insideMAN

I admit it, I’m uncomfortable when I see men kiss

by 22 Comments

What did our reader’s think of the gay kiss in the new Lynx advert? One man, Martyn Judd, admitted on facebook that he feels uncomfortable seeing men kiss, here we share what he said.

Martyn’s comment was written in response to the following question:

“Who’d have thought that Lynx, one of the world’s most shamelessly heterosexual brands, would run an advert that includes a gay kiss? Lynx has proudly positioned itself as a brand that “helps guys get the girls” by producing “products that guys love” and “ads that quickly become part of the British guy’s psyche”. So what does this advert tell us about the changing nature of masculinity and the male psyche…..?”

High risk strategy for masculine brand

Firstly, I would say that, unless this is some strategic blunder, with the PR (branding) department outwitting the strategists, this is very unlikely to have been done lightly. This move ‘should’ have been based on a significant amount of consumer research, ie it will boost profits, not damage them.

In other words, the consumer reaction to an advert depicting two men kissing will strike a chord with a target demographic that will buy more of the product than the demographic that will be indifferent, or even react badly to the advert. It does, however, remain a high risk strategy for a strongly ‘masculine’ brand.

I would say that the only social comment it makes, is that masculinity is most likely, in modern times, to be defined less by sexuality and more by attitude and non-sexual behaviours.

Despite being high risk and having the potential to dilute the brand’s image and associations, it is quite a clever piece of promotion. On the one hand, it says “Hey! Lynx is for all men! Lynx doesn’t discriminate and it most certainly doesn’t care who you sleep with! We are modern day men and we are proud of masculinity as an all encompassing concept!”, but on the other hand, it is possibly controversial and is happy to cause some demographics to be uncomfortable and, perhaps, even to consciously set out to stimulate a backlash.

Why? Well, the age old saying goes that no publicity is bad publicity. I was once told by a boss, “Dare to be different. If nothing else, make sure the buyer remembers you, even if that means farting in his office before you leave!” With so many products and brands fighting for their own share of voice, anything which makes one advert more memorable than another reduces the overall cost of a PR programme. As long as you don’t cross the invisible line and dip into the ‘immoral’, everything is fair game.

Gay kissing is still controversial 

I know that, in an ideal world, a homosexual kiss between two men would not even be a talking point. But it’s not and here we are discussing it – the brand manager’s work is already more than 50% done! The Lynx ad has effectively doubled its share of voice by being thought provoking. By the inclusion of a simple kiss, people will think, “That’s the one with the guys kissing” when they walk past the product in Tesco (alongside 20 other similar products).

And it is controversial, no matter how PC, open-minded and forward thinking we may all believe ourselves to be… The girls all go “awwwww”, the social commentators all go “yup, society is moving on”, the homosexuals all go “hey, we’re being included and we are the norm”, the homophobes all go “that’s disgusting, an outrage” and, if you are like me, you go “ewwww, I really didn’t need to see that”!

Thus we arrive at the controversial part of my essay… Yes, when I see two guys kissing, my reaction is one of “ewwwww”. Ta daa! There it is! Rally the troops and charge!! “The Neanderthal homophobe must change his ways or die!” Actually, this is where it becomes a very grey area…

Does this make me homophobic? 

Am I (and many many others) homophobic, ie do we actively dislike or discriminate against a person because of their sexuality? No! Do we have a genuinely negative gut reaction to seeing two guys kissing(or two girls if you are female)? Yes! It is a sub-conscious reaction and, I’ll be very very blunt, it is a feeling of unpleasant nature and one that makes many people look away, myself included.

This is what Lynx’s high risk strategy is ultimately achieving and it is a very very powerful part of advertising. To put a two-dimensional image on the TV screen or billboard and to actually cause the audience to have a physical and emotional reaction! This is advertising heaven! The holy grail as it were. Advert = trigger = emotion = physical reaction = NLP anchor! The advert has taken NLP 101 and anchored your emotive response to a visual stimulus and a physical reaction.

When you see the product, the visual stimulus will again trigger the anchor, which will in turn trigger the emotion. Take it a step further and, when you even so much as think about the brand or the product, the NLP anchor sets it all off again! Pure genius!! No wonder the Lynx brand is worth a fortune.

I have no control of my reaction

I did watch the ad (link below) and it’s a very very good ad. My conscious reaction was tempered quite a lot by the context and brevity of the kiss, to be honest. However, the reaction was still present.

