Monday, June 18, 2007
6/18/2007 03:11:00 PM | 
Posted by
JoeSettler
I don’t get it.
The foreign ministry slaps some kissing gay models with a yamulka, and sends it out to the world as the new image of Israel – the gay religious Jew.
The only ones complaining in the government are the religious MKs. Everyone else views them as primitives and homophobes.
Now the Israeli Consulate in NY sends out an invitation with an almost naked woman on it (yeah, yeah, you can see her here) and suddenly the not-primitive MKs are in an uproar.
I don’t understand what is wrong.
Sex sells.
You didn’t complain when the sex-based ad insulted the religious community and promoted Israel as the gay sex capital of the world. You only complain when it insults (or so you claim) women (– or is it that it is promoting the IDF as the heterosexual sex capital of the world? I wasn't clear about that).
Anyway, I think that this is a very hypocritical position for these not-primitive MKs to be taking.
The foreign ministry slaps some kissing gay models with a yamulka, and sends it out to the world as the new image of Israel – the gay religious Jew.
The only ones complaining in the government are the religious MKs. Everyone else views them as primitives and homophobes.
Now the Israeli Consulate in NY sends out an invitation with an almost naked woman on it (yeah, yeah, you can see her here) and suddenly the not-primitive MKs are in an uproar.
I don’t understand what is wrong.
Sex sells.
You didn’t complain when the sex-based ad insulted the religious community and promoted Israel as the gay sex capital of the world. You only complain when it insults (or so you claim) women (– or is it that it is promoting the IDF as the heterosexual sex capital of the world? I wasn't clear about that).
Anyway, I think that this is a very hypocritical position for these not-primitive MKs to be taking.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
10 comments:
are you so repulsed by the guys on the camel that you can't link to it http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3406064,00.html
hmmm, I may have to start up that Maximm subscription once again.
Let's see--in one photo, decently dressed couples are shown having a good time together, even if, in the case of the gentlemen on the camel they look like awful dorks while doing it. In the other, a single woman is shown stretched out, barely dressed, inviting the tourist to come and, er, buy her a drink?
I think that implying that if you take your boyfriend to Israel you'll have a good time and get to ride a camel is much less noxious than suggesting that if you don't take your wife to Israel you'll STILL have a good time.
This could just be me, of course.
And yes, I would find it offensive if gay tourists were being courted with ads showing barely dressed men batting eyes at the camera.
bb: I couldn't find the link at the time.
bibj:
The offensive ad is the one on top where they put the yamulkas on the 2 kissing men.
But in all the cases they are trying to use sex to sell Israel.
So I guess you would be offended by their video campaign: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdW3BymCs5g
Is the photo offensive just because the two are wearing kippot? Would a straight couple where the man is wearing a kippah be considered OK? Not sure what the issue is, entirely. It strikes me as kind of cute. (Although the tattoo is a bit jarring.)
The video annoys me much less than the girl-prone-in bikini thing. Which is not to say that I find it terribly appealing.
bibj: I find the ad offensive for a number of reasons, but perhaps this will put it into one perspective.
Imagine you were a devout christian and you saw an ad with a priest making out with a nun.
That's the equivalent of what this ad looks like to a religious person.
this religious person at least.
The problem, you see, is that to this religious person, the first picture looks like a stagey honeymoon photo that might be brought back to my shul, if only the kippot looked like they were actually accustomed to being worn. I imagine seeing it on someone's TV, framed.
And here we probably hit the point past which neither of us can go. ;)
Just to keep the conversation going, can you actually look at the Maxim thing and not feel icky? Or do you feel that it's icky, but the other one should be acknowledged as such too?
Sorry, but I didn't find the Maxim photo icky in the slightest.
I understand why various people for political, religious, or feminist reason might find it so, but I felt no aversion whatsoever.
If they had wrapped her in T'fillin or put a yamulka on her head, then I would have found it offensive, as the purpose of the shot would have been to offend the religious.
Like I said, the point past which I can't go. We're seeing different things.
Thanks for making your thoughts clear, this was kind of interesting.
CNN had a video article on this (I couldn't capture the link though). Collete Avital basically says it is disgusting that they are using sex to sell Israel.
She was strangely silent on other examples of using sex to sell Israel.
As an aside, I was in Jerusalem yesterday evening in some of the neighborhoods near the parade. I've never seen so many Tel Avivians make the trip to Jerusalem.
I guess Jerusalem had to import to fill the ranks.
Post a Comment