I wondered if someone was going to post about the RealJock guys... It's funny - they're Google ads. You don't get much of a choice what ads Google shows you (unlike the BlogAds which I have to approve), but -damn- RealJock seems to like our site. It's kind of sad - anymore I get excited when I come to my own site and see an ad for someone other than RealJock. I got tickled when I found a video ad for John McCain. Hell, I played it! Just because it wasn't RealJock!

But if it makes you feel better, just because we were so tired of them being on the site, we did a small Google ad words buy ourselves - and targeted RealJock back among others. We've sent them TONS of click thrus. How many did they send back? A couple.

Apparently folks coming here don't mind moving on to RealJock - but RealJock folks aren't that interested in conversation and reading. *grins*

HA HA!

This must be an internet explorer thing. I'm using firefox and I don't see any ads.

Interesting though because I read this after reading the abstract for this study.

Those speedos become them: the role of self-objectification in gay and heterosexual men's body image.
Y Martins, M Tiggemann, A Kirkbride - Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2007

Objectification Theory proposes that membership in sexually objectifying Western societies gradually socializes women to adopt an observer's
perspective on their physical self. This leads to negative consequences, including body shame and restricted eating behavior. The authors extend
this framework to investigate a subgroup of men, namely gay men, who also exist in a subculture that emphasizes and values physical appearance.
Study 1 investigated trait differences in self-objectification and body image among gay and heterosexual men. Analyses indicated that gay men
scored higher on self-objectification, body shame, body dissatisfaction, and drive for thinness. In Study 2, the authors experimentally manipulated state self-objectification and found that for gay men, increasing state self-objectification resulted in greater body shame and dissatisfaction and more restrained eating. Together, these results offer strong support to Objectification Theory as a useful framework from within which to view the experience of gay men.

while I'm not exactly a fan of the adverts.. I must admit they are better than.. the horrible porn adds...

Unfortunately, with the size we've grown to, we have to accept some advertising to be able to pay the hosting bills, etc. And trust me, it's not like we're making a ton of cash. LOL (God, I wish!)

The Real Jock ads irritate me too - but they're our best advertiser currently!

Emelia, no ads at all on Firefox -- I'm going to look into changing my browser, for sure!

And yes, objectification theory sounds like it would be a great tool for viewing the nightmare of consumer fetish gay male identity. Of course, feminism would be what I would recommend -- although unfortunately most gay men wouldn't know feminism if it hit them over the head.

And Bil, that's interesting that these are Google ads, and the best current advertiser -- I've never heard of Google ads bringing in very much cash, so I'm sure the coffers are not overflowing :)

But I guess I would encourage some cost/benefit analysis (especially if better advertisers emerge), along the following lines:

Do these ads subject gay/queer/male-bodied individuals to a barrage of self-hatred and hopelessness?

Do these ads falsely represent the bilerico project as some sort of, well... "gay fitness community," and who does that exclude?

Love --
mattilda

I really dont have any problems with the ads other sites have much more... lets just say.. "lusty" set of adverts... these ads do manage to raise a few eyebrows in my house though, as most people in my family seem to think that a shirtless guy is.. much more than it actually is.. go figure..

Kevin, I'm all for lustiness, but more concerned with a certain kind of beauty myth/masculinity/gay consumer mythology asserted as a norm or value.

Love --
mattilda

I think those are valid critiques of the advertiser, Mattilda. We originally tried to block them from advertising since they show up so damn often (you just get tired of looking at them!), but it did something screwy. It changed the top ad to a PSA for Hurricane Katrina and left the rest blank. Blank ad space = no revenue. Google ads don't make much, but they do help cover the bills. (Before re-launch about $100/6 months - don't know about after the re-launch yet but it's looking like $100/3months.) But, for example, I will end up paying out over $1000 for the total cost of the re-launch. It's not a lot, but it helps.

If you want to be subversive about RealJock - here's the solution. Click the ad. They pay us every time someone clicks. We need the cash. You don't like them, so make 'em pay! *grins*

You know the other one I'd like to ban, but when we tried ended up with Katrina ads? "Get Ann Coulter in your mailbox!" Riiiiight. That should go over well here. I click it everytime to make sure they're paying me for having that bitch's face on my site.