The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

  • Hi Guest - Did you know?
    Hot Topics is a Safe for Work (SFW) forum.

Why Hire A Black Model When You Could Just Paint A White One?

It doesn't surprise me that they did this. It surprises me that nobody wondered if this might seem a bit insensitive or awkward. "Great idea - just spray-tan her and call her an African princess." Hopefully, they then shoved a pair of socks down her pants and took pictures of her as a man.

Lex
 
hylas said:
OK PEOPLE BLACKFACE IS FUCKING RACIST
Click to expand...

That isn't blackface. This is:

Minstrel.jpg


There's a big difference.
 
When the attention gained is going to be overwhelmingly negative, is it worth the publicity?

Lex
 
gsdx said:
That isn't blackface. This is:

Minstrel.jpg


There's a big difference.
Click to expand...

:confused: you actually think there's a difference?

the caption of the photo is called "african queen". they KNEW exactly what they were doing.

i wonder what the reactions would be if it were a straight guy posing in daisy dukes with a big rainbow lollipop, having a checkered shirt that's sleeveless that is wrapped up into a bikini wearing heels, wearing lipstick, with his right hand on his hip, and a trucker hat with the words gay boy for the photo caption.
 
refujiunderground said:
:confused: you actually think there's a difference?

the caption of the photo is called "african queen". they KNEW exactly what they were doing.
Click to expand...

Yes, there is a huge difference. The blackface I posted was for entertainment. The African Queen thing was for deception. Her skin was darkened, but it was far from the artificial, over-exaggerated makeup of the travelling minstrel.
 
I'm not making apologies for the brain-dead, dopey, delusional, ditzes in the US clothes industry…

but perhaps they wanted what makes this TV actor so popular.

I don't know.

jesse-williams-0.jpg
 
gsdx said:
Yes, there is a huge difference. The blackface I posted was for entertainment. The African Queen thing was for deception. Her skin was darkened, but it was far from the artificial, over-exaggerated makeup of the travelling minstrel.
Click to expand...

my question to you is how do you know that they weren't doing this to make fun of black people for laughs like the blackface that you posted? if you know something will be deemed as offensive or controversial to begin with, why even do it? why even put it outthere? one thing i don't understand is how some people tell others to not get offended at things that could be deemed offensive to them. they try to say that those that are offended at things that can be deemed as offensive as needing "sensitivity training" and should develop tough skin. :##: i mean to see gay men out of all people cosigning that type of thinking is fucking outrageous. the same type of attitude some of these straight people have towards us whenever they say homophobic slurs, homophobic comments and etc then say that "we're being sensitive". it's a step backwards, don't you think.
 
MissAnne said:
I really dont understand why they did this...
Click to expand...

I don't get it at all either. But then I didn't understand them putting tape on Audrey Hepburn's eyes to make them look Asian so she could be in The Good Earth. Hopefully that's not coming back too, lol.
 
refujiunderground said:
:confused: you actually think there's a difference?

the caption of the photo is called "african queen". they KNEW exactly what they were doing.

i wonder what the reactions would be if it were a straight guy posing in daisy dukes with a big rainbow lollipop, having a checkered shirt that's sleeveless that is wrapped up into a bikini wearing heels, wearing lipstick, with his right hand on his hip, and a trucker hat with the words gay boy for the photo caption.
Click to expand...

There's a modest difference in that performers in blackface were generally mocking the culture, and this model was ostensibly meant to portray beauty...and one would assume, the beauty of the people. (It certainly doesn't look like they were mocking anybody in that photo.) But it's still problematic.

Lex
 
gsdx said:
Yes, there is a huge difference. The blackface I posted was for entertainment. The African Queen thing was for deception. Her skin was darkened, but it was far from the artificial, over-exaggerated makeup of the travelling minstrel.
Click to expand...

this argument makes no sense. nobody is going to mistake that model for an actual woman of african heritage, especially since her name is published.

there is a difference between traditional minstrelsy blackface and contemporary fashionista blackface, albeit not a very big one. former is about mocking black people. latter is about exploiting their history and pain as a marketing tool (and disrespecting them in other ways, eg fetishizing their skin colour, not giving them work, communicating that their facial features are undesirable...)

and btw im not the only one who thinks this kind of thing (which is sadly common) qualifies as blackface. the term is being used in contemporary discussions about fashion and race.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top