 by Jen SabellaColumns
Video
Currently Recapping
Popular People
|
Facebook bans ad for lesbian film "And Then Came Lola"After the Amazon debacle I began to wonder what websites I could really trust. Are there hidden homophobes altering or deleting content without me knowing? This week, Facebook is up to bat after deeming a rather tame advertisement for a new lesbian film “inappropriate.” What’s a web-obsessed lesbian to do?
You may have already heard about/been looking forward to And Then Came Lola. The film, starring Jill Bennett, Ashleigh Sumner and Cathy Dubuono, is described as a "sexy, lesbian romp, loosely inspired by the art house classic Run, Lola, Run” and is slated to premiere at the Castro Theater in San Francisco on June 19. Generally, when filmmakers have a new movie coming out, they try to advertise, which is what Lola co-producer Ellen Seidler tried to do — when Facebook shot her down. The ad features three women in what Seidler described to SheWired.com as a "sandwich shot.” It’s hot, but not porno! Check it out:
While the ad is not necessarily G-Rated, it certainly was not “overly explicit” — especially since it would only be seen by lesbians over 18 years of age — but is Facebook saying “no” to lesbians or “no” to implied threesomes? And why are ads featuring half-naked Playboy bunny-types or photos of freshly waxed bikini lines just peachy, but Seidler’s hot lesbians in tank tops are not? "The image of this ad is either irrelevant or inappropriate,” Facebook told Seidler, “Per sections 3 and 8 of Facebook's Advertising Guidelines, the image on your ad should be relevant and appropriate to the item being advertised. Make sure your image is directly relevant to what you are advertising. Images that are overly explicit, provocative, or that reveal too much skin are not allowed. Images that may either degrade or idealize any health condition or body type are also not allowed. If you choose to submit this ad again, please use an appropriate image that adheres to all of Facebook's Advertising Guidelines."
I suppose it’s hard to say whether Facebook looks down upon photos suggesting threesomes or just three gay ladies, but the Lola team thinks it’s discrimination. They decided to make their own Facebook page called “And Then Facebook Shunned Lola," pointing out ads that aren’t “inappropriate” by Facebook standards — like pictures of straight people making out. “When boys and girls kiss (each other) it's ok, but when lesbians look at each other (wearing tank tops) it's not ok,” the filmmaker says on the Facebook page. Jezebel.com writer hortense agrees that something is fishy,, especially since the site prides itself on an ad program that targets certain groups of people: “Not only does this reek of homophobia,” she writes. “It also displays a pretty pathetic sense of what a "targeted ad" is on Facebook's part. By "protecting" Siedler's intended audience, Facebook has simply placed themselves in a position that makes them look as if they find the lifestyle of said audience too scandalous to promote.”
When the media made a stink about Amazon de-gaying their book selection, the company quickly fixed the “glitch.” We wonder if Facebook will do the same, or whether they will give a less scripted answer as to why, specifically, the ad was denied in the first place. Do you think Facebook is gay hatin’ or would rather see sexy glances exchanged by just two people? For more on And Then Came Lola, tank tops and all, check out the film’s website. Submitted by on April 27, 2009 - 11:00am. |
Recent blog posts
New forum topicsActive TopicsNew Comments
|
Welcome to AfterEllen.com!
- Login
- Join Now!
News, Reviews & Commentary on Lesbian and Bisexual women in Entertainment and the Media
WTF?
Hmmm
I dont know what to make of that really...All i seem to get on facebook is gay friendly advertising. Like from LGBT social networking to LGBT clothing and films also ive seen said photo advertised loads on facebook? So in the past i can say facebook has been proper gay friendly in their advertising. Wonder why all of a sudden they would want to ban something like that...Bit strange!
www.muppetdrums.blogspot.com
WTF?!
This is ridiculous on several levels. There are beer ads that all ages can see, half naked chicks and plenty more. I'm an avid facebook user as well and this is mind blowing, what the hell? I'm actually pretty speechless about it.
Anything we can do or anyone we can write?
Really?!
This is crazy!
Argh!
Personally ive a suspision
Personally ive a suspision that its about -where- the shot is very obviously "going" and that its a "threesome" rather than it being three women, three men or three baboons.
when amazons *cough* "glitch" pulled -all-ratings for LGBT books off, that was pretty much targetted.
with this particular ad, its -obvious- where the middle womans hand is going in two seconds time as well as where her top is going, half naked girl/guy standing there with a beer bottle smiling, tacky as hell but isnt really "explict" (though might come under the too much skin bit)
personally, agree or dont, i hope Facebook doesnt bow to "pressure" on this particular one, because i can understand thier position, if it was just a pic of the three women like they are now except with the middle ones hands on the left ones hips and the right one hugging the middle one, I'd be wondering "WTF?!?", its not though..
