Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register

Underground Forces ‘Gay Times’ Ad Underground

gtads.jpg
London’s Underground needs to get with the gay times. Literally. The mass transit system successfully petitioned Gay Times magazine to switch out an advert they found offensive, citing one of the models’ state of “unnecessary­ state of undress”.

the adverts celebrate the passage of Sexual Offences Act 1967, which repealed anti-gay sex laws. Gay Times begrudgingly complied and offered the image on the right, which, despite the new model’s attire, the Underground approved. Maybe they just prefer black guys.

The hilarity of the scandal isn’t lost on Gay Times editor Joseph Galliano notes,

It’s an intimate picture, not sensationalist. The irony is we are using the image to promote our ­August issue marking the 40th ­anniversary of the decriminalisation of homosexuality.

Another Gay Times mouthpiece offered this statement:

In our opinion, their refusal­ is totally unjustified considering some of the heterosexual­ ads on display at the moment.

By having a couple in a natural pose, consumers can infer that they are a couple.

The freedom issue is all about celebrating this fact, and the fact couples of the same sex have the same rights as heterosexual couples.

The use of naked imagery throughout times has been used to promote a sexual liberation­, and finally, after 40 long years of struggle, gay men and women now have full ­legal equality, something worthy of celebration.

Apparently the good people of London agree – or, at least, those who read the original article, which included a survey question: “Do you think the banned picture is inappropriate for the tube?” We just voted and found these results:
tubepoll.jpeg
Underground officials have obviously been living under a rock.

By:           Andrew Belonksy
On:           Jul 17, 2007
Tagged: , , , , , , , ,
  • 5 Comments
    • afrolito
      afrolito

      There is absolutely nothing offensive about either of those ads.

      Jul 17, 2007 at 4:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • abelincoln
      abelincoln

      Considering what het couples can do or show in ads, this is preposterous. You can bet your ass some religiozealot got his twat in a twist over the original and pressured someone to get the change made.

      Jul 17, 2007 at 6:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Graywolf48
      Graywolf48

      The Brits are so constipated when it comes to sex. In the second photo the hands look feminine and so at a quick glance while using the tube, one might not realize it’s a homo advert. Even the homosexuality line is in small print.

      Britain, still so homophobic after all these years. And to think they worship an old queen!

      Jul 17, 2007 at 7:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • blondie67
      blondie67

      All i can say is good on the Brits for allowing either one of these ads. Australia wouldn’t even come close to allowing this unless it was a woman as the secondary figure. If John Howard gets into government again later this year, I think I want to apply for refugee status and get away from our homophobic government

      Jul 18, 2007 at 8:06 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • nycstudman
      nycstudman

      first ad should be censured just for bad taste. white cargo pants? & what’s with the material on that cobalt-blue shirt??

      Jul 18, 2007 at 5:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

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



  • QUEERTY DAILY

     




    FROM AROUND THE WEB

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