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.
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.
- Current Mood:
tired
Comments
"Martha Jones and Rose?"
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.
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!
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 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.
Hmm...maybe you're on to something!
Not being a smart ass, I just don't follow the logic.
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. :)
A heterosexual man. Blow jobs. 'Nuf said.
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 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.
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