Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
  advertising

Dolce & Gabbana Stopped Supporting the Gays. Time to Stop Supporting D&G?

dolce-gabbanas-the-one-for-men-120207-11

As the employees of a company that survives on companies willing to spend money on gay media, we can understand the frustration with certain marketers who turn their backs on LGBTs for no apparent reason. Especially those who once were writing checks to our kind, and then suddenly stopped, thinking they could get gay love without spending on an ad campaign. Like Dolce & Gabbana.

The Italian designers were once big spenders in gay media, and their homoerotic ad campaigns found a place among us when other magazines turned their backs. But as Out‘s Aaron Hicklin complains, D&G is no longer a paying client: “I would say Diesel owes a lot of its early success to gay men, as does Prada Sport. Also American Apparel T-shirts, Volkswagen, and the entire Bravo network. And, at the risk of making us sound utterly status-obsessed, you can add just about any premium vodka brand. Then there’s the odd case of Dolce & Gabbana, a brand that has a big gay fan base but no longer reciprocates by advertising in gay media. I don’t know if it’s because they take the gay market for granted, but given the homoerotic imagery of their campaigns, and often positive gay messaging, it seems like a big missed opportunity.”

141502253_15eb4605291

Indeed. But from their perspective, why pay for something you can get for free? Sure, they won’t get two-page glossy spreads in Out without paying for it, and fashion stylists might choose another label’s belt or slacks for a photo shoot (knowing D&G isn’t supporting their publication), but it’s not like D&G is suffering gay love.

The gays still fawn over their bags, jeans, shirts, and suits. They don’t spend with Queerty, and yet we give Stefano and Domenico plenty of free press. We give their models free press. Hell, we even give their advertising free press.

We rationalize like so: These are two mainstream gay designers — fashion celebrities — and thus they deserve our coverage. Would we appreciate it if they helped fund our paychecks? Yes.

Two years ago, D&G was marketing its watch line with homoerotic storylines (in addition to straight ones). Its print ads are still filled with plenty of nude male models and sexuality criss-crossing. But now those ads appear in more tolerant, high-brown fashion books, rather than more accessible, gay-targeted rags.

But their support of gay media? Diminishing. Adds Hicklin: “Italians do seem to have a deeply conflicted relationship to homosexuality that goes back to classical Rome. We actually sent a writer, Michael Joseph Gross, to Italy some years back to write that very piece. But, still, Domenico and Stefano used to advertise in Out, and even appeared on the cover some years ago, so their retreat from gay media is disappointing.”

We’ve previously discussed whether an advertiser’s support of the gay community — through advertising, or even pride parade sponsorship — makes a difference in your support of their brands. But what about a company like D&G that used to fund the very type of gay media you’re reading right now, but has since opted to abandon it. Is that a brand still worth supporting?

By:           editor editor
On:           Sep 17, 2009
Tagged: , , , , ,

  • 55 Comments
    • Lloyd Baltazar
      Lloyd Baltazar

      It doesn’t matter if Dolce & Gabbana is in support of the Gay advertisements. As long as they are not bashing the Gays—–the LGBT community will always be fascinated and patronize their D&G designs. Dolce & Gabbana is one of the most sought ought collections every Spring and Fall fashion season, and just because they no longer finance the Gay advertising media—that does not mean they will lose their Gay fans and clients.

      As long as Dolce & Gabbana continue to make fabulous genius clothing designs, and clothes that have PERFECT silhouette and excellent body fit for men and women, many Gays will always buy their products.

      Did you see their new line of fall season jackets for 2009? It’s to die for! I own a pair myself.

      Sep 17, 2009 at 12:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Fitz
      Fitz

      But wait a cottonell picking second: Isn’t Queerty just salivating in joy whenever it announces the failure of another gay rag? Maybe D&G and you both feel that mags are dead?

      Sep 17, 2009 at 12:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kbutterum
      Kbutterum

      You are kidding, right? With all the speculation about print media’s survival and the recession, where’s the story in this? Besides, their clothing is marketed to a younger crowd that may not need to be affirmed by support of companies who are obviously gay anyway. With any company, they spend their ad dollars where they would be most effective. They may think they have captured the gay market, which I believe they have.

