News flash: sex sells. From bikini clad models promoting hamburgers to Victoria’s Secret babes working the runway, sexualized imagery can’t be escaped in mainstream advertising.
So why, then, did a commercial for underwear company Nasty Pig get pulled off the air after it had begun showing in the New York area on Time Warner Cable?
Here’s the ad:
Suggestive? Yes. Potentially offensive? Sure, but it raises the question — if it were equally sexual and heterocentric, would it still be on the air?
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
Gawker reports that an email exchange between TWC’s Media Sales Coverage department and Tara Wolf, whose Wolf Media Inc., handled the ad buy, reveals how the ad got pulled in the first place:
From:
To: Tara Wolf
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 11:26 AM
Subject: Re: Nasty Pig
I’ve been trying to call you to explain the situation. I got feed back yesterday but it’s not good.
This really got blown out of the water because we were running on networks that were not appropriate to run the spot on (Cartoon Network and TBS). It was flagged and now we’re refusing any revision to the original spot and will not run the spot on any networks.
I understand this is a very delicate situation and I apologize for the way it played out. Please call me if you need any clarification.
From:
To: Tara Wolf
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 11:49 AM
It’s the content that is the issue. If we were to use the old spot we used in November we wouldn’t have a problem. But the holiday spot is edgy, and we take customer complaints seriously. I apologize again. I know this puts you in a bad spot.
The ad was scheduled to run on TBS (during Big Bang Theory, Family Guy, and American Dad), Cartoon Network (during Family Guy and American Dad), Lifetime (during Project Runway), and Logo. After appearing four times on Logo, it was yanked due to “customer complaints,” though TWC did not offer any specific notes on how it could be revised to run as scheduled.
Gawker received this message from TWC after running their story:
Proper guidelines were not followed in this instance; we made a mistake. We are sorry and we will work with this client to make it right.
Here’s a straight ad from Dolce and Gabbana that didn’t raise any eyebrows:
jason smeds
Time Warner Cable is not gay-friendly. In fact, it is widely perceived to be homophobic, especially if it’s male homosexuality. Time Warner Cable seems to run a million miles away from male-male sensuality and sexuality. It’s owned by liberals, too.
Liberals at Time Warner Cable were responsible for pulling this ad.
jason smeds
Doesn’t Time Warner Cable show the annual “fashion” show organized by Victoria’s Secret where half-naked women prance around in lingerie “fashion” for the benefit of the sleazy straight guy fantasy? The show contains a lot of fake-lesbian suggestiveness.
Victoria’s Secret is a tacky company which sexually exploits women. If Time Warner thinks Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show is OK but this tame ad with homosexual male suggestions isn’t, it’s definitely a case of discrimination.
Fu@k Time Warner Cable and fu@k Victoria’s Secret.
Stevenw
Even with the steamy ending, the Dolce ad was far less suggestive than the Nasty Pig.
I don’t blame them for yanking it (harhar) and amazed it got as far as being aired.
Ladbrook
Oh Please. That ad was no raunchier than the gay sex scenes on ABC’s How to Get Away with Murder.
If they ran that ad on Logo the only queen who’d call in to complain is MarionPage/JasonSmeds, but only because he’s pissed off that good looking men are having an orgy and he, yet again, wasn’t invited to watch from the corner.
hechz
Rewatching both spots, the Nasty Pig one has implied fellatio. The over all tone is more overt too, the choice of music, the quickk jumps all lend a skeevier tone than the heteronormative advert. If it were a romantic/wholesome style ad with two men waking up in the morning and snuggling and kissing; or even the same exact setup as the hetero ad, I would be upset. We cannot expect the Folsom Street Fair to go mainstream.
AlliterationAddict
We have our own underwear now? And here I’ve been wearing the regular stuff like an idiot.
vive
“We made a mistake.”
I think Time Warner meant they made a mistake by running the ad in the first place. They don’t seem to be apologizing for being homophobic. Really, they are apologizing for not informing the advertiser from the start that they were homophobic.
