Originally Posted By mawnck >>And shouldn't it be "Man Crush" instead of "Man Crunch" ???<< Taken. <a href="http://www.mancrush.com" target="_blank">http://www.mancrush.com</a> >>Mancrush.com is an ambitious - yet necessary - attempt to classify and rank every man of stature in the history of the universe. << 1. Jesus Christ. 2. God. 3. Edward Norton. ... and it kind of goes from there.
Originally Posted By barboy But "Man Crunch" doesn't make sense---- at least to me. Is that because I am straight? Is there a special meaning within the gay community about "crunch", like some sex practice or flirtation??? I just don't understand "Man Crunch" as a tag line or phrase. .....maybe the "Crunch" has to do with working out abs..???? Because around here it looks like gays love tight abs and fit bodies even more than other attributes(intellect, money, charisma). I can only guess that they outnumber straights at the fitness clubs I tap.
Originally Posted By mele Please...do not explain any gay male crunching. I don't wanna know. ;-) Hm...Ed Norton... Anyway...does anyone else think the name "Tim Tebow" sounds like a redneck SNL character?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I assume it's not Tim Tebow's mother that's being advertised?> I think the thing is that Tebow's mother makes a big deal about not aborting, and Allred is saying it was illegal in the Philippines, so her (legal) choices were not what they would be in the US anyway.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<"It relies for its punchline on "straight panic" (in the form of the guy shown at the end), and if you read some message boards, you'll see plenty of gay people arguing that it even seems to say that "you can catch 'the gay' just from touching another guy and that once gay you can't control yourself." ">> <Haha, see, this is the political correctness seeping in. The guy isn't necessarily freaked out because it's two guys making out, but because were supposed to be watching a football game. I would be just as uncomfortable if my buddy and his girlfriend were making out while watching the game (or an opera) because we didn't meet up to do that. It would be really annoying.> Yes, it could be - but can you think of another commercial where the punch line is a straight guy freaked out because his straight buddy and a girlfriend are making out? Maybe there is one, but I can't think of one; and that in itself probably wouldn't be enough for an "instant" punch line without some other explanation. <It doesn't necessarily imply that you can catch the gay, but that you can fall madly in love with someone at first sight, just like in heterosexual love stories! How many movies and TV shows have we seen with flings and one night stands? But we can't portray gay dudes doing that? > But these guys are shown as already knowing each other - they're not at "first sight," they're already friends. It's just that apparently they've never touched before, and when they do it makes them gay. Or something. Look, I watched it, wasn't offended, and wouldn't mind if it aired. I'm not one of those people on the discussion boards saying it's "negative" towards gay people - just thought it was worth noting that some people feel that way. I thought it was more lame than offensive, but YMMV.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<I think the thing is that Tebow's mother makes a big deal about not aborting, and Allred is saying it was illegal in the Philippines, so her (legal) choices were not what they would be in the US anyway.>> It's misrepresentation of the facts to push a political agenda. Just like the "Yes on 8" commercials that blanketed the CA airwaves leading up to the election. Most of those so-called "facts" were twisted perceptions of reality and worst case "what if" scenarios that had less probability of happening than alien invasions from outer space. CBS has been blatantly pro-conservative for eons; this action is simply more of the same. Agreeing to run this ad, paid for by Focus on the Family, while refusing to run the ManCrunch ad, is discriminatory, pure and simple. Tebow's mother did not have a choice in her pregnancy, given where she was living at the time, even though she pretends as if she did. It's not as if she was in the ICU, fighting for her life with something like eclampsia, when her Filipino doctor was supposedly telling her to abort. This ad is about starting with a political agenda -- anti-abortion rhetoric -- and distorting the truth of a previous pregnancy to push said agenda on national broadcast television. I hope Allred goes after CBS and Focus on the Family, if this ad ends up airing.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo What is even more sickening is how much money is wasted on this stupid sport and the ads are a national talking point?
