Sex in advertising has a long history. We are familiar with the bikini-clad, large-breasted, longhaired and nubile Young Thing lounging across the hood of the latest vehicle, her back arched in a simulation of orgasm, her moist lips parted as if panting out her lover’s name. In more recent years, men’s bodies have been used to sell everything from vodka to underwear.

Open the pages of any gay publication in Canada, the US, Australia, or Europe/UK and one will see chiseled, butch, well-hung studs smiling, glowering, and gazing out at you enticing you to attend this bar opening, buy that brand of lubricant, or promoting some event within the gay men’s community. Personally I like the ads, by and large...I have always enjoyed (on a completely esthetic level, you understand...) looking at vibrant, sexy, masculine, men who exude testosterone, even through the pages of a magazine or community paper.

Is it ethical to promote human beings as little more than hunks of meat designed to sell a product? Is this turning the human body into a commodity? Certainly feminists have rallied against this when it comes to using women, or parts of women, in some ad campaigns, claiming it trivializes women and holds up an unattainable image of perfection, thereby adding to the body image concerns of 99.9% of North American womanhood.

Setting aside these concerns for the moment – are such images in our magazines, specifically images using well-toned and "hot" men, pornographic? Certainly, they are erotic and are designed to be erotic.

When such images are used in safer sex education ads, such as the recent Ask Yourself campaign wherein individual men and male couples in suggestive situations challenge assumptions about the HIV status of the man they are supposedly having sex with, can the images rightly be termed "pornographic" as claimed by various conservative groups?

Images of naked or near naked males have always been controversial. Recently in Regina an art exhibit at the Dunlop Gallery, a public gallery, has elicited howls of protest and accusations of "pornography" because part of the exhibit shows naked Brazilian men with erect penises standing in front of a wall of female pin-ups.

Comments in the guest book included such erudite commentary as "I wanted to puke – it would have been an improvement."

In February, this very magazine had to recall an entire run of magazines because the back page had an ad for a gay phonesex line, as it always does on the back page, with a suggestive photo showing one nude man on his knees with his face in the lap of the other. No genitalia could be seen. Various distributors refused to carry the issue, citing concerns about pornographic images. Was the image pornographic? Certainly it was erotic – very erotic, and highly suggestive. But pornographic?

Right, wrong, or indifferent our gay and lesbian community is premised on the fact we have different sex than the dominant (i.e. heterosexual) culture that surrounds us. Of course each of us in the community are more than simply whom we have sex with or how we have that sex. We are full human beings. However, it the type of sex we have (male-on-male and female-on-female) that sets us apart from the rest of the society in which we also live, work, and socialize. To me, that is not a bad thing whatsoever. In fact, I think it something to celebrate and honour. Others see it as something to criticize and condemn.

It follows then, that our media would tap into the very thing that makes us unique and reflect that reality. Gay culture, specifically gay male culture, has long celebrated sex and sexuality. Part of that is that, as men, we have a tendency to separate sex from love - the physical from the emotional. Most men can easily do this. "Having sex" is quite different from "making love". Again, to me that is not necessarily a bad thing.

Is there too much emphasis on sex in our gay culture? Probably. But then, an argument can be made that there is probably too much emphasis put on sex generally in western culture and it is unfair, and unproductive, to target only the emphasis within gay culture. We do not, for all our uniqueness, stand in isolation from the rest of society or the cultural influences of that society.

When it comes to censorship and cries of illicit sexual imagery it is almost unfailingly directed at images of males and at gay publications and other media. This begs the question: What is really going on?

How dreadful is it really to see an image of some buff guy in a suggestive pose on the pages of a – hello! – gay magazine? We aren’t being shown hardcore sexual imagery, which is how I define pornography; we are being shown erotically charged images. How is that bad? Actually, I think it is celebratory and glorifies the male body. Each time I have sex with a guy it is a celebration and glorification of him/us. I, for one, like male bodies and I like seeing them in our publications. They don’t necessarily "turn me on" or give me an erection, but they do make me feel good seeing them. Where is the harm in that?

One of the rationales given regarding the image advertising the gay phonesex line mentioned earlier was apparently a concern about children seeing it and – gasp – asking questions.

First off, most kids wouldn’t process what they are seeing in that regard anyway and, secondly, so what if they ask questions? That’s how kids learn: Talk about your "teaching moment".... "Daddy, what is that man doing?" "Well, son, he’s showing how much he loves his boyfriend there" "Boys don’t have boyfriends, Daddy!" "Some do." "Oh...okay".

Such imagery is for adult gay men and lesbians. As such it is focused to that demographic. Must we constantly be censoring ourselves because the dominant culture has "issues" with imagery that reflects us? I am not suggesting our magazines and other media use hardcore pornography in advertising. Such imagery has its place in our community; it just isn’t in the pages of a general GLBT publication.

However, that is quite a different issue than concerns around utilizing erotic imagery in those same publications. Where is the harm showing two – or more – men being sensual with each other? Or two – or more – women doing likewise? It may not be to everyone’s taste, but that is no reason to start censoring expression that is not harmful. I am not particularly enamored seeing images of Britney Spears and her rather slutty persona plastered everywhere, but I do not advocate removing them or blacking them out.

Related Articles

Contributor Stephen Lock |

Topic Politics |