Wiping Off the Whipped Cream: Unveiling the sexual power dynamics of Cazwell's "Ice Cream Truck"

The artist Cazwell is clearly forty years old but he's performing with a bunch of super sexualized twenty year olds, trying to pass himself off as such.  He also talks about the 'school yard' as though he were still in high school (or even younger?) when he is obviously far too old.  Cazwell indicates that he is available on the sidewalk "May to July", the months during which school is out, again implying that he is still a school boy.

The images of a child's xylophone, 'rainbow sprinkles', the iconic ice cream truck are also all part of the process of self-juvenilization.  The performers do not consume ice cream that is more typically considered for adults, but rather, those associated with ice cream trucks and children: red popsicles, ice cream pies, Drumsticks, watermelon Icees.  I am surprised there was not a red rocket popsicle.  There is a transparent veil of innocence over the abundant sexuality, from the obvious metaphors to the sexualization of the simple act of consuming ice cream.

Meanwhile, the song has an extended metaphor of ice cream = sex, using phallic popsicle imagery.  Cazwell persistently offers to buy the object of his affection 'ice cream', implying an imbalance within this sexual relationship.  Although he engages the object ("you") with a semblance of equal standing, in reality, he is the one in charge.  He insists, "Meet me at the ice cream truck [emphasis mine]."  He tells "you" to finish the ice cream before "it melts on the floor."  But in another verse, he talks about the object of his affections as a third party.  "You", 'he", it is all ultimately interchangeable as anonymous sexual objects.

The exploitative aspect of this pursuit is made more apparent through the examination of racialized dynamics.  Cazwell is a white man while many of the young men around him appear to be Latino, perhaps implying sex tourism where the image of the school yard is a metaphor for a sexual wonderland of young, nubile, tan flesh such as some ambiguous Latin American stop for the moneyed white man.  Cazwell's insistence on using his limited Spanish ("Uno, dos, tres, cuatro") indicates his shallow appreciation of the Latino sexual object.  And all the dancers are light-skinned, reflecting that, even as the Latino lover is fetishized, fair-skinned beauty is what is valorized among gay male culture.

The final image is whipped cream being wiped off a brown chest to reveal Cazwell's name tattooed over a nipple.  But examination of the video reveals that this tattoo does not appear on the artist's own chest, but rather, the flesh at the end is one of the brown dancers.  He has branded this silent dancer for himself.

This music video demonstrates the gay male pursuit of youth (conflated with perfection and desirability) through the commodified trading of sex.  If the aging gay man can obtain sex from a beautiful young man, he is essentially obtaining youth from the man, through validation of his own desirability.  And far from an equal exchange in this sexual relationship, the aging gay man predates on the object like a vampire, exerting dominance through his masked but undeniable age, his comparative wealth, his white privilege.

You have nice abs, but I don't love you.

That's Gay is super cis gay male-centric and has problems, but I thought this video, which is only seven million months late, illustrates my feelings about the recent trend of masculinity as portrayed in advertising.  And I know everyone is past this bullshit, but watching this yesterday just made me think about its reception again and how everything annoyed me.  So I am going to whine about it now.

I understand that these Old Spice commercials are supposed to be less misogynistic than, say, Axe ads where hypermasculinity goes hand in hand with driving women into a sexual frenzy through your olfactory presence unlike the insufficiently masculine you before applying the potent essence of a thousand middle school guy locker rooms.   By which I mean 'sexually potent', of course.

I mean, the original ad with Isaiah Moustafa actually addresses women, who all want manly men like Isaiah Moustafa, because he's black and well-built and has a deep voice and we all know black men are smooth, hypermasculine sexual dynamites who are never gay and have God-like voices.  They also probably dance really well, unlike white people who dance the Charleston.

Wait, what do you mean, this is a stereotype common to ads and also everything?   He's funny!   That can't be racist!

Anyway, the original ad addresses women who can now turn their men into ridiculously sexy black men too by buying products!  That is way better than being horny maenads!  Your new Old Spice Man can also ride gleaming horse-motorcycles and do you beneficent favors like get you tickets to that thing you love (who gives a fuck what it is) and I guess defend your honor.  Chivalry is totally pro-woman.

But what does this mean for lesbian women?  Do they want Isaiah Moustafa as well?  Possibly, considering woman-woman action in advertising always has an invisible '-man' appended to the end.

Also, women shouldn't use Old Spice because it'll make them grow mustaches and stuff.  lol, gross, women with muscles!

And people should be taken seriously because they're men.

Wait, weren't we talking about The Man Your Man Could Be being less sexist than Axe?

The defense of the Old Spice commercials is that it becomes ridiculous and thus parodies or satires advertisements that play on Real Men Buy This Product!  Why?  Because Old Spice Guy claims to boil pasta by sticking his head in the oven.   LOL WHO DOES THAT.  Hypermasculine men do.  How is this more ridiculous than shooting Snicker bars at fast walkers in yellow short-shorts?  Or killing helicopters?   Or split atoms with roundhouse kicks?   These are not parodies of hypermasculinity.  They are celebrations and the implicit wish that lesser men could perform mythical acts of manliness like Gilgamesh who is one-third god as manliness triumphs even more mathematically sensical hereditary lineages.

And who are these lesser men?  Sissies who wear skirts to bars who deserve to have giant beer cans dropped on them!  Worse of all, they're mocked by women.  That is some fear of Medusa's grin psychosexual bullshit right there.

So, what is ultimately the message?  It's not just Buy Old Spice Because We're Funny, it's Buy Old Spice Because We're Manly to the Point of Ridiculously Mythic Standards.  Manliness becomes gender-conforming heterosexual maleness, which is under attack for some reason.  Because of 'metrosexuality', because of modern day constraints of PC sensitivity, because of women, because of fags.

But putting on deodorant and drinking light beer (lol) will save the day and also your manhood, because when you put on a dress, it falls off.  It literally falls off and the closest woman will swoop in like a harpy to devour it before it even hits the ground and then you too shall be a gay.

So, products are sold by exploiting this feeling of threatened masculinity.  This masculinity which must be protected from the women and the queer men and the trans folk and you know what? other straight men who aren't enough or themselves who aren't enough, through beating and removal from our communities (either by violent force or the attrition of discrimination) and repression and murder.

The feelings are made all the more explicit in the South Park episode, "South Park is Gay!", which concludes that the Queer Eye guys are lobsters who want to render the Earth defenseless by making all the men fags.  I mean, 'men who have appropriated gay...ness'.  And who will protect us from the lobsters when all we have left are women and gay men (and also the millions upon millions of brown people who cannot afford highlights and totally sweet shoes.)

For people who want to defend South Park as satire that's better than Family Guy—talk about low standards—well, 'satire' is not a general term that can be applied to something and suddenly its message is whichever is the best, most progressive, and most incisive one.  You know.  FYI.  It's a satire on 'metrosexuality' and the point is how it's bad for straight men and also the world.

How can something be satire when it hits all the right notes in our societal song?   "A Modest Proposal" would not be ironic if the English were already considering trying Irish baby stew.  The point is, when I'm not mansplaining feminism, I too find the original ad amusing.  But it's not any different from all the other insulting, homophobic, misogynistic ads, and I don't know why anybody seems to think it could be.

I also think If you really want humor where the punchline is machismo, I suggest looking elsewhere.

It's almost like it's possible for people who aren't straight male advertising executives to skewer hypermasculinity without reitering all its points, feeding this Viking fantasy.  Somehow, we are to believe that we live in a world where being this misogynistic, homophobic fool is somehow functional.  And the sad thing is, we kinda do.