PRINCE OF SNARKNESS aka DIVKID
Just watching that was enough to bring me out in hives (I think I’ve spelled that correctly?)
mgad
I’m going to vote not guilty for TWC. That ad was pretty aggressive and I’d say a tad more so than the straight one.
Anyway, this scandal will give Nasty Pig a decent amount of free publicity. Win-Win
Maude
As an Advertising Director of Graphics, I can tell you the ad has no real reason to be pulled, and I would demand it’s run for free in the near future.
There is one thing thing though, IMO, a more attractive group of men could have easily been found……These guys look like they could use a bath.
jwtraveler
Sometimes I feel like we were better off when we were a little bit in the closet. There are just some things that I don’t want the straight world to see.
AxelDC
@jason smeds: You do realize that Time-Warner owns HBO, that shows “Looking”, “Game of Thrones”, “The Normal Heart”, and “Behind the Chandelier”?
They also own New Line Cinema, that released “Polyester”, “Hairspray”, “Torch Song Trilogy”, “My Own Private Idaho”, and “Hedwig and the Angry Inch”.
Larry
@jason smeds: The Company is VERY gay friendly. Its customers, which they need, are NOT.
vive
@jwtraveler: “There are just some things that I don’t want the straight world to see.”
I know that cringe and I have had it, but really, you should recognize that it is just internalized homophobia.
electrongreen
This is a vile video, I’m glad they banned it, it would be the same if it was straight, why do they need to make gay people look so sordid and seedy, It’s not as if we don’t have enough hate, why encourage more?
electrongreen
@vive: agree.
Cam
So Astroglide can sell lube, and Trojen can sell vibrators to women but their going to pull this ad?
And Time Warner isn’t necessarily so gay friendly, it’s sponsored some events where some pretty heavy anti-gay rhetoric was tossed about.
http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/verizon-time-warner-anheuser-busch-sponsored-anti-gay-texas-gop-convention/politics/2014/06/09/88870
vive
@AxelDC, so what? Fox produces Glee, AND the crazy homophobic r@cist right wing Fox News. Throw the gays a few bones and you can then treat them as badly as you want is what you are saying.
vive
@electrongreen: “This is a vile video, I’m glad they banned it, it would be the same if it was straight, why do they need to make gay people look so sordid and seedy, It’s not as if we don’t have enough hate, why encourage more?”
I don’t agree that it is sordid and sleazy, but even if it were, what you are feeling is exactly what internalized homophobia looks like; in trying to censor other queer people you are doing exactly the same as your oppressors are doing to you. Going through life afraid of what straight people will think of you if they see leather/drag queens/Pride/Dykes on Bikes, etc. is not gay liberation – your intolerance is making you live in a prison of your own making that is the opposite of liberation.
Arconcyyon
Ups Nice Prince Royal Prince ! Dont´s is no that is griffes femily girls top model event end the n ew home list music dence is love the future pop star musical !
I´m is like the griffe ! CR7 LACOSTE ADIDAS NIKE PUMA OLIMPUCUS ! They is luxury is no dont´s HOMOFOBIN´S ANS CUP LEAUGE MUNDI ILGBTT .
tardis
The difference between the two is that one is sexual and one is sensual. The gay one is just trashy, and the fact that the line is called Nasty Pig doesn’t help one bit.
electrongreen
@vive: Sorry, I don’t agree, gay people are currently facing the highest level of murders all over the world in years, and assaults and attacks are up, the problem is, we don’t have equal rights, so the people who have just made the new law in the USA, where medical, or public employees can refuse to treat gay people due to faith, feeds on any type of overt sexual behaviour, yes it’s unfair, but until we have full equal rights, explicit behaviour will means certain death to some gay people, Ugandas hate bill was started by white Americans.
