And now on to the post I had intended to make.
Last weekend, while walking to Sushi House during the five and a half hour sushi-related adventure detiled here, we passed a lighted advertisement for Remy Martin booze mounted on the side of a bus stop.
The ad suggests hot biracial girl-on-girl action, with just a hint of bondage play. I snapped a pic with my iPhone; sorry about the quality, the light was very low.
It’s part of the “things are getting interesting” ad campaign for Remy Martin, who I gather make booze. Not surprising, really; booze and body spray (and by the way, WTF is “body spray,” exactly? I’ve never quite figured it out. As near as I can tell, it’s a product category that didn’t even exist a decade ago) are generally advertised with overt, and sometimes over-the-top, sexual imagery. Here are a few more images from the same advertising campaign:
So basically, what we’ve got is kinky girl-on-girl action, hot threeways, and a rather nice dungeon door. I want that door on my private dungeon when I build my next house…but I digress.
This, of course, is how we know God is a guy. ‘Cause God thinks girl-on-girl action is hot, but guy-on-guy action is gross. There’s no question in my mind that if the first ad featured two half-naked, well-muscled men, the campaign would be canceled post-haste. C’mon, seriously, you know the religious brigade would be all up in arms, burning things with torches and reciting from Leviticus and whatever else it is they do.
‘Course, none of this is particularly new. I’m just curious if there’ll ever be a day when there’s a little more parity in the kinky sex. You know, as a bold announcement of a significant new step by society toward equal rights and representation for all1. (And why is it that girl-on-girl is hot but guy-on-guy is gross in the public’s mind, anyway?)
“Buy our product and two hot models will fuck you. Like, at the same time. And you can watch them fuck each other, too! Really, honest Injun. You can tell we’re sincere ’cause our ads are all, like, moody and stuff.”
1 Actually, while I say that tongue-in-cheek, there was a time–and not too long ago, at that–when even the merest suggestion that people of different races might want to get it on with each other would’ve brought out the torches-and-pitchforks crowd faster than you can say “anti-miscegenation laws are stupid and patently offensive.” So maybe there is hope.
Yes, I know California passed Proposition 8. I expected it to pass, actually. It’s the last dying gasp of the bigots and homophobes; in a few generations, this and other stupidity enshrined in state constitutions all over the union will go the way of those anti-miscegenation laws, which were also writ into state constitutions not so long ago.
Now, my immediate first thought was:
“Martha Jones and Rose?”
LOL… you too?
BWAH! You, Sir, have proven your geek cred.
Also, thats hot. I bet there’s probably some slash out there somewhere with that theme.
Now, my immediate first thought was:
“Martha Jones and Rose?”
there was a time–and not too long ago, at that–when even the merest suggestion that people of different races might want to get it on with each other would’ve brought out the torches and pitchforks crowd faster than you can say “anti-miscegenation laws are stupid and patently offensive.” So maybe there is hope.
the Keith Olbermann response to Prop 8 that’s making the rounds makes it very clear that if the US hadn’t *already* been in the habit of “redefining marriage”, then in sixteen states (at least as of 1967, presumably more prior to then), the biracial parents of Barack Obama wouldn’t have been allowed to get married, and he wouldn’t have been born to now lead the country that tries to pretend it hasn’t already redefined marriage at least twice.
but as long as it remained between a man and a woman, the racial mixing was easier to swallow, i guess, than homosexual relationship. that’s a cultural taboo that goes back so far i despair of ever convincing people to at least accept it with a blind eye, never mind with open arms.
I just saw his response to Prop. 8 and was very, very impressed. That guy rocks.
Then again, if they hadn’t re-defined marraige, then Obama would have never existed.
Which, in retrospect, may not have been all bad.
And I never would have existed either. Hey, I have a suggestion. How about you go die? Asshole.
Tsk, tsk. Why waste your venom on me, Princess?
Anyway, don’t get your panties in a wad. I was merely saying that we could have avoided the trama of having a socialist president.
I’ve said it before, I’d sacrifice a few million to save a few hundred million.
But as an aside to you, it’s nice to see an honest to goodness emotional response from one of Turtle’s readers. I had one guy actually respond to me, not by answering any of my questions, but by observing that I was “emotionally involved”…can you believe it? I mean, duh, of COURSE I’m emotionally involved, why else would I bother?
What’s the world coming to, whcn you can’t be emotionally involved in your topic?
A socialist president? You mean a president who gives hundreds of billions of dollars to American businesses in exchange for public control of those businesses? I don’t think Obama’s the president you’re thinking of…
Hmm…I think you have the Democratic Congress and House confused with the president…as I recall, it was a Democratic House and Congress who voted to sell us down the river for over $850 billion dollars, before anyone ever decided how they were going to spend it.
Four days later, and your response still doesn’t make any sense. I can only conclude that, as large as‘s brain is, his heart must be even bigger than that if he freely associates with the likes of you– that is, the willfully developmentally subnormal.