A good friend of mine once, during a somewhat drunken conversation in the early hours of a Sunday morning, explained his own sexuality. He asked me to think about the emotional and autonomic physical reaction I had to a naked picture of an attractive woman. Which I did.

He then said, “That’s how it is for me when I see a naked picture of a beautiful man.” That was pretty much a defining moment in my personal understanding of sexuality. It is an unconscious physical and emotional reaction to an external stimulus, over which you have absolutely no control.

—Picture: Flickr/Bill Taroli

Martyn is part of the Family Justice Network. The views expressed in this article are a personal perspective.

If you liked this article and want to read more, follow us on Twitter @insideMANmag and Facebook

See Also:

  • Nicholas

    I think what you are saying here is that there is a vast gulf between the personal truth experienced within the sovereignty of the body and the intellectual paradigm of the age.

  • http://JohnAllman.UK John Allman

    Congratulations. You are a homophobe. So am I. From the age of 11 to the age of 17, I practised homosexuality, on and off. (You see, I was “recruited” into homosexuality during my formative years, like many are who decide to settle for that horrific lifestyle. Sorry.) From the age of 16 onwards, I practised normal, healthy sexuality. I have five children and eight grandchildren to show for it, without ever having to co-opt an innocent child into the perversion I rejoice that I managed to abandon, before my teenaged years had finished.

    I rejoice in my homophobia. Somebody like-minded, posted the following, as a guest blogger, on my blog. Maybe you should read it.

    Homophobia – the hitherto elusive “gay cure”
    https://johnallmanuk.wordpress.com/2014/04/24/homophobia-defence-mechanism/

  • Paul Mills

    I think it’s great to be able to openly discuss reactions to this advert.

    For my part I had no uncomfortable feeling with this particular kiss. What I do notice though is that I find myself being somewhat more uncomfortable with more stronger and significant kissing and caressing in public. To put this into perspective for a ‘hetro’ couple this is less so and somewhat linked to me being aware of nudging 50, and therefore ‘old’ in courtship terms. With a male same sex couple I am aware (through my own use and understanding of NLP) that my reaction is about me and that I do not find other men sexually attractive, so I empathise with the men and experience a negative cognitive and kinaesthetic response. This is all about me, and not a negative judgement on Gay relationships perse. So, I notice it and recognise it as such.

    What I find much more challenging is when others project their religious of personal stuff onto others. Just because one’s own experience of homosexuality was abusive – and took advantage of vulnerability does not make it ok to judge others in the same manner, through fixed terms of reference and filters. If only we could all learn to be more accepting of other peoples differences to us the world would be a much better place. A good place for this to start would be in how we consider, comment and discuss things on Blogs and how we differentiate between our personal reaction and those of others.

    My personal example of this was when I read John A’s Blog and his responses to contributors earlier this morning. This did make me feel uncomfortable, both in terms of how this clashed with my more ‘live and let live’ stance; and also in terms of the portrayal of same sex relationships in universally discrediting un respectful terms.

    • Inside MAN

      Paul thanks very much for you thoughtful comments on this subject

    • http://JohnAllman.UK John Allman

      @ Paul Mills

      “… when others project their religious [or] personal stuff onto others.”

      But you did not actually find any “religious” stuff, or much personal stuff for that matter, on the post on my blog that you read, did you?

      “Just because one’s own experience of homosexuality was abusive … does not make it ok to judge others in the same manner, through fixed terms of reference and filters.”

      You have constructed a straw man here.

      Any counter-example refutes a generalisation. The state’s assertion that homosexuality is good, or morally neutral, and that homophobic people are therefore a legitimate target for hate speech who deserve to get it with both barrels, is thus refuted, by the experience of the countless millions of people (walking counter-examples) who have found the very opposite to be true of homosexuality in their personal experience, and are pleased that they are blessed with homophobia, and tired of being condemned for being the homophobic way they are, by choice. In which case, the CHIPS educational programme, Countering Homophobia in Primary Schools, amounts to child abuse.

      “If only we could all learn to be more accepting of other peoples differences to us the world would be a much better place.”

      Agreed. I plead for people to become “accepting” of homophobic people. I think it is especially unjust that Gagged Dad’s two year-old son has been prevented from seeing his father for almost two years, because his father was a conscientiously homophobic survivor of homosexuality, and opposed to abortion.

      “A good place for this to start would be in how we consider, comment and discuss things on Blogs and how we differentiate between our personal reaction and those of others.”