I dont think its that its three women, i think its that its -very- obvious where thier passion session is going, not porno/nudity but abit to close to "the line" IMO of "explicit".
"weigh each of your words with care, for they will betray "you" and are by which you are weighed."
Blog
Absolutely: Explicit, provocative, a lot of skin.
They say:
"Images that are overly explicit [leaving nothing merely implied], provocative [serving to provoke; inciting, stimulating], or that reveal too much skin are not allowed."
And the ad is those things, and is intended to be those things in order to promote the film.
I really don't see what the arguement is. I hope it isn't a "gay" thing, but I don't see why people think it is that over the fact that the ad meets the criteria of a no-go. This photo reminds me of the backpages of gay publications advertising men's bars to meet for sex.
wtf
i love how they reject that and yet allow ads on facebook that are like:
"lose 30lbs in 4 days!" and ads for diet pills and such.
stupid ridiculous system.
what the frack?
oook.
As much as I enjoy my personalized targeted ads for sandwiches and photobooth rentals, I kind of remember also being solicited for L Word-related memorabilia, like an "I killed Jenny" shirt. Right?
Are they being choosy with their lady ads?
Did they not realize what the L stands for?
And
I'm pretty sure the Lola ad is exactly appropriate and relevant to what it is advertising. They let anyone run the internets these days.
I agree with Az
I think the choice by facebook was not so much them gay bashing, but more due to what the picture implies. It's obvious just by looking at the picture that some kind of hot, sexy, adult threesome is about to take place lol. And trust me I am not complaining, but I think if this picture was the same but with two guys and a girl, or two girls and a guy, it would still be deemed inappropriate by facebook. I'm gonna side with facebook on this one and say that I think they made the right decision.
The picture is really hot though, I think I might stare at it for a bit longer:)
I agree. While this photo
I agree. While this photo is very nice to look at, I'm sure there are plenty of other stills that could have been used to promote the movie.
I am an avid fb user, and all the ads on my page are directly targeted toward things I have listed in my profile, including
plentyofmostly lesbian and gay friendly ads. As such, my official stance is that fb is not homophobic.If another photo is chosen, I'm certain it would be accepted and therefore the movie would be promoted to the targeted audience as was the original intention.
what the frickin-frack?!
I've had that image as my profile picture for months now + had nothing but good comments posted bout it!
I'd hate to think Facebook're being so shallow as to deny a large amount of their users to feel more at home on their site by promoting films relevant+relatable to their lives!! All Siedler's doing is trying to promote to her target market, as anyone promoting a product/film/etc, does! I don't see why she should be penalized because someone decides that "ads featuring half-naked Playboy bunny-types or photos of freshly waxed bikini lines just peachy", but a shot of 3 FULLY DRESSED women, simply standing close together, is in some way, "overly explicit, provocative, or that reveal too much skin" ?!?!?!?!
Ahem... *fans self* I seem
Ahem... *fans self* I seem to be distracted by Jill's gaze.
I'm with Az on this one - it's pretty bloody obvious where it's headin'. To give FB the benefit of the doubt, I don't think a guy standing in the middle would make it any less of an issue.
'Irrelevant' or not (personally, I think the film's title is too fitting for it to be irrelevant ;-p), it's done the trick on me - I won't be forgetting that ad for a while!
Agree with Az as well, I
I mean, I know there's an
I mean, I know there's an outrage regarding that... but it's a little too provocative, in my opinion... Like I would feel just as uncomfortable if it was a straight 3 way (if that's physically possible). And this is really interesting because I don't usually remember seeing Movie ads on the Facebook side bar. Usually those weird-ass hair removal or shit of the like.
I know this is the wrong place to post this, but sometimes people looks too much into something because they are searching for it. There's a whole section in psychology written on that.
FB Hypocrisy
I can understand why some people might find this ad too provocative and I agree that I Would NOT want to see a similar ad with a "straight flavour."
However I think it is crazy compared to some of the profile pictures I've been subjected to thanks to one of my guy FB friends. Including what I would categorize as soft-core porn: the "I love MILFs" group profile picture and he also joined one called something like "no-panties" or "Commando" where the group profile was literally a shot from below up a woman's skirt who was indeed "commando." These pictures appeared on my page b/c a friend joined - I did not have a choice in seeing them! I was offended and reported the groups.
So I think if we see examples of a homophobic double standard on FB (or YouTube, etc.) to actively report - complain about it. Lately I'm spending less and less time on FB!The lame ads are partly to blame...