Hey, he “freely associates” with you, don’t he?
But in any case…
Whatever.
there was a time–and not too long ago, at that–when even the merest suggestion that people of different races might want to get it on with each other would’ve brought out the torches and pitchforks crowd faster than you can say “anti-miscegenation laws are stupid and patently offensive.” So maybe there is hope.
the Keith Olbermann response to Prop 8 that’s making the rounds makes it very clear that if the US hadn’t *already* been in the habit of “redefining marriage”, then in sixteen states (at least as of 1967, presumably more prior to then), the biracial parents of Barack Obama wouldn’t have been allowed to get married, and he wouldn’t have been born to now lead the country that tries to pretend it hasn’t already redefined marriage at least twice.
but as long as it remained between a man and a woman, the racial mixing was easier to swallow, i guess, than homosexual relationship. that’s a cultural taboo that goes back so far i despair of ever convincing people to at least accept it with a blind eye, never mind with open arms.
Personally, I LOVE watching hot guys get it on with each other. (But, like the typical straight guy watching lesbian porn, I want them to get it on with ME when they are done, too.) I actually used to subscribe to a porn site that was dedicated to bisexual MFM threesomes. The guys were hot, but it was very clear that a lot of them were actually gay (hi there, when you give a girl oral sex, it’s a good idea to actually TOUCH your tongue to her pussy, not just wave it around 3 inches away). It kind of ruined the fantasy for me.
My husband and I used to go to swing clubs now and then. And it always irked me how it was just expected that I would want to get it on with other women (I don’t), but the merest suggestion of two men together was met with disgust and anger.
I have found that the “alternative lifestyle” folks can be some of the biggest bigots around when it comes to alternative lifestyles that aren’t their own. I’ve seen so many gays bashing bisexuals as “indecisive” or “passing,” and poly people getting squicked out by swingers. And some swinger person told my husband that we have a “bad marriage” because I have a boyfriend that I *gasp* love!
There’s a wide range of behaviors that easily fit into both polyamory and swinging (the prime example being casual sex between good friends). While there are certainly some things that are only one or the other, I’m starting to think the biggest differences are just cultural, and what sort of people tend to identify which way.
In what I want, I’m probably at least as much a swinger as I am polyamorous (I do identify as both), but I find other poly people at their worst are maybe a bit flakey, while most other swingers bore the hell out of me.
I think I just went way off track, but one of the big cultural things I’ve noticed about swingers is that they tend to be on the conservative side, apart from straight and FF sex.
That tends to be my experience as well. The swing community–at least those parts of it that I’ve had contact with–seems to be ferociously protective of couplehood, and very strongly biased away from male homosexuality and in favor of some fairly rigid gender roles. Many of the poly folk I know who also identify as swingers or who came to polyamory from the swing community have said the same thing.
Which is not to say the poly folk are much better. I’ve encountered a lot of people in the poly community (case in point: the World Polyamory Association) who seem so far into the New Age woo-woo stuff that they’ve taken complete leave of their senses. The cofounder of the World Polyamory Association, Sasha Lessin, holds a Ph.D. in anthropology. I’ve read his doctoral dissertation; it’s about how human beings are actually genetically modified apes who were artificially created by space aliens from the tenth planet who came here to earth to mine for gold, which they need in order to keep the invisibility shields around their planet operational.
I swear I am not making this up.
Closer to home, I eventually got fed up with Poly Match Maker after a series of equally loopy conversations in the forums there. The one that reached the tipping point for me was a conversation in which a woman said “I have never had an STD test and none of my partners have either because we know the truth–AIDS is a medical myth created by the American Medical Association as part of their conspiracy to keep people sick, and viruses and bacteria do not cause disease” and she got a whole lot of “Really? Thank you! That all makes perfect sense! I’m glad someone is standing up to the medical establishment!” responses.
Every once in a while the Lessins start posting to a list I read, and get kicked off in a couple months for being spammers. From what they post, I’m not surprised at all by the dissertation topic.
And I already got the shock that there are still people who dispute the germ theory of disease a couple years ago when I was arguing with some opponent of vaccination. They pointed me at some website that was basically repeating the original arguments against Pasteur, without accounting for the fact that we’ve actually seen bacteria and viruses in action since then, and done genetic experiments on them. I don’t think swingers are much less prone to that, though. The particular poly version would be insisting people only got STDs if they didn’t do the right magick rituals to prevent it.
In social settings, though, I tend to think of boring as a much bigger sin than fanciful and wrong. But then, I just because I like someone, that doesn’t mean I respect them.
I have found that the “alternative lifestyle” folks can be some of the biggest bigots around when it comes to alternative lifestyles that aren’t their own.
I’ve noticed that myself. It seems like the more a person has been the victim of unfair or unwarranted discrimination, the more likely that person is to discriminate against others. Seems a litle weird, but that’s the way it goes.
