That Super Bowl Thingy

So I watched the Saints and the Colts play each other. I had called the score as 35-17. So close and yet so far away.

As the issue of the fact that CBS would not air a commercial for a gay dating site was particularly controversial. The fact that CBS would be airing a program watched by maybe 1/3 of the US population which consisted of sweaty guys in tight uniforms piling onto each other, however, was not. Word on the street is that some of them patted others on the bottom as well. Scandalous!

Now, that commercial in mind, I assumed that this meant that CBS would have some standards in practice for super bowl commercials, which would keep them from getting too disgusting. I think that's for the best. I mean, I've watched erotic content voluntarily in the past, but -- particularly because it's part of an ad, I suspect -- I tend to find GoDaddy's commercials tacky and tasteless.

Any commercials that would air, then, I'd pay a decent amount of attention to, to see if any of them were racier than the commercial for the gay dating site in question. I'll include it here for reference.


You can almost feel the black dude's lack of comfort regarding the situation. Still, at least they're not slobbering over each other -- just making out in an almost farcical manner.

So, naturally this is the standard by which I'd judge uncomfortable commercials. Did any commercials step over the line? GoDaddy's, for once, did not, deciding it'd be better to leave it on the internet; since it's an internet service anyway, it's probably not a bad decision. The situation is stupid and contrived and reeks of fake lesbianism which I dislike muchly.

However, there was one commercial that probably did. Actually, there were two others that had similar themes -- commercials for Dockers and Bud Light -- but truly, this is in a league all of its own.



Clearly it's not about grossouts or anything -- because hell, that commercial sure was one -- it really is about the gay horrors. I mean, if there weren't ads like this I would -- perhaps a tad reluctantly -- accept the fact that CBS didn't air that commercial, and not chalk it down to it being a gay commercial so much as a slightly racy one (and even then I found it more funny than disturbing anyway).

Then again the controversy, as with the online casino that paid the streaker the year that Janet Jackson showed us all her breasts -- and they were pretty nice breasts too, which was why my first assumption was that it was part of a pair of falsies -- gave the ad a lot more attention than it probably would have otherwise. Hooray for free publicity by way of artificially creating a controversy?