      Sep 17, 2009 at 12:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • vernonvanderbilt
      vernonvanderbilt

      Though this confession may lead to revocation of my gay membership card, I’m making it anyway: I just don’t get this fashion stuff.

      I couldn’t tell D&G from Prada if my life depended on it. I don’t particularly understand what it is that makes something trendy “this season” or why certain names are supposed to be better than others. I cannot fathom spending more than $50-70 on any single piece of clothing (and I mean actual clothing, not accessories, and underwear/socks doesn’t count), and I cannot begin to figure out why anyone would. I don’t know why what’s “in” changes so rapidly, and I don’t know why it matters to anyone. There’s a lot I don’t know about the fashion world.

      What I do know is what conclusions I’ve reached from giving the industry a cursory glance (I flip through magazines in waiting rooms and I saw Bruno).

      1. It doesn’t matter so much what you think of a piece of clothing. What matters more is what other people think about it.

      2. If the right name is on the tag, the price can easily be inflated at least 500-1000% because someone, somewhere will be dumb enough to pay it.

      3. Fashion trends become popular because people in the fashion industry arbitrarily decide that they are popular, thus inspiring legions of glitz-addled, would-be social climbers to immediately run out and spend seriously stupid money on something they will wear a handful of times before discarding it.

      4. The fashion world is a lot like the art world, only more oblivious to its own ridiculousness.

      Now I’ll probably get some haters, but I can only call it as I see it. Truth be told, I’d just like, for once, to see someone explain (honestly and impartially) why anyone should care about this stuff. Until I can get someone to give me some good reasons, I’m going to continue “not getting it.”

      And I will continue buying comfortable, pleasant-looking, and reasonably-priced clothing at department stores.

      Sep 17, 2009 at 12:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mike
      Mike

      A big: Who Cares

      Sep 17, 2009 at 1:12 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mr. Enemabag Jones
      Mr. Enemabag Jones

      I’ve never bought anything made by those two guinea fags and never will, considering how they’ve both hidden behind their glass closet doors for decades, and what they’ve said about gay identity and the gay community. Everyone wants to be gay, but no one want’s to be a fag.

      Sep 17, 2009 at 1:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ousslander
      ousslander

      Like their ads but spend that much money on their clothes, puhleeze. I’ll stick to target

      Sep 17, 2009 at 1:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Austin
      Austin

      @VernonVanderbilt – very well said.
      The whole fashion buisness is built on conspicuous consumption,
      similar to the ’60s mindset that gave us cars with huge fins.

      I can never understand why models are so thin.
      The guys in the above ads are borderline anorexic.

      Sep 17, 2009 at 1:40 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Marcus
      Marcus

      One thing I’d like to point out is that Dolce & Gabbana is the main company. The abbreviation “D&G” refers to their specific diffusion label and not to the company itself. FASHION NERD NAZI STRIKES.

      Sep 17, 2009 at 1:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Lloyd Baltazar
      Lloyd Baltazar [Different person #1 using similar name]

      You know why? Because Fashion is a form of LIVED art. And guess what genius? Some people are willing to spend their hard-earned money on a piece of that art—because it represents the trend of the time, the ideas of that particular decade, and the look that is endorsed by the mainstream culture society. If you think that is shallow, materialistic and pointless then GREAT. Stick to target and your common department stores. No one is forcing you to buy the greatest clothes of the times. You can be with the rest of the sheep and wear “regular” clothes.

      You think you made a choice that exempts you from the fashion industry when the way you regularly dress everyday is truly inspired by the fashion editors and fashion gods that decide what is acceptable to wear and what isn’t.

      Just remember, not everyone is a penny-saving, thrift-spending, economically-ultra conscious gay man like you. Thank God for that. Bitter economist.

      Sep 17, 2009 at 1:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Fitz
      Fitz

      yea, but.. the kind of guy I like (and have, thankfully) is more likely to avoid the $100 undies, and make a decent contribution to a social justice charity.