Personally, I LOVE watching hot guys get it on with each other. (But, like the typical straight guy watching lesbian porn, I want them to get it on with ME when they are done, too.) I actually used to subscribe to a porn site that was dedicated to bisexual MFM threesomes. The guys were hot, but it was very clear that a lot of them were actually gay (hi there, when you give a girl oral sex, it’s a good idea to actually TOUCH your tongue to her pussy, not just wave it around 3 inches away). It kind of ruined the fantasy for me.
My husband and I used to go to swing clubs now and then. And it always irked me how it was just expected that I would want to get it on with other women (I don’t), but the merest suggestion of two men together was met with disgust and anger.
I have found that the “alternative lifestyle” folks can be some of the biggest bigots around when it comes to alternative lifestyles that aren’t their own. I’ve seen so many gays bashing bisexuals as “indecisive” or “passing,” and poly people getting squicked out by swingers. And some swinger person told my husband that we have a “bad marriage” because I have a boyfriend that I *gasp* love!
I want to know why there’s no MFM action on any of those posters. Cuz.. DAMN. I would buy that just for the label.
Bastards and their backassward discrimination.
Same here. I’d snap up an ad with some MFM action in a heartbeat.
It’s not MFM, but Equinox gym did a series of billboard ads in Chicago showing objectification of men that was *really* hot. The same sort of switch. Women want to do the man, Men want to *be* the man.
http://www.advertolog.com/paedia/prints/2008/01/08/197024/
and
http://www.advertolog.com/files/paedia/print/part_19/197023/file/equinox-2of3.jpg
I want to know why there’s no MFM action on any of those posters. Cuz.. DAMN. I would buy that just for the label.
Bastards and their backassward discrimination.
LOL… you too?
Kinda on topic, but I think body spray has been around since I was about 10-12. It’s a version of perfume usually with very little of the actual perfume stuff in it, from my understanding. The scent fades very fast with it.
Edited to add:
I like the ads, they’re pretty 🙂
Kinda on topic, but I think body spray has been around since I was about 10-12. It’s a version of perfume usually with very little of the actual perfume stuff in it, from my understanding. The scent fades very fast with it.
Edited to add:
I like the ads, they’re pretty 🙂
There was a recent episode of House (you can watch it on fox’s website; it’s called “unlucky thirteen”) that had some fucking HOTTTTT girl on girl action. My friends were shocked that fox allowed that. I pointed out that girl-on-girl is hot, and those fucking execs had noooo issue with that… *rollseyes*
Olivia Wilde is rather aptly named. – ZM
There was a recent episode of House (you can watch it on fox’s website; it’s called “unlucky thirteen”) that had some fucking HOTTTTT girl on girl action. My friends were shocked that fox allowed that. I pointed out that girl-on-girl is hot, and those fucking execs had noooo issue with that… *rollseyes*
So how do you know that God isn’t a bi-sexual woman? She’d like hot woman and men, too! Hehe.
True, but most bisexual women I know dig guy-on-guy action, something that apparently God opposes. Ergo, God can’t be a bi woman. 🙂
So how do you know that God isn’t a bi-sexual woman? She’d like hot woman and men, too! Hehe.
Next you’ll be wanting flying cars and the adoption of the worldwide silver catsuit fashion standard.
Hmm…maybe you’re on to something!
Next you’ll be wanting flying cars and the adoption of the worldwide silver catsuit fashion standard.
Hmm…maybe you’re on to something!
I get that girl-girl overt sexuality is much more socially acceptable than guy-guy. But what does that have to do with God? That’s all having to do with ad execs and test markets.
Not being a smart ass, I just don’t follow the logic.
Well, the way I see it, God has a whole lot of folks here on earth in his employ. Tey get their marching orders directly from heaven, and God seems to tell them, in great detail, what he likes and what he doesn’t–the movie Dogma is out, keeping women barefoot and pregnant is in, that sort of thing
So if the pious aren’t picketing someone or demanding that the city remove the ads, it must logically be because God thinks it’s okay, right? If they get all upset over public displays of guy-on-guy action, but let girl-on-girl action slide, that must mean God thinks girl-on-girl action is better than guy-on-guy action; therefore, logically, God must be a het male. QED. 🙂
I get that girl-girl overt sexuality is much more socially acceptable than guy-guy. But what does that have to do with God? That’s all having to do with ad execs and test markets.
Not being a smart ass, I just don’t follow the logic.
How we know God is a man
A heterosexual man. Blow jobs. ‘Nuf said.
You make an interesting argument, and one I can’t refute.
How we know God is a man
A heterosexual man. Blow jobs. ‘Nuf said.
Same here. I’d snap up an ad with some MFM action in a heartbeat.
I actually am not that thrilled with these ads. They read more as “OMG we’re so kinky and WILD, buy our… body spray?” to me than genuine sexy women. Granted, I look at all advertising through a feminist lens, but this is a good example of them being edy, but not CREEPY edgy.
