Snickers Ad of Men Accidentally Kissing Pulled After Complaints From Gay Groups

[Callipygous]

And yet it Still. Offended. People.

 

lots of things offend people. i'm pretty sure broke back mountain offended quite a few right wing christians, yet i seem to recall seeing numerous previews for that, and i don't see it hidden in the back of the video store lest the easily offended spot it...

 

ive seen far more offensive things on tv. many of them dont get pulled off the air. instead they become huge hits, like chappelles show and mind of mencia. the only difference i see is that the groups that are usually attacked in those shows are ones that dont have legal discrimination against them anymore. The fact that you cant get married is no reason to throw a fit about completely unrelated jokes.

 

Obviously the most logical explanation is that a whole bunch of people, who all just happen to fall into the same social group, decided to make up some phantom objection and cause a bit of a stir at their own expense, rather than the nonsensical madman idea that Mars may have fumbled the ball a bit.

 

I don't care what the joke is, or how many people are offended by it. if you get offended at any joke then you don't understand the word well enough. (yes, i'm aware of the hole i just dug myself, the ladder is coming next)

 

I was just trying to have a joke with you, strangely enough.

that was a combination of me misinterpreting your intent and you seeing more malice in my response than was intended. the commercial was clearly intended to be funny, i don't think anyone has denied that.

 

 

If all you really care about are your own self-contained interests then I don't see what right you have to crap on other people's distress.

 

all anyone cares about is their own self-contained interests. Acts of "charity" are done to make people feel better about themselves.

 

the right i have to crap on other peoples distress comes from the fact that when i dont like a commercial i ignore it. i dont stir up a big fuss and crap on other peoples enjoyment.

 

 

The fact that the morons in the advert come out looking bad does not magically remove any other effects the advert might have on people.

 

the people in the ad were afraid of accidentally kissing each other, and therefore felt the need to ward off the homosexual situation they just encountered. the manner in which they did that was absolutely retarded (which is where the joke is). so the commercial made those people look like morons. the only thing we know about those people is that they think homosexuality and manliness are mutually exclusive (and their love of snickers). so really the commercial was making that bias look ridiculous. the complaint here was against the display of that bias. so the commercial was, in the end, against such a bias, and the homosexual community is against that bias. and yet they feel the need to complain about it.

 

all of the above is a long winded way of saying, in this case, yes it really does.

 

 

The insult had nothing to do with it.

 

I didn't find it funny because - low and behold - it was not the kind of material I find amusing. Base prejudice and irrational self-mutilation don't hit my funny bone. Certainly I can see how other people might be amused, but I am not them. In fact, if anything, one might make the argument that I need to "lighten up", not "grow up".

 

this is one of those things i do a lot and really need to start changing.

 

the word "you" from that quote was meant to mean "the part of the homosexual community that complained about the ad" not "sayanara"

[Pangloss]

I think we get it on some cable channel, but I can't say I have ever heard anyone talking about watching the show.

 

No worries. You've probably heard of some of the actors who got started there: John Belushi, Gilda Radner, Eddie Murphy, Dan Ackroyd, Al Franken, Phil Hartman, Will Farrell, Chris Farley, etc. It's been a very popular show here in a number of different years (though not so much at the moment).

 

 

Because this is overtly a work of character-based fiction. The snickers skit on the other hand is a marketing mechanism that aims to manipulate sexual insecurity under the guise of a poor joke, and it does so on the back of woefully flawed information that we would all be better off without, gay or straight.

 

SNL is very much a marketing mechanism, in much the same vein as MTV.

 

Saturday Night Live is owned and operated on a for-profit basis by two of the largest corporations in the world. And the Ambiguously Gay Duo is only one of many gay-oriented sketches that appear (at least to me) to cross exactly the same line that GLAAD says Mars crossed. And yet... no objections to SNL. Not to the Ambiguously Gay Duo. Not to "Here Comes Pat", an androgenous character that was very popular in the 1990s (and was even made into a movie). Not to a host of other similar characters over the years.