      Sep 17, 2009 at 1:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kid A
      Kid A

      @Lloyd Baltazar: “As long as Dolce & Gabbana continue to make fabulous genius clothing designs…many Gays will always buy their products.”

      @Lloyd Baltazar: “You can be with the rest of the sheep”

      lol

      Sep 17, 2009 at 2:03 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ggreen
      ggreen

      D&G is the kind of fashion brand that is ALL about their label and never about quality. The cheap Chinese knock-offs are better than the real stuff. The kind of people that lust after their crap watch Real housewives “reality” TV for fashion advice now that “Growing up Gotti” is gone and Britney Spears went to rehab. Its strictly for the tacky.

      Sep 17, 2009 at 2:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • timncguy
      timncguy

      I’d like to think the only reason for being willing to pay a HIGHER price for a piece of clothing is to get a piece made with quality materials, quality construction and that fits well.

      But, these qualities should make the piece last for much longer than a “season”.

      If you can find pieces that have this quality and are in a classic style instead of “trendy”, you should be able to justify the money spent by getting many years of wear out ofthe pieces you buy.

      Besides, in my humble opinion, if you dress yourself in classic styles ttranscend the trendy, you will look much better than those wearing this “season’s” trends and look more like they are “costumed” than dressed.

      Sep 17, 2009 at 2:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • MoHoTo
      MoHoTo

      I doubt it is wise to bite the hand that feeds you, and that goes both for D&G disowning ads in gay rags, and the gay rags spiting a past (and potential future) advertiser.

      Gay men are opinion leaders, no question. But the way they lead opinion is by discovering cool things long before they get the stamp of coolness in the ad pages of magazines.

      Out has been very good of late in its editorial with respect to both quality and being ahead of the pack in discovering interesting things to cover.

      I hope their audience responds and the magazine hangs in there. If that happens, the advertisers will follow.

      Sep 17, 2009 at 2:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • vernonvanderbilt
      vernonvanderbilt

      @Lloyd Baltazar: And yet, you offer nothing that tells me why fashion matters.

      You call it “lived art” (which sounds like some sort of gibberish term that was probably coined by someone in the fashion industry to begin with) but you don’t explain what that is supposed to mean or why it is important.

      This was an interesting nugget: “Some people are willing to spend their hard-earned money on a piece of that art—because it represents the trend of the time, the ideas of that particular decade, and the look that is endorsed by the mainstream culture society.”

      I can’t disagree with your opener. Obviously someone is buying this stuff or they wouldn’t keep making it. As for the rest of this comment…well, you score bonus points for the funny, but it’s all so much psychobabble unless you can apply those vague platitudes to something resembling the real world. People are entitled to spend their money as they see fit; that’s not what I’m arguing. What I would like is for people to be more honest about their spending habits. If someone buys an article of clothing because it’s trendy right now, just say so. Don’t try to dress it up with a bunch of empty justifications to make it appear meaningful. You want to be liked, and you want to appear hip and wealthy. Just be honest.

      The greatest clothes of the times? That’s an opinion. If you can give me any solid reasons why these are the greatest clothes of the times, then maybe your opinion would carry some weight. As far as my own wardrobe goes…well, you’ve never seen it. Most of my day-to-day clothing was selected for comfort first, style second. If I feel good wearing it, I wear it, no matter who made it. But don’t presume to call my clothing “regular.” My personal style is considered quite daring and provocative where I’m from (semi-rural Ohio, so I know that means nothing to the likes of you) and I am not a sheep in any way, shape, or form. I simply know a scam when I see it, and spending more than $100 on an entire outfit is definitely unnecessary and probably more than a little unethical.

      Furthermore, I would say it’s more sheeplike to buy and wear clothing only because some fashionista says it’s trendy. I choose my own clothing. Apparently some people are too lazy to do that, and they let the fashion industry tell them what to buy.

      Here’s another priceless turd: “You think you made a choice that exempts you from the fashion industry when the way you regularly dress everyday is truly inspired by the fashion editors and fashion gods that decide what is acceptable to wear and what isn’t.”