Originally Posted By dshyates I don't really have a problem with the Tebow's moralistic agenda. What I have a HUGE problem with is how they apply their moralism to ignoring the advice of medical professionals. It is dangerous and irresponsible. And I find it stunning that a major network would broadcast this ad.
Originally Posted By dshyates Seriously, would they air an ad suggesting that if your child develops diabetes you should ignore the advice of medical professionals and "Pray Harder".
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder If there's a link I haven't clicked it. Does Allred even have a plaintiff?
Originally Posted By wahooskipper If there is too much controversy over ads at the Super Bowl then heck, they should just retire the Grammy's. I don't think my children could have sat in the room with me for more than a few minutes last night. (Well, the country artists were fairly vanilla...but the rest of it?) And, I'm not even sure why they put Eminem on. More than half of his performance was victim of the 8 second delay. But, back to the Super Bowl. Let's get rid of all of this anti-family stuff and bring back the good commercials. Like beer!
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Interesting. This ad ALSO got banned from this year's Super Bowl. <a href="http://videos.godaddy.com/danica_video.aspx?ci=13906" target="_blank">http://videos.godaddy.com/dani...ci=13906</a> No making out. No sexual content of any kind, really. A few women in bikinis and lingerie (like we've never seen THAT in super bowl spots before). No questionable language or even double entendres. And it's purely commercial; no "advocacy." So what was "objectionable" in this ad... except the very idea that a former football player could be gay? (And newsflash: there are some former NFL players who have come out.) Was that deemed too likely to upset the super bowl audience? That mere idea?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Oh, and according to GoDaddy: "Of the five commercial concepts we submitted for approval this year, this never would've been my pick for the one that would not be approved," says Go Daddy CEO and founder Bob Parsons. "This is about a guy who starts an online business and hits the jackpot. I just don't think 'Lola' is offensive, in fact we didn't see this one coming – we were absolutely blindsided."
Originally Posted By mawnck I was wondering when GoDaddy.com would make its appearance in this topic. It was obviously the lingerie. And GoDaddy dang well knows it. I wish this "get banned on purpose" thing didn't work so well. And if you've ever seen that in a Super Bowl spot before, please link.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<It was obviously the lingerie.>> Really? GoDaddy can't use lingerie in its ad, but Victoria's Secret can? I don't think it was the lingerie. It was the effeminate ex-football player. This was another rejection of gay characters/lifestyle by CBS.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I'd hope it was the rejection of a gay stereotypical character, but who can say.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>GoDaddy can't use lingerie in its ad, but Victoria's Secret can?<< Again, provide me a link to an ad with that type of lingerie in it. Victoria's Secret will be fine.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 You're serious? The lingerie shown was less revealing than the bikinis shown in that ad and plenty of others.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I don't know about Victoria's Secret, but Godaddy's OWN approved s.b. ads have featured more scantily clad women than that one in the lingerie in the "Lola" ad. Another reference: <a href="http://phoenix.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2010/01/25/daily65.html" target="_blank">http://phoenix.bizjournals.com...y65.html</a> "Go Daddy Group Inc. has received a rejection slip for one of its Super Bowl commercials, despite a lack of titillating imagery or scantily clad women." (Now I would argue that the bikini babes in the back later, and the lingerie woman could be considered "scantily clad" - but LESS so than in other godaddy ads, which I think is what the writer here is getting at). "Go Daddy received a rejection letter from CBS that said the ad “had the potential to offend a significant number of people.” The company put the ad on its Web site, and so far about 94 percent of the people who have offered opinions did not find it offensive." I really don't think CBS was referring to the lingerie when they offered their opinion. That's not the offense they're afraid of causing - if it was, they wouldn't have aired the other ones.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I'd hope it was the rejection of a gay stereotypical character, but who can say.> Who can say indeed... but I strongly suspect that if he hadn't been identified as a "former NFL player," there would have been no rejection.