 

Because it's a live production, SNL probably has the best-looking high-definition picture on the planet. Its sketches are specifically designed to respond to current events from the past week (specifically), and guest "hosts" and musical talent are specifically chosen for their current, immediate, record-selling and movie ticket-selling appeal. If you have a big movie in the theater or a platinum album, your agent is on the phone with representatives from General Electric and Vivendi.

 

I know that's not stuff that you're personally familiar with, but surely GLAAD has known this all along. Also I remind you of your first post, when you said (quite consistently, for which you are to be applauded):

 

In today's episode, everyone (and I mean everyone) was moping about like the world was ending, spontaneously bursting into tears, reinforcing the stereotypical view of sexual divergence being THE WORST THING THAT CAN EVER HAPPEN EVER.

 

I wish the gay lobby groups would try and get crap like that pulled, instead of wasting their time with crappy adverts that are predictable and trite.

 

So then we agree that GLAAD is focusing on one type of anti-gay social commentary rather than another. In your opinion that's beacuse of specific content differences. In my opinion it's because of pro-left, anti-right political agenda. That's just my two bits on it, of course, but I think I've made a prima facie case for inconsistency in their basic approach.

[ParanoiA]

Considering the number of freaking retards out there with nothing better to do than watch football and throw peanuts at each other all day, you have to admit, even if you don't sympathize with their position, they have a bit of a point there.

 

Wow..you just did the same thing Mars did. I love football. You just called me a retard that throws peanuts all day. Do you not see the hypocrisy? Because you did it in a forum rather than a commercial makes it ok? You're stereotyping - reinforcing the idea that sports is brainless and that people who watch sports are brainless with no self control over peanut products.

 

I will say to you what I say to everyone else making this "I don't accept it" argument: one day it will be your turn.

 

Yes...it just happened. You made sure of that.

 

So how come you still haven't addressed my repeated point that white men are made fun of by 90% of the black comedians today - actually have been for well over a decade - and we account for about half of their material. Where's your stereotype argument there? Why aren't you condemning them for this?

 

I'll tell you why. Because we don't see it as negative. We have a sense of humor and we don't give a shit what you say about us because it's funny. Why can't we expect the same from the rest of you? What's your problem? What makes you so special that you shouldn't be made fun of with stereotypical references like the rest of us?

 

I really want an answer to that...

[ParanoiA]

lots of things offend people. i'm pretty sure broke back mountain offended quite a few right wing christians, yet i seem to recall seeing numerous previews for that, and i don't see it hidden in the back of the video store lest the easily offended spot it...

 

You know, that's really a damn good point Cal. Anytime Christians bitch and whine about being offended they're told repeatedly to put-up or shut-up. Liberals come out of the woodwork to condemn the "church" and make fun of right wingers for getting pissed about it. We are told "you can change the channel" or similar.. And I agree, obviously.

 

Now it's the other way around and they're going to hypocritically cry about it? Whatever happened to put-up or shut-up? Whatever happened to "you can change the channel"?

 

Funny, how when it's a religious thing, these same groups like GLAAD and so forth are suddenly so libertarian...except when it's their turn to deal with it, then it's back to regulating behavior and taking themselves way too damn seriously.

[Phi for All]

Subtlety? Do explain. As far as I could tell it was a joke about

1. people accidentally kissing.
   
2. kissing people with Snickers in their mouth being gross, hence the idea of Snickers being best "after the kiss"
   

Was their seriously anything more to it than that?

Sorry to wait so long to respond, the tree, but my momentum got lost amongst the other posts, which were much more interesting than my thoughts at the time.

 

I don't know if you're being serious here, but what I thought was subtle (at least for the intended audience) was that being "manly" in the sense these two guys are talking about is really stupid and pointless. Like the pain of pulling out a handful of chest hair can compare to the pain of giving birth (no one calls living through that pain being "womanly"). So their reaction to accidental kissing is a stupid and pointless one, which should suggest that it's really no big deal if two guys kiss each other.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

 

I would still like to point out that two guys kissed on one of the most-watched sports programs on US television. Reform takes small steps if it's going to be effective and I can guarantee that, even though the ad was pulled, it set a precedent and sent a signal that two guys kissing is a little more acceptable on prime-time TV. GLAAD should be thrilled that a taboo barrier has been broken. And they get some free press to express their indignation.

