snickers commercial on the superbowl

I hear that snickers pulled the two dudes "almost" kissing commercial b/c folks complained that it was homophobic. I had the opposite reaction - I though it was fucking awesome. am I dumb? I mean, the way the dudes countered their "gay" almost kiss was by ripping off their chest hair .. which just doesn't seem very hetero to me (especially given the huge number of chest and back wax parlors in the w. village). so the whole thing, to me, seemed very, well, like two super closeted guys almost kissing. how is that homophobic??

it has now been pointed out to me that I have a very non-mainstream outlook and that the average person's viewing of that commercial plays into the anti-gay agenda. sigh. too bad the guys didn't just make out.

I can see it both ways.

Mostly I think it was playing off the anti-gay stereotypes of manly men who work on cars and get greasy under the hood. (no pun intended)

I have less of a problem playing off that homophobia than playing off society's broader homophobia

It didn't help that Snickers had video of NFL players up on its website acting all "Eww, teh gay!" over the ads.

apollonia666 wrote: It didn't help that Snickers had video of NFL players up on its website acting all "Eww, teh gay!" over the ads.

didn't know that. blech.

f'ing marketing
look. a thread about a commercial!
marketing is gonna take us all to hell in a handbasket!!!!!

quijibo wrote: f'ing marketing
look. a thread about a commercial!
marketing is gonna take us all to hell in a handbasket!!!!!

fight the Man!

Boygabriel wrote: [quote=quijibo]f'ing marketing
look. a thread about a commercial!
marketing is gonna take us all to hell in a handbasket!!!!!

fight the Man!
"...you've got to fight the powers that be"

man i could go for a snickers right now.

(just kidding -- but i might watch athf on youtube later....)

I've been clued in to a few more things via elljay:

1. there were apparently 3 endings to that commercial, one of which featured a third guy coming in and asking if there were room for one more in the love fest.

2. some folks viewed the whole thing as super homoerotic: two guys sucking on a phallic object and then ripping their clothes off.

sweet tea wrote: man i could go for a snickers right now.

Funny, I was just thinking I'd really like to hear some P.E. right now. The power of suggestion...

the public enemy brain cells are rightnext to the n.w.a. brain cells. express yourself....

somehow I avoided the blogsphere today and missed all of this
(in addition to missing all but Prince when it came to the Super Bowl)

the horribly pixelated snickers ad on youtube looks hot! but I'm confused - did the men *not* touch lips at the end of the candy bar?

p.s.
forget it - there's a clearer one on youtube and I've read a little out of gay land . . . the chest hair thing makes it way less hot, but the kissing thing stands as awesome super bowl history imho

Slightly OT, but check this out:
http://www.kndo.com/Global/story.asp?S=6026820&nav=menu484_2_8

Carnivore wrote: Slightly OT, but check this out:
http://www.kndo.com/Global/story.asp?S=6026820&nav=menu484_2_8

not that off topic

sweet tea wrote: man i could go for a snickers right now.

you're not gay are you?

Carnivore wrote: Slightly OT, but check this out:
http://www.kndo.com/Global/story.asp?S=6026820&nav=menu484_2_8

hahaha. that's awesome

"Many people think the law is over the top."

hmm yeah, a BIT

Boygabriel wrote: [quote=sweet tea]man i could go for a snickers right now.

you're not gay are you?

i'm a sarcastic lesbian, since you ask.

Carnivore wrote: Slightly OT, but check this out:
http://www.kndo.com/Global/story.asp?S=6026820&nav=menu484_2_8

Pretty vile actually.

I'll guarantee you that if the Snickers commercial had lipstick lesbians doing a two way munch on that candy bar sales would rise by at least four fold.

Idlewild wrote: [quote=Carnivore]Slightly OT, but check this out:
http://www.kndo.com/Global/story.asp?S=6026820&nav=menu484_2_8

Pretty vile actually.

Ultraman, what do you mean?

pitu wrote: [quote=Idlewild][quote=Carnivore]Slightly OT, but check this out:
http://www.kndo.com/Global/story.asp?S=6026820&nav=menu484_2_8

Pretty vile actually.

Ultraman, what do you mean?

They're looking at a loophole law that would ban marriage because a couple cannot have kids. This would not only affect gay couples but heteros as well, who may be sterile o barren. It smacks of when Wendell Holmes said the State had a duty to sterilize people who were deemed mentally deficient.

Idlewild wrote: [quote=pitu][quote=Idlewild][quote=Carnivore]Slightly OT, but check this out:
http://www.kndo.com/Global/story.asp?S=6026820&nav=menu484_2_8

Pretty vile actually.

Ultraman, what do you mean?

They're looking at a loophole law that would ban marriage because a couple cannot have kids. This would not only affect gay couples but heteros as well, who may be sterile o barren. It smacks of when Wendell Holmes said the State had a duty to sterilize people who were deemed mentally deficient.
That's the whole idea. The Court justified the law banned gay marriage using the state's interest in promoting procreation. They're pointing out that the hypocrisy in this and trying to force the court to admit that the state has no business determining whether a marriage is valid based on the couple's ability to procreate. Once that is accomplished, the gay marriage ban that used that justification can be overturned.

Idlewild wrote: [quote=pitu][quote=Idlewild][quote=Carnivore]Slightly OT, but check this out:
http://www.kndo.com/Global/story.asp?S=6026820&nav=menu484_2_8

Pretty vile actually.

Ultraman, what do you mean?

They're looking at a loophole law that would ban marriage because a couple cannot have kids. This would not only affect gay couples but heteros as well, who may be sterile o barren. It smacks of when Wendell Holmes said the State had a duty to sterilize people who were deemed mentally deficient.

Erm, I got the impression it was proposed by people that were making a political point, not actually trying to get legislation passed.

Like Charlie Rangel not *actually* wanting to have every 18 year old male in America drafted. It's worth talking about, because it makes a point in a way that cuts through ideology.

Oh well, so I read it wrong. I'm a lover not a proof reader. I'm gonna watch Law & Order on DVR.

not just a political point -- that's a logical legal argument. part of the foundation for, say, roe v. wade, are cases that grant women the right to use birth control under the interpreted constitutional right to privacy. thus, the supreme court has ruled that women have the right to avoid procreation, even in marriage, because of privacy. so lack of procreation can NOT be a valid reason to prevent marriage.