      Except it isn’t, at least not directly. Maybe that nonsense filters down from the self-proclaimed elites to the unwashed masses over time, but the simple fact of the matter is that I don’t know or care about the industrial/sociological origin of my clothing. I see something I like at a price that I find reasonable, I purchase it, and I wear it. I shop at department stores, thrift stores, even the occasional mid- to upscale store when I find myself in the vicinity with some money to spend.

      “Just remember, not everyone is a penny-saving, thrift-spending, economically-ultra conscious gay man like you. Thank God for that.”

      More assumptions, more misconceptions, more wrong-wrong-wrongness. You don’t know what I spend my money on. I can tell you this…my money goes toward things that are much more lasting, rewarding, and intellectually stimulating than clothes. Music, books, films…I spend my money on things that can be appreciated forever, shared with friends, discussed, pondered. My interest is not captured by surface affectations. I am a man of substance, and I prefer for my money to be spent on items of substance as well.

      Now, anyone else want to actually enlighten me? I re-pose the central question: why does fashion matter, and why should I care?

      Sep 17, 2009 at 2:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • vernonvanderbilt
      vernonvanderbilt

      @timncguy: I am inclined to agree with your take on the matter. Classic beats ephemeral any day of the week, regardless of price.

      Sep 17, 2009 at 2:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Erick
      Erick

      Isnt print media dying in general and gay media in particular, again and again I see news of gay media closing down, why would you invest in a dying medium. It makes no business sense if there are other outlets that reach more people.

      And that is in no way a measure of their support or lack there of to the gay comunity.

      Sep 17, 2009 at 2:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ousslander
      Ousslander

      @Lloyd Baltazar: I do lik fashion, its prices thT kill me. Target n some stores offer a cheaper alternative. Besides the fancy stuff is by side by side with the cheaper versions in the same chinese factory. As for being sheep, those woul be the one that slavishly buy every new trend to look like everyone else. Say hi to patsy for me, ok mrs. Monsoon.

      Sep 17, 2009 at 2:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jeff M
      Jeff M

      @vernonvanderbilt: Gonna have to throw my vote of support to Vernon. I’m with ya bud.

      @Lloyd Baltazar: Lloyd, it’s a free country… okay maybe it isn’t since I still can’t legally marry my partner of 10 years, but you are certainly free to spend your hard earned dollars as you see fit. But I’d hardly qualify corporate fashion with million dollar advertising budgets as “art”. It’s completely commercial and really no different from any other corporate controlled industry.

      I’d rather devote my resources to artistic endeavors that inspire us to be better people. Not ones that are elitist, shallow and encourage its devotees to look down on the rest us as “unfashionable.”

      What’s sexier? A man in worn-out clothes helping build schools and hospices in Africa, or a fashionista at a trendy nightclub in the latest D&G uniform?

      Sep 17, 2009 at 2:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bad Touch Football
      Bad Touch Football

      Personally, I have never understood the affectations of people to blatantly adorn themselves with trademarks symbols. I mean, it one thing to be wearing a religious medallion, or perhaps some iconography of a group like the freemasons, but to voluntarily wear perfectly good clothing that is ruined by splashing a big D&G (or A&F, AE, HOLLISTER, PACSUN, etc ad nauseum) logo all over it is not only patently ridiculous, but in fact quite tacky. Has anyone ever heard of the concept of “less is more”? It’s pretty self explanatory, and it applies to clothing very aptly.

      I relate much more with Vernon, Timnc, and Jeff M. Fashion is a ridiculous adornment of the self with symbols of meaning to distract from the general lack of substance beneath said adornments. I personally have great difficulty in wearing anything that carries a visible logo, almost to the point of an allergy. It makes me feel dirty, used, and completely a tool to the corporate marketing environment that has forced its way into the mainstream to equate their branding and logos with acceptability in the social structure. I prefer to be a one man school of the anti, rejecting all obvious fashions, and choosing rather to look better in my off the rack, logo-less, classic fashions than all of the fashionistas wearing the latest derivitive style being spewed out of the collective unconscious wasteland of fashion designers. I’ll be the person dressed severely, wearing black and black and black, looking fabulously chic, for less than $100 anyday.

      Hooray for thrift stores, second hand clothiers, and small, independent designers.