 

On TV during the 60's, if a man and woman were in the same bed one of them had to have one foot on the floor to show they weren't having sex. Some people were offended even still by a married couple being shown in the bedroom. A line was drawn and television moved forward and has been trying to move the line a little farther every few years.

 

As far as the "gays can't be manly" inference, didn't the guys in the commercial qualify what their idea of "manly" was? They ripped out chest hair, they didn't pump iron or fight a fire or help children into the lifeboats of a sinking ship. None of the gay guys I know want to be "manly" if it involves being stupid and pointless.

[john5746]

lots of things offend people. i'm pretty sure broke back mountain offended quite a few right wing christians, yet i seem to recall seeing numerous previews for that, and i don't see it hidden in the back of the video store lest the easily offended spot it...

 

I agree with you on most of your points, but I don't think this example is a good one.

 

1) I don't think the previews for Broke Back showed them kissing and you had to pay to see the movie.

 

2) Being offended by seeing gay men kissing is kind of the original point. If a group were offended by seeing a mixed race couple kiss, I don't think you would defend them.

 

Speaking of comedians, gay and black comedians degrade themselves far more than anyone else. Still, it is very politically correct to make fun of Gays, Christians, Atheists and Whites(especially southerners).

[Callipygous]

I agree with you on most of your points, but I don't think this example is a good one.

 

1) I don't think the previews for Broke Back showed them kissing and you had to pay to see the movie.

 

so? it still offended many people and still was not hidden from them. you can choose to change the channel, you can choose not to rent the movie.

 

2) Being offended by seeing gay men kissing is kind of the original point. If a group were offended by seeing a mixed race couple kiss, I don't think you would defend them.

 

its really not... they arent offended about seeing them kiss, they are offended by the stereotype that followed it.

 

the real point, as far as my example was concerned, was people being offended. not about any particular offense. people were offended by brokeback mountain, and while it might not have shown them kissing, the preview did make it fairly obvious that they were homosexual. given that thats all it takes to offend a lot of right wing christians, the movie doesnt have to be on tv. the preview itself was offensive.

[Pangloss]

That's an interesting example, and IMO another example of what I'm talking about above. BBM promulgated the exact same "male fear of homosexuality" stereotype as this commercial, but I sure didn't hear any complaints from GLAAD then. (Interesting movie, btw.)

 

This just underscores my point about ideological and partisan agendas of special interest groups. Their problem wasn't with the commercial, it was with the commercial's source. Like white people using the N word versus black people using it.

[ParanoiA]

Just so you don't think you're not being heard, I agree with your take Pangloss.

 

There are stereotypes in a lot of commercials. They're just not stereotypes that bother anybody, or satisfies anyone's agenda. If one stereotype isn't "right", then no stereotypes are right. That's the point I've been making.

 

Speaking of comedians, gay and black comedians degrade themselves far more than anyone else. Still, it is very politically correct to make fun of Gays, Christians, Atheists and Whites(especially southerners).

 

Well, it's apparently not PC to make fun of gay people. I realize the commercial was making fun of homophobia, or whatever - but I think gay people are beyond criticism now. Christians and white people are always great to kick around, quite PC - but not gay people, they're way to important to be treated equally...

[Callipygous]

Well, it's apparently not PC to make fun of gay people. I realize the commercial was making fun of homophobia, or whatever - but I think gay people are beyond criticism now. Christians and white people are always great to kick around, quite PC - but not gay people, they're way to important to be treated equally...

 

i think the problem is they still feel too trampled to be treated equally.

 

if your going to treat someone equally on the negative side you have to give them equality on the positive side too.

 

not that im saying gay jokes are off limits, im just guessing that thats why they feel its off limits.

 

this concept sprouts off into womens rights in my mind too. they want to leave the kitchen and enter the work world, but very few want to help the men onto the life rafts or pick up the check after dinner. i personally think the concept of a housewife is outdated and is definately something we should leave behind, but they still expect their special treatment in other areas of life. they hit you, your not supposed to hit them back, they are the first out of burning buildings, hold the door for them, etc.