Dan Savage, who’s 90% asshole and 10% genius, had a rat some time ago about conservative het couples and their idea of “kinky” (as I recall, he heaped particular scorn on FFM threesomes and food and sex), and I think he has a point. If you look at public advertising and mainstream entertainment like (God forbid) Sex and the City, you see that a lot of folks will eat up the notion of wild, kinky sex as long as, you know, it’s not actually wild and kinky.
I’m usually hesitant to read too much into feminist critique of advertising, in part because it’s so subject to confirmation bias (most of the critiques I’ve read have heavily cherry-picked the ads they look at) and in part because the argument loses a lot of weight when you consider that much of it is aimed at women (a dirty little secret of sex in advertising is that men want to fuck the women in the ads, while women want to be the women in the ads).
I think any critique of advertising is subject to confirmation bias because, just like lots of critiques, people often see what they want to see.
As far as your point about the argument losing weight because it’s aimed at women- I actually don’t think that makes the argument less valid at all. A great percentage of advertising is misogynist and sexist, and that’s without regard to the audience. The fact that some advertisers expect women to eat up the images and want to be the women makes it even worse, IMHO.
(I haven’t had my coffee yet today, so apologies if I’m not making sense).
As far as your point about the argument losing weight because it’s aimed at women- I actually don’t think that makes the argument less valid at all. A great percentage of advertising is misogynist and sexist, and that’s without regard to the audience. The fact that some advertisers expect women to eat up the images and want to be the women makes it even worse, IMHO.
Well….
See, here’s the thing. An advertiser has only one goal, and it’s a simple one. It’s to sell a product. Advertisers aren’t in the business of reinforcing the male patriarchy, or controlling gender roles, or setting expectations for gender norms; that’s not what makes them money. The only thing that makes them money is selling products.
Which means that advertising uses imagery that works. If advertising is misogynistic and sexist, it’s not because the advertisers are trying to create a society that devalues women; it’s because people respond to misogynistic images.
Advertisers are highly skilled at tuning their ads to what works the best. They don’t dictate what people want to see; they cater to what people want to see. If they use images like that, it’s only because those images sell better than other images–images that aren’t misogynistic and sexist.
Which says more, I think, about the society than it says about the advertisers.
It’s especially bad if you look at the advertising in women’s magazines (which, honestly, I recommend that you don’t). The ads that are directed at a female audience often seem to be the worst of the lot. The question is not why do advertisers use these kinds of images; there’s no mystery there. They use these images because these images succeed. The real question, I think, is why do these images succeed? Why are women attracted to advertising images that subverts them and places them in a sexist context?
You can’t blame the advertisers for that; if those images didn’t succeed, the advertisers would use other images that did. The advertisers don’t have a stake in creating a sexist society; the advertisers have a stake in moving product, that’s it.
I actually am not that thrilled with these ads. They read more as “OMG we’re so kinky and WILD, buy our… body spray?” to me than genuine sexy women. Granted, I look at all advertising through a feminist lens, but this is a good example of them being edy, but not CREEPY edgy.
There’s a wide range of behaviors that easily fit into both polyamory and swinging (the prime example being casual sex between good friends). While there are certainly some things that are only one or the other, I’m starting to think the biggest differences are just cultural, and what sort of people tend to identify which way.
In what I want, I’m probably at least as much a swinger as I am polyamorous (I do identify as both), but I find other poly people at their worst are maybe a bit flakey, while most other swingers bore the hell out of me.
I think I just went way off track, but one of the big cultural things I’ve noticed about swingers is that they tend to be on the conservative side, apart from straight and FF sex.
I think some of it really does have to do more with the intended audience than with censorship (although I do agree that the Morals Police might be up in arms if there was a blatantly M/M or MMF ad.)
Some interesting research is being done on sexuality that is showing that, in their test cases, it appears that there is a brain-chemistry propensity in gay/bi men to be attracted to men, which is simply absent in the majority of men. (As a man who is kinky but heterosexual, sometimes to your dismay, I think you’d get that.) Some people have interpreted the research to say that bi men are really gay, but I think that’s taking it too far — if they can have satisfying relationships and sex with men and with women, I think they’re *really bi*.
I think that may be the main reason why F/F sex is considered almost universally hot, whereas M/M sex is only of interest to a segment of the population — most of us are programmed to be at least somewhat attracted to women, but the attraction to depictions of M/M sex is limited to a smaller segment of the population.
— A <3
I think there’s a lot of truth to that notion. In fact, I suspect a lot more of our behavior has a biological component than what we’re likely to be comfortable admitting.
I think some of it really does have to do more with the intended audience than with censorship (although I do agree that the Morals Police might be up in arms if there was a blatantly M/M or MMF ad.)
Some interesting research is being done on sexuality that is showing that, in their test cases, it appears that there is a brain-chemistry propensity in gay/bi men to be attracted to men, which is simply absent in the majority of men. (As a man who is kinky but heterosexual, sometimes to your dismay, I think you’d get that.) Some people have interpreted the research to say that bi men are really gay, but I think that’s taking it too far — if they can have satisfying relationships and sex with men and with women, I think they’re *really bi*.