I definately want to see this movie!
Freedom is not something you are given, but something you have to take.
I tried advertising my
I tried advertising my comics on FB, but they rejected them as innappropriate. Despite there being no sex or nudity in the whole thing, and the ad itself being just a face shot of one of the characters. So I took my money elsewhere.
All this is totally getting
All this is totally getting the film loads of publicity.
ROCK ON.
I wrote a blog on 'Lola' before all this, way back in October: http://allthingslesbeau.blogspot.com/2008/10/and-then-came-hottest-promo-picture.html
Check it out :)
Go here for my view on all things lesbian: http://allthingslesbeau.blogspot.com
Aw
I miss seeing Jill Bennett on afterellen... Sorry that's totally not the purpose of this article, but it's all I got out of it.
http://jordan-writes.blogspot.com/
The rejected LOLA ad
Well, I think the notion of this photo implying an impending three-way is really just a "straight guy's" fantasy. The promo photo was taken on set during a moment of down time on set, and was really just intended to be fun and flirty. And, btw, there are no actual "three-way" situations in the film--although there are plenty of two-way situations, and lots of references to girlfriends past, present and future and the typical "six degrees of separation" scenarios that would imply. At any rate, the film is getting a lot of notice thanks to Facebook's obnoxious double, or should I say triple ;-)) standards. Ironic, but not surprising.
What is targeted advertising all about if not meant to effectively "target" and generate interest from a specific demographic group? Apparently lesbians need protection from the big brothers at Facebook....
At any rate, hopefully lesbians (and other interested parties) can see for themselves...
Thanks to AE for giving this issue some attention. I do think it warrants discussion.
*coughs*
So, four of the posters above are infact, not lesbian/bisexual women, but are infact "straight guys"? *bites lowerlip* okay then, your entitled to your thoughts like everyone else.
Thankyou for telling us what we couldnt have known about the pic, that it -isnt- part of the film and is a "mess around" down-time photo, its one of the burdens creators face, They quite often know the details of what they created/wrought intimately, but the general public often does not, they only know what they're shown be it a single shot or whole movie, so the public/critical veiw can differ -greatly- to the creators veiw.(Burden of Knowledge)
I doubt those who posted above knew, this was a "still" shot and was just a between shoot bit of horsing around (which does make it flirty and abit of fun as opposed to explicit, result of knowing its actual context) and Im now even further convinced Facebook was right in disallowing this ad, because without that bit of insider knowledge (that most who see the ad Will not have) the overall perception (especially outside the LGBT community) will remain that the Ad is implicit and explicit.
What amazon's "glitch" says about American pop culture
the issue coverd in the cited article, does not do us any favours by being re-enforced by a creative artist using media without regard to the "Burden of Knowledge".
And i dont see Facebooks policy enforcement on this as double or triple standard, the pictures members use cannot be constantly monitored (unless FB did all pics by submission and approval in the same way it does its Ads) nor is "Dieting"(for some useful for others far from) in the same vein as sexual explicit.
This all said *smiles* even "bad" publicity is publicity and those who pick what to use in adverts do make honest mistakes.
"weigh each of your words with care, for they will betray "you" and are by which you are weighed."
Blog
Your points are well taken.
Your points are well taken. The photo was taken for publicity purposes and does echo themes presented in the film, but as I said, isn't a set-up for a three way. I didn't mean to imply that those posting in response to this blog were guys....it's just that is what I imagine the Facebook officials reaction to the photograph was (taken by Sophia Wallace btw) in their denial of it (assuming of course, in fact, that they were straight guys) ;-))
.... My apologies....
..
It is, Intensely difficult to "please everyone" and get media to demonstrate the same thing too all people, and to be cogniscient on every tiny level in every fine direction about the burden of knowledge (infact it seems pretty impossible), and i agree completely the "reaction" of the FB officials who denied this shot, probably was based out of a "straight guy" style perspective (you do not have to straight or a guy to look at one picture you have no background info on and veiw it from a "heterosexual male" worldveiw, tragic but largely true).
personally (topic slightly aside) i find it quite a nice shot, even more so now i know that its just, the three actresses horsing about having fun and partly i wish the world was such that those without any knowledge of the actresses, film or context, wouldnt immediately follow the veiw offerd as the road to sexual activity, but humans do that.
I honestly and truely wish you the best of luck with Lola and if its finished i hope you had fun (which given we've seen what three of the actresses did as "a laugh" you probably did)
All the best in future, sweet water, light laughter and good freinds
Az
"weigh each of your words with care, for they will betray "you" and are by which you are weighed."
