Go to Religion in the Modern World
- Add a comment
- Go to Gay ads on TV - what next?
mysteria - I'm almost at that same point concerning TV - most times for me
it is a great cure for insomnia.
If not for hockey games, I probably wouldn't own a TV either.
posted by
gomedome
on January 28, 2007 at 10:51 AM
| link to this | reply
Gomer. I don't have anything against different lifestyles as long as they
exist between consenting adults. I do think that I would be shocked to see two guys smooching on regularly scheduled television programming though. There is no warning, you know? Different than at a movie lets say, when anything could be expected. I am glad I don't have a television. Haven't had one for years. Pop culture and the imbecility of advertisement for consumerism turned me off a long time ago fortunately for me!
posted by
mysteria
on January 28, 2007 at 10:38 AM
| link to this | reply
ladychardonnay - fortunately we don't have to imagine "what is next"
We don't even have to watch the commercials. That's the beauty of keeping government and religious groups out of our bedrooms; if it is two consenting adults and what they are doing is legal, what more do we need to know? Imagining what is going on would definitely make me lose my lunch.
posted by
gomedome
on January 28, 2007 at 10:04 AM
| link to this | reply
there is an ad currently running late at night
here in Pittsburgh about gay men getting together on some phone network. I must admit that it made me uncomfortable. Seeing them sitting on a couch chatting on their phones only made me imagine what was next. It kind of made me sick.
posted by
ladychardonnay
on January 28, 2007 at 9:37 AM
| link to this | reply
Are THINGS gittin' ugly?
posted by
Jenasis
on January 28, 2007 at 8:24 AM
| link to this | reply
cantey_1975 - there is a private fast track option but it must be done
through the proper channels.
The institution of user fees became necessary over the years to dissuade people from abusing the system with too many unnecessary visits. For example, little old ladies would book check ups every week just for something to do or to have someone to talk to. Now user fees ranging from $25-$50 per incident have helped immensely to keep this type of abuse in check. Along with the user fees came the option of higher user fees for "improved" services. For example, I took my mother in to the hospital for consultation on a cataract operation just 2 weeks ago. She can pay a user fee of only $50 and have the operation in 6 months. They gave her a second option of paying $500 and having the operation in 3 weeks, suggesting that the second option included much more care and follow up. The second choice would be done in a private clinic. But there are very few instances where private clinics are competing with the public system, most of them exist and work in conjunction with the public system in the manner I just described. The other option is to go to the USA for medical treatment, but though not unheard of, it is not a common practice.
posted by
gomedome
on January 27, 2007 at 10:03 PM
| link to this | reply
Nautikos - I often wonder if those types of ads produce the desired effect
as well.
I guess we can assume that because a product was being sold that the appropriate return on investment studies have been done.
posted by
gomedome
on January 27, 2007 at 9:41 PM
| link to this | reply
gome, I know this is off topic from your post
but do you have the option of private "faster" health care?
posted by
calmcantey75
on January 27, 2007 at 9:12 PM
| link to this | reply
gome,
Although a committed heterosexual, I don't have much of a visceral reaction to that commercial, and fully agree that it should be shown. I just doubt its efficacy...
posted by
Nautikos
on January 27, 2007 at 8:41 PM
| link to this | reply
kooka_lives - as I mentioned in an earlier comment, the timing is sad
Where we could argue better late than never, the AIDS epidemic has wrought untold havoc worldwide over the last 2 plus decades. In my mind this type of common sense advertisement/public message is late in coming.
posted by
gomedome
on January 27, 2007 at 7:54 PM
| link to this | reply
Great to hear of such logical and responsible ads
I agree with you about the homosexual issue. I for the most part dislike watching it, but I am sure gays guys do not find a man and woman making out to be appealing.
Now I could go into the one gay kiss I saw that was surprisingly comfortable due to due to how it was handled, but that might be a post of my own for a future time.
I think it was Del Taco that was doing radio ads very much targeted towards pot smokers. I thought those were perfect, since late night fast food and potheads go hand in hand. To me it only made perfect business sense for a company to go after that market and not hide that they were doing such.
posted by
kooka_lives
on January 27, 2007 at 7:33 PM
| link to this | reply
cantey_1975 - it is very simple, every person born in, or a legal immigrant
to this country gets free basic health care.
The trade off is that tax rates are higher and the system is far from perfect. Dental care is not included unless it falls under dental surgery or some other classfication that puts the individual in a hospital bed instead of a dentist's chair. Nor are cosmetic surgeries included unless they fall under restoring normal appearance after a traumatic accident (reconstructive for example) The major benefit is that no person in our society will ever become financially ruined by health issues for them or family members. As for the level of service itself, there is no appreciable difference. Sometimes waiting lists are long but life threatening injuries or illnesses always get precedence. ....
posted by
gomedome
on January 27, 2007 at 5:20 PM
| link to this | reply
gome
if you don't mind, please summarize socialized medicine for us in the U.S. in one sentance. Thanks.
posted by
calmcantey75
on January 27, 2007 at 4:48 PM
| link to this | reply
Presley - the really sad part of all of this is that we could have done
this much sooner.
It is only now that we are seeing such things on TV when as an example; the AIDS epidemic began ravaging the gay community over 20 years ago. Social sensibilities don't always keep pace with modern day realities.
posted by
gomedome
on January 27, 2007 at 3:34 PM
| link to this | reply
Gomedome
Yes! It is time for people to get past their repulsion and revulsion toward such things. Subjects once considered tabu are now in our face realities we encounter day in and day out. I'm one who believes we need to deal with what's in front of us instead of sweeping it under the rug or simply hoping it'll just go away on its own!
posted by
Presley
on January 27, 2007 at 2:45 PM
| link to this | reply
Tonyzonit - I found it very tough to watch but that's just me
.....at the same time I accept the importance of the message being advertised in safe sex practices.
posted by
gomedome
on January 27, 2007 at 2:21 PM
| link to this | reply
It's not for non-gays to condemn gays. However, putting such material
... on mainstream TV is difficult to watch if you are not part of the target audience.
posted by
Antonionioni
on January 27, 2007 at 2:05 PM
| link to this | reply
ariel70 - I am sorry but we do not agree on this,... at least not totally.
I cannot accept "an abberation" as the proper term to describe the occurrence of homosexuality, which is believed to be present in all living warm blooded animal species. The closest I can come to this is: "a naturally occurring anomaly" in all living warm blooded animal species. The word "anomaly" does suggest a departure from "normal" but not with the same negative connotation. I agree that in the gay community's quest for acceptance we have been subjected to many things that any person should find distasteful but the same can be said of any other minority cause.
posted by
gomedome
on January 27, 2007 at 12:29 PM
| link to this | reply
Gome
I couldn't agree more!
I don't give a hang what folks do in private, but I do object to being made to feel like some kinda freak for being normal. Yes, at the risk of offending anyone who reads this, I repeat normal.
What you wrote about is not normal. And what the hell's wrong with us that we let gays kid us that it is? It isn't. It's an aberration. What they're perpetrating is a bizarre and unacceptable form of revers sexism. Or perhaps one should say perverse sexism.
Sorry, all you gays out there ; you flaunt your behaviour, which offends many of us ; many of you revel in your lack of restraint or morals. You flaunt these in my face, so I flaunt my opinions in yours. And if you don't like it ... well tough. You think it's homophobic? That's tough too.
You stop being so bloody brazen, and I'll shut my mouth about you.
posted by
ariel70
on January 27, 2007 at 11:19 AM
| link to this | reply