Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Gay Times advert banned by London Underground

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. elizabeth veldon 17 Jul 2007, 5:57pm

    who says equality is here?there’s been a poster around on the glasgow Underground for months of a naked man with his back turned and a band of text ‘tastefully’ covering his bottom.This is aceptable.Why? Well it’s blatently hetrosexual in it’s content.

  2. Isn’t it illegal for LU to ban this if they wouldn’t ban a similar shot of straight couple? They’re providing a different level of service to the gay community than to the straight community.

  3. GT AD- surely the ‘Acceptable’ ad is more suggestive/sexual with the guy apparently rummaging around the models nether regions and the models jeans falling down than the banned cover which, aside from the models piercing glare, seems rather sweet and intimate. On the other hand, at least on the acceptable ad we see the image of black man, which is rarely seen in mainstream gay media.

  4. This is blatant homophobia! Undress!!!!For decades I’ve seen adverts at tube stations advertising women’s underwear with almost naked women staring down from posters!I think this smaks of bigottery, double standards and homophobia!

  5. Chris Whitehead 18 Jul 2007, 12:55pm

    Lordy lordy, that is so blatantly homophobic. I don’t quite know how they’ve got away with it…and in London of all places!We all know sex sells, we’ve all seen the most suggestive heterosexual posters, and foreigners from conservative countries just have to deal with it. It’s part of our culture here. The ONLY “issue” here is that it’s two men and people continue to see that as something to wince at.

  6. Robert W. Pierce 18 Jul 2007, 2:11pm

    Elizabeth, I enjoin with you on that! Definitely homophobia, inequality. If straights disagree, then why are bare-breasted women depicted in The Sun and Daily Mirror. Its a double standard and nothing more than hypocrisy and homophobia of the worst kind combined. Its obvious that true equality doesn’t exist in the UK, otherwise this wouldn’t be an issue. Homophobia is deeply entrenched in the straight psyche, no question about that. Below is a link I found at another website that emphasises the homophobia that exists in our country.Robert, ex-pat Brit, USA.

  7. Robert W. Pierce 18 Jul 2007, 2:16pm

    I find the second option totally unacceptable. It says absolutely nothing and not worth hanging on the walls of any public space. We need to take the LU and any other public service to task over the double standard asking for a ban on scantilly-clad women. They can’t have it both ways, either treat us equally or ban all underwear ads involving women. Robert, ex-pat Brit, USA.

  8. Both pictures are a little odd and coy the way they show only one man’s face. Too shocking to have two gay men seen kissing each other I bet. This is not the first time London underground has refused to show representations of gay men. I am complaining to TFL and the mayors office I would hope other people would do so too. I know that this would not be an issue if it was a heterosexual couple. It is an obvious case of treating us differently. Especially galling as the ad is an affirmation of homosexuality being legal.

  9. Robert W. Pierce 18 Jul 2007, 5:00pm

    David, you’re so right on the money about that, it IS about treating us differently, in the same way that Civil Partnerships do. Robert, ex-pat Brit, USA.

  10. Robert W. Pierce 18 Jul 2007, 5:19pm

    Chris, if I’m the target of your inference that foreigners have to get used to it, I’m no foreigner just because I happen to live in the USA. I still hold a British passport and I have every right to air my views whether you like it or not. So much for free speech!Further, nobody is endorsing or demanding that sex in public should be condoned, nobody in their right mind would, not even gay people. The refusal by the LU to post the original picture is nothing more than caving into bigoted heterosexual “sensitivies” all of which emanates from centuries of religious bigotry and hypocrisy. It IS a double standard no matter your contention that depictions of women in underwear commercials is part of “our culture”. If it had been an heterosexual couple posing in exactly the same manner, we wouldn’t be having this discussion as well you know it. Therein lies proof of the hypocrisy and double standard by society and the media. You can’t have it both ways, one rule for one group, one rule for another, we’re either equal or we’re not and if not, then we’re not a democracy, plain and simple. That’s not how democracy works and what it should represent if our country truly embraces equality which it does not.Permitting depictions of scantilly-clad or naked women anywhere in public is nothing more than objectification and denigration of women designed solely for the gratification of male heterosexual fantasies. Has really nothing to do with selling the product which is secondary, another example of the double standard.Robert, ex-pat. Brit, USA.

  11. Liverpool library apologises for banning gay magazine (Pink News) – BreederBoy 4 Aug 2009, 6:26pm

    [...] July 2007, an advertising campaign for Gay Times was banned from the London Underground after tube bosses thought it was too [...]

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all