It was just a couple months ago we were calling Apple, maker of all things technologically delicious, one of the gay friendliest companies around. But then we noticed Apple was also a company that had a bizarre relationship with gay content, sometimes leaning gay friendly, and other times leaning homophobic. So what does it mean when the same company also appears to be using its iTunes store to discriminate against gay men?
Or, at least, consumers who might like looking at hot guys on their iPhones?
The company just rejected an update to Athletic Model Guild’s Beefcake app, a straight-forward piece of software that delivers attractive men to your 3G device. Apple told AMG its app, which was originally approved for download, now has “objectionable content” that’s not suitable for sale in the update. What sort of objectionable content? The images you see above, which Apple attached to their rejection email for reference.
So what’s the problem? Well for one, Apple has approved similar apps showing humans engaged in various states of dress. Those apps just happen to show ladies, which, depending on which side of feminist theory you stand on, are more provocative than AMG’s dudes app.
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.
Apple’s iPhone app store is no stranger to controversy, given its shadowy policies that determine which apps get approved (a free game that lets players choose the “correct” urinal to pee in) and which don’t (Google Voice). But it’s growing increasingly clear Apple has no strict rules for determining inappropriate content, and an individual Apple reviewer (or however their process works) could determine the fate of an app — which contradicts how other similar apps are treated
For now (i.e. until Apple rescinds its decision), one thing is clear: Babes in bikinis are okay on the iPhone, while shirtless men — or guys crouched over hiding their bits and pieces — are not.
Then again, while AMG’s iPhone app is reportedly safe for work, its website is definitely not. Clicking over to it generates this warning: You are entering a site that contains sexually explicit material and is intended only for adults age 18 and over. Do not proceed further if: you are not of legal age, if this material is illegal in your area, or if you are offended by this content. Do you wish to proceed?” And its homepage is littered with X-rated content.
So perhaps Apple’s decision is based not on the app, but who makes it.
Alexandre
I would be more upset if the guys were actually hot.
Ricky
Ugh,
I had an update this weekend..
Now I can’t access guyswithiphones.com
Rotten Apple!
Qjersey
So how the hell did Grindr get approved????
Eric
@Ricky: Funny thing about Grindr, Grinder reported an update like 2 months ago to fix the issue that prevented iPod Touch users from being able send photos during chat (which broke after the previous update). Grindr says they are waiting for Apple to white list the app. Apple has not yet. So, perhaps Grindr got through with the obviously more lenient rules a few months back, but now it won’t.
Eric
I am sorry that should have gone to @Qjersey.
simon
If Apple is doing this, it needs to be embarrassed publicly. Clearly there is a double standard if it is allowing near-naked females but not near-naked males. Such a double standard usually indicates homophobia.
Ted C.
I can’t quite tell from these low-resolution pics, but it almost looks like those guys have their junk hanging out of their pants. If that’s the case, I can see why Apple would object.
J. Clarence
@Ted C.: On its website AMG says that they do not have any “full frontal here, nor a single exposed derriere”, so I guess those things that we see because of low resolution are not in fact their penis’.
That being said I’m not surprised of the double standard. After all a lot of people think two guys holding hands is us shrubbing our sexuality in their faces, while we have to endure heterosexual PDA pretty much every where we go.
I wonder if there are any gay folk on the panel that reviews these things.
scott ny'er
well that sucks.
of course, I try to avoid all things apple for the longest time. Unless, I have to. I got an Ipod for free. So no biggie. And I need an apple for design. But otherwise, I try to avoid it.
Brian Miller
Wake up, folks. Why pay a premium price for Apple’s made-in-China censored junk? Get an Android phone, Palm Pre, or Windows Mobile phone. All three are cheaper than Apple’s stuff, technologically superior, and lack the censorship and restrictions that come standard with Apple products.
Google, Palm and Microsoft are all very gay-friendly companies too, and none of them have the Apple Control Freak gene.
Richard A
Google “grindr censor” and see what you find. You’ll find reports that the Grindr iphone application developer, marketed to gay men, has been accused of censoring users for arbitrary reasons. Here’s how the TOS of this firm reads (edited for clarity): YOU MAY NOT “post… material which a reasonable person could deem … INAPPROPRIATE, REGARDLESS of whether this material … is unlawful” In other words, this company does not censor based on any law or clear rules…it censors based on personal opinion, who could be a zealot or just doesn’t like your “type.” Gay men can be the biggest oppressors of gay men.
And now they’re hoping that you pay a monthly fee for a formerly-free app with ads. Will they give a refund if someone inside decides they “just don’t like your style?”