      Sep 17, 2009 at 3:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bad Touch Football
      Bad Touch Football

      Oh, and insofar as lived art? That only counts if you are wearing the artistically designed clothing yourself. If you are buying a productized, commotitized, mass produced designer notion that you didn’t create, it can be better equated to wearing around a LOLCat print

      Sep 17, 2009 at 3:03 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bad Touch Football
      Bad Touch Football

      That was silly, and I understand preview functions now:

      That only counts if you are wearing the artistically designed clothing yourself.

      Should be:

      That only counts if you are wearing the artistically designed clothing that you designed and produced yourself.

      Sep 17, 2009 at 3:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • vernonvanderbilt
      vernonvanderbilt

      @Bad Touch Football: You hit on another thing that irks me with the whole “blatant branding” thing. I always found it bizarre that people would be willing to pay companies to become walking billboards. It’s ingenius marketing, I’ll admit, but whenever I see someone walking around with an outfit festooned in clothing company logos, there’s always a little part of me that questions that individual’s intellect. This is how I felt in high school when the in-crowd was sporting the Hilfiger, post-high school when Abercrombie became hip, and I stil feel that way about whatever it is that people are wearing nowadays.

      It’s nothing but status symbols. And that’s the thing about symbols: they’re only stand-ins for the real thing. If you’re truly “cool” you don’t need to advertise it; people will simply recognize it in you. Anything more simply reeks of “like me like me like me” desperation. It’s fortunate for those who slavishly follow trends and fellate fashionista egos with their every word that there are so many insecure people in the world. It may not be good company, but at least it’s company, right?

      Sep 17, 2009 at 3:27 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Landon Bryce
      Landon Bryce

      Aaron Hickin reveals his true self:

      Notice that he says gay men are responsible for the early success of the Volkswagen. He makes this absurd claim because he has mixed up two elements of his own identity ans assumes all gay men are Nazis like him.

      The Volkswagen and Israel: Hitler’s two great gifts to the world.

      Sep 17, 2009 at 3:43 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • scott ny'er
      scott ny'er

      @vernonvanderbilt: I’ve ALWAYS felt that way. If I’m going to be wearing someone’s brand on my body, I better be getting paid for it. That’s called sponsorship.

      Stupid Juicy branded on that gross sweats.

      Sep 17, 2009 at 4:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • sebastian
      sebastian

      who cares, i would never use this trashy, tacky and showy brand.

      Sep 17, 2009 at 5:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Just for fun
      Just for fun

      @vernonvanderbilt: Oh… ok. I see, you think this has nothing to do with you. You go to your closet and you select out, oh I don’t know, that lumpy blue sweater, for instance, because you’re trying to tell the world that you take yourself too seriously to care about what you put on your back. But what you don’t know is that that sweater is not just blue, it’s not turquoise, it’s not lapis, it’s actually cerulean. You’re also blithely unaware of the fact that in 2002, Oscar De La Renta did a collection of cerulean gowns. And then I think it was Yves St Laurent, wasn’t it, who showed cerulean military jackets? I think we need a jacket here. And then cerulean quickly showed up in the collections of 8 different designers. Then it filtered down through the department stores and then trickled on down into some tragic casual corner where you, no doubt, fished it out of some clearance bin. However, that blue represents millions of dollars and countless jobs and so it’s sort of comical how you think that you’ve made a choice that exempts you from the fashion industry when, in fact, you’re wearing the sweater that was selected for you by the people in this room. From a pile of stuff.

      Sep 17, 2009 at 6:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • vernonvanderbilt
      vernonvanderbilt

      @Just for fun: Now it makes perfect sense! How could I not know that Oscar De La Punta invented cerulean! How silly and stupid of me for not paying attention to such a groundbreaking accomplishment! Thank you for lifting the scales from my eyes! My life has meaning now!

      Still a fail, kid. Fashion trends still have nothing to do with me, and I still have no reason to care about these people or the things they do with their time. Try again.

      Sep 17, 2009 at 6:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • PEter
      PEter

      @Fitz: Ha! Love it. QUeerty has gotten way too political as of late. Now that they don’t have HX, Matthew Bank, or Genre to kick around they have nothing else to bitch about.

