Is that why Queer couples — particularly gay male couples — are noticeably absent from television programming and corporate advertising? According to the corporate networks I monitor, there are no gay people en el mundo/in the world. They’re all (back) in the closet, many with females. Pretending to be straight with their gay shame. Or Queers don’t exist at all. On one of the networks, Queers only exist in the month of June for corporate pride month. After June, Queers return to the closet out of sight and are not talked about or seen for another 11 months. On corporate network cameras, only “him and her” are seen in public 24/7, 365 which gives the strong impression that (homophobic, bigoted and prejudiced) decision-makers somewhere think that heterosexuality is somehow threatened or losing its appeal.
Hola a todos. As I roll my eyes, I feel the need to ask that question in the title because no matter where I or mi amigo/my friend look, all we see on television — regardless of network — and images on websites are that of him-tall-dominant and her-short-submissive. Breeder sexuality. The guy is always a head taller than the chick. That’s the #1 requirement these days. It’s part of the Male Patriarchy mentality. Breeder/straight couples. Clearly feminism is a thing of the past based on corporate advertising today. And gay couples are a thing of the past as well, not that we were ever an item to begin with! According to corporate advertising and all images we see these days, there’s only one type of couple in the world and that is him-tall-dominant and her-short-submissive. Period. Which makes me ask: Do (homophobic?) heteronormative marketing/advertising firms honestly believe that heterosexuality is somehow threatened or losing its appeal? Is that why they take this approach of bombarding the public with breeder sexuality (“him and her”) 24/7, 365? Because that’s all we see. Queers couples are not part of the world in corporate US marketing/advertising.
If an ad features two same-gender people, it’s not clear if they are a couple. They appear to be “friends” or “brothers.” That’s how they are labeled on screen. Just like in the 1940-1950s where closeted Queers referred to their partners as “my friend.” But when it comes to “him and her” couples, they are shoved in our faces. They make it blatantly clear that they are a breeder couple, even when the guy looks Queer according to our reliable gaydar. They are definitely supposed to be a heteronormative, heterosexual couple, giddy over each other and embarrassing to watch because they often go overboard on following the “being straight” protocol.
Even some guys on the radio sitting at microphones — I listen to a jazz station — feel the need to tell the audience that they are a breeder. Why do we need to know that? They have to mention “My wife and I did (such and such).” They can’t just say “I went to…” or “I went with a friend to….” No, they insist on revealing that they are supposedly straight. I say supposedly straight because there are thousands and thousands of closet cases married in a relationship to females and with kids. So just because a guy has a wife and kids does not at all mean that he’s straight while shoving their breeder sexuality in our ears. He could likely be another closet case. I haven’t heard any guy on the radio say, “My boyfriend and I did …” Maybe that’s, in part, because Queer boys know that it’s not wise to reveal personal information about oneself over the air. That can cause problems because you never know what nut is listening.
Mi amigo/My friend and I watch a network that shows programmes from the 1950s and 1960s and those programmes are very “him and her.” But that’s expected because that was before the Gay Rights Movement. We see the shows of that era and we see the ads and marketing of today and frankly it looks the same. It looks identical even though the ads are in colour and some of the programmes are in black and white. So little or nothing has changed since that time and in many ways it feels like we are right back to where we started before the Gay Rights Movement even began. And most Queers don’t seem to give a fuck about this, and when one forgets one’s history one is doomed to repeat it. In fact, most Queers don’t seem to give a fuck about anything today other than that fucking phone glued to their hand and partying. When did Queers become so fucking shallow, superficial and try to be so “mainstream?” (Answer: After gay marriage became legal and the Movement died). I suppose there are some Queers out there that what I’ve just said does not at all apply to them, but frankly I don’t know any of them nor have I met any of them. I wonder where they are?
But every day mi amigo/my friend — he’s often the first to bring it up since I sometimes try to ignore this topic being somewhat resigned to it since there’s nothing I can do about it — mentions the “him and her” on television. (One show he has a problem with is “My Three Sons” because of the constant “him and her” themes.) And as he says “Often the ‘him’ with her looks like a Queer boy.” Yes, I agree.
I guess these models used in the pharma ads are what’s known as “straight-for-pay.” They’re Queer boys acting in a heterosexual ad. And the odd thing is that nearly every pharma ad we see today looks like they’re selling breeder sexuality and the “him and her” couple rather than the pharma drug they’re really selling and for which the product information appears at the end of the ad. But if you didn’t know it’s a pharma ad, you’d think the him-tall-dominant and her-short-submissive breeder couple are for sale, not the drug that has made them ever-smiling and “happy ever after” with not a problem in their world.
What does a breeder couple and their holding hands and making out and cooing over each other and fawning over each other and touching each other’s face and all that nonsense have to do with selling a drug for psoriasis? Or any pharma drug for that matter? What does a mother and her daughter sipping lattes, bumping noses and getting whipped cream on their noses have to do with a drug for breast cancer? Insanity. I didn’t know whether the ad was for coffee, lattes or for whipped cream or for breeding and having a daughter. As it turned out it was a drug for breast cancer. WTF? I’ve previously written in detail about this topic in this article: Queer couples don’t have medical problems and they also don’t sleep on mattresses.
Then there’s the pharma drug for Crohn’s disease. With that ad, you don’t know whether the channel has somehow switched and you’re now watching a soap opera or what? The ad shows a middle-aged breeder couple holding hands, then he lifts her hand so they can have an embrace as another breeder couple at the dinner table watches them start to make out. They stare deeply into each other’s limpid eyes as they stand nose-to-nose. One wonders if her pussy dripping? Does he have an erection? I’m surprise they don’t go into that! Then we see a supposed mother picking up an infant, holding the child and throwing the child into the air. What the fuck does any of this have to do with inflammation of the bowels or Crohn’s disease? All of the pharma ads that I’ve seen on this network have to do with shoving breeder sexuality in our faces as if someone, somewhere thinks that heterosexuality is deeply threatened in our society so they’re going to make sure that they bombard us with “him and her” “being straight.”
Then there’s the drug for hepatitis. According to the ad, only “him and her” and mostly none-whites get hepatitis. Well that’s good to know, isn’t it?
A new ad they’re showing is from a major jewelry company and the ad is for engagement and wedding rings. This major jewelry company does not acknowledge or honour gay marriage because they only show him-tall and her-short breeder couples kissing after HE has asked HER to marry him. With breeders, I guess the female can never ask the guy to marry her. With Queers, it doesn’t matter who asks whom to marry them. We don’t have these fucked-up rules that breeders have. Of course the females have to do the predictable hand-over-mouth routine when he pops the question as it’s called. So scripted. So tiresome. So breeder. But apparently this bigoted/anti-Queer jewelry company only wants breeder dollars and no Queer dollars because no same-gender couples are shown in their ad here in 2020. We Queers have made tremendous progress, haven’t we? [sarcasm intended] Well, we made some progress but it’s slowly being eroded back to the way things used to be, step-by-step. And no one seems to care. Chau.—el barrio rosa