SydLexia.com - The Forums :: View topic

Posted: Jan 29 2010 09:32 pm

Quote:

Was CBS being homophobic in rejecting the ManCrunch.com Super Bowl ad?

After years of beer, broads and other symbols of bro' life, a gay dating web site submitted its first Super Bowl ad. Guess what? CBS flat out rejected the spot, which is now sparking a media storm of controversy. Is it homophobia or did ManCrunch.com skillfully maneuver its way to national attention without ever having the ad air on network television?

So, a gay dating Web site offers up an ad for the Super Bowl, right? The ad, which features a couple of friends watching the game, hits its high point when the male pair engage in a heavy lip lock as another friend looks on rather surprised. Given the state of today's advertising, it is pretty tame stuff. But with anti-homosexual agendas on the rise, it comes as no surprise that CBS, which will broadcast the Super Bowl, rejected the ad submitted by ManCrunch.com.

"After reviewing the ad, which is entirely commercial in nature, our standards and practices department decided not to accept this particular spot," said CBS spokeswoman Shannon Jacobs. "We are always open to working with a client on alternative submissions."

http://www.examiner.com/x-1486-LA-Personalities-Examiner~y2010m1d29-Was-CBS-being-homophobic-in-rejecting-the-ManCrunchcom-Super-Bowl-ad-VIDEO

so a game that is full of homoerotic undertones rejected a gay ad.... thoughts?

Title: Naunie Joined: Dec 07 2008 Posts: 1026

CBS are a bunch of fag bashers.

Posted: Jan 30 2010 03:51 am

*reminds me of this*

UsaSatsui's Youtube Channel · Posted: Jan 30 2010 10:53 am

It was not the Super Bowl that disallowed the ad, it was CBS.

And to be honest, I think they were right to do it. Not because I regularly attend gay-burnings or whatever. But let's face it, this is without question the most watched television event of the year, and right or wrong, a [b]lot[/i] of people are uncomfortable about, if not openly hostile to, gay relationships, and the way that ad is described, it looks like it's designed to just piss them off.

It's well within their rights to disallow advertising that they don't think is inappropriate, and the last thing the country wants or needs on Super Bowl Sunday is to have a very controversial issue thrown in their faces. And it's not like it's just this one issue, other groups have had Super Bowl ads rejected as well because they were hot button issues (PETA comes to mind, and I think a pro-life group had their ad blocked in the past).

Posted: Jan 30 2010 05:12 pm

Should they have rejected the ad on the basis that it was about homosexuality? It's debatable. Is it perfectly within their rights to reject an ad they find offensive or harmful to their network? Hell yes.

Title: Titlating Joined: Dec 17 2007 Posts: 5042

Isn't there a possibility they made an ad that they knew would get banned just to drum up publicity?

Posted: Jan 30 2010 05:20 pm

Usa is correct here. There really shouldn't even be any controversy. They'd reject an ad for a porn site, or a 1-900 number, or ones featuring nudity. Advertising a homosexual matchmaking site is one thing, but doing it by showing two dudes making out is as provocative as showing a heterosexual couple explicitely fucking and something at least half of the US viewing audience is very uncomfortable seeing. Like Usa said, obviously the people behind the ad know that and it's meant to be intentionally offensive and edgy; something CBS wants no part of, and rightly so.

It's one of those things where if they don't allow it, 1/4 the country will bitch and moan and then forget about it a week later. But if they do air it, 3/4 of the country will bitch and moan, they'll lose other more conservative advertisers, and maybe even face boycotts. CBS chose the less damaging course of action.

Personally, I'm all for homosexual relationships, but I really don't want to watch two dudes making out and I think a vast majority agrees with me.

Posted: Jan 30 2010 08:38 pm

I can understand where Panda and Usa are coming from, and I actually agree with them. From what I hear though, this year there is a Tim Tebow Pro-Life commercial airing. If they are trying to avoid controversy they should dis-allow both.

UsaSatsui's Youtube Channel · Posted: Jan 30 2010 09:14 pm

Sexton Hardcastle wrote:

I can understand where Panda and Usa are coming from, and I actually agree with them. From what I hear though, this year there is a Tim Tebow Pro-Life commercial airing. If they are trying to avoid controversy they should dis-allow both.

If Tim Tebow's commercial is controversial, offensive, and inappropriate, then yeah, it should be. From what I see it's very low key and concentrates on "family values" and not on pushing a pro-life stance.

I'm not saying at all the ad should be disallowed just because it's for a gay site, but this is the kind of thing we'd call "trolling" around here. It's blatant and looking to get an angry response.

Posted: Jan 30 2010 10:07 pm

They can block whatever the fuck they want. Superbowl ad time is not free speech dumbkoffs.

