Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

How we know God is a man

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.



( 53 comments — Leave a comment )
Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>
Nov. 12th, 2008 12:03 am (UTC)
Now, my immediate first thought was:

"Martha Jones and Rose?"
Nov. 12th, 2008 12:36 am (UTC)
LOL... you too?
(no subject) - tacit - Nov. 12th, 2008 02:12 pm (UTC) - Expand
Nov. 12th, 2008 12:14 am (UTC)
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.
Nov. 12th, 2008 02:13 pm (UTC)
I just saw his response to Prop. 8 and was very, very impressed. That guy rocks.
(no subject) - jonnymoon - Nov. 12th, 2008 10:45 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - claws_n_stripes - Nov. 13th, 2008 11:07 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - jonnymoon - Nov. 14th, 2008 03:05 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - tacit - Nov. 14th, 2008 02:23 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - jonnymoon - Nov. 14th, 2008 06:22 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - claws_n_stripes - Nov. 18th, 2008 10:08 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - jonnymoon - Nov. 21st, 2008 09:56 pm (UTC) - Expand
Nov. 12th, 2008 12:15 am (UTC)
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!
Nov. 12th, 2008 04:32 am (UTC)
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.
(no subject) - tacit - Nov. 12th, 2008 02:23 pm (UTC) - Expand
(Deleted comment)
(no subject) - tacit - Nov. 12th, 2008 03:04 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - pstscrpt - Nov. 12th, 2008 03:04 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - tacit - Nov. 12th, 2008 02:14 pm (UTC) - Expand
Nov. 12th, 2008 12:24 am (UTC)

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.
Nov. 12th, 2008 03:46 am (UTC)
Same here. I'd snap up an ad with some MFM action in a heartbeat.
(no subject) - dayo - Nov. 13th, 2008 01:58 pm (UTC) - Expand
Nov. 12th, 2008 01:31 am (UTC)
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*
Nov. 12th, 2008 02:43 pm (UTC)
Olivia Wilde is rather aptly named. - ZM
Nov. 12th, 2008 01:48 am (UTC)
So how do you know that God isn't a bi-sexual woman? She'd like hot woman and men, too! Hehe.
Nov. 12th, 2008 02:24 pm (UTC)
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. :)
Nov. 12th, 2008 01:48 am (UTC)
Next you'll be wanting flying cars and the adoption of the worldwide silver catsuit fashion standard.

Hmm...maybe you're on to something!
Nov. 12th, 2008 02:38 am (UTC)
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.
Nov. 12th, 2008 02:27 pm (UTC)
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. :)
Nov. 12th, 2008 02:56 am (UTC)
How we know God is a man

A heterosexual man. Blow jobs. 'Nuf said.
Nov. 12th, 2008 02:27 pm (UTC)
You make an interesting argument, and one I can't refute.
Nov. 12th, 2008 03:51 am (UTC)
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.
Nov. 12th, 2008 02:35 pm (UTC)
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).
(no subject) - pretendpeterpan - Nov. 12th, 2008 04:43 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - tacit - Nov. 13th, 2008 04:05 pm (UTC) - Expand
(Deleted comment)
Nov. 12th, 2008 02:38 pm (UTC)
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.
(Deleted comment)
(no subject) - tacit - Nov. 12th, 2008 02:51 pm (UTC) - Expand
(Deleted comment)
(no subject) - tacit - Nov. 13th, 2008 04:05 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - rain_herself - Nov. 13th, 2008 05:45 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - tacit - Nov. 13th, 2008 05:52 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - rain_herself - Nov. 13th, 2008 06:38 pm (UTC) - Expand
Nov. 12th, 2008 01:45 pm (UTC)
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
Nov. 12th, 2008 02:54 pm (UTC)
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.
Nov. 12th, 2008 01:46 pm (UTC)
I, too, am not getting what any of that has to do with God. :)
Nov. 13th, 2008 04:06 pm (UTC)
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? :)
(no subject) - rain_herself - Nov. 13th, 2008 05:42 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - tacit - Nov. 13th, 2008 05:53 pm (UTC) - Expand
Nov. 12th, 2008 02:00 pm (UTC)
God? No. Advertising exec? Yes.
Nov. 12th, 2008 02:23 pm (UTC)
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.
Nov. 12th, 2008 02:40 pm (UTC)
I didn't! It is on YouTube, though, here. That's awesome.
(no subject) - syrce - Nov. 12th, 2008 03:31 pm (UTC) - Expand
Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>
( 53 comments — Leave a comment )