      @Erick: Actually a friend who sold for Genre told me that they were told by a fashion client that they could reach the same gay male market by advertising in Details, Esquire, or GQ. There was no need to advertise in 2 magazines when they could do it in one.

      Maybe they’re just pissed because all of the FREE promotion of all things D&G has failed ot net them any advertising dollars or freebies.

      Sep 17, 2009 at 6:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • D.B.
      D.B.

      This is the kind of post that annoys me because it’s clear that Queerty didn’t do its homework. D&G stopped advertising in “Out” — big deal, I’m willing to bet a lot of other advertisers stopped buying ads as well. And this is happening not only to gay mags, but to the entire magazine world.

      As someone who has spent more than a decade in the mag industry, I can tell you with no uncertainty that the business is dying. Magazines are closing every week as advertisers cut back due to the recession. It has nothing to do with gay vs. mainstream media — all kinds of magazines, big and small, are going under.

      Advertisers faced with smaller media budgets have to pick and choose much more carefully how they spend their money. And in truth, the magazine industry has for years artificially inflated their circulation figures, when in reality circulations were dropping quickly across the board. In most cases, print media just can’t offer the most “bang for your buck” to advertisers anymore.

      So before you target D&G, or anyone else, learn a little bit about how the industry works. This not a gay thing, it’s an economic thing.

      Sep 17, 2009 at 7:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • UWSguy
      UWSguy

      Boycott D & G. I think it’s venal of them not to support gay community and media after that make huge profits off gay support. And boycott others who do the same.

      Sep 17, 2009 at 7:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chitown Kev
      Chitown Kev

      I’ve one correction to this piece.

      As a classical studies major who has read some of the juciest porn of Ancient Rome (Petronius, anyone?), the Romans did not have a problem with homosexuality as we understand. Effeminancy, yes, the Romans did have issues with men that weren’t a manly man. But if you were a manly man…you could fuck anyone you wanted and there was no problem with it.

      Sep 17, 2009 at 7:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • alan brickman
      alan brickman

      I’ve been saying they hate gays for years…..

      Sep 17, 2009 at 7:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Yeah
      Yeah

      uh, vernonvanderbilt….justforfun was being funny with his comment…it was a line from Devil Wears Prada….

      of course it made no sense when Streep said it, and it makes no sense now….

      all clothes are made by someone, somewhere….the fact that clothes from Prada end up in a bin with clothes from Target just reinforces the obsurdity of trying to find some higher instrinsic value in a piece of cloth….

      Sep 17, 2009 at 8:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jason
      jason

      I have a real problem with the notion that male “homoerotic” ads must be confined to the gay men’s magazines. It’s a form of segregation. I would much rather prefer that male “homoerotic” ads be sprinkled throughout all media. It mainstreams our presence.

      Sep 17, 2009 at 9:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • vernonvanderbilt
      vernonvanderbilt

      @Yeah: Well, in retrospect, I should have remembered that, considering I’ve seen the film. All I can say is that it’s just like the internet to put someone on the defensive.

      But yes, I agree completely. If you simply must have designer clothes, there’s no reason to pay full price for them unless you’re a complete idiot. I’ve bought stuff from TJ Maxx or Gabriel Brothers for literally 10% or less of the original asking price. My sense of self worth does not hinge on how much I paid for my ensemble.

      Sep 17, 2009 at 9:11 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      @vernonvanderbilt:

      My sense of self worth does not hinge on how much I paid for my ensemble.

      Co-sign!

      Sep 17, 2009 at 9:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • M Shane
      M Shane

      Regardless of individual idiosyncrsies, the point is well made. Many gay people apparently do care to spend a lot of money on their products, we live is a consumerist superficial society as much as I hate it. Many gay people do need to be politically aware and activistand chose not to be because they are selfish and think that as long as they have theirs, who cares. i see it all around me every day. It’s self absorption; selling one’s soul to impress-part of the D.Gray syndrome.

      Sep 17, 2009 at 9:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ariel
      ariel

      @Landon Bryce:

      Israel was not a consequence of Hitlers’ doings… Please read some history books.

