Sexual Politics and the Superbowl

When the Super Bowl kicks off tonight the circus will be in full swing.

As millions of fans tune in to the ostentatious half-time show and the bloated advertisements, one commercial will be notably missing.

ManCrunch.com is a dating site for men looking for long-term love. The site, owned by Avid Life Media (also responsible for the cheater-friendlyAshleyMadison.com), ponied up the $2.5 million price tag for a 30-second spot during the event. They were ultimately denied access to the high demand advertising space. CBS’s official response was:

“After reviewing the ad – which is entirely commercial in nature – our Standards and Practices department decided not to accept this particular spot. As always, we are open to working with the client on alternative submissions.”

But ManCrunch.com spokesperson Dominic Friesen claimed, on Larry King Live, that CBS is not returning their phone calls.

In previous years the NFL has ran racist, sexist, and poor taste ads. And this year they plan to run a pro-life spot featuring Tim Tebow, sponsored by Focus on the Family.

With that in mind, what exactly about the ad did CBS so vehemently disagree with?

That’s hard to say, in 2007 Snickers even ran with an ad featuring two men kissing, kissing. It was an accidental kiss mind you – an inevitable result of their mutual, salacious zeal for chocolate, peanuts and nougat – but a kiss nonetheless.

The ManCrunch.com commercial on the other hand is pretty PG. A couple of football fans accidentally brush hands in a bowl of wavy potato chips, and in the heat of the moment, find their primal instincts too much to control.

Is it a great ad? No, it’s cheap, in both production value and humour.

I suspect that was always part of the plan. The only thing more visible, and valuable, than an ad during the Super Bowl is an ad that falls outside of some arbitrary “standards and practice.”

The media frenzy that followed the ban allowed ManCrunch far more visibility than a mere 30-seconds in between beer commercials.

ManCrunch has maintained they’ve always been serious about placing their ad into the big game, and I’m sure they were. But I’m also pretty sure they were always pretty content to go with plan B. It’s worked too, they’ve taken their cause to Larry King Live, The View, as well as a countless number of websites across the web.

What’s alarming about the whole situation is the implication of the ban. If Snickers is allowed to show a full on, open mouth queer kiss, then what was so offensive here?

It seems the act itself is less than controversial. What causes a stir is the implication that it is acceptable, or even appropriate, for two men to kiss. Apparently CBS feels that it isn’t. This seems to be a commonly held belief in American mainstream media, while simultaneously flaunting gay culture in sitcoms where the players mostly come off as non-sexual eunuchs. That is appalling and CBS should be ashamed.

But in the end, ManCrunch.com has received all the publicity it could have ever asked for, while holding a magnifying glass up to the atrocious double standard that radiates through network television. All the while saving themselves the nearly $100,000 per second price tag. Kudos.