I think that may be the main reason why F/F sex is considered almost universally hot, whereas M/M sex is only of interest to a segment of the population — most of us are programmed to be at least somewhat attracted to women, but the attraction to depictions of M/M sex is limited to a smaller segment of the population.
— A <3
I, too, am not getting what any of that has to do with God. 🙂
Well, if the religious right pickets and protests at guy-on-guy advertising but not at girl-on-girl advertising, and the religious right has a direct hotline to God, that must mean God digs teh hott lesbian action, right? 🙂
Ah, I wasn’t aware that you thought they had a hotline to God. 🙂
I don’t…but THEY do!
I, too, am not getting what any of that has to do with God. 🙂
God? No. Advertising exec? Yes.
God? No. Advertising exec? Yes.
BWAH! You, Sir, have proven your geek cred.
Also, thats hot. I bet there’s probably some slash out there somewhere with that theme.
I just saw his response to Prop. 8 and was very, very impressed. That guy rocks.
I have found that the “alternative lifestyle” folks can be some of the biggest bigots around when it comes to alternative lifestyles that aren’t their own.
I’ve noticed that myself. It seems like the more a person has been the victim of unfair or unwarranted discrimination, the more likely that person is to discriminate against others. Seems a litle weird, but that’s the way it goes.
so did you see the hot guy on guy levi’s commercial? there were two versions filmed. it is the one where the guy is pulling up his pants and a telephone booth comes through the floor. in one versions the booth has a hot woman and the other has a hot guy. i was amazed to see it on tv. it was on the gltb channel on directv, but it was actually aired! i proudly wear levi’s now for their guts! google levi’s gay commercial and i’m sure you’ll find it on the youtubes.
I didn’t! It is on YouTube, though, here. That’s awesome.
yeah my jaw dropped when i saw it and i was most thankful for tivo. rewind rewatch record to show others 🙂
so did you see the hot guy on guy levi’s commercial? there were two versions filmed. it is the one where the guy is pulling up his pants and a telephone booth comes through the floor. in one versions the booth has a hot woman and the other has a hot guy. i was amazed to see it on tv. it was on the gltb channel on directv, but it was actually aired! i proudly wear levi’s now for their guts! google levi’s gay commercial and i’m sure you’ll find it on the youtubes.
That tends to be my experience as well. The swing community–at least those parts of it that I’ve had contact with–seems to be ferociously protective of couplehood, and very strongly biased away from male homosexuality and in favor of some fairly rigid gender roles. Many of the poly folk I know who also identify as swingers or who came to polyamory from the swing community have said the same thing.
Which is not to say the poly folk are much better. I’ve encountered a lot of people in the poly community (case in point: the World Polyamory Association) who seem so far into the New Age woo-woo stuff that they’ve taken complete leave of their senses. The cofounder of the World Polyamory Association, Sasha Lessin, holds a Ph.D. in anthropology. I’ve read his doctoral dissertation; it’s about how human beings are actually genetically modified apes who were artificially created by space aliens from the tenth planet who came here to earth to mine for gold, which they need in order to keep the invisibility shields around their planet operational.
I swear I am not making this up.
Closer to home, I eventually got fed up with Poly Match Maker after a series of equally loopy conversations in the forums there. The one that reached the tipping point for me was a conversation in which a woman said “I have never had an STD test and none of my partners have either because we know the truth–AIDS is a medical myth created by the American Medical Association as part of their conspiracy to keep people sick, and viruses and bacteria do not cause disease” and she got a whole lot of “Really? Thank you! That all makes perfect sense! I’m glad someone is standing up to the medical establishment!” responses.
True, but most bisexual women I know dig guy-on-guy action, something that apparently God opposes. Ergo, God can’t be a bi woman. 🙂
Well, the way I see it, God has a whole lot of folks here on earth in his employ. Tey get their marching orders directly from heaven, and God seems to tell them, in great detail, what he likes and what he doesn’t–the movie Dogma is out, keeping women barefoot and pregnant is in, that sort of thing
So if the pious aren’t picketing someone or demanding that the city remove the ads, it must logically be because God thinks it’s okay, right? If they get all upset over public displays of guy-on-guy action, but let girl-on-girl action slide, that must mean God thinks girl-on-girl action is better than guy-on-guy action; therefore, logically, God must be a het male. QED. 🙂
You make an interesting argument, and one I can’t refute.
Dan Savage, who’s 90% asshole and 10% genius, had a rat some time ago about conservative het couples and their idea of “kinky” (as I recall, he heaped particular scorn on FFM threesomes and food and sex), and I think he has a point. If you look at public advertising and mainstream entertainment like (God forbid) Sex and the City, you see that a lot of folks will eat up the notion of wild, kinky sex as long as, you know, it’s not actually wild and kinky.
I’m usually hesitant to read too much into feminist critique of advertising, in part because it’s so subject to confirmation bias (most of the critiques I’ve read have heavily cherry-picked the ads they look at) and in part because the argument loses a lot of weight when you consider that much of it is aimed at women (a dirty little secret of sex in advertising is that men want to fuck the women in the ads, while women want to be the women in the ads).
I’ve heard that argument, but honestly, I’m not sure I buy it.
I think the real answer is a little more complex, and may even be rooted in our biology. The difference in emotional response that people experience when seeing guy-on-guy action and girl-on-girl action tends to be consistent across cultures and tends to be pretty strong; I had a cognitive science professor once argue very strongly that it was rooted in biology and not in patriarchal society, in part because it’s so common across so many radically different cultures and in so many points in history. Cultures that don’t have this dichotomy are quite rare.
I’ve heard that argument, but honestly, I’m not sure I buy it.
I think the real answer is a little more complex, and may even be rooted in our biology. The difference in emotional response that people experience when seeing guy-on-guy action and girl-on-girl action tends to be consistent across cultures and tends to be pretty strong; I had a cognitive science professor once argue very strongly that it was rooted in biology and not in patriarchal society, in part because it’s so common across so many radically different cultures and in so many points in history. Cultures that don’t have this dichotomy are quite rare.
I didn’t! It is on YouTube, though, here. That’s awesome.
Olivia Wilde is rather aptly named. – ZM
That’s not a strong argument, I’m afraid. It’s another example of Post hoc, ergo propter hoc reasoning. While I can understand the emotional appeal of the argument, particularly from a feminist perspective, it doesn’t explain why that particular double standard has remained so stubbornly even as social views of women and gender roles have changed so radically over the past hundred years or so.
I know that I experience a very different emotional response when I see two girls getting it on and two guys getting it on, and it’d be difficult indeed to say that my own responses are shaped by a patriarchal society. 🙂
Why would it be at all difficult to say your responses are shaped by a patriarchal society?
Because, by and large, across the board my views on sex, relationship, gender roles, and social roles aren’t patriarchal, and in many cases (such as in the notion that women have the same right as men to choose multiple partners if they want to) actively contradict conventional patriarchal assumptions; and because I’ve spent a great deal of time examining, probing, and testing my emotional response to guy-on-guy sexual activity, which seems so stubborn in its resistance to deconstruction that it really does feel like a hard-wired response rther than a culturally conditioned response.
Your views aren’t really the issue (to me, anyway). I agree that you are farther down the path of rejection of patriarchal ideals than most, largely due to your efforts, but partly due (imo) to your socialization or lack thereof. However, this isn’t about your view – I imagine that you also view gay sex as a-okay and even positive. It’s about your ingrained response. I would argue that most of your responses could be seen as culturally conditioned, even if you have altered your views to make them okay or more evolved or what have you.
I’m not saying that they necessarily are all-nurture/no-nature, but I don’t think your progressive opinions about society have anything to do with the issue. I don’t know if sexual orientation is “hard-wired’ or not, but I do know that what I think is hot has a lot to do with what I was once allowed to think is hot, or what was taboo to think is hot. I think a patriarchal society influences that, and your responses are influenced by that, no matter how much effort you put in to changing your views or rationalizing your responses.
That’s not a strong argument, I’m afraid. It’s another example of Post hoc, ergo propter hoc reasoning. While I can understand the emotional appeal of the argument, particularly from a feminist perspective, it doesn’t explain why that particular double standard has remained so stubbornly even as social views of women and gender roles have changed so radically over the past hundred years or so.
I know that I experience a very different emotional response when I see two girls getting it on and two guys getting it on, and it’d be difficult indeed to say that my own responses are shaped by a patriarchal society. 🙂
I think there’s a lot of truth to that notion. In fact, I suspect a lot more of our behavior has a biological component than what we’re likely to be comfortable admitting.
It’s from UC Berkeley. Which, I think, explains a lot.
If you really want to read this nonsense, you can see his dissertation online (on his “School of Tantra” Web site, natch) here.
It’s from UC Berkeley. Which, I think, explains a lot.
If you really want to read this nonsense, you can see his dissertation online (on his “School of Tantra” Web site, natch) here.
Every once in a while the Lessins start posting to a list I read, and get kicked off in a couple months for being spammers. From what they post, I’m not surprised at all by the dissertation topic.
And I already got the shock that there are still people who dispute the germ theory of disease a couple years ago when I was arguing with some opponent of vaccination. They pointed me at some website that was basically repeating the original arguments against Pasteur, without accounting for the fact that we’ve actually seen bacteria and viruses in action since then, and done genetic experiments on them. I don’t think swingers are much less prone to that, though. The particular poly version would be insisting people only got STDs if they didn’t do the right magick rituals to prevent it.
In social settings, though, I tend to think of boring as a much bigger sin than fanciful and wrong. But then, I just because I like someone, that doesn’t mean I respect them.
yeah my jaw dropped when i saw it and i was most thankful for tivo. rewind rewatch record to show others 🙂
I think any critique of advertising is subject to confirmation bias because, just like lots of critiques, people often see what they want to see.