      Sep 18, 2009 at 8:02 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Sug Night
      Sug Night

      Sorry to be the one to tell you, @Lloyd, but D&G ARE indeed bashing the gays…..they recently stated they (one of them said it, but as far as I’m concerned they are interchangable and speak for the brand) were against gays being allowed to adopt, further stating that gays were too self absorbed and petty (sic) to be good parents.
      Sounds eerily similar to what Bette Midler said on the issue when asked. I’ve not given either a penny of my business since. With friends like this, who needs Fred Phelps or the Pope???

      That, my friend, is gay bashing.

      Sep 18, 2009 at 9:14 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kurt
      Kurt

      Sorry. I am a gay man. You are a business enterprise. It really doesn’t matter to me if D&G supports your business.

      And if they do advertize, it is just that. They are not “supporting” you. They are making a business decision.

      I support gay charities. I make purchases from business enterprises. There is a difference. Don’t confuse the two.

      Sep 18, 2009 at 9:42 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Well there's that.
      Well there's that.

      @vernonvanderbilt:

      I think you make excellent points.

      In 1904, Georg Simmel, one of the early influences on sociology, wrote a short, quite readable essay you might be interested in, entitled “Fashion.”]

      http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/3/2/forum/2.html

      I would add that sometimes some people use fashion to attempt to exert power. Fashion can say, “Look what I can buy that you can’t.”

      It is also a way of paying a vig–the cost of entry–to the cool clique. We have all seen the coterie of guys who are insanely hot, but young and poor, so they dress simply and inexpensively and still look amazing…and then there is that hanger-on who would never make it into the group were it not for the fact that he has very trendy, expensive clothes. (Either that or he provides the drugs or the employee discount at Saks…or both.)

      I think it is more or less fine and normal for young guys who are exploring the world and finding themselves to take shelter behind the mask of fashion, but who doesn’t feel a little uncomfortable around the forty or fifty or sixty year old in the tight A&F t-shirt or $600 Dior skinny jeans. When I see that, i don’t think, “How cool,” I think, “How undignified…at that age, and he is still trying to measure up.”

      Sorry…I must sound like such a Judgy Judgalott.

      Sep 18, 2009 at 11:14 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      @Sug Night:

      Not doubting what you stated or trying to dispute you, but do you have some documentation to back those comments up?

      Sep 18, 2009 at 1:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John from England(used to be just John but there are other John's)
      John from England(used to be just John but there are other John's)

      Hmm…

      I’ve worked with charities since I was 18-which would be around 10 years, doing all kinds of stuff but I can’t help the fact that I like fashion. I don’t like the background to it-the industry, the people, the sweat shops but I love clothes. I love colour and I love style-although my style is more thrift/recycled, I like looking good.

      You can have your opinion on Fashion etc but it is ‘art’. Now whether it’s YOUR kind of ‘art’? Well, I guess not but it is a form of art.

      I wonder how many design students their are on this thread? Anyway’s if you are (I did Fine Art) but how talented were the fashion students? In terms of being able to draw and the wide amount of cultural knowledge they had to have? (The good one’s!)

      Bah, everyone’s full of sh*t. Pretentious. It’s just some people are more honest about it then others.

      Sep 19, 2009 at 9:02 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • M Swan
      M Swan

      Why would D&G spend money on gay ads when gays don’t do fashion anymore?

      Gays only wear cheap jeans and old T-shirts.

      Gays want to be more straight than straight guys because they are afraid of being different or out of the mainstream. Hence their obsession with A&F. A&F isn’t fashion. They have nude models because their clothes don’t look good on anyone. Yet many gay guys wear their T-shirts so they can be associated with the brand. How stupid is that. I would rather wear a Colt shirt.

      If you are anti-fashion, that is OK. Don’t be a hater on people who do. It is just another form of being a clone.

      Sep 19, 2009 at 2:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • mark
      mark

      D&G, or a top shelf vodka, or a new resort, or a new film, can spend in our media or not, but either way, it will be remembered.