      You don’t seem to have any trouble yourself in deciding how to comment and discuss things. You erect a straw man, and then knock the straw man down. Nor do you have any trouble differentiating between your personal reactions and those of others. You use what Betrand Russell called emotive conjugation. Your personal reactions are fine and dandy, a shining examples of your “live and let live” objective righteousness. My personal reactions, and those of Gagged Dad, are beyond the pale, because they are purely subjective, and completely mistaken, in that they lead us to opposite conclusions from those that the government wants to indoctrinate into children from the age of three upwards, with which you are in agreement. Right?

      “My personal example of this was when I read John A’s Blog and his responses to contributors earlier this morning. This did make me feel uncomfortable, both in terms of how this clashed with my more ‘live and let live’ stance; and also in terms of the portrayal of same sex relationships in universally discrediting un respectful terms.”

      Some people are homophobic. There’s nothing wrong with that. Just get over it.

      Why do you think that the powers that be in the UK have set up a programme to challenge homophobia In primary schools – the CHIPS programme? Why do they feel the need to target their pro-gay propaganda at our children from the age of three upwards, rather than to engage parents in a conversation about the moral values the government would like parents to instill into their children, inviting the parents to change their opinions to those of the government, or at least consent to teach their children a morality that is the opposite of their own secretly-held dissident beliefs? Is THAT “respectful” towards parents? Or is it an “un respectful” attempt to indoctrinate children to reject the morality that their parents want to teach to the children, at loggerheads with the morality that the government wants children to learn?

      The fact is, in Gagged Dad’s piece, “Homophobia – the hitherto elusive ‘gay cure’?”, a *question* was posed, using moderate and restrained language. Readers were invited to “discuss” the question posed. You didn’t want to discuss that question, did you? You certainly haven’t discussed it so far. You wanted, instead, to complain that the very posing of that question made you *feel* uncomfortable, projecting those feelings of yours onto somebody else, blaming your hateful feelings towards homophobic people upon feelings that you supposed homophobic people to have, which you thought they ought not to have.

      You wanted to take a snipe at “religion”, so badly that you failed even to notice that there wasn’t any religion in the blog post that had made you feel uncomfortable! Where did THAT off-topic motivation come from?

      I think that YOU are the one who is intolerant, or at least are siding with an intolerant political establishment, for the flimsiest of reasons, what ideas, when they are expressed, make you personally feel comfortable or uncomfortable. You don’t yet get it, that “live and let live” cuts both ways, and the freedom to hold a “gay pride march” is the same freedom as would be exercised by others holding a “homophobia pride march”, or blogging against homosexuality with the same enthusiasm and wit as others blog in favour of homosexuality.

  • http://www.family-justice.net Martyn

    Hi. It took me a little while to agree to my thoughts being published openly and, in particular, to having my real name associated with them. I am very glad that, in this day and age of suppressing opinions that are sometimes controversial, that this topic can actually be discussed openly and without fear of too much recrimination.

    However, I would like to reject the statement that I am a ‘homophobe’. The very nature of the word is particularly negative and one that suggests an ‘active’ dislike or fear of homosexuality; neither of which I recognise in myself. For example, I neither suffer from ‘heterophobia’ nor a ‘philematophobia’ (the fear of kissing) simply because i don’t personally enjoy the sight of a couple, of any sex, French kissing in front of me…

    • http://JohnAllman.UK John Allman

      @ Martyn

      I shouldn’t worry too much about your real name “Martyn” being associated with your opinions. There are probably several other Martyns in the world today, many with different surnames from your own secret surname, who could unjustly take the flack you have earned yourself, for daring to have an opinion that might not be identical to that of the present Lib Lab Con trick government.

      In my experience, this isn’t a topic that can be discussed openly without fear of recrimination that is far “too much” for anybody who experiences emotions to bear.

      This neologism, “homophobia”, is ladled with ambiguity. Nobody knows what it really means. The least malign meanings depend upon one’s acceptance that there is a biological attribute of certain human specimens that is in innate and immutable, entirely unchosen, that inevitably causes homosexual behaviours, which nothing less than this mythical “orientation” is otherwise capable of playing a part in causing, least of all the free choices of human beings with free will.

      Homosexual behaviours may be defined as a subset the perverted sexual activities that nothing if not inventive that mankind engages in that aren’t sexual intercourse, practised by pairs of individuals who are of the same sex, and who therefore do not possess between them, the quorum of complementary body parts necessary for them to participate, together, in literal sexual intercourse. One in particular of those behaviours, which is extremely unhygienic, is what used (rather sensibly) to be called “the crime against nature”, in less deranged past times, during which abortion, the homicide of unborn humans, was equally sensibly referred to as “the worst crime”.

