pr stunts

We Should Thank CBS For Rejecting ManCrunch’s Supposedly ‘Gay’ Super Bowl Ad

The rejection of two gay Superbowl spots this week has created quite the teacup tempest. Sure, CBS has an obviously anti-gay and hypocritical ad policy that allows them to “refuse political ads while” taking $2.5 million for Focus on the Family’s 30-second anti-abortion ad. Now the network’s trying to avoid a PR nightmare by allowing more “responsibly produced” advocacy ads. But the fact that, the hookup site that made one of the rejected gay ads, is now “calling on every same sex advocacy group to petition CBS and let them know this discriminatory behavior will not be tolerated” seems disingenuous. After watching the spot, I’m certain it’s not worth fighting for. And I’m absolutely positive ManCrunch never even expected their ad to air at all. Namely because it sucks so hard.

Most of the outrage surrounding CBS’ rejection of the ManCrunch ad goes “How dare they reject a gay ad?!!” Some critics, including this website, cited the United Church of Christ’s ad CBS rejected in 2004, which suggested that Jesus himself wouldn’t turn away gay worshippers, as evidence CBS was violating its own advocacy policies.

But what most of the peanut gallery misses entirely is how patently stupid ManCrunch’s ad is to begin with. For one, it makes hay out of a tired “comic” premise—WHAT?!? These two butch football fans are gay?!! NO WAY!!! That’s crazy! Forget that a Vikings fan and a Packers fan would never kiss on Super Bowl Sunday of all days, or that the blonde guy with the nice ass would never kiss the balding homely guy with the paunch without a lot of vodka.

But even the road signs behind them reek of stupid macho jokes:

a) NO ENTRY (like that dumb straight joke “my ass is ‘EXIT ONLY’”);

b) a stop sign pointing right between the two men (DON’T GO THERE, BOYS); and

c) a sign that reads “Caution: This equipment starts and stops automatically” with a brown cowboy cutout beside it. “Equipment” could equal “cock”, but maybe that’s a stretch.

Either way, the roadsigns evoke other manly things like driving and highway construction, adding to the butchness pervading the start of the commercial and feeding into the ad’s incredibly homophobic message. The ad’s subtext is that the mere touch of a man can turn gay even the most butch football fan, and that gays just can’t control themselves sex-wise—they’ll start humping each other anywhere—at a football game, in your living room, in front of your kids!!!

They’re now wearing the mantle of the latest victim of anti-gay media policies and will play that feigned martyrdom to make them seem more counter-cultural than they actually are.

The men in the commercial don’t even have balls enough to actually kiss each other, they just neck like moronic sixth graders. And by the advertisement’s end, gay sex gets reduced (yet again) to a stupid and offensive punchline played up for gross-out factor and cheap laughs for a mostly straight audience. And who better to represent that audience surrogate than the black guy who’s so weirded out by the sight of gay love.

Granted, we’d be weirded out by any two ogres who started spontaneously dry humping next to us. But that the voyeur is black adds an unpleasant third layer to the ad. Nevermind the ugly specter of black homophobia; ManCrunch’s website says, “ManCrunch is the premier service connecting men with other men and allowing them to open up about the down low.”

Oh, the down-low, what a can of worms you are. The slang term referring about black guys who call themselves straight but have sex with men on the side. Even though the term refers to keeping their homosexual relationships on the “down-low” (that is, secret), the term carries the dual connotation that gay sex itself is a “down-low” dirty shame, a dishonest, disreputable secret. ManCrunch suggests you open up about your shame, all you closet bisexuals and unawakened homos who need only the caress of a man’s hand in a chip bowl to make you forget your heterosexual lifestyle.

Lastly, the commercial reeks of crap production value. The always pithy Michael K on Dlisted called it best: “ManCrunch’s commercial is almost as low budget as a Heidi Montag music video. It looks like it was shot on a Flip cam for a community college project.” The company’s only been around for a year and yet they claim to have spent $100,000 on the spot and raised over $40 million from investors, making them well-financed to have passed the Super Bowl’s credit hurdle. Uh-huh.