Posted: Jan 30 2010 11:10 pm

UsaSatsui wrote:

Sexton Hardcastle wrote:

I can understand where Panda and Usa are coming from, and I actually agree with them. From what I hear though, this year there is a Tim Tebow Pro-Life commercial airing. If they are trying to avoid controversy they should dis-allow both.

If Tim Tebow's commercial is controversial, offensive, and inappropriate, then yeah, it should be. From what I see it's very low key and concentrates on "family values" and not on pushing a pro-life stance.

I'm not saying at all the ad should be disallowed just because it's for a gay site, but this is the kind of thing we'd call "trolling" around here. It's blatant and looking to get an angry response.

I haven't seen either commercial, just going by what I heard. But if that Tebow commercial is as you say, then that's great. I agree with what Robot said. CBS can show whatever the want or don't want. The only reason I posted about that Tim Tebow thing was because I had heard it was controversial and offensive, but I trust Usa more then the idiot who was saying it was horrible and I don't care enough to look it up myself.

Title: Titlating Joined: Dec 17 2007 Posts: 5042

Take a shot every time he says um

Posted: Jan 31 2010 05:08 am

Wow I'd be trashed! Laughing

Posted: Jan 31 2010 08:08 am

Ok, what the fuck is so great about Tim Tebow? I don't understand.

Why have we been talking about this guy for 2 years now? Is he the only college player coming out in the draft this season? Did we talk about Matthew Stafford this much? Is he Jesus incarnate or something?

I don't get all the talk about this guy. Why is he so important?

UsaSatsui's Youtube Channel · Posted: Jan 31 2010 10:34 am

Pandajuice wrote:

Ok, what the fuck is so great about Tim Tebow? I don't understand.

Why have we been talking about this guy for 2 years now? Is he the only college player coming out in the draft this season? Did we talk about Matthew Stafford this much? Is he Jesus incarnate or something?

I don't get all the talk about this guy. Why is he so important?

When you're the quarterback for the best college team in the country, you get a lot of talk.

Posted: Jan 31 2010 12:50 pm

But every season, there is a best college team in the country right? I don't remember Stafford being talked about half as much, nor any college QB in the last ten years. And we've been obsessing over this guy for two years now.

I just want to know what the big deal is. All I hear is either he's Ryan Leaf reincarnated and a sure bust, or the NFL messiah sent by God to revolutionize the game of football. What the fuck.

Posted: Jan 31 2010 01:20 pm

He did win the Heisman as a Sophomore...that's pretty impressive.

Posted: Jan 31 2010 02:27 pm

Man Crunch sounds like the worst cereal EVER.

Posted: Jan 31 2010 05:42 pm

Pandajuice wrote:

Personally, I'm all for homosexual relationships, but I really don't want to watch two dudes making out and I think a vast majority agrees with me.

Hm. Wonder if the same controversy would arise if it was two good looking women making out, since a lot of guys don't seem nearly as uncomfortable with that* and they are, after all, the major Super Bowl demographic.

*Genuine question, not snotty rhetoric.

UsaSatsui's Youtube Channel · Posted: Jan 31 2010 05:49 pm

SoldierHawk wrote:

Pandajuice wrote:

Personally, I'm all for homosexual relationships, but I really don't want to watch two dudes making out and I think a vast majority agrees with me.

Hm. Wonder if the same controversy would arise if it was two good looking women making out, since a lot of guys don't seem nearly as uncomfortable with that* and they are, after all, the major Super Bowl demographic.

*Genuine question, not snotty rhetoric.

I think there would be controversy. However, I don't think as many people would be turned off by it even if they didn't approve of it.

The people I know (both men and women) seem to have an easier time accepting two gay women than two gay men.

Posted: Feb 01 2010 07:51 am

SoldierHawk wrote:

Pandajuice wrote:

Personally, I'm all for homosexual relationships, but I really don't want to watch two dudes making out and I think a vast majority agrees with me.

Hm. Wonder if the same controversy would arise if it was two good looking women making out, since a lot of guys don't seem nearly as uncomfortable with that* and they are, after all, the major Super Bowl demographic.

*Genuine question, not snotty rhetoric.

No, it wouldn't be the same. Men kind of like seeing two women making out and I'm sure a bunch of commercials showing that have aired. It's a turn on to men. Whereas, for some biological reason, we're abjectly repulsed by men kissing. I have no idea why and it has nothing to do with society or homophobia or anything.

Posted: Feb 01 2010 04:36 pm

because its ghey

Posted: Feb 01 2010 06:39 pm

username wrote:

because its ghey

However, no one has problems with commercials for E.D.

Posted: Feb 01 2010 08:02 pm

E.D. is ghey.

Posted: Feb 02 2010 08:31 am

ED is a tragedy of massive proportions. It's a much more important issue than some lame earthquake in Haiti.