig avoided one of the interesting potential crashes of these two trains of thought; one which derails the reasoning behind the CBS decision. What if it were (or rather when it does become) possible to tell homo- from hetero- children in the womb. Would CBS then permit adds FOR abortion of homosexual children? Editorial comment is one of those issues which is “overburdened with significance” or as they say in psychobabble "overdetermined", meaning the explanations number somewhere between 'many' and 'endless'.

Besides, hetero- athletes are just as homo- erotic as men in all other walks of life. One set of standards when with other hetero-s, including wives, and another set while with homo-s OR other men. Most men are not as uncomfortable with homosexuals as most heterosexuals like to believe (in public discourse).

gypsysister

Think the YMCA movement, or Teddy Roosevelt, who once said:

I believe in rough, manly sports.”

I"m in the middle of reading the (nearly) complete works of HL Mencken, and I have to wonder where he'd land on this issue. There's no doubt that he disagreed with this quotation. Whether or not he agreed with you, I'm thinking the li'l diatribe would be worth the read.

gypsysister

I do think that Mencken would have a little fun with Tebow's vocabulary - dude, please look up "convict." You may know that embedding for the Tebow spot has been disabled, but at least we can go to Youtube. I think the Mancrunch ad is pretty clever, and the 3rd man in the room would cover the homophobes in the audience.

The real question is - where's the Planned Parenthood ad? The ad ad for a woman's right to choose?

gypsysister

sorry - "questions are"

davidlosangeles

Pr. Essig,

It is precisely because of the intense crypto-homo-eroticism and violent masculinity of football that they have to go to greater lengths to publicly distance themselves from overt male homosexuality. The CBS and NFL might have had a different reaction if the two kissing characters were women.

jn715

"Muscular Christianity" is not some veiled tool for Christian messages to subvert the sport watching populace. It is deals with newer ways to confront spiritual growth and other concerns. Not to use sports to broadcast religious themes but, sports have a role in spiritual matters.

Play to the sweeping generalization of insecure sports jocks always with something to prove is irresponsible and simply a lazy effort. It is as ridiculous as your "insecurity" argument that lazy men had to play sports with hard working women. Work has never been masculine it just depended on what kind of work because women were going to put to work regardless of their man's laziness.

Then you link that to vague Roosevelt quote of manly sports. Sport is enveloped by masculinity but masculinity is not inherently homophobic- Greek athletes and pederasty culture.

Sporting men and fainting women stereotypes have been commonplace since the dawn of civilization.

It is the rough, manly sports that have shattered cultural barriers, misconceptions of superiority-- not build them up. It is sports that realizes the dreams of level playing field and true spirit of competition to progress. It is the rough, manly sports that have shattered female stereotypes for decades and exert as positive and empowered of an image you can possibly have for women everywhere.

Tebow and "Muscular Christianity" are linked through to the ways sports namely football and Christianity are so fundamental to the American identity and even consciousness.

Then you finish if off with an ridiculous assertion that class hierarchy collapses with rewritten sexual norms. This somehow works when places in Europe that have great protection for and willing to embrace homosexuals in their culture. Are actually embedded in systems that feature class structures of "nobility" and monarchies from Sweden, to the Netherlands. According to your flawed logic, England with such rigid class mobility would be exceedingly homophobic to protect itself from collapse while the impoverished nations and unrefined tribal lands of Uganda are filled with liberating policies for homosexuals.

It is upper-class and refined societies that have always been quick to embrace homosexuality and sexual liberalism. I was with you on many talking points but you definitely lost me with your convoluted reasoning.

CBS will not show gay dating ads because people and families that actually gather Sundays to watch Football want nothing to do with being broadcast a gay dating ad. CBS thinks about its audience and this is a financial decision.

Our problem is our exaltation of the modern sports star. How his word we desperately hang on too. Their social opinions carry deep reverence and even appreciation. But most importantly the role of superstars as the quintessential embodiment of American exceptionalism, leadership, and most importantly moral righteousness. Our sports stars act as moral authorities and we call them "All-American" to commend their athletic distinction- why, is a great topic to read about. Why Tebow is so revered as spiritual model to the country and that sports is the perfect medium for him to be attentive followed. Not writers, authors, philosophers but the athlete. Is Tebow's opinion and moral beliefs any of our concern- apparently so as he is the athlete.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Categories

Blog powered by Typepad