As far as your point about the argument losing weight because it’s aimed at women- I actually don’t think that makes the argument less valid at all. A great percentage of advertising is misogynist and sexist, and that’s without regard to the audience. The fact that some advertisers expect women to eat up the images and want to be the women makes it even worse, IMHO.
(I haven’t had my coffee yet today, so apologies if I’m not making sense).
Then again, if they hadn’t re-defined marraige, then Obama would have never existed.
Which, in retrospect, may not have been all bad.
“(And why is it that girl-on-girl is hot but guy-on-guy is gross in the public’s mind, anyway?)”
Two reasons.
1) Society is still run by old men. Old men still regard women as entertainment, and if one woman naked is hot, two women naked is even hotter. (Who cares what they’re doing?)
2) Old men believe that is is gross to stick your penis in an area where feces resides (or typically resides, before being evacuated).
In fact, I think you asked me this question once, we debated it, and you came away with the impression that I was a weenie. You may assume that, at least, has not changed.
(Honestly, I believe you considered me a weenie because I won that debate. But, let’s not uncover old wounds, eh?)
On a more relevant (and personal) note, I do not think that all girl-girl action is hot, because when you say “lesbian” to me, I think of the archetype of the 200lb, flannel wearing, pickup truck driving, glasses and losing her hair, couldn’t-get-a-man-anyway lesbian. I don’t automatically think “lipstick lesbian”, and not always the women on the billboards you presented.
On a more relevant (and personal) note, I do not think that all girl-girl action is hot, because when you say “lesbian” to me, I think of the archetype of the 200lb, flannel wearing, pickup truck driving, glasses and losing her hair, couldn’t-get-a-man-anyway lesbian.
You know what’s funny? I personally know a lot of women who identify as lesbian, and none of them matches this stereotype.
Well, that’s not so funny, really, nor is it unexpected. I did say “archetype”, not stereotype. Just as we all change, so do stereotypes, and I do agree with you that the stereotype of a “lipstick lesbian” has changed…most people no longer think of the archetypical lesbian any more. Media now portrays them as something attractive and desirable, instead of the original definition of something which was sick and perverted, or to be pitied because they had to turn to other undesirable women (or in the case of men, other undesirable men).
But I’m old school, and all the lesbians I first encountered were exactly that type. Back in the day, it was not “bisexual”, it was “ambisexual”, which is in fact the more accurate meaning…that of, “indifferent to how I get sex as long as I get it”, not the new, redefined, “I can choose either sex for my gratification”.
By defnition, bi-sexual should mean, having or possessing two sexes (e.g., bicycle). But bi is just a shorted form of ambi, a shorter, easier method.
“(And why is it that girl-on-girl is hot but guy-on-guy is gross in the public’s mind, anyway?)”
Two reasons.
1) Society is still run by old men. Old men still regard women as entertainment, and if one woman naked is hot, two women naked is even hotter. (Who cares what they’re doing?)
2) Old men believe that is is gross to stick your penis in an area where feces resides (or typically resides, before being evacuated).
In fact, I think you asked me this question once, we debated it, and you came away with the impression that I was a weenie. You may assume that, at least, has not changed.
(Honestly, I believe you considered me a weenie because I won that debate. But, let’s not uncover old wounds, eh?)
On a more relevant (and personal) note, I do not think that all girl-girl action is hot, because when you say “lesbian” to me, I think of the archetype of the 200lb, flannel wearing, pickup truck driving, glasses and losing her hair, couldn’t-get-a-man-anyway lesbian. I don’t automatically think “lipstick lesbian”, and not always the women on the billboards you presented.
It’s not MFM, but Equinox gym did a series of billboard ads in Chicago showing objectification of men that was *really* hot. The same sort of switch. Women want to do the man, Men want to *be* the man.
http://www.advertolog.com/paedia/prints/2008/01/08/197024/
and
http://www.advertolog.com/files/paedia/print/part_19/197023/file/equinox-2of3.jpg
As far as your point about the argument losing weight because it’s aimed at women- I actually don’t think that makes the argument less valid at all. A great percentage of advertising is misogynist and sexist, and that’s without regard to the audience. The fact that some advertisers expect women to eat up the images and want to be the women makes it even worse, IMHO.
Well….
See, here’s the thing. An advertiser has only one goal, and it’s a simple one. It’s to sell a product. Advertisers aren’t in the business of reinforcing the male patriarchy, or controlling gender roles, or setting expectations for gender norms; that’s not what makes them money. The only thing that makes them money is selling products.
Which means that advertising uses imagery that works. If advertising is misogynistic and sexist, it’s not because the advertisers are trying to create a society that devalues women; it’s because people respond to misogynistic images.
Advertisers are highly skilled at tuning their ads to what works the best. They don’t dictate what people want to see; they cater to what people want to see. If they use images like that, it’s only because those images sell better than other images–images that aren’t misogynistic and sexist.