 

in the same sort of way, i think gay jokes need to be accepted, but there is sort of an issue if we havent given them equal treatment yet. we want to be able to tease them, but we wont let them get married.

 

 

but of course, as usual, it was a joke and therefore i still think the solution is for everyone to just lighten up a bit.

[Dak]

I run this thru a spell-checker, so apologies if i accidentally changed any of your quoted text.

 

I note, with some dismay, that the spell-checker 'corrected' some of my correct spellings into wrong ones, and et some of my full-stops. *sigh*

 

Having re-read the thread while I was waiting I think I should clarify that not only do GLAAD find the "gays can't be manly" bit offensive, but it is an affront that a company like mars should pass this message along to people who are not sufficiently perceptive as yourself to reach your interpretation (i.e. that the advert mocks homophobia, as you put it).

 

and this is really the crux of my problem, given that 'perceptive as myself' is, in this case, capable of spotting the blindingly obvious.

 

But it's not just the perceived message that offends - it's the sure knowledge of what that message can do.

 

another large part of my complaint is that, as i said, if you share the 'messages' inherent in the advert, you'd have to be quite dumb to gloss over the ridicule placed on the people who share your views, and the ridicule placed upon 'manliness' in order to have the advert re-enforce your views (and thus make it more likely that they'll encourage you to 'do something').

 

people this stupid will just look at gays, go 'eww, that's icky, and thus wrong. so, here we see a positive correlation between gayness and wrongness, ergo gay = wrong'. in other words, these people will re-enforce their own views simply by seeing gays. so, the intent -- of not encouraging these homophobes -- is noble, but ultimately useless.

 

with these people, actively encouraging either non-homophobia or shutting up are the only ways that will work.

 

Perhaps you do not see it so easily because it is unlikely to adversely affect you, I don't really know. But I am quite sure that you are putting a lot more effort into rejecting this complaint than is strictly necessary for someone who has not really been affected.

 

(And that's not a circuitous way of calling you gay; I am just a bit confused as to why you care so much in the first place.)

 

it doesn't need to directly affect me in order to affect me. i think glaads actions were stupid, unnecessary, and, ultimately, bad for gays. ergo, it irks me (strangely, for somewhat similar reasons that you are arguing glaad should have been against the advert)

 

We appear to have different "posts per page" settings. Which post number was it?

 

it was stuff like this:

 

That message entered your brain and whether you know it's happening or not, it will reinforce and validate any existing prejudices it meets.

 

The problem is that the people who won't see the advert in the light you paint it are the ones who will be most influenced by the message "real men are straight, gays are not real men, MUTUAL EXCLUSION!"

 

And they are the ones who - in the end - do the most damage.

 

People are happy to have national institutions affirm for them that it is acceptable, even funny, to behave in a certain fashion

 

bigoted people interpret things in a bigoted manner.

 

Which is why validating that kind of thought pattern is a bad thing.

 

which made me assume that your point was that this could re-enforce homophobia (and another bit i mentioned in my last post).

 

I think it is quite clear from the content of the advert that its producers did not think about it anywhere near that much.

 

oh' date=' i agree.

 

but, to a degree, intent is irrelevent (they certainly didn't intend the message to have a negative effect). all I'm saying is that the strongest/sanest interpretation seems, if it says anything insitful at all, to be ridiculing homophobia and/or excessive masculinity.

 

I find it hard to believe you can be this optimistic, given your other views. What exactly do you think happens to people who are convicted for assaults motivated by sexuality?

 

i didn't mean to imply that 'homophobia' would be stopped; my quote could have done with 'some instances of' wedged in there.

 

out of interest, I'd assume the same as normal assault. i know there's no 'sexually aggravated assault', for example. if that's not the case, I'd be interested to hear.

 

don't forget i live in a shitty city in the same country as you do. I'm well aware that, usually, irregardless of motive, towny ****tards get away with assault.

 

It's not about "sanitation" in the sense that you say it. If you are going to use the slippery slope fallacy[...]

