Comments on: Gay Toilets In Advertising http://submitresponse.co.uk/weblog/2004/07/12/gay-toilets-in-advertising/ Sun, 05 Sep 2010 05:57:09 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Faith Foster http://submitresponse.co.uk/weblog/2004/07/12/gay-toilets-in-advertising/comment-page-1/#comment-169006 Faith Foster Fri, 16 Jul 2010 06:21:19 +0000 http://mottram.textdriven.com/weblog/?p=643#comment-169006 <p>Can anyone give more list of diet foods?'-;</p> Can anyone give more list of diet foods?’-;

]]> By: Rossbot 2000 http://submitresponse.co.uk/weblog/2004/07/12/gay-toilets-in-advertising/comment-page-1/#comment-143196 Rossbot 2000 Fri, 22 Feb 2008 15:06:19 +0000 http://mottram.textdriven.com/weblog/?p=643#comment-143196 <p>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!</p> <p>Would the voice of a bidet sound different from that of a toilet bowl? French, perhaps?</p> <p>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. </p> <p>I think maybe I saw a gay counter-person once in a TCBY. Ah! Now it starts to make sense!</p> <p>You think Alexander the Great had a lisp? Not if he was bloody Irish!</p> 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 Jack Thu, 22 Jul 2004 02:34:06 +0000 http://mottram.textdriven.com/weblog/?p=643#comment-1739 <p>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.)</p> 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 ida slapter Tue, 20 Jul 2004 15:57:27 +0000 http://mottram.textdriven.com/weblog/?p=643#comment-1738 <p>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.</p> 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 Jack Tue, 20 Jul 2004 11:48:24 +0000 http://mottram.textdriven.com/weblog/?p=643#comment-1737 <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p><i>anything threatening has to get awkwardly mocked or misrepresented for a while before it gets properly accepted</i></p> <p>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.</p> <p>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, <em>despite</em> 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.)</p> 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 ida slapter Tue, 20 Jul 2004 09:18:42 +0000 http://mottram.textdriven.com/weblog/?p=643#comment-1736 <p>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?</p> 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 Jack Tue, 13 Jul 2004 13:01:52 +0000 http://mottram.textdriven.com/weblog/?p=643#comment-1735 <p>Er, isn't that exactly what I say in the post (except I didn't bother with 5)?</p> 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 ida slapter Tue, 13 Jul 2004 12:26:05 +0000 http://mottram.textdriven.com/weblog/?p=643#comment-1734 <ol> <li>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.</li> <li>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.</li> <li>Thus, the speaking toilet.</li> <li>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.</li> <li>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.</li> <li>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.</li> <li>Thus, the gay speaking toilet.</li> <li>You see?</li> </ol>
  • 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?
    • ]]>