14 Oct 2016

RISQUE, PATRONISING ... OR BOTH? WHAT THINKS YOU?

Warning: Whilst not what I'd consider rude - and as many of you know I consider myself a bit of a prude - this advert has been certified as risque enough to be only shown after the 9 PM watershed here on British TV. TT




  • Considered by some as too rude, that any young children watching might be 'offended', that any parent(s) watching with a young child might be embarrassed. I'd argue that, only shown after 9 PM, surely little children will be in bed. And besides which, wouldn't any young children who happened to be awake and watching only see a woman spilling her chocolates and not get the sexual connotation?
  • Considered by certain Men's Rights groups as being 'sexist' in that if this had been a man instead of a woman there would have been cries that the ad was making light of sexual assault. I'd argue, the woman was talking about a partner (albeit a new one) and not some random stranger that she had groped, that, far from a sexual assault upon a person, this was more of a 'mishap', a mishap that the woman's partner quite clearly enjoyed.
  • Considered by some as patronising towards disabled people. I'd argued that its wonderful to see actual disabled people (and not able-bodied people playing disabled people) on TV, that its refreshing to see someone disabled actually advertising 'everyday' products, that, most of all, its fantastic that its being acknowledged that, guess what, disabled people do have sex lives.
What are your thoughts? Love the advert or loathe it? Find it too risque, merely patronising ... or both?


Way behind with my reviews and with a busy few days ahead of me, I'm hoping to catch up with things and as such shan't be posting until Tuesday (possibly Wednesday) soooo, as always ...


14 comments:

Kelly said...

I'm one of those who feels "political correctness" has gone way too far. So.... I see nothing offensive about the ad at all. I agree with your statements that those children who aren't in bed probably won't "get it" and that it's actually refreshing to see a disabled person featured.

Hope your next few days are productive.

Sherry Ellis said...

I don't think that's a great way to advertise candy, but it is nice to see a disabled person featured in a commercial.

Melissa (Books and Things) said...

Well it being after 9, I don't get the big deal. As for the men's group... she clearly states that it was consensual. As far as the disabled part... well, aren't they human as well? Wouldn't be my fave commercial, but nothing I'd get upset about. Yep, I agree with you. :)

Suko said...

Tracy, I don't have a problem with this. I don't think it's patronizing towards disabled people--it is a positive depiction.

Enjoy your weekend!

Mary (Bookfan) said...

I don't have a problem with it and doubt kids would understand it. That said, I can't remember the name of the product being advertised. That's a problem, isn't it? :)

Brian Joseph said...

This is a great post.

You successfully highlight how a multiple, otherwise diverse groups are offended or upset by what should not offend or upset anyone. I agree with Kelly that this is a good example of Political Correctness going too far.

Barbara Fisher said...

Hi Tracy, nothing upsetting about it as far as I can see – not a great advert though so maybe I will get offended by that! What a crazy world we live in – why on earth would anyone be embarrassed or upset it’s just ludicrous.

frayed at the edge said...

I laughed out loud the first time I saw this, and gave Malcolm a shout to watch it next time it came on ...... and he laughed too! If someone objects to the content ...... well, they obviously got the double meaning, so surely they too have a dirty mind!!

Alexia561 said...

Didn't find this offensive at all and, while it took me a minute to get the joke, it did make me laugh!

Tracy Terry said...

Thank good, another one for whom it took a minute to get the joke. I thought I was the only one.

Gina R said...

I mean, I can see where some are coming from with it, but let's be realistic...MOST wee ones wouldn't get it the way it was actually meant, but the adults would get a chuckle.

So many books, so little time said...

Never seen this advert before, I think people can find offense in just about anything. In uni I did an anonymous post about people with disabilities advertising they are humans too and deserve a sex life (it was a whole big controversial topic). However the same picture showing a person with no visible disabilities didn't provoke much reaction at all. Was very sad and upsetting to find how people felt about someone with disabilities when they had the mask of anonymity for their opinions.

Lainy http://www.alwaysreading.net

Yvonne@fiction-books said...

Hi Tracy,

I can only echo everyone else's comments about it being good to have a genuinely disabled person featured in television advertising.

I'm still not sure how this whole 'watershed' thing is supposed to work - or rather, I know how it is supposed to work, but reality seems to be rather different.

There are still plenty of programmes and indeed adverts which include content deemed to be rather risque, which we have both noticed on television before 9pm and this particular advert definitely wouldn't fall into that category!

I'm genuinely not sure that this is the best advert I have seen for 'Maltesers' though.

Thanks for sharing :)

Yvonne

LL Cool Joe said...

I don't find it offensive and I like the fact that it features a disabled person but I don't like the ad very much. I prefer the other one they are running with another disabled girl in it.

I do think it's slightly sad when everything has become sexual nowadays though, so maybe I'm a prude.