Garrett
@tardis: It’s intentionally campy, not trashy. It made me less uncomfortable than those silly Vi@gra ads currently running on mainstream networks. It also did it’s job. I’m going to search for Nasty Pig undies now, and isn’t that the point of a good ad?
blackberry finn
No-brainer.
d3clark
Let’s see, the D & G ad has close ups of crotches, wet crotches grinding together, a T & A shot, stripping, deep kissing, skimpy wet bathing suits and the numerals 69 and 2 at the end. And that’s NOT sexual?
Nasty Pig’s shows mostly dressed, dry guys, not grinding against each other or sucking face, no close up crotch shots (wet or dry and some humor (guy fondling Christmas ornaments), no sign showing the number 69, but that’s sexual and not sensual. Sure it is.
ethan_hines
If I saw a man and a women with a pig on a leash (timecode 0:18), them putting their tongues together timecode (0:12) (not just kissing) and wearing leather suspenders (time code 0:15). I WOULD WANT TO HAVE IT PULLED OFF THE AIR. Therefore I commend TWC for yanking it. If they want to air it at 1:30am have at it!
musctop
@ethan_hines …That’s not their tongues–theyre chewing on the same food–you know, like Disney’s Lady and the Tramp. Did you have a problem with Paris Hilton walking around with a pig on a leash? Did you have a problem with the Victoria’s Secret angels wearing suspenders and panties? Get a grip and grow up.
ShowMeGuy
The squeaky wheel gets the grease. The uptight, heterosexual douchecanoes get stuff banned.
vive
@electrongreen, so your solution to the problem of rape is to tell women to stop asking for it by wearing short skirts? Because that’s basically what you are saying with regards to gay people. We’re just asking for discrimination by rocking the boat, aren’t we?
enfilmigult
So, keeping in mind the possibility of internalized homophobia, I watched it while a parallel man/woman straight-innuendo-laden version played in my mind…and I couldn’t imagine the response being any different. That “oops I was just performing fellatio, tee hee” shot would not have played well if it were a woman, I think, and rightly so. This plays like those director’s cut versions of ads they put on company websites sometimes, not something that gets broadcast on basic cable. (Unless basic cable has gotten really awesome since I canceled my subscription.)
The other ad wasn’t nearly as raunchy by the way. Maybe there is one out there that’s equivalent and got no attention, but if this is the best example I can’t see it as a double standard.
Cam
@electrongreen: said….”yes it’s unfair, but until we have full equal rights, explicit behaviour will means certain death to some gay people, Ugandas hate bill was started by white Americans.”
_____________________
No, actually that is the type of “Sit Down, Shut up, and hide” thinking that HRC used to demand of the community that kept gay rights at a stand still for decades. They’ve been trying to pass ENDA for 20 years and haven’t been able to. Get Equal shows up, yes, protests, gets loud, and DADT falls almost immediately, and DOMA isn’t far behind, while HRC was begging people NOT to sue for marriage because it might upset people.
Being invisible doesn’t help anybody except self hating closet cases.
electrongreen
@vive: yes
Saint Law
@jwtraveler: The only things that should be in the closet are those clothes. They make the models look like douches.
Saint Law
@electrongreen: I agree – the simulated horseplay was tds – what that ad needed was some actual fucking.
JaredNorthcutt30
Another example of the GLBT embrace with corproatism. This is a non-issue. Wolf Media deliberately created an envelope-pushing ad. When the traditional channels rejected said ad, the faux outrage machine directed the viral hits. Double standards, yes. But you’re not going to see me joining arms in protest about it. Black teens are getting killed everyday by militarized police forces. Check your priorities.
Paco
People expected a tasteful ad from a brand named Nasty Pig?
Paco
@Paco: It appeared four times on Logo before it was yanked due to customer complaints. Isn’t Logo a gay network?
CEE8829
WoW!
Such passive/aggressive comments! Well we all do know sex sells just look at anything from booze to butter and clothes to cars.
What I do not get is why not let it air for we see more graphic content in the news reports each and every day several times a day.
