A Kiss too Far? For Same-Sex Couples, Simple Public Displays of Affection Are Fraught. Guy Trebay, The New York Times, 18 Feb 07, pg. IX, 1-2. "The spot was only 30 seconds, almost a blur amid the action at the Super Bowl. Yet the hubbub after a recent commercial showing two auto mechanics accidentally falling into lip-lock while eating the same Snickers bar went a long way toward showing how powerfully charged a public kiss between two men remains.
Football is probably as good a place as any to look for the limits of social tolerance. And the Snickers commercial – amusing to some, appalling to others and ultimately withdrawn by the company that makes the candy – had the inadvertent effect of revealing how a simple display of affection grows in complexity as soon as one considers who gets to demonstrate it in public, and who, very often, does not.
… The lugs in the Snickers commercial recoiled in shock at their smooch, resorting to ‘manly’ behavior like tearing out their chest hair in clumps. Alternate endings to the commercial on a Snickers Web site showed the two clobbering each other, and related video clips featured players from the Super Bowl teams reacting, not unexpectedly, with squeamish distaste."
The commercial itself has the disjointed sense of a dream. It’s story line has an odd improbability of circumstances that leads to an unexpected ending.
But as with dreams, the true import is not in the plot line, but, rather in the thoughts and emotions elicited in the beholder. Trebay writes that ”for some the commercial left the lingering question of who owns the kiss? How is it that a simple affectionate gesture can be so loaded? Why is it that behavioral latitudes permit couples of one sort to indulge freely in public displays lusty enough to suggest short-term motel stays, while entire populations, albeit minority ones, live real-time version of the early motion picture Hays Code: a peck on the cheek in public, one foot squarely planted on the floor?” A silly vignette, this one a waking dream, elicits degrees of thought and feeling well beyond what the vignette’s story itself would indicated. Just like with dreams.
This dream / commercial elicits deep and profound examinations of personal and societal realties that are problematic and disturbing, particularly for gays. Tremblay quotes a gay fellow: ””People are still verbally harassed and physically attacked daily for engaging in simple displays of affection in public. Everything changes in the minute we kiss.“ <
Another gay fellow talks about having to monitor public displays of affection (P.D.A.’s) with his lover. “You know, my dad isn’t super into P.D.A.’s, but nobody’s ever going to beat him up because he’s kissing my mom at a movie. I kept thinking: What if my boyfriend got hit by a car tomorrow? When I had the chance to kiss him, why didn’t I?”
Clearly, this dream-like event, this short commercial for a candy bar, innocuous enough on the surface, carried within it highly charged emotional and intellectual content of an unresolved nature. This public dream of two men kissing evoked strong reactions for many of its beholders. For some it could be seen as a powerful dream mirroring their own difficulties in negotiating life. For others it could be seen as a nightmare showing what’s wrong with an all too permissive culture.
In a dreamful world, a kiss is never just a kiss.