hope | (no subject)

So, the ad is aimed purely at men? Like, a gay woman can't also be turned on by beautifully presented tits? So in advertising parlance, gay=gay men, end of story. I guess it comes down to it still being a man's world, Hope. *fuckses* It's kind of 19th Century that they think (tongue in cheek, naturally) that gay men can be *cured* by that kind of thing...
Or am I totally missing the point?

the ad seems to think that if you're a gay male, you don't look or react to anything that's female so if you react to the sight of a huge billboard advertising a scantily clad woman, you're really straight but in denial and could be cured by a naked woman.

The wording excludes lesbians because to the ad, girls aren't meant to find other girls attractive, so even if they did react to the billboard, they're not the target of the advert.

Considering that I'm not remotely attracted to the chick in the picture, nor her artificially-presented boobs, I suppose this means that I'm actually straight.

*thumbs through collections of pics of Phil Boyens, Clea DuVall, Mia Tyler, Kate Winslet, Susan Sarandon, Kathleen Turner, LeeLee Sobieski, Kate Dillon...*

Oh, wait. Nope. Ad's wrong. I do happen to be attracted to women after all.

if they had left out the words, it could have been a good ad for the dragqueens?

I think the whole thing's pretty innocent (or perhaps I'm just really naive about the nature of the advertising industry). That said, it does point to a larger problem that clearly exists in peoples' mindsets. Firstly, the term "gay". I've always used it in reference to both men and women. I think trianne's mention that it's "a man's world" is pretty relevant and telling. The word "gay" is clearly aimed at a man. I'm basing that on the assumption that a busty woman would appeal to gay women, which would kinda contradict the point of the ad (I'm not sure if that makes sense, but whatever).
The idea that this bra/picture can "cure" a homosexual (man, presumably) is what shits me the most. For starters, I think they're fugly looking breasts. The bra looks like two lettuce leaves for gods sake. That aside, deep down there's still that assumption that homosexuality is a choice, a "fad", something that can be fixed. In turn, the term "fixed" implies there must be something wrong - ergo homosexuality is wrong.
Lastly, to imply that SHE of all women could possibly turn me is most insulting. Did no-one see the hotness of Lindsay Lohan in Mean Girls????

You know what thought did.

Thought he farted but shat himself.

It could also be read as 'and you thought you were gay' which would not only make the target audience female, but the female in the bill board an extremely gay woman.

(I know it's not meant that way, it just occurred to me that probably hadn't occurred to the people who made the advertisement.)

I'm a bit confused. In terms of advertising, what are they hoping to achieve? It's pretty obviously a male joke aimed at other males. One would imagine it might make more sense to aim their advertising at women. I mean, it's for a bra!

So I think that, while it's ludicrously offensive to women of types, stripes and subcategories, it's not at all offensive to gay men. After all, it's not actually claiming that a naked woman can cure them, it's saying that Wonderbra can. An obviously ridiculous concept. It's an in joke, amongst men, about women.

Except that this ad suggests that gay men can be "cured," it also suggests that I want to cure them. I want to have this bra and use it to make gay men straight. That is, if you suppose the target audience is women. And straight women, at that, because of the wording. Curing gay men - wow, to have that kind of power! And to do that, all I need is Wonderbra. Isn't this the best of days?

Does anybody here not have a sense of humor? Has it occured to no one that the ad might be a joke? I fully remember the Wonder Bra ad series. Every one of those ads had a humorous edge, and none of them were supposed to be taken completely seriously. I mean, come on. Not even advertisers are stupid enough to actually mean that tagline seriously.

And if I remember correctly (from articles published about the campaign), the ad campaigns for this bra were designed by women (as was the bra).

Of course it's a joke! I think that's the whole idea (or, at least, that's the way I saw it). It's meant to be amusing, tongue-in-cheek etc. But the fact is that the humour is derived from an issue that is sometimes quite sensitive. It's poking fun at a serious situation. And I think that, though it's not meant to be taken "seriously", it IS taken seriously. People see it, accept it, laugh at it. They don't scoff and say "Ha. Like she would turn a gay man". The next time a woman sees a Wonderbra, she'll think "Oh, Wonderbra. I remember that". That's what advertisers want, a recall. They choose a topical word/issue - "gay" - and it firmly imprints it in the consumer's head. You think Wonderbra, you think gay, you think huge tits.
At least, that's the way I see it. I think.

I actually think the whole thing's clever and half amusing. I obviously still prefer Johnny Depp though.

Well yeah, it's a joke, but it's a joke based an offensive assumption that shouldn't be reinforced.

It would be a fine joke if made within a group of gay and overtly gay-friendly friends and acquaintances. It would also be fine on an advertisement if the idea that gay people can/should be converted to heterosexuality were nothing but a quaint but misguided notion from our collective cultural past.

Heck, I see and enjoy that kind of joke in advertisements aimed at gay people in gay spaces. But this ad, though it's "talking" to the gay men, is apparently aimed at straight women. So it's a joke that alludes to an offensive assumption made by straight people in an advertisement aimed at straight people.

