Comments on: Gay Toilets In Advertising http://submitresponse.co.uk/weblog/2004/07/12/gay-toilets-in-advertising/ Tue, 25 Feb 2014 12:56:25 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.8.1 By: Floating Shelves http://submitresponse.co.uk/weblog/2004/07/12/gay-toilets-in-advertising/comment-page-1/#comment-169053 Sun, 12 Dec 2010 20:04:36 +0000 http://mottram.textdriven.com/weblog/?p=643#comment-169053 diet foods that are nutritious would be the best for our bodies, most diet foods are not very nutritious ::,

]]>
By: Rossbot 2000 http://submitresponse.co.uk/weblog/2004/07/12/gay-toilets-in-advertising/comment-page-1/#comment-143196 Fri, 22 Feb 2008 15:06:19 +0000 http://mottram.textdriven.com/weblog/?p=643#comment-143196 Why not have the toilet speak with “the voice of God”? Well maybe not THAT God down at the C of E … but how about the Oracle of Delphi? It just seems so obviously correct!

Would the voice of a bidet sound different from that of a toilet bowl? French, perhaps?

As for gay air stewards, I’m yet to meet one … and I do travel … despite Tracey Ullman’s “Trevor” and “Will” on Mile High.

I think maybe I saw a gay counter-person once in a TCBY. Ah! Now it starts to make sense!

You think Alexander the Great had a lisp? Not if he was bloody Irish!

]]>
By: Jack http://submitresponse.co.uk/weblog/2004/07/12/gay-toilets-in-advertising/comment-page-1/#comment-1739 Thu, 22 Jul 2004 02:34:06 +0000 http://mottram.textdriven.com/weblog/?p=643#comment-1739 You, madam, are a freak. Though you do have a point about the (very common, very bizarre) trend in advertising to present Product X as better than sex. It’s always products that bear some vague resemblance to a gentleman’s viscous essence, too. (See the Philidelphia adds featuring pervy angelic chicks - solidspunkguzzletastic.)

]]>
By: ida slapter http://submitresponse.co.uk/weblog/2004/07/12/gay-toilets-in-advertising/comment-page-1/#comment-1738 Tue, 20 Jul 2004 15:57:27 +0000 http://mottram.textdriven.com/weblog/?p=643#comment-1738 I can’t believe I am pointing this out, but the mincing queer Muller ad was a follow-up to a previous ad in which the young man tried to wheech the young lady into a plane toilet for some hetero action and accidentally wheeched the gay plane steward instead. Because she was busy, like, orgasming over a fucking yoghurt.
I don’t know if that makes it any better, but it does mean there’s a context, rather than him just being a Passing Gay.
I’m more worried about women being told that low-fat diet foods are a thrillingly naughty indulgence far preferable to sex, myself.
I am, incidentally, shortly to take up a position as the Chair In Muller Rice Advert Studies at the University of East Chiswick.

]]>
By: Jack http://submitresponse.co.uk/weblog/2004/07/12/gay-toilets-in-advertising/comment-page-1/#comment-1737 Tue, 20 Jul 2004 11:48:24 +0000 http://mottram.textdriven.com/weblog/?p=643#comment-1737 Hmmn. I dunno - I’m not sure it’s an entirely good thing to have groups ‘in the mainstream consciousness’ in such a way as to reinforce the views of those groups already extant in the mainstream consciousness. In fact, I’m pretty sure it’s a bad thing. The Muller ad, for example, would’ve worked just as well with a straight woman (or better yet, a hen night party) checking out the bloke’s willy; by having a mincing poof doing the willy-checking, you get a joke at the expense of the mincing poof as well as at the expense of the hapless boyfriend.

And this has nothing in common with tokenism, which obviously always presents it’s token minority representative in a positive light. Your token presenter in a chair is socially useful - if a wheelchair-using little kid sees someone with a chair in a fairly glamorous, high-profile job, that can only help them to deal with the difficulties being in a chair presents, and give them someone to point to when faced with the ‘Does he take sugar?’ assumptions that their physical disability renders them incapable in areas where it makes no difference. A gay little kid seeing the Muller ad, as Tom said, is unlikely to take anything positive from that representation, it just reinforces the sort of shit the gay kid is getting in the playground every breaktime. Even offensively bland is good, really - those smiling mixed race couples, by dint of their smiling ‘normality,’ probably shift a few preconceptions, and even if it’s thanks to a combination of political correctness and simple greed (black people have money too!) the result is good.

anything threatening has to get awkwardly mocked or misrepresented for a while before it gets properly accepted

Well, yeah, but you can still hope that we might be able to skip this stage when it comes to sexuality, having gone through it over decades with representation of women and ethnic minorities in the media (not, obviously, that those groups are properly represented yet.) Also, it seems that good representation of minorities defined by sexuality doesn’t stick - it’s been a decade or more since the first (laughably chaste) gay kiss on Eastenders (between a non-mincing, non-evil gay couple), but the furore surrounding a recent gay storyline in Corrie recently matched the tabloid opprobrium of ten years ago.