We’ve all been taken for a stupid and cynical ride, gays and straights alike. And in the process, blogs like this one and countless media outlets have given this moronic company much more press than a $2.5 million 30-second Super Bowl spot could have. Sandwiched between so many other “Look At Me!” ads, ManCrunch’s crappy uncreative ad would have had zero sticking power.

Instead, they’re now wearing the mantle of the latest victim of anti-gay media policies and will play that feigned martyrdom to make them seem more counter-cultural than they actually are. “Remember when courageous pranksters at ManCrunch stuck it to the homophobes at CBS by getting gay organizations to fight for the right to have gays on TV? That was badass.” Urm… no.

Instead, ManCrunch’s publicity stunt illustrates a problem with gay media in general. Are we so starved for representation on TV that we’ll fight for bad representation over none at all? Why should gay viewers and organizations feel outraged that such a measly crumb as theirs stays swept off the table? Make no mistake, ManCrunch’s ad is not even in the same solar system as United Church of Christ’s ad. It’s not even an advocacy ad at all because almost everything it promotes works against any positive step towards of homosexual acceptance. CBS should be commended for rejecting such a piece of crap — for its substance, not its message — and with any luck, will be dead within the year.

(NB: An interesting post-script to CBS’s ad conundrum: High-profile lawyer Gloria Allred has threatened to sue CBS if they air FOF’s pro-life ad for “false advertising,” as Tim Tebow’s mother, who says she refused to abort her baby despite doctors’ recommendations, couldn’t have had a abortion in the Philippines without facing prison time, since abortions there for any reason are illegal. Some choice. Allred seems pretty pleased with herself around the 0:38 mark in this interview after pointing out that she doesn’t care about CBS violating their own anti-advocacy, only about them running a misleading ad.)

Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #entertainment #abortion #advertising stories and more


  • hephaestion

    Man Crunch does not exist. It is a phony, non-existent company. It is a ruse created just to mock gay people. Google them. You will see they do not exist. Their web site was created last week. They are not a “premier gay dating service.”


  • Lady Ga-Gasp

    Well, that and the fact that Mancrunch and this whole affair is basically a hoax for free publicity. Mancrunch has virtually no traffic, owns no key words (good luck finding it readily on even Google) and probably has very few if any members. Hats off to them, whomever them is, for the clever idea, but amazing that the press fell for it like a 12 year old for an ice cream cone. Want some candy, little boy?

  • Lady Ga-Gasp

    Wow, Heph, you beat me to it. Maybe we should team up and start an online news blog.

  • terrwill

    hephaestion & Lady Ga-Gasp: Good call to both ‘o you for your detective work…….you’d put Angela Landsbury (think she was a detective) to shame : P

    And as to the actual ad that is being run there are two fun facts ’bout it:

    1- terrorist group focus on the family is paying 2.5 million for this ad. In December they laid off 25% of their staff (boo fucking hoo). And whilst I have no sympathy for anyone associated with the terriorist group it shows what a bunch of hyprocrites the group is. Guess they aren’t too focused on the members of the famlies it laid off………….

    2- Tim Tebow, was one of the most higly touted prospects for the NFL and at his tryouts earlier this week he failed miserably Maybe he should have concentrated more on his football game than being the poster boy for the rightwing lunatics……..

  • terrwill

    ……….Timmy Teblows……..

  • Jake from Boston

    Prank. The cute guy would never jump the fat, bald gy. That just doesn’t happen. Yuk.

  • Daniel

    @hephaestion: They do exist and are a business. You can visit for yourself, though I wouldn’t suggest it.

  • Sean

    “Forget that a Vikings fan and an Oilers fan would never kiss on Super Bowl Sunday of all days”

    Uh….that’s a Packers jersey, not Oilers.

  • john

    @hephaestion: They actually do exist, they are operated by a whitelabel company that has a bunch of dating websites in its portfolio, most of which are niche categories that they can often take over (check out,,

    Everything else aside from whatever social analysis you may do of it, it was most likely a publicity stunt, and it worked for them. The gay community, and millions of other people, now are aware of them only a couple weeks into existence. Pretty amazing. Their parent company is planning an IPO soon.

  • John

    According to whois, was registered in November of 2007.