Blog
Pubs
Ah I dont know is Facebook
Ah I dont know is Facebook homophobic, that seems a bit rash like. I mean I dont think my account or in fact that of my friends could be any gayer even if I tried(which I do all the time). Although perhaps worse content is allowed to get posted because no one reports it and it's not seen. This could have more to do with the fact that facebook is not the homophobic one but the person that reported it is. Sure facebook hardly looks at every single advertising image posted on it, probably only the ones that get reported by users as being inappropriate.
Also, yeah, I miss the We're getting nowhere blog on this, was so so funny!
It didn't even get past the FACEBOOK guardians
It happened to me too!
I'm not surprised....some weeks ago I posted a video that had actually been broadcasted on Italian television...of an Italian minister - the minister for Equal Rights - that expressed her discontent for "the exhuberant parade that is gay pride in the capital of christianity that is rome" (for those who don't know, the vatican is the capital of christianity, Rome is the capital of a laic state called Italy). Well, two days later I had posted this, it had disappeared from Facebook. Vanished. A friend of mine then posted the same video, and two days later it disappeared again.
In another occasion, a friend of mine posted a video of an Italian politician that was being accused of corruption and that was filmed spitting on the face of a journalist that was enquiring him about this accusations...the video again, got censured after two days. Why?
it seems like a cheap pr stint to me
i'm sorry to say this, but to me it seems like the lola team wanted to stir up the drama with facebook. the picture is meant to be provactive. let's not play dumb and be coy, that's why the girls are positioned this way....with the media world today, causing a contrevesy is the best way to promote your film, even more so when it's a low-budget film, with little resources.they shouldn't play coy - sex sells, to straight crowd, obviousely, but to us too - how many of us watched the l word for the sex? how many will go see this movie because it seems hot?
i don't find it at all like the amazon thing....the "glitch" was intentional and effected ALL LGBT content. this only effects ONE provactive promo for a film. there's PLENTY of gay content on fb, and it doesn't have a problem with it. there's no censorship of facebook, for example, note that while facebook refused to post ads of the movie, it doesn't close groups, users pic with their spouses - or even people using the above pic as profile pic.
i think it's just a cheap pr stint by the film's people - lets make a provactive pic, and lets pray someone will ban it, that way, we can slap them with the H label and get lots of free press on LGBT press, which was our original purpose to begin with (and the cover will be incredibily favorable). it's the same thing PETA did with those commericials for going veg a while back- hey, we've got little money, so lets make something really provactive, like, i know, girls having sex with vegetables, it will be baned, of course, and we'll get lots of free press. bingo.
Actually
Despite all the publicity, that wasn't the case. On Thursday I thought I would experiment and place a targeted ad (for women interested in women) directed just toward those in California. Never having done the -pay per click-thing, I wanted to see how many "clicks" we would get locally (since that is where the film is premiering in June).
Anyway, long story short, I was actually pretty surprised when I received the rejection email from Facebook a couple hours later. It was not stunt of any kind. Silly me, I thought the photo, which has received pretty wide circulation and was handed out as a poster at The Dinah, was just a nice, fun promo shot for the film.
Having seen the kind of crap that Facebook appears to approve on a regular basis (an example of which is viewable above) it seemed pretty apparent to me that someone at Facebook had a problem with a photo of hot women who happened to be gay (and seem happy about that).
Of course, there is no denying the ruckus has given the film a lot of exposure. Such is the nature of a society inspired by "tweeting."
I am attempting to contact a live person at Facebook with whom I can have a reasonable discussion about the issue. Bottom line, film or no film, it would still piss me off if it had happened in another context. So, as a professional journalist and life-long lesbian, I find it hard to just say "ok" and walk away without a good fight. In my mind the "threesome" thing is a red herring. I do firmly believe had it been a movie poster for a film with a guy in the middle, it would have been approved no problem.
The whole thing is BS and we would have had our happy little California-targeted lesbian ad (the size of a freakin' postage stamp) had Facebook judged it in the same fashion it judges all the other ad photos that come their way.
If you didn't like or didn't want to see the ad, you could have given it a thumbs down. Facebook didn't seem to want to give you the opportunity to decide for yourself (had you fit the intended demographic to receive the ad in the first place).
Just my two cents--everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Had it been a "stunt" it would have been a good one, but alas, I cannot credit myself with such foresight.