      Sep 19, 2009 at 7:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • giuliano
      giuliano

      questions for journalists:
      - do u know if they did cut any other magazine in the last months because of the crisis?
      - do u know if are they supporting other gay media in other countries?
      - do u know that USA is not the world and that DG is a world wide brand?

      sometimes we don’t have anything to learn from us journalists. fortunately just sometimes.

      regards

      Sep 22, 2009 at 3:49 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rob Moore
      Rob Moore

      @vernonvanderbilt: I couldn’t have said it better. I only wear suits to weddings, funerals, and job interviews these days, but I never pay attention to the label. It just needs to look good and fit well, and I can achieve that without spending $1000. Shoes are the same thing. Comfort then looks with a reasonable price.

      The most expensive underwear I ever bought was Nordstrom’s store brand, but I drew the line at socks costing $30 for one pair.

      Like you, I couldn’t tell D&G or Prada even with a loaded gun to my head. It reminds me of the 70s and 80s when people had to wear jeans with a logo stitched on their asses. I was happy with Levi jeans at half the price. I do own two Polo shirts given to me as presents, and I might have owned an Izod back in the 80s.

      Sep 22, 2009 at 6:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • cheapshot
      cheapshot

      DG is for the people with no true style…its like cheap hollister cologne, or loving Tyra….Italians..even harder to pinpoint than the french….lol

      Sep 22, 2009 at 6:28 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TomEM
      TomEM

      @vernonvanderbilt Post #4…

      Well put.

      Oct 5, 2009 at 8:11 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Todd
      Todd

      Instead of thinking that they are abandoning the gay dollar, perhaps they are thinking like many others that the gay community that has the money to pay for the product is regularly reading more mainstream magazines like Harpers or Town and Country and hitting two markets with each shrinking advertising dollar.

      Gay media is in a catch 22 – there needs to be a level of sophistication in their media – but will enough gays make it worthwhile for someone to venture into a more upscale magazine or website?

      Nov 4, 2009 at 10:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JP
      JP

      “Our kind”? That makes it sound like we’re another species, or at least another race. Is it possible, for once, that we can define ourselves by something other than what’s between our legs and what we want between our legs? I find it incredibly frustrating that you’re calling for us to abandon a brand simply because they finally said “Hey, who cares who’s gay or straight? Let’s
      just chill and sell our product.”

      You know, it would be a lot easier to gain acceptance if we all acted like we’re part of the common masses with everybody else instead of being either The New Oppressed People or the elite.

      Feb 21, 2010 at 1:46 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Lukas P.
      Lukas P.

      I wear private label clothing mostly. That’s a code word for 1) My mom is one hell of a seamstress and she does make clothes for me and my guy. She absolutely knows what she’s doing, and I get nice comments from fashionistas about the things she makes. I do not give her phone number out even when begged.
      2) I buy some stuff from local designers and promote their work. I’m willing to spend a little more money than retail for stuff I can wear for years and years unless I blimp out or overdose on the weights.

      I’m not trendy in the slightest. I lookThe only things that I wear that have a known label are socks, tee shirts, underwear, shoes, watches, jeans and a few neckties. I have had dress shirts custom made on occasion by a tailor. His stuff lasts forever just about.
      I love going to the resale shops and occasionally will find a hat or scarf or vest there. Or a kickass butter dish.

      I have friends who follow fashion trends closely and they love wearing what they see in the magazines. If that’s what gives them joy, then I sure as hell am not going to rain on their parade. I’m happy to accompany them to Prada and Barney’s and help carry their bags home! We’re past the point of trying to convince each other to dress/vacation/dine/club in the same way. How boring would THAT be?

      Dolce and Gabbana run a business and if their new advertising strategy backfires, they’ll adjust that strategy. They’re not alone in trying to get the most bang for their advertising buck.

      @Just for fun: You have stolen words from a movie, said by Ms Streep, without attribution, permission and in violation of copyright. Not too sharp.

      Feb 21, 2010 at 3:36 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • maverickstarchild
      maverickstarchild

      you guys are fucking idiots for arguing over this shit. smh

      Jul 14, 2012 at 11:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • POPULAR ON QUEERTY

    FOLLOW US
     



    GET QUEERTY'S DAILY NEWSLETTER


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.