    Whoever the company is also shares contact info (per Google search) with
    (which has a tv spot: )

  • NoDoubleStandards

    Queerty can only wish to have this kind of free PR.

  • Lukas P.

    So, you’re telling me that the Ukranian supermodel I just met on ManBrunch.cum isn’t fixing me a breakfast burrito and margaritas tomorrow? Damn. Now I have to go work and interview lesbian hookers for my next research study. {Thank you for the generous grant, Mr Jenkins}.

    In all seriousness, WTF does this publicity stunt gain for the perpetrators? And is CBS really in a position to balk at ad money from anyone with cash?
    Makes zero sense to me.

    [Commercial break: Visit the Bahamas, Where We Welcome the BeHomos with Welcome Arms. Cum on down! Isle be waiting for you!]

  • NoDoubleStandards

    @Lukas P.: It is not like this is the first time someone has rejected gay related content either. So the whole it’s this company would smell a lot better if they had not done the same to orgs like the UCC.

  • ganymeade

    I don’t think CBS rejected this on homophobic grounds either. The “Ad” sounds very lame. Cute guys do occasionally go for the imperfect guy but not very often. It sounds like a favor to us to reject it in my opinion.

  • terrwill

    Its a tough call……..CBS is part of the family that produces LOGO. So the parent company can’t be too homophobic. Yet they also rejecetd an ad in 2004 SB by a pro Gay church. So one has to wonder if are a tad bit homophobic figgerin that they would just not get involved in a Gay debate ala ABC with Adam Lambert.

    I think John and NoDoubleStandards hit the nail on the head, they were seeking and got a ton of free publicity. Shot a lowbud commercial with a $179.00 camcorder and put it out there. I would doubt they even had the coin to cough up the 2.5 million when CBS put an invoice in front of them…….

  • NoDoubleStandards

    @terrwill: My argument is not in favor of CBS. Were this the only incident with CBS one would be be inclined to over look this. But it is not.

  • terrwill

    @NoDoubleStandards: Was refering to your post #11 ’bout the publicity. And like I said it is a tough call. They did refuse the 2004 ad but sponsor LOGO so in my mind am 50/50 split. Am not aware of a lot of other incidents.
    If you have others that you can post, would appreciate it…….

  • jason

    Does anyone get the sense that we’ve been manipulated by the feminist movement? I sense that the feminist movement has used the gay rights movement to make a point about Tim Tebow’s advocacy ad for Focus On The Family. The gay community, yet again, has fallen for it. We’re being used, guys.

    Feminism may have its good points but it’s not necessarily all good for gay people. Feminism believes it’s a woman’s right to choose an abortion, including the abortion of babies who might have the so-called gay gene.

  • NoDoubleStandards

    @jason: No. I feel like I am being screwed, and not in a good way, by straight white wealthy men who are Christians. But, that’s because I happen to be paying attention to power centers in this country rather than creating boggiemen out of the powerless.

  • terrwill

    @jason: Focus on the family is basicaly an anti-Gay terrorist org. James Dobson the founder is one of the most rabid vile hate spewing scumbags ever to take a breath. He and his minions are behind dozens of anti-Gay campaigns in every arena. Timmy Teblow has stated his stance against Gay rights and marriage. He spews religious dogma at every opportunity. He being a prominent face for the NFL will give him plenty of opportunities to influence young people about the “evils of homosexuality” We need to wonder where the hell they got the 2.5 million dollars to fund this ad. As in post #4 they were crying poverty not too recently. Now they have millions to spend???? Someone who may not have been exposed to them previously may be tempted to check out their website or call which persons viewing the ad will be prompted to do. Sorry Jason, I gots to support any orgs who fight against focus on families gaining any more influence…………………….

  • shredder234

    The Shredder is back! mmmmuuuaaahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahah!!!!

  • shredder234

    the gay community is just upset because they couldn’t get zac efron

  • shredder234

    the gay community is jealous of Tebow because he has family who love him and he’s going to play in the league

  • shredder234

    if godzilla were real then everyone in the world would round up all the gay people into one spot and let godzilla blow them away with his fire breath

  • jason

    Focus on the Family is simply exercising its right to free speech. We in the gay community need to stop whining and start putting up our own advertisments. Where is the pro-gay ad? I haven’t seen any except some stupid satirical skit from an all-male dating service.