I find your answer insulting
First of all, i AM gay, that's why, of course, i'm on ae. so your hints that myself, and the other commenters above who find the picture too provactive are not part of the targeted population are insulting.
and i find it insulting that you refuse to admit that the picture is provactive and intended to be provactive, and in fact, desplays a threesome picture.how can you really compare diets pills to a picture hinting threesome? i'm sorry, i have eyes. you can't convince me that this picture is not intended to hint at a threeway. i find those comments an insult for my intelligence. so all the hot ladies, are doing what, in the picture? playing cards? i find the picture too provactive, i don't think facebook should allow provactive ads, such as those about threesomes, gay or not. i think we shuold stop playing the h card so often. i'm with fb on this one - i dont want threesome pictures, gay or not. claiming h on such things are only hurting us - so organizations are not entitled to block ANY gay content, just cause its gay and they might be called homophobic? but of course, i'm sure you wouldn't mind them blocking provactive straight pictures.
also - you people mentioned how the amazon glitch shows how american culture aquits us with sexuality. so that picture of course, is very helpful, in showing the world that we are of course, good for hot lesbian sex. point taken.
wow i had no idea facebook
It's a provacative pic
Well
Over the last 24 hours this movie has gotten more online attention from the queer community than it probably would have in total if the ad hadn't been rejected.
I think it's ridiculous the picture was rejected, but I think it's equally ridiculous to claim this photo doesn't scream 3way.
One rejected ad on FB can hardly be compared to what happened with Amazon. I'm not giving up my FB profile just yet...
---------------------------------------
Who doesn't have a blog these days?
eurOut for the latest recaps of your favourite European lesbian storylinesIt's not cause they're gay.
It's not because they're gay?
I understand now why I gave up my account to AE a looooooong time ago. I retrieved an id just to say that FB's decision was arbitrary at best and discrimintory at worst. That very picture was displayed prominantly on AE and I didn't hear anybody claiming it as a picture of a impeding threesome. Perhaps it's because AE is a lesbian site and the audience is lesbian...oh but wait the Lola Ad was targeted to a lesbian audience over the age of 18, the people who would dig the pic.
At any rate this is certainly going to ensure that Lola gets the attention that it deserves.
By the way the FB group And Then Facebook Shunned Lola was not created by the Lola people, it was created by a group of CDB fans, you might want to check your facts AE before you print them.
Oh, Please Jen. Facebook is Totally Right !
EXACTLY
Per the laws of the internet:
"Photos of naked persons may contain partial to full nudity so long as the maximum number of persons in the photo is two. Three is too many. One is not enough. Two is just right."
-via an official dictionary of some sort
I hope the movie does well
I think all of these actresses are very talented and hot. tellofilms.com has interviews of all of them for the movie.
http://www.tellofilms.com/action/viewvideo/596/tello_interview__Ashleigh...
http://www.tellofilms.com/action/viewvideo/421/Interview_with_Cathy_DeBu...
http://www.tellofilms.com/action/viewvideo/411/Interview_with_Jill_Benne...
Check out and upload great lesbian videos on www.tellofilms.com
I think
umm jen check your facts....
"I suppose it’s hard to say whether Facebook looks down upon photos suggesting threesomes or just three gay ladies, but the Lola team thinks it’s discrimination. They decided to make their own Facebook page called “And Then Facebook Shunned Lola," pointing out ads that aren’t “inappropriate” by Facebook standards — like pictures of straight people making out"
As the "And Then Facebook Shunned Lola's" fb group creator, I would like to point out, I am not part of the " Lola" Team. I am mearly an outraged fan. The page was created as an outlet for my friends and I to vent our frustrations and bring awareness to the situation. While I would love to be part of the "team" alas I am mearly a civilian. So Jen, Check your facts...
and polyphobia, that's just dandy now?
i don't think that the anti-threesome shot is homophobic.
i do think it's polyphobic, though, and i don't think that is any more okay.
who knows why facebook does
who knows why facebook does what it does. just because we're all raising a stink about it doesn't mean facebook will care either way. plenty of people have been complaining for years about all the assinine, weird, confusing, and unnecessary changes that have been made to the site (the worst of which by far being that damn news feed...why do i care what my friend wrote on my other friend's wall? it's not on my wall!). and they haven't listened to a single gripe!
---------------------------------------------
~I am bisexual. You are confused.~
pridebook
Pridebook Founder
Hi, I'm the creator of Pridebook - and would be thrilled to have run the ad -
Our audience is smaller, but more openminded
:)
Warmest regards,
Rob
www.pridebook.com
And I had no idea this
well...
it's clear to me.
facebook obviously has a vendetta against all things awesome.
Facebook in the wrong
I think facebook is in the wrong here, because the ad can be targeted to only those lesbians who are 18 or older. It's nothing they haven't seen before.
As far as being too raunchy or overly explicit... I'll just have to stare at it for a while longer to know for sure ;)
Intrigued
I think you're being unfair.