And Nadia is an interesting one: she’s not being perceived as a woman in the press, or even on Channel 4’s Big Brother programmes, but if you look at the onscreen SMS messages from kids on the live coverage, she’s massively liked because she’s good fun, full stop - you see comments like ‘You go girl!’ not ‘You go suspiciously-jawed transexual who I will mock to mask my fear of the other!’ Doubt that means the kids of today are incredibly broad-minded, but her fanbase must contain folk who previously would’ve run a mile on meeting a transexual, or beaten her up, and who are now going to treat transgender folk with a wee bit more respect, despite the media take on her. (Compare this to the neutered screecher Brian who won a couple of years ago by reinforcing the idea of gay men as deeply trivial ‘entertainers’ who, most importantly, don’t have torrid bumsex. Which gave him the perfect in to presenting kids TV, which is a whole other media peculiarity.)

]]>
By: ida slapter http://submitresponse.co.uk/weblog/2004/07/12/gay-toilets-in-advertising/comment-page-1/#comment-1736 Tue, 20 Jul 2004 09:18:42 +0000 http://mottram.textdriven.com/weblog/?p=643#comment-1736 Simply pointing out that it is a matter of brute capitalist expediency, rather than Something More Sinister. Everything is presented in ‘its most unthreatening, lipsticky form’ in advertising. Obviously. It’s not an arena that’s intended to challenge, or fairly represent, is it?? It only absorbs social changes in order to cover more potential cash-scraping bases - not because it GIVES A SHIT. Any representation of minorities in advertising is therefore going to be either offensively caricaturish (hilarious shrieking queers/glowering hip hop thugs/saintly disabled people) or offensively bland (lipsick lezzers/smiling mixed race couples/pleasantly dotty old folks). It works in broad strokes.
The Muller advert doesn’t especially bother me; it’s just a bawdy sitcom scenario that happens to involve a predatory gay man. I think it’s counterproductive to get too paranoid about that kind of thing. Gay men also tend to make a lot of jokes about predatory gay men, no? It’s like having gay characters in soaps - they might be slenderly and shallowly characterised and subject to horrific stereotyping, but at least they’re there, in the mainstream consciousness. Gradually, it evens out - anything threatening has to get awkwardly mocked or misrepresented for a while before it gets properly accepted. When you see, say, an Indian lady in a sari in a Boots advert, or a person in a wheelchair presenting kids’ TV, you know it’s totally contrived tokenism - but wouldn’t you rather they were on TV in any capacity than NOT AT ALL? Consider Nadia - isn’t it finally a positive thing that British people are responding to a transsexual as a real feeling human, even though she’s getting disgracefully lampooned and misunderstood?

]]>
By: Jack http://submitresponse.co.uk/weblog/2004/07/12/gay-toilets-in-advertising/comment-page-1/#comment-1735 Tue, 13 Jul 2004 13:01:52 +0000 http://mottram.textdriven.com/weblog/?p=643#comment-1735 Er, isn’t that exactly what I say in the post (except I didn’t bother with 5)?

]]>
By: ida slapter http://submitresponse.co.uk/weblog/2004/07/12/gay-toilets-in-advertising/comment-page-1/#comment-1734 Tue, 13 Jul 2004 12:26:05 +0000 http://mottram.textdriven.com/weblog/?p=643#comment-1734
  • Toilet adverts are aimed at women, because the majority of men, despite several weeks of evolution, haven’t yet accepted the fact that the place you poo in needs to be cleaned occasionally.
  • Housewives are lonely, and like to believe that their household appliances like and care about them. Advertisers quite naturally exploit this desire for companionship by proffering the fantasy of verbal housewife-appliance communication.
  • Thus, the speaking toilet.
  • If the toilet had a butch, heterosexual male speaking voice, the connotations would be unavoidably sexual, due to the implied invitation by the toilet that the housewife should sit on his face.
  • If the speaking toilet was female, by the same token, the implication would be one of unfettered lesbian perversion sweeping the bathrooms of the nation.
  • The only category of sexual being that can in fact offer its face to be sat on by a female without the implication of erotic intent is a gay man.
  • Thus, the gay speaking toilet.
  • You see?
  • ]]>