If we are going to get this uptight about this commercial then why are we not getting uptight about pampers or huggies for they show naked babies and what about I can’t believe it is not butter for they have more sexual innuendos than a Victoria secret commercial!
The problem is someone who has big money tied to them called in because they are scared that the light of another will shone the light into their closet of secrets. That is what most of this homophobia is all about. It is not that they are against it for it is their more worried about the light of GLBTQ’s shining on what they want to keep hidden! Nothing more Nothing less! It 2014 lets grow up and act like it and stop with this N.I.M.B.Y.
I am so sick of folks and their do as I say and not as i do and not my child or not my neighborhood or not in my family etc..
Lets face it we are a different world today then we were yesterday and it will change again tomorrow and would it not be better to let your children see this in your home to explain it them getting info on the streets
Maude
@JaredNorthcutt30:
Most Blacks are killed by other Blacks.
I would think you would be a bit more concerned about that, than the absurd lies told by the likes of al sharpton, and his ilk.
Take a good hard look at Chicago!
Certainly there are bad cops, I met more than my share in NYC……I was knocked unconscious and left in the gutter near the infamous “Trucks” on the Hudson River…..I well know about bad cops, and I also know they have their share of Gay cops,Black, Brown, White & Asian.
Cam
@JaredNorthcutt30: said…”Another example of the GLBT embrace with corproatism. This is a non-issue. Wolf Media deliberately created an envelope-pushing ad. When the traditional channels rejected said ad, the faux outrage machine directed the viral hits.”
________________
The ad wasn’t rejected. They said they got one complaint about it and them pulled it.
Alan down in Florida
@AlliterationAddict: Stick to your old brand of underwear but every time you buy it deposit the money saved by not buying the gay underwear. Within a few years you’ll have saved enough to pay for your retirement.
NCSilverBear
So tired and gagging from all those women’s underwear, Victoria Secret Ads (porn), ED ads (done by suggestive women), etc. While the female body seems to be OK to exploit on TV, movies and print, when it comes to males, apparently the morality censers get full pay. Talk about gender discrimination. Whether straight or gay — lets give the male form equal airing. I bet females would be OK with it, not to mention gays. Otherwise, it would seem that advertisers, print media, internet ads, networks, cable and satellite providers are all opening themselves up for some hefty class action lawsuits. Surprised someone hasn’t jumped on that bankroll yet.
vive
@Paco: “It appeared four times on Logo before it was yanked due to customer complaints. Isn’t Logo a gay network?”
That doesn’t surprise me, given the large numbers of prissy, puritanical gays commenting everywhere on the internet.
jason smeds
Women don’t like it when we gay and bi guys point to the excessive attention their half-naked female bodies receive from the corporate media. We are exposing the double standard as well as the hypocrisy of women in general.
jason smeds
The “gay” ad is tacky but so is Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show is much worse. Yet, Time Warner airs the latter every year. Why is Time Warner OK with Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show – with its fake lesbian suggestiveness – but not this ad? This is the real question.
Maybe Time Warner Cable just doesn’t like it when male-male sensuality is marketed to the mainstream instead of to the comfortable seclusion of the “gay sitcom demographic”. When male-male sensuality is marketed to the mainstream, it interferes with the sleazy little power game that women play on straight guys.
Saint Law
@Maude: Most people killed by the police are black.
Saint Law
@Maude: I would think you would be a bit more concerned about that than – wait, no, actually I wouldn’t as you are clearly a bigoted moron.
Saint Law
@jason smeds: Your posts on the subject of heterosexual relations read like the overheated fantasies of a failed rapist.
tradskinhead808
My problems with the Nasty Pig ad has nothing to do with the content it features. I don’t think there was much in there to make someone cross themselves, Hail Mary and pray the rosary.
My problems are purely on aesthetics.
Who directed this piece of crap?! There is so much going on in it that if it weren’t for the one time you see the brand’s underwear band, you’d never really know what this ad was for?