Oh, please. There isn't a joke in the whole world that isn't offensive to somebody. That's what humor is for, to take a painful idea or situation and help us cope with it through laughter. If you tried to erase every joke that offended someone, you'd be left with puns and elephant jokes (and those would piss off animal activists).

Man, it's so sad the way Western culture has decided that laughter is somehow wounding. What ever happened to having a backbone? Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me. There's a good reason that rhyme used to be taught to kids. Pity it's gone out of fashion.

It's not the joke that wounds. It's the bigotry.

Do you like offensive racist jokes and misogynist jokes too, or just the homophobic ones?

I think you ought to calm down and realize that not everyone is out to get you. Words have exactly and ONLY the power you give them. If you enjoy being offended and paranoid, that's your own lookout. Don't expect the world to be walking on eggshells around you, cause I can promise you that if you hang onto that, all that will happen is you'll spend your life being hurt.

Words tell me about the attitudes of the person who speaks them. It's the attitudes and the actions those attitudes cause that frighten me.

Do you really think that homophobia is not a problem? If so, where do you live that makes you think that?

Do you really think that homophobia is not a problem? If so, where do you live that makes you think that?

*rolling my eyes*

Oh, for gods' sakes. So from the fact that I think people have lost their senses of humor (which you're proving quite eloquently, thank you), you deduce that I think homophobia is not a problem? LOL, wow that's amazing. You have quite the talent for assumption, not to mention convolution.

I've been sitting here for ten minutes trying to imagine how to answer you beyond that, but my brain is still boggling at your train of thought.

Okay, we obviously started talking about different things at some point. I thought we had changed the subject from the ad and its joke to the homophobic assumption on which the joke was based. So when you said that words had no power to hurt, I thought you were talking about the homophobic assumption, not the joke. That's why I asked whether you really thought homophobia wasn't a problem.

Okay, that was uncalled for. I apologize.

This stuff *does* hurt me, though. When I see homophobic jokes, I assume the person telling it is homophobic, and so are the people who laugh. I also assume that if nobody protests, then the environment in general is a homophobic one.

Yeah, names don't hurt me. But people who call names also deny rights.

Really? Just exactly how is the writer who made up that ad denying your rights? It's an AD. It's meant to get on people's good side and get them wanting to buy the product. Believe me, if the agency thought it would turn people off, they wouldn't use it.

But then, I suppose it is a bit unreasonable in this day and age to expect adults to have a sense of humor about life and to able to laugh at themselves. When in the world did we get so grim and easily wounded? No wonder the rest of the world laughs at us when we freak out over things like this.

How do people who tell homophobic jokes deny me my rights? By voting for homophobic politicians, giving homophobic answers on public opinion polls, reinforcing homophobic myths that keep others from accepting gay people, by shouting names at me in person and frightening me because maybe they'll come over and start punching me...

I'll let homophobic jokes go when jokes are the only problem.

You know, that is one of the most frighteningly bigoted assumptions I've ever seen in my life. So just because somebody happens to find a joke funny, they're running around doing everything they can to make your life miserable? How very interesting.

For your information, I found that ad very funny. I also happen to be a Democrat, have strong liberal (even radical) beliefs, much prefer the company of gay men to straight men, and have had relationships with other women (one to the point I'd consider marriage). I'm not saying this in "self-defense", but only to point out that your theory about the habits of those who can laugh at a joke kinda goes out the window, there. Laughing at a joke is not the same thing as persecution. Maybe if people stopped giving silly jokes and idioms such a tonnage of power (which they don't have unless given), and concentrated more on what people DO as opposed to what they find funny, some actual changes might occur. But it seems far more important to effect cosmetic change than real change.

What you're missing is that this humor isn't only seen or targeted at people with liberal views.

Humor like this has the net effect of devaluing the people it's about, and while that devaluing may not negatively affect your opinions, it does have the power to affect the opinions of others. It reinforces the beliefs of some people that gay people and the feelings of others aren't worthy of respect.

All of us occasionally hurt the feelings of other people without meaning to-- that's life. But delibertaely hurting other people's feelings in the name of humor, or actively disregarding them in favor of a joke is hurtful. Humor is not more important than the feelings of others, especially the feelings of a group which is already disenfranchised. Lob all the jokes you want at people in positions of power, but needling groups which are already at a large social disadvantage only makes the whole fight for equality harder.

Dude, wtf? What were they hoping to accomplish by this ad? Looks like an attempt at negative publicity to me. Were they trying to piss off the entire gay community?

My first quick reading of the image with the text, taking into account that the ad here in lj is out of context and I looked at the ad before reading your accompanying text regarding its placement in Sydney, was that the line read ‘and you thought you were gay’ referring to the woman's breasts and also by proxy to a (straight or gay) female audience's breasts. Like, hey you thought your breasts were gay (in the old-fashioned sense of being joyful) and pert, check out what a wonderbra can do! This reading to my mind targets a female audience, whom at the end of the day are the main buyers of bras (though I suppose the placement of the ad in the gay district might have also been targeting those who wear drag). But you see that's what conflicts with this reading, because why place it where they did. Why not put it on a busy bus route anywhere in Sydney where as many women as possible might see it. Like most analysis there're differing readings depending on where you're coming from. Another reading might be (as others have said) - Well, you thought you were gay, but you're looking at this tremendous cleavage and hey, aren't you a bit straight after all. - Which seems to be the obvious and intended reading considering the placement of the billboard. For me changes in the inflection of the sentence, whether the emphasis is on the second ‘you’ or on ‘thought’ change the readings completely.
For the sake of brevity I haven't discussed the image itself, but there's added stuff going on there too: the sultry look, how the original image was cropped etc, where the eye moves over the image and where the text is placed in regards to it. It's a really interesting ad to discuss.