Which says more, I think, about the society than it says about the advertisers.
It’s especially bad if you look at the advertising in women’s magazines (which, honestly, I recommend that you don’t). The ads that are directed at a female audience often seem to be the worst of the lot. The question is not why do advertisers use these kinds of images; there’s no mystery there. They use these images because these images succeed. The real question, I think, is why do these images succeed? Why are women attracted to advertising images that subverts them and places them in a sexist context?
You can’t blame the advertisers for that; if those images didn’t succeed, the advertisers would use other images that did. The advertisers don’t have a stake in creating a sexist society; the advertisers have a stake in moving product, that’s it.
*snerk*
*snerk*
Well, if the religious right pickets and protests at guy-on-guy advertising but not at girl-on-girl advertising, and the religious right has a direct hotline to God, that must mean God digs teh hott lesbian action, right? 🙂
On a more relevant (and personal) note, I do not think that all girl-girl action is hot, because when you say “lesbian” to me, I think of the archetype of the 200lb, flannel wearing, pickup truck driving, glasses and losing her hair, couldn’t-get-a-man-anyway lesbian.
You know what’s funny? I personally know a lot of women who identify as lesbian, and none of them matches this stereotype.
Well, that’s not so funny, really, nor is it unexpected. I did say “archetype”, not stereotype. Just as we all change, so do stereotypes, and I do agree with you that the stereotype of a “lipstick lesbian” has changed…most people no longer think of the archetypical lesbian any more. Media now portrays them as something attractive and desirable, instead of the original definition of something which was sick and perverted, or to be pitied because they had to turn to other undesirable women (or in the case of men, other undesirable men).
But I’m old school, and all the lesbians I first encountered were exactly that type. Back in the day, it was not “bisexual”, it was “ambisexual”, which is in fact the more accurate meaning…that of, “indifferent to how I get sex as long as I get it”, not the new, redefined, “I can choose either sex for my gratification”.
By defnition, bi-sexual should mean, having or possessing two sexes (e.g., bicycle). But bi is just a shorted form of ambi, a shorter, easier method.
Ah, I wasn’t aware that you thought they had a hotline to God. 🙂
Why would it be at all difficult to say your responses are shaped by a patriarchal society?
Because, by and large, across the board my views on sex, relationship, gender roles, and social roles aren’t patriarchal, and in many cases (such as in the notion that women have the same right as men to choose multiple partners if they want to) actively contradict conventional patriarchal assumptions; and because I’ve spent a great deal of time examining, probing, and testing my emotional response to guy-on-guy sexual activity, which seems so stubborn in its resistance to deconstruction that it really does feel like a hard-wired response rther than a culturally conditioned response.
I don’t…but THEY do!
Your views aren’t really the issue (to me, anyway). I agree that you are farther down the path of rejection of patriarchal ideals than most, largely due to your efforts, but partly due (imo) to your socialization or lack thereof. However, this isn’t about your view – I imagine that you also view gay sex as a-okay and even positive. It’s about your ingrained response. I would argue that most of your responses could be seen as culturally conditioned, even if you have altered your views to make them okay or more evolved or what have you.
I’m not saying that they necessarily are all-nurture/no-nature, but I don’t think your progressive opinions about society have anything to do with the issue. I don’t know if sexual orientation is “hard-wired’ or not, but I do know that what I think is hot has a lot to do with what I was once allowed to think is hot, or what was taboo to think is hot. I think a patriarchal society influences that, and your responses are influenced by that, no matter how much effort you put in to changing your views or rationalizing your responses.
And I never would have existed either. Hey, I have a suggestion. How about you go die? Asshole.
Tsk, tsk. Why waste your venom on me, Princess?
Anyway, don’t get your panties in a wad. I was merely saying that we could have avoided the trama of having a socialist president.
I’ve said it before, I’d sacrifice a few million to save a few hundred million.
But as an aside to you, it’s nice to see an honest to goodness emotional response from one of Turtle’s readers. I had one guy actually respond to me, not by answering any of my questions, but by observing that I was “emotionally involved”…can you believe it? I mean, duh, of COURSE I’m emotionally involved, why else would I bother?
What’s the world coming to, whcn you can’t be emotionally involved in your topic?
A socialist president? You mean a president who gives hundreds of billions of dollars to American businesses in exchange for public control of those businesses? I don’t think Obama’s the president you’re thinking of…
Hmm…I think you have the Democratic Congress and House confused with the president…as I recall, it was a Democratic House and Congress who voted to sell us down the river for over $850 billion dollars, before anyone ever decided how they were going to spend it.
Four days later, and your response still doesn’t make any sense. I can only conclude that, as large as‘s brain is, his heart must be even bigger than that if he freely associates with the likes of you– that is, the willfully developmentally subnormal.
Hey, he “freely associates” with you, don’t he?
But in any case…
Whatever.