      If you have never participated in homosexual behaviour yourself, enjoyably, and decided that this was a lifestyle that attracted you but which wanted to abandon, you don’t need homophobia (in the sense of cultivating a fear of homosexuality) as an incentive to stay clean, any more than somebody who has never used heroin recreationally, or even been tempted to do so, needs to wary of heroin, lest he relapses, in a moment of weakness, into his former misguided lifestyle. If you do not have children at risk of becoming addicted to homosexual behaviours, whom you wish to raise to be good people, without filthy habits, you have no reson either to fear the onset of homosexual behaviours in your children.

      Homophobia is not *necessary* for you. It is necessary, however, for a great many silenced people – probably a great deal more people than the tiny, vociferous bunch of homosexualist activists who have so corrupted our society during the past half century.

      In the UK, we now have something called CHIPS, an educational programme that is an acronym for Challenging Homophobia in Primary Schools. Children, from the age of three, are being subjected to pro-homosexuality propaganda, in our schools and pre-schools. I would much prefer it if the state had decided instead to launch a programme called Challenging Heroin-phobia in Primary Schools, so that my youngest son was being encouraged to wonder about his supposedly morally neutral opiates orientation before he had learnt to read and write, rather than about his so-called “sexual orientation”.

      Having survived both homosexuality and heroin abuse myself, I probably have a much better education than you have had, as to which of the two filthy habits it is easier to break. If a son or daughter of mine decided to start taking heroin behind the bike sheds of his school, I’d be a great deal more confident that I could reason them calmly out of that folly, than if he or she had chosen to practice sexual perversion instead.

      • http://honeybadgerbrigade.com/the-team/ Jim Doyle

        “This neologism, “homophobia”, is ladled with ambiguity. Nobody knows what it really means.”

        I know exactly what it means. It means some grunting breeder siccing her meathead boyfriend on a man who rebuffs her advances because it affronts her vanity. It means some ranting peasant with a Bible in his hand trying to shape laws to keep people from exercising the same civil rights as others. It means a howling mob raiding a bar and dragging men out to be lynched, or a lone sicko throwing a petrol bomb into one.

        There’s nothing the least bit ambiguous about any of that.

        • http://JohnAllman.UK John Allman

          People have called me homophobic. I have assumed that what they meant bore some relation to what I freely acknowledge that I am like.

          I had never supposed that those who have called me homophobic, with whom I have never had an argument, had the same mental pictures of what it was to be homophobic as you have listed. None of those particular mental pictures had ever occurred to me when I have defended homophobic people, asserting that we deserve to be treated equally with non-homophobic people, not singled out for persecution the way that we are. I do not therefore agree that the made-up word “homophobic”, to describe a particular demographic whose enemies would like to be applauded for disrespecting us, and who would often like to eradicate us from the population, or force us underground, is unambiguous I still think that it it ladled with ambiguity.

          • http://honeybadgerbrigade.com/the-team/ Jim Doyle

            The point is that a request for a citation on something like that is hardly a serious request.

          • http://honeybadgerbrigade.com/the-team/ Jim Doyle

            “I had never supposed that those who have called me homophobic, with whom I have never had an argument, had the same mental pictures of what it was to be homophobic as you have listed. None of those particular mental pictures had ever occurred to me when I have defended homophobic people, asserting that we deserve to be treated equally with non-homophobic people, ”

            Well so what? Ignorance is no excuse. I have explained the reality of homophobia and you choose to stay in denial and ignorance. That is your own affair.

            “I do not therefore agree that the made-up word “homophobic”, to describe a particular demographic whose enemies would like to be applauded for disrespecting ”

            First off, all words are made up. They do not descend from heaven as part of a divine revelation, or exist on their own, or come into being on their own.

            Secondly, calling for respect for your disrespect of others, typical of bigots, is exactly what the whole Charlie Hebdo affair is about – thinking murder is called for over a cartoon. It is a ludicrous demand.

          • http://JohnAllman.UK John Allman

            I had understood “homophobia” to refer to a fear of homosexuality, an aversion to that behaviour, or an inhibition of impulses to engage in homosexual behaviours. That is because I have never encountered anybody being abused verbally because he had engaged in any of the behaviours you described, but I have often encountered people being abused verbally for the (as-it-were) thought crime (or speech crime), to which I therefore assumed the perjorative “homophobic” referred, saying one disapproved of homosexual behaviours, and avoided them oneself and encouraged others to avoid them too, primarily because one was frightened (rightly so) of disobeying one’s conscience in this respect, and of the social consequences of the prómotion of homosexuality that we have today, even in primary schools, in the CHIPS programme, where as this used to be *unlawful* by virtue of what used to be called “clause 28”.