And did they film this ad using the very first cellphone camera ever made? That was bad that I just wanted it to be over.
For those reasons, and those reasons alone, I would’ve pulled this ad too.
But considering the amount of crap TWC allows to go through every minute, through every network, their excuse for pulling the ad is simply just deplorable. They ought to be ashamed.
jason smeds
Saint Law,
The concept of male homosexuality is evolving out of the segregated “gay” identity. It’s challenging women. It intends to take away women’s privileges.
.random.
whereas I don’t think this ad was terribly well-done, as a bisexual woman, i found it much less disturbing than most heteronormative ads out there. While putting the message forward in a sensualized way, they still managed to objectify people less than a typical Victorias Secret spot, on top of promoting a much more realistic and attainable body image for the target audience. Great ad? Maybe not. Were they justified in pulling it from ALL channels? No.
Cam
@.random.:
Well said.
I'm Black, and HIV-Positive.
Sexual preference aside the Dolce & Gabbana commercial was much more classier though. Hands down even! Not to mention that it featured only the world’s most popular new male supermodel John Gandy! And the networks weren’t going to refuse that commercial after the Hollywood media machine made such a big deal about him being the model who was “handpicked” by Jennifer Lopez herself for her latest music video. The Nasty Pig commercial on the other hand was crude, and implied promiscuity. It was almost designed to say: “Fuck Your Standards!”
@jason smeds: I think the new “Gender Equality” campaign actually poses to take “privileges” away from gay men. Gay men and straight men certainly do not have the same amount of power here, but “Gender Equality” certainly does imply that we do for a woman’s benefit. Either that, or the implication is that we are not yet being categorized as men somehow. Either way this “Gender Equality” is something of a women’s Nazi movement.
MisterDemand
Yea I’m gonna have to agree, the commercial is a little much, and definitely not comparable to the D&C one. Shouting “Give! Receive!” while a guy massages balls near his groin…The leather gear, stripping off of wrapping paper, etc are all way over the top. You can be sexy without being slutty. The Nasty Pig commercial was definitely slutty.
Im no pearl-clutcher but if I saw that on tv id probably have my jaw open
Faggot
Dolce and Gabbana: tasteful with a polished ad and a classicaly handsome model.
Nasty Pig: umm, doesn’t the name say it all? This is a sexual subculture for some gay men. It’s vulgar and raunchy: unrefined and unsophisticated. By its very definition a pig will be offensive.
That being said, people seem to be afraid of the male body. Americans shriek if they see a man in a bikini brief cut bathing suit (like a Speedo), so it’s surprising that D&G would even run that ad in the USA. There’s so much shame surrounding the male body.
In contrast, American ads seem to worship the female body encouraging models and regular women to wear less and less. A woman can wear anything a man puts on, but a man cannot dress like women do. For example, a woman can wear a sleaveless top showing lots of cleavage to a fine restaurant, but a man cannot wear a tank top there (even if it is haute couture). A lady can wear a mini skirt, bud a gentleman cannot wear shorts to dinner (even if they are dress shorts made of the finest linen).
We can all thank Calvin Klein for (re)sexualizing the male body and giving us eye candy in his ads of scantily clad guys. The sexual revolution needs to happen for men — whatever their sexuality is.
Redpalacebulleaglesox
Meanwhile, the incredibly annoying “Kars 4 Kids” ad runs non-stop on TWC NYC. Since I consider it to be borderline child abuse, not to mention assault on my ears, I have complained about it without any result. Can anyone here say “double standard?” I knew that you could!
Pax
@Redpalacebulleaglesox: Call 311 and/or Billy De Blasio’s office.
TVC 15
I didn’t think it’s all that bad. I like that they didn’t use annoying dance music. The ad shows the range of clothes they produce, not just underwear. The ads for that gay underwear company (with all the twinks) are far more suggestive. I can’t remember the name, it’s some guy’s name. I’m far more inclined to buy Nasty Pig than that other brand.