Cambridge Citi 1: California Proposition 8 : comments [A Bug's Life]

I don't read incest there. One of the women pictured is the one who's telling the story, maybe they're related, maybe they're flatmates; she likes Suzie who is not pictured?

[parent entry] [link] [parent] [reply]

That's what I thought it was. The two in the photo look so alike I reckoned they were at least sisters, maybe twins, and Fran and Suzie are the friends they're meeting up with. And there's arguably subtext there if you want it, and not if you don't.

There were some American Nike ads recently which were much edgier. A bit of a Benetton-style manufactured controversy, admittedly, but I wonder if you can "get away" with implied lesbianism more easily? Would Stagecoach get flak from social conservatives if it were Frank and Stephen rather than Fran or Suzie?

[link] [parent] [reply]

If it were Stephen in this ad rather than Suzie, but still with the same woman telling the story, the implied love interest would not be subtext.

That Nike ad is more complicated (thanks for the link). To me, the picture and the words conflict with each other; whenever I try to pin an interpretation on it, one of them or my (limited) knowledge of the context of basketball and US competitiveness and attitudes to homosexuality and physical dominance hierarchy tips it off.
For example: one bloke is jumping on another bloke's head (crotch in face, but that's incidental). Hurrah, jumper is strong and successful and wearing trainers and is better than the jumpee, who looks rather uncomfortable. I want to wear trainers and be successful like that, it's the American Dream! But hang on, the text says "That ain't right" Why? What's wrong with it?
and two or three other inconsistent interpretations.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Part of it is that the Nike ads are playing with commentatorese and street slang/trash-talk too. That might be part of the problem with them; different signifiers jump out to different people, and some of the attitudes signified might be in morally sketchy territory. Some kids think it's wicked, and some people think it's just wicked.

Anyway, about the Stagecoach ad, I totally agree, but what I was really trying to ask, clumsily as it turned out, was "what if all the characters in the Stagecoach ad were male?". Would a gay subtext be more controversial than a lesbian one? Instinctively, I think it would...

[link] [parent] [reply]

I agree, I think a gay subtext would be more controversial. Perhaps because it's harder to ignore, she says, noting that in our culture Queen Victoria was happy to believe that lesbianism didn't exist and presumably the women were just friends. At least, that's the popular but probably over-simplified view of her position.

[link] [parent] [reply]

I saw it first as a twin lusting after her sister... then I thought maybe it was someone wanting the pair of them, which would be less icky I suppose. Not to worry!

[link] [parent] [reply]

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
	1	2	3	4	5	6
7	8	9	10	11	12	13
14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21 1	22	23	24	25	26	27
28	29	30

A Bug's Life

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

September