    Memo to gay community: get off your duffs. Go and make a reasonable ad that CBS can’t refuse. Instead of whining non-stop, put up your own ad for Pete’s sake.

  • terrwill

    @shredder234: I’m not upset at all…….already had him…………………..

  • NoDoubleStandards

    @jason: Thus illustrating you are nuts. THanks for confirming.

  • LD

    I was thinking the same thing about the road signs….glad to see someone else sees it also.

    Anyone remember the 2007 “Man Kiss” Snickers ad that ran during Super Bowl?

  • alan brickman


  • olen

    so glad this homophobic schlock didn’t air. boycott mancrunch now. do not participate in or encourage homophobic activities. actors, writers, directors, and anyone involved in media have an especially great responsibility when it comes to what choices they make.

  • George_Romero

    @Jason (Comment 18)…. You do realize that the feminist movements and the queer/gay movements are inextricably tied together, right? We’d be nowhere as a movement if the feminist movement hadn’t worked in tandem with us to help redefine gendered existence. Like, if you want to have a gay man in society, you have to define what it means to be a woman and a man (at least within this culture). That was the Second Wave feminist movement at work. That so many gay men don’t realize that…and on sites like this use misogynistic language towards women they disagree with is just tragic.

  • scott ny'er

    i’ve gotta say. That ad IS terrible. In many ways.

  • GetRidOfit

    “hey guys we just booked a……….”

    i wonder what he booked with -her- but i’ll never find out ’cause i hit the FUCKING close icon .. immeditaley.

    That ad is bad bad bad for this gay

    Get Rid of IT

  • rainfish2000

    The United Church of Christ’s ad is still in the can, why don’t they run it now on CBS (aka the Victorian chaperon of that asexual LOGO “gay eunuch” cable channel)? Or maybe Gay Inc. [HRC, GLAAD, etc.] could use a little of the hundreds of millions of dollars they sponged off the GLBT community and, perhaps, do a little PR work for us during the Superbowl? Do you think they might be able to pull their collective lips off the Democratic Congress’s posterior, as well as wrestle their treasure chest out of the DNC’s vampiric grip, long enough to do that?

    …Maybe not.

  • Bret

    It was created in 2007.

    Nice try, but no cigar.

  • Why?

    Boo hoo. CBS would not allow an ad of a hookup site. Such homophobia. What’s funny is that the site’s reaction is not all that ironic. This kind of thing illustrated by the gay community. A widespread number of gays are sluts that wanna fuck some random hottie on Manhunt at night then during the day, march on Washington because society doesn’t take gays seriously.

  • Jake is Dum

    @Jake from Boston:

    Jake… you’re shallow and dumb, and don’t really seem to know what men do and do not find attractive. Slither back under your rock.

  • Jake is Dum


    Well, actually he didn’t play well, I’m a member of the gay community and what I’m feeling is kinda grossed out. You really shouldn’t speak on behalf of others. It’s ignorant.

  • MsQueer

    I totally agree. The commercial sucks. We just don’t need another prejudiced stereotypical representation of the LGBTQ community coming at the largest TV audience for the entire year. We are an economic force to be reckoned with and we need to unify and flex that muscle in the marketplace with boycotts and positive ad campaigns.

    See my posts at for more commentary., and

    As for feminists being a hindrance to LGBTQ Rights – who the hell do you think was key in the leadership of the feminist movement to begin with? (Hint: the answer is Lesbians.) Civil Rights opened the door to Women’s Rights which opened the door to LGBTQ Rights. The walls will continue to tumble because Human Rights is at the core of it all: Dignity and Respect. We march in our Pride Parades and claim to respect “Diversity” – so allowing choices that we may not agree with comes under that category. I marched alongside my straight Sisters for abortion rights in the 70’s as a show of solidarity and because I knew women in the 60’s who had their bodies and their lives ruined by hacks before abortion was legalized. If the government tried to regulate a man’s body, it would be an entirely different story!

Comments are closed.