Marketing Society’s Straight Agenda

Looking at marketing ads, Queer couples don’t exist in the world.

Hola a todos. This being February 2021, in the most recent example of Marketing Society’s Straight Agenda, we have Valentine’s Day. I suppose some Queers celebrate their relationships on Valentine’s Day, but — from all that I’ve seen everywhere I’ve looked — Valentine’s Day is marketed solely to and for breeders, which is why I’m turned off by it.

Based on the ads I’ve seen: jewelry ads where they’re trying to sell engagement rings and ads for red roses, it’s all about “him and her” looking fawningly at each other with noses and or foreheads touching in a breeder embrace. You won’t see a Queer couple doing the same thing anywhere in an ad, especially a Queer male couple.

As much as breeder sexuality is shoved in our faces 24/7, the ad industry must think that society’s heteronormative Straight Agenda is endangered. I don’t see any sign of that, do you? Everywhere I look, it’s “him and her.” And he has to be tall and dominant and she has to be short and submissive. Feminism is dead with these people.

Looking at marketing ads, Queer couples don’t exist in the world. Especially gay male couples. They’re nonexistent. You might see two females holding hands — because lesbians are considered a bit more acceptable in the minds of bigots than gay guys but you don’t know if the two females are just “friends” and “that’s what girls do” — or are they lesbian partners? Who knows? You most assuredly won’t see two gay guys holding hands anywhere. Gay guys are now relegated to the back of the bus along with Black people. Gee, the now-dead Gay Rights Movement accomplished so much didn’t we? [sarcasm intended] I’ve written about the heteronormative ad/marketing industry at that link.

Mi amigo/My friend asked me to add this: They might drag out that dated footage that we’ve seen countless times from when San Francisco was the Gay Mecca. It’s footage of two gay guys walking down Castro Street holding hands. They show that image for a split second. Then the camera goes down to their legs. They’re both wearing shorts and that’s mostly all you see. Two guys wearing shorts walking together. I don’t remember whether they’re holding hands or not. If they show that, it’s only for a split second as well.

The point being: They will not show two guys in the same affection and love context as they shove “him and her” breeder sexuality in our faces 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. They won’t show two guys in a lengthy kiss — or in a kiss at all for that matter — or any lengthy holding of hands or embrace.

Today’s marketing agencies are extremely homophobic based on the straight/breeder-saturated ads — society’s Straight Agenda — they’re producing these days. We’ve made enormous progress, haven’t we? [sarcasm intended]

So when it comes to Valentine’s Day, from what I see on my television, Valentine’s Day is for straight people and their dysfunctional relationships. Whenever I hear a couple screaming at each other in my neighbourhood, it’s always “him and her.” In the most recent example of that, “she” was heard throughout the entire neighbourhood screaming at him for over an hour. He remained mostly silent like a little wet doily. Taking her abuse. She walks all over him like he’s a doormat. She was in the process of “taming” her man and changing him to the way she wants him rather than accepting him as he is as the guy she first met. Question: Who the fuck do women think they are that they need to “tame”/change a guy? They demand that the guy abandon his interests, his hobbies, his friends and other things in order to give her (Ms Needy) all the attention. I have seen this countless times, especially when the guy is a closet case. I’d tell her to fuck off. Do we understand each other? I suggest that Ms Bitch work on her own miserable personality rather than trying to change him. Who the fuck does she think she is? I wouldn’t put up with this nonsense. But these breeders are something else!

In fact, I know a straight couple just like that. I expect them to be divorced within the next 6 months (as of 12 de febrero/12 February). After they had a kid, all they do is fight. Poor kid. The kid was unplanned. They argue over who is going to take care of him and get up and feed him and change diapers, which would seem to imply he’s unwanted. Stupid guy didn’t know to use a condom and she didn’t know to use birth control. Or, was she deliberately trying to trap this guy with a kid? Pregnancy is a way that some women trap a guy, and he doesn’t have the intelligence to always wear a condom when fucking her. Most recently, they go to her mother’s home so that her mother can put a band-aid on their dysfunctional and crumbling relationship. Well that only works for so long. No grandmother can save someone’s disastrous relationship. Even the best therapists can”t do that. At the rate they’re going, this couple will likely divorce and she will take the kid and he will start child support payments.

How’s that Valentine’s Day working out for you about now, bro?

I’ve never known any Queer couples who try to change each other into what the other one wants in a partner. Queer couples have the maturity and intelligence to accept each other as they are, or, find another partner if they are not a good match.

Valentine’s Day is just like all these other holidays. It might mean something to a few people, but no one can force two people to love each other.

Valentine’s Day is really just a money-making day for the marketing of flowers, candy, jewelry, expensive dinners, hotel rooms and other expenses. And with “him and her,” if the guy doesn’t give her any of that, she ain’t giving him any rank and slimy poontang. Valentine’s Day is just another capitalistic day for making money for a few people.

And if you’re with a female — “a guy who gets messed up with a female is beyond help” (a quote from Joe Connelly and Bob Mosher: two straight guys) — tough luck. Poor guy. You fell for society’s Straight Agenda, sucker. Now deal with the consequences. Chau.—el barrio rosa

UPDATE (13 February 2021): I did see a Queer-related Valentine’s Day ad. I had the sound turned off, but it looked like an ad about one lesbian giving her partner a box of chocolates made by a well-known chocolate company (initials: RS). I’d have to see the commercial again, but I think they quickly hugged and kissed in the kitchen where her partner received the chocolates. Even though I was pleased and surprised to see the ad, I was disappointed that they felt they couldn’t go “all the way” and show two gay guys and one guy giving his boyfriend a box of chocolates. No, couldn’t possibly do that! They took the predictable and “safe” route. Gee, we’ve made so much progress haven’t we? [sarcasm intended] If you do anything Queer related, it has to be lesbians because “they are more acceptable” (roll eyes). Is that why that ludicrous revisionist-history alphabet soup acronym was changed? It used to be GLBTQ with gay guys in first place because gay guys in the majority and drag Queens led our Movement, not lesbians. But the busy-bodied corporatists changed it to “LGBT(Q)” which I refuse to use. Lesbians were moved to first place — even though they didn’t lead our Movement — and gay guys were moved to and hidden in second place. Fuck that shit! So today, are lesbians considered “more acceptable” because they’re in first place in that revisionist history acronym rubbish? That why I — and Lea DeLaria and a few others — use the word Queer. And how many more fucking letters are they going to add to that string of letters? Lea says: “By the time you get through all those letters, the parade is over.” Exactly. I thought most Queers — excluding myself — wanted to be “carbon copies” of the breeders. Pssssst: The breeders don’t have any letters. They’re called breeders or straight. Or if you prefer the clinical language: heterosexual.

But anyway, glad that RS did what they did. Maybe next year they’ll find it within themselves to show two Queer boys in love sharing RS’s chocolates? What drugs are you on, pink barrio? Nah, I’m not holding my breath waiting to see that. Oh, and guess what ad followed that? A ad about jewelry featuring “him and her” hugging and in a breeder embrace.

This reminds me of another incident like this: A few years ago, Starb**s for their holiday drinking cups featured the image of two females holding hands. Of course it had to be two females and not two guys. So some people asked Starb**s when might we expect to see the image of two guys holding hands on their holiday cups. Their response? Silence. Chau.—el barrio rosa