 

no slippery slope fallacy. I'm stating that this level of sanitation (not some hypothetical extended level, but this actual level we're discussing) is too much.

 

Strawman. The issue is not that "queers" are being mocked. It is that (a) they are misrepresented (whether this was during the process of mocking them, or mocking your "dumb straight men" - the result is the same), and (b) this could have further consequences for them.

 

strawman right back at you. i wasn't claiming that the issue was that queers are being mocked, rather that one associated issue is that that's how some people will interpret it. which is bad. I'm aware this probably seems somewhat hypocritical, I'll get to that in a bit.

 

No, you simply infer that because you are not familiar with the other possible meanings.

 

sorry, but if you can hold on to the claim that the advert can validly be interpreted as sending a 'gay mutually exclusive with manly' message, then i can hold the equally dubious claim that your quote can be validly interpreted as 'all gays take it up the bum'

 

Nowhere have I made that proposal.

 

i think the insinuation is inherent in the complaint.

 

Well I can see where you wanted to go with it, of course. It was a brave strategy, but I would have to be completely inconsistent in my values for it to have worked (maybe not so bad as hypocritical, but you know - one rule for them, another for me, or something).

 

i did say 'ultimately ridiculous'

 

-----

 

OK, I'll summarise my complaints, rather than just argue against your points, to make my stance a bit clearer. there's a summary down the bottom, if you don't want to read the whole bit, and I'm gonna try to make it scan-readable.

 

I outright acknowledge that there are homophobes, and that this is a problem, with direct negative (and often physical) repercussions on gays.

 

I also acknowledge that certain things can encourage these homophobes, either to act, or to re-enforce their beliefs.

 

I also acknowledge the thrust of glaads complaint, that -- despite the inherent stupidity in doing so -- this advert will, in all likelihood, have 'encouraged homophobia'.

 

i acknowledge that things that encourage homophobia should be suppressed, but with the cadevat that it be done 'within reason'.

 

to elaborate: outright anti-gay hate-speech should be suppressed (barring [acr=freedom of speach]FOS[/acr] issues, e.g. in a political arena). on the other side of the scale, many people, as i said, look at gays, and this re-enforces their homophobia. gay people, therefore, encourage homophobia. i don't think that gay people should be suppressed to prevent them from encouraging homophobia.

 

so, where, broadly speaking, does the cut-off point lye? i think that the 'stupider' someone has to be to get re-enforcement, and the further from re-enforcing non-stupid peoples homophobia the thing is, the more it lyes in the 'don't suppress' area, simply because as you approach a level of stupidity whereby gay people will re-enforce homophobia, it becomes less and less effective, and more and more costly, to suppress the 'encouragement'.

 

this advert, with the inherent problems in getting a re-enforcary effect, is not to blame. at all. hence, i think complaining about it for it's effect is unwarranted (to give another (and admittedly more extreme) example, I'm sure people look at Eddy Izzard, and 'think' "well, he wares a dress, so hes a fag, right? and, look at him -- he wares a dress in public... what kind of ****ed-up, mentally abhorant fag wears a dress in public? so, here we have another clear correlation of homosexuality and wrongness, re-enforcing my homophobia." clearly, i don't think Eddy Izzard should be held accountable for this, yet it's stil undoubtably re-enforcing peoples homophobia. those peoples fault, and those people should be the targets of anyone wishing to fix the problem)

 

so, there's inadequate reason to complain, which is one reason i don't like this complaint. why should normal people be deprived of a potentially funny advert, and mars feel pressure to pull the advert, when the main argument -- that it can re-enforce negative stereotypes -- will only likely be true in people who are capable of looking at pretty much anything innocuous (including gays themselves) and have the negative stereotypes re-enforseenforced anyway? it's just not worth it.

 

the second reason that i dislike this complaint is that enough people will view it as 'them drama-queen fags whining again', and, ironically, will re-enforce negative stereotypes. now, unlike the mars incident, which requires stupidity to re-enforce negative stereotypes, it actually requires a modicum of thought to avoid the implication that gays are whiny, as you have to actually think that, maybe, glaad have a point that you haven't spotted, or they don't represent normal gay people. so, imo, glaad stray into 'encouragement of homophobia that should be suppressed'. don't forget that, in a very real way, glaad represent homosexuals.