            I approved of “clause 28”. The argument against clause 28 was that it was ridicule, because (it was claimed) it is *impossible* to promote “homosexuality”, because homosexuality is an unchosen “orientation”, not a chosen behaviour which adults and children can be trained to fear, by heteronormative social pressure. But nobody ever proved the controversial assertion – using a “citation” of any kind of scholarship. They just asserted it so often, and so emotionally, that they succeeded in shaming tactics against most of the sceptics.

            Vigilante or terrorist crimes (such as bombing locations where people who enthuse over homosexual behaviour are thought to congregate) are NOT of the essence of homophobia as I have encountered the word in everyday use, almost always as a shaming tactic used against those who are not enthusiastic about homosexual behaviours, they are “homophobic”.

  • Nigel

    I do not agree with John’s view of same sex sex. However I believe it to be clearly and respectfully expressed. I think it important that the crucial point in a society purporting to be free and democratic is that ideas are expressed and examined. This is so apposite now. Being an old fart and knowing the venerable survivor from “68” Charlie Hebdo, the authors were offensive and perhaps arrogant towards many groups, and were lambasted back! Clearly killing was an evil response and a fundamental attack. However freedoms include the possibility of offence and the opportunity to reply. I’m afraid being upset is part of the human condition. A current belief that all upset can be prevented by suppression has crept into our polity. What cannot be tolerated is meting out violence, death or imprisonment for expression of ideas. Human rights are vital and became codified to protect us from such oppression by force by those who killed for their ideas, left and right. 

  • Nigel

    And I should add though I am not bothered by the said kiss thank you Martyn for a thought provoking piece. People may be upset but it should not be a crime to kiss, I think.

  • karen woodall

    I think it is actually liberating and wholly appropriate to be able to discuss any issue without feeling as if one has to toe a party line which must not be crossed lest we are seen as the outsider, the wrong one and the one out of step, thus silencing our voices and ensuring that nothing other than the acceptable ideology is ever expressed. I am Charlie is all well and good, we are all Charlie when we think it is the right kind of free speech we are advocating, when it is not the right kind of free speech we are all suddenly up in arms about it or agonising over it. Either we have free speech and we are free to debate all issues and express the full range of views or we are not. I may not agree that homosexuality is a perverse behaviour as John sets out but I uphold his right to express his views however he wants to express them – I may argue with him but I am not going to shoot him or demand that he retracts them or abuse him until he shuts up …. please do not let this space become infected by the same kind of moralising, privilege checking, holier than thou spaces that are rife in this field.

  • Lawrence Newman

    It’s natural for heterosexual people to find homosexuals kissing off-putting. The majority of people are heterosexual and sexuality is innate, involving intrinsic biological reactions that can’t be controlled. Any heterosexual man who says they LIKE seeing gay men kissing is lying, I have heard of men who find seeing women kissing other women exciting, though I have no idea why.

    • http://JohnAllman.UK John Allman

      “The majority of people are heterosexual and sexuality [presumably meaning “sexual orientation”] is innate, involving intrinsic biological reactions that can’t be controlled.” [Lawrence Newman]

      Citation needed.

      • http://honeybadgerbrigade.com/the-team/ Jim Doyle

        The lives of most people who identify as gay. This really is a subject you know nothing about.

        • http://JohnAllman.UK John Allman

          That’s not what I meant by a “citation” for the assertion of which I am sceptical.

          • http://honeybadgerbrigade.com/the-team/ Jim Doyle

            The point is that a request for a citation on something like that is hardly a serious request.

          • http://JohnAllman.UK John Allman

            It was a serious request. It was a highly questionable assertion. Has anybody ever proved it? If so, who, and when.

            I think your problem is that you are making assumptions that you don’t even realise are assumptions in the first place.

            Try reading this blog post of mine, and you will improve your understanding, or at least you *should* improve your understanding.

            https://johnallmanuk.wordpress.com/2013/03/10/buggers-can-be-choosers/

            What matters most is not your opinion, or mine. What matters is what is true. Hence the challenge, “citation needed”. Please learn to question assertions, even if they appeal to you emotionally – you *want* those assertions to be true. Scepticism is often virtuous. Please don’t let mine upset you.

  • American Rick

    I admit that I used to feel a bit apologetic about being gay and especially about gay PDA, but no more. If some of you can’t handle two guys kissing, too bad.