Apparently the advertisers have noticed Poison Ivy's attachment to Harley Quinn.

*cough*

Sorry, couldn't help myself (and that bra does look like something Ivy would wear).

Other than that, I'm wondering why the product name is so small and out of the general path of sight created by the girl and the lettering. It seems somewhat counterproductive.

Erm...okay, first off, is she even wearing a WonderBra (or *any* bra)? I didn't think they made them out of string.

Also... I'm sorry, but those tits look so fake! Combined with her anorexic skinniness... I would ask if we're supposed to find her attractive, but she's fairly typical for advertising, so I'm guessing the answer is yes.

My main reaction to it is the same as one of the last commenters: what were they hoping to accomplish? Why even bother to put this up where they did? Are drag queens a big market for WonderBras? With that comes a side-order of "women can be gay, too, you know", since I can't think of any way to read the copy as directed at women.

since I can't think of any way to read the copy as directed at women.

Actually, I think the point is that women are supposed to assume that those bras will make them so sexy that even gay men will find them attractive.

well, i'm still gay!

actually, it kind of makes sense to me. the advertising business depends upon pictures of beautiful women because it seems to be the thing that everyone can agree with. it's human to think that breasts are lovely to look at: they mean sexuality and life and a set of them nurtured you as a baby. straight women easily note another woman's beauty and are capable of praising, admiring, and even idolizing it. straight men - well, they know they like women. and gay men are also fully capable of acknowledging the beauty of the female body. they're fully capable of going "OMG LOOKIT THAT RACK!!1" if it's a truly exquisite one. i see the ad as a gentle teasing at the gay men. 'men are beautiful and you find men beautiful and that's a wonderful thing. but the female form is a universal symbol none can deny. TITS RAWK."

i'd like to think that it's also hinting that sexuality adjustable when the right person flashes her tits, but that's just me being hopeful.

So I first read this and thought it was a dragqueen, like, look how gay SHE is, you non-gay loser. :) You thought you were gay. And then I realized what it was saying.

My first reaction was that this was pretty clever, I have to admit. Reading over everyone else's responses, I see that most were very offended by it, calling it homophobic, that it propoged bigotry, or took the stance that homosexuality could be "cured".

I'm not someone who turns her head on these issues. I don't think, oh, they didn't mean any harm, so let's let it go. Being gay myself, I do find that I'm way more sensitive to advertising that make gays the butt of a joke, and it happens more frequently than I even think about.

But here, I don't know. Why am I not offended by this? Especially because of the homosexuality "debates" happening right now in the US (and Australia, right?), I think maybe we all jump immediately to the conclusion of homophobia when we see something like this, when perhaps what it's really doing is treating homosexuals (and especially gay men) like every other human being that's going to be swayed to purchase something based on a photograph of a woman's breasts. I honestly thought of it as a little more layered that "just" homophobic, poking an equal amount of fun at heterosexual males. The thing is, most lingere ads are NOT geared toward women, even though women are the ones the product is designed for. The idea is, men, buy your women this and they'll look like big-titted supermodels! It's ridiculous, isn't it? And feminists have been protesting it for years. But in a way, it's making MEN look worse than women. I think I'm digressing.

I want equality for homosexuals. I don't want people to walk around me on egg-shells because I'm gay and I can't take a joke. I think we all need to start being able to separate jokes that attempt to degrade us, and jokes that just let us know that we're a part of the human race. Every stratification of human has a set of jokes attached to it. There's the phrase "that's going too far". We can tell the difference between something hurtful and bigoted and something affectionate. I'm not saying this ad was "affectionate", but I really think it was a little more layered than just "men! get cured of your gay disease by the wonderbra!"

I'm almost expecting to find out that the woman is a transsexual, because that would just give the ad so many more meanings.

If this was in a gay district, and addressing men who think they're gay, does it expect the men to turn straight or bisexual and start buying bras? I suppose guys buy bras for their girlfriends, but I'd still call guys who buy bras a rather small target audience.

I don't see any homophobia here, though. It's rare gayness is used in advertising in any way; that it is, seems like a symptom of the general openness on the subject which was less usual before, while we were still recovering from the fourties and fifties. Of course it could be different in Sydney, what do I know?

(no subject)

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

For goodness sakes!

Re: For goodness sakes!

Re: For goodness sakes!

Re: For goodness sakes!

Re: For goodness sakes!

Re: For goodness sakes!

Re: For goodness sakes!

This just keeps getting better.

Re: This just keeps getting better.

Sorry.

Re: Sorry.

Re: Sorry.

Re: Sorry.

Re: Sorry.

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject