outies

The April, 2004 issue of WARD'S AutoWorld¹ has an article about marketing cars to self-identified gay people in the United States.² The author, Christie Schweinsburg, considers the ways automakers have capitalized on the sexual identity of gay Americans by making implicit or explicit reference to gay relationships or gay culture. Leading the pack is Japanese automaker Subaru, whose VP of Marketing, Ric Crosson, claims that the company did not choose the LGBT community, but rather, the Lesbian community chose Subaru first. "They had already selected us as a car . . . that fit their lifestyle," said Crosson (p.37).

Not far behind investing in marketing to the gay community is American auto manufacturer General Motors, which began its pursuit of cars for "different people," with the introduction of the Saturn brand. GM continues its courtship of the gay community with costly product placement of GM SUV's in television shows such as Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.

Not wanting to miss out on a market rumoured to be enormous, Ford has also followed suit, with subtly gay-oriented advertisements in gay publications such as Out magazine for its subordinate brands, Jaguar, Volvo, and Land Rover.

This pursuit of the 'gay dollar' stems from an apparent exaggeration about the expendable income and necessary affluence that attends attraction to the same sex. And though she correctly calls such affluence a "myth," Schweinsburg doesn't seem to grasp the mutually-destructive relationship triad between American media, American businesses, and the self-identified gay consumer.

When I first saw gay-tailored advertising of everyday products, I found it hilarious -- like, what am I supposed to be saying to myself? "OOOOhhh! So Coors Light is what 'real' gay men drink, eh? Wow, all this time . . . I never knew . . ."

Then, as I thought about it, I found the practice insulting. Think about it. You read an advertisement of a banner that says something like, "Company X is a proud sponsor of [insert favorite gay-related event here]. We salute our friends in the gay and lesbian community . . ." and so forth. So you read that, and you're supposed to obediently buy their product, as if it were somehow the responsible thing to do. As if their relatively-paltry contribution to some 'AIDS charity' that is already alleged to be mismanaging its funds, is generous in the face of the enormous sums they hope to reap from their sales. As if the fact that I experience same-sex attraction has anything at all to do with what car I should drive. Or what cologne I should wear. What beer I drink.

Does Subaru really expect me to be SO insecure about myself that I will feel immediately compelled to buy whatever car they tell me to buy merely because they have taken out an ad in some gay-oriented publication? I mean, am I supposed to be THAT desperate for affirmation that any company that tells me, "You're OK. We love you!" is my 'friend'?

Sadly, this is precisely what such companies' marketers believe, and sadder yet, it's with good reason that they believe it. Their reasoning is based on real data provided to them by research groups which are themselves a part of the gay community. On many occasions I have received telephone calls or mail pushing surveys on me, asking me personal questions about my income, financial situation and spending habits, with a cover letter stressing the importance of establishing the 'gays' as a market force to be reckoned with. But I find this offensive; how dare marketers presume that I am interested in helping the cause of gay-oriented marketing! How dare they presume that my consumption habits are, or should be, the same as other people who happen to be attracted to the same sex? Am I, by sheer virtue of my sexual orientation, a member of a community? Can I opt out? Please?

I am an extreme minority of openly-not-straight MSM's though. Most MSM's I know have no qualms about identifying as 'gay', and participating fully in 'gay society'. So although I find gay-tailored marketing to be insulting and manipulative, most self-identified gay people probably find it wonderful.

Marketing people are not fools. They use data to drive their marketing decisions. Placing an advertisement in a gay-oriented magazine, or co-sponsoring some event is a strategically keen way for Subaru to sell more cars. A car company's 'support for the gay community' is financial; and it is a financial investment they expect to recoup tenfold. If sales do not increase as a result of 'support' for a gay cause, you bet your ass they will find other causes to 'support'.

Perhaps I seem a bit too cynical here, so let me be clear. I'm not saying that car companies don't have employees who care -- or even owners who care -- about gay causes. And certainly, acknowledging their gay customers kindly rather than hatefully is a positive thing. But companies aren't people; American companies exist to make money, and there isn't much reason for a company to 'support' a cause unless there's something in it for them.

You want me to buy your car? Then get a good Consumer Reports score. But don't patronize me.

---

1. SEE: http://www.wardsauto.com for more.

2. Titled "Straight Eye for the Gay Buyer", by Christie Schweinsberg, p. 36. The article's title makes obvious reference to the TV Show Queer Eye for the Straight Guy

An abbreviation, particularly useful and common in AIDS prevention circles, to designate "Men who have Sex with Men." It's a decidedly unwieldy phrase which makes the abbreviation MSM all the more handy.

It may not be obvious right away what the difference is between being a "gay" man and an MSM. In fact, many MSM's do consider themselves gay, either secretly, or not. However, there are a good number of men who routinely have sexual interaction with other males, and yet, for whatever reason, do not choose to don the "gay" label.

Health workers attempting to prevent the spread of AIDS were missing a large part of their target audience by seeking only those men who were "gay". As they later came to realize, the word "gay" carries a lot of connotations, implications, and baggage that many MSM's reject, like, for example, participation in a "gay community."

Using the term "MSM" attempts to cut through all of the negative connotations of the words "gay" and "bisexual", and simply addresses -- with no moral or social judgment passed in either direction -- the only relevant fact (for healthcare and social workers): does this person engage in relatively risky activities, or not?

"Re-Orienting Desire: The Gay International and the Arab World" was initially presented as an essay at a conference at the University of Chicago, titled, "Hatred: Confronting the Other." It was published with some modifications in 2002 by Duke University Press in the journal Public Culture 14(2): pp.361–385. Its author, Joseph Massad, teaches intellectual history at Columbia University. This review refers to the Public Culture text.

The term "Gay International" is a term Massad has coined to refer collectively to Western, (mostly U.S.-based), human rights groups oriented toward ending the persecutions of homosexuals in non-Western (mostly Arabic and African) countries.

Massad goes to great lengths to fully dismiss and discredit the writing of gay academicians who have written extensively about the persecution of gays in the Arab world. One by one, he considers and rejects the theses of these Western authors. Massad's reason for rejecting them, in most cases, is that they are thoroughly unfamiliar with the true experience of the Arab man. Westerners, Massad alleges, see the Arab world through a Western lens; the very premises of the questions involved in evaluating the treatment of men who have sex with men are flawed.

It seems that Massad is a bit uncharitable to his American colleagues; at times, it appears that Massad is dismissing -- a priori -- the work of anyone and everyone who is not Arab, deeming them unfit to hold a credible opinion on the matter regardless of how much research they have done, or how much time they have spent in the Arab world. He correctly points out that much of the academic material written by "The Gay International" evaluates the Muslim/Arab world by its medieval writings, especially written interpretations of the the Koran, and the Koran itself. It is a bit ridiculous, says Massad, to pretend that contemporary Arabic society can be understood through study of works written hundreds of years ago. But Massad's argument style is unfortunate, because although his conclusions are certainly worth considering, his dismissive, sometimes flippant tone makes the piece unpleasant to read.

Massad's point, though, is this: In the Arab world, men who have sex with men are, for the most part, not "gay", and need no liberation from prosecution. They are not "gay" because "gay" is a Western identity that The Gay International has attempted to thrust upon them. By encouraging Arab men to identify as "gay," the Gay International is encouraging them to identify as Western; encouraging them to embrace and support what many Arabs presume to be the agenda of the West: destruction and Westernization of the Arab world. THAT is the reason for severe punishment of homosexuality, argues Massad. He offers that generally, the people who are prosecuted and excessively punished for their homosexual activity are those who have made a point of embracing the Western idea of what it means to be "gay." It is their embracing of a Western identity which is considered threatening -- not their private sexual activities.

It does not appear to be Massad's point that this makes the Arab world's treatment of Arab MSM OK. Rather, his point appears to be that Western gay-rights groups are causing great harm to those they purport to assist by forcing them to either choose the Western "gay" label, or choose not to realize their true sexuality. They do not allow for the current Arabic paradigm which does not connect personal identity with sexual preferences.

In a discussion the other day about intersexuality, hermaphroditism, and other things inconsistent with a binary gender approach in class, I was appalled. Despite having an overwhelmingly liberal and non-heterosexual composition, the class surprised me by its refusal to see a connection between performing surgical "correction" on the genitals of gender-ambiguous babies, and the idea of "correcting" aberrant sexual orientation.

The class has reacted in the past with eye-rolling and groans at the idea that homosexual orientation can be "cured", because they recognize that it must first be seen as a disease, a premise that they are eager to reject. For homosexual orientation to be seen as a disease, abnormal, or otherwise wrong, it has to be viewed as conflicting with some essential value or norm. Generally, that value or norm is the virtue of reproduction, but it often disguises itself in more spiritual terms, including religion or intuition. In my estimation, observation, and opinion, the objection that the average American Christian has to homosexuality is not that God finds it abominable, although that is what he will say. In fact, that claim is made quite sincerely, and I don't doubt that they truly believe that God (as expressed in their reading of scripture), does indeed find homosexuality repugnant. What is obvious to me, though -- obvious by the passion, the vociferous anger, and the extreme horror expressed by those religious people -- is that God's purported rejection of homosexual acts is not really what drives them. It is the person's own feeling of disgust with homosexual activity that makes it so 'obviously wrong' and 'unnatural' in their mind. God's 'opinion' on the matter is usually just a convenient endorsement of something they happened to believe anyway!

Anyway, in our discussion of indeterminate biological sex, the class suddenly became quite conservative, and were quick to disagree with the position of the class reading on the matter, which seems to be that surgical "correction" of ambiguous genitalia -- or the assignment of a gender when the body's sex is not clear or entirely ambiguous -- is violent and wrong. All of the participants in the discussion (excluding myself) clamored to justify the actions of surgeons and parents who have (historically and even currently) taken steps to assign gender to the gender-ambiguous child through surgery and socialization. The effort that must be put forth to assign gender to a gender-ambiguous baby is even greater than the standard, which itself is unreasonable. For genitally-ambiguous children, the gender which the parents have chosen must be constantly and strongly reinforced. No opportunity can be missed to remind the child that she is a girl (or, less commonly, a boy, because penises are more difficult to fashion), lest she begin behaving in ways deemed unacceptable for her gender.

I have taken and can justify the position that there is absolutely nothing wrong with leaving gender ambiguity alone. It is not a mistake, and provided that excretory functions take place safely (which is almost always true), there is rarely any medical danger. The danger comes from closed-mindedness.

The arguments put forth in favor of surgical genital modification ("correction") are eerily reminiscent of the crusade of the infamous ex-gay movement to "correct" homosexual orientation. The foremost reason, for example, is the idea that children growing up gender-ambiguous will suffer from rejection by many of their peers. Well of course they will! Just as they would if they had a funny-looking nose. Or if they were albino. SO THE FUCK WHAT?! Being a child is always hard. It wasn't easy for me as a gay teenager, and in fact, the social atmosphere of grade school is downright abusive FOR NEARLY EVERYONE. But mutilating (or, if you prefer, "correcting", or modifying) is hardly an acceptable alternative. If the child (or adult), later in life, wishes to experience such surgery -- with or without genital ambiguity as the starting point -- that's different. But to force unnecessary surgery on a child without his consent is, in my view, unconscionable.

To my dismay and great offense, one girl in the class even went so far as to say, in an incredulous, condescending tone, that to not perform gender-assignment surgery is a "stupid" idea.

Yes, gender ambiguity will present socialization problems. BUT SO DOES the violation involved in removing an "oversized clitoris", or creating a vagina where one does not exist. It is simply a matter of reality that we cannot prevent every ounce of suffering that our children might endure. Given that fact, it is far more defensible to respect a child's body by regarding it as precious, inviolable, and the sole property of that child. Parents and surgeons are charged with taking care of children, and are, in every other arena, expected to respect the sanctity of the child's body, violating it only when life- or health- threatening problems make inaction untenable. Genital ambiguity is not such a problem.

The other day, I was at the Campus Recreation Center (the gym), and this cute-but-pimply, grinning, physically strong, confident, and presumably-straight freshman comes up to me and asks for a spot. So I spot him on the declined bench press, and of course, his shirt comes up a little bit, exposing his firm tummy and happy trail. I can't help but notice his exposed flesh, though I make a point of hiding the fact that I'm even looking.

That in itself is not so strange, although freshman college students are rarely confident enough at the gym to as much as look at other people, much less talk to them. (And then again, what the hell do I know? I still haven't totally grasped the rules of engagement for interacting with American college males).

But the conversation which followed came directly out of left field. I'm done spotting him, and usually, that's that. You're supposed to grunt a "Thanks" at each other, and then getting the hell away from each other as fast as possible, because spotting someone generally involves a severe temporary transgression of their personal space, (sometimes even sticking your nuts JUST above their forehead, just BARELY avoiding teabagging, an activity in which str8boys are none-too-eager to partake, at least not as the passive participant). Not only do American boys not like to touch each other in any way, they don't even like to get close -- spatially or otherwise.

Of course, these are slight exaggerations on my part. I'm describing a large portion of my own past experiences, but certainly not all of them. I have a lot of male friends who aren't uncomfortable with intimacy, so there are plenty of exceptions, indeed. But the stereotype of the American male is based on a real paradigm of awkwardness that permeates masculinity in American culture.

So back to my story: I finish spotting this kid and he just looks at me and keeps grinning. Very cute. Now wait. I know what you're thinking. But you're wrong. He's NOT gay. Not that the word "gay" has any reliable meaning anyway. But even if it did, he wouldn't be it. You'll just have to trust my gaydar on that one, OK? I can just tell. (Well, in America I can, anyway -- Europe has other rules).

He goes on to start asking me personal questions, mostly relating to my body and workout regimen. (I'm very muscular). Then, he tells me how nice my body is -- as if he were informing me that he is a Criminology major or something -- and returns to his workout! Basically, he acted out about as much of the first few minutes of a gay porn film as he could without taking off his clothes.

I don't get it.