 

not only that, but to anyone, homophobe or not, the effect -- that gay people have essentially turned around to strait people and said 'you can't make fun of us like that' -- sends out a very unfriendly message, tho glaads intent should be to foster friendliness betwix gays and the rest of society. 'you can't make fun of us like you make fun of anyone else' does not send out this message.

 

as to why this issue bugs me so much... well, partly i don't like what i perceive to be an action that makes the situation with homophobia worse, but also its the sheer stupidity of the fact that a group, who's sole job it is to combat homophobia, have arguably made homophobia worse. sheer stupidity that hurts people annoys me mightily.

 

uber-succinct summary: people who are negatively effected by the advert will unavoidably be homophobic, to a level that is effectively unchanged by the advert. putting pressure on mars to remove the advert is, therefore, not worth the (admittedly small) cost in terms of mars' money and hassle, along with stopping people having a chuckle at a lame ad.

 

conversely, glaad represents homosexuals, and, by complaining without good reason -- or at least in a way which will understandably be viewed as without good reason -- they are representing homosexuals as whiny, and wanting 'special treatment' that other groups are not afforded (PC diktat of 'do not mock', so to speak), and are thus arguably misrepresenting gays, and enforcing negative prejudices in a way that is not entirely blameable on the person who's prejudices are being re-enforced. unlike the mars ad. which is.

 

so, yeah, hopefully that clarifies my stance. sorry the post was so long (again)

[ParanoiA]

-Callipygous

 

I don't think that the answer to gay rights is to take away gay joke rights though.

 

I realize they don't have equal rights - and that's what needs to change, not the other thing.

 

Reminds me of several years ago when the media was all worked up about black people being handed down stiffer sentences than white people. Seemed like everybody who got on camera was advocating lowering the sentences for the black folks to correct the issue, rather than raising the sentences for the white folks. I never understood that logic.

 

More importantly, if I was homosexual, I would be offended that other homosexuals want to pursue their rights hypocritically. I would think you'd rather prove you're equal by demanding equal treatment - which, in this case means showing you can take a joke, and showing you won't take any unequal, unfair treatment by legislation.

[Callipygous]

-Callipygous

 

I don't think that the answer to gay rights is to take away gay joke rights though.

 

I realize they don't have equal rights - and that's what needs to change, not the other thing.

 

i agree, im just saying that may be where the discrepency is in their mind, that is, why its ok to tease other minorities, but not them.

[ParanoiA]

i agree, im just saying that may be where the discrepency is in their mind, that is, why its ok to tease other minorities, but not them.

 

Quite frankly, I'm sure you're right. And I'm still going to take issue about it though...

[AshleyBarbie]

Am I the only one who thinks this commercial makes fun of homophobia rather than homosexuals? We can't even make fun of people who make fun of homosexuals?

 

The commercial was a boring and didn't make a whole hell of a lot of sense. Why did the second guy start chewing on the Snickers candy bar? I mean, in real life, if someone started eating the other side of a candy bar in my mouth, I would back away.

 

There's a lot more offensive commercials. What about Smiling Bob?

[ParanoiA]

The commercial was a boring and didn't make a whole hell of a lot of sense. Why did the second guy start chewing on the Snickers candy bar? I mean, in real life, if someone started eating the other side of a candy bar in my mouth, I would back away.

 

There's a lot more offensive commercials. What about Smiling Bob?

 

You know, I thought the same thing watching that stupid commercial. When the other guy starting eating the other end of it - it already looked gay, they didn't need to kiss to do that.

 

And smiling Bob cracks me up...those are actually kinda funny.

 

Anyone see the southpark episode about Fox showing a depiction of Muhommad? At one point Kyle or Stan says it's either all ok, or none of it is ok. I'm with him. Cherry picking who we're going to offend via stereotypical humor is even more destructive than the supposed offense. It's either all ok, or none of it is ok.

 

Thank you Southpark...