To think the Malteaser advert is in really poor taste

[Bearbehind]

Just seen a Malteaser advert where a woman in a wheelchair is talking to 2 friend in the park about her date.

The jist is she had a spasm, he enjoyed the repercussions, and whilst demonstrating her hand actions the malteasers shoot out of the bag and go every where.

Is it me or is that really bad taste?

I don't think MNHQ will even need notifying unless it gets reported and then all you need is an explanation

Maybe it would be confusing to keep having to sign out and then sign in again on a different account

You can have different user names for the same account - you just swap it over without logging out- you don't need to have the same name for 2 different people

Ah I see. I didn't know that

I'm sure DawnDonna and her DD aren't actually sharing a computer so there is no need for any logging in and out nonsense if they want superset accounts. They could just have their own accounts set up on their own devices. If they actually share a computer it would be very unusual. Obviously, it's up to them and no business of mine but it is a bit confusing.

Why does it matter?? It's always clear who is posting.

This is going off on a bit of a tangent but I find it odd for 2 reasons

• firstly, it's not necessary to announce who exactly you are. Announcing you're someone's daughter when you post makes it sound like we should all know who the mother is. It wouldn't matter if it were the mother or the daughter posting. Very few of us 'know' posters on these threads; I rarely connect a user name with a particular posters history on these general thread sections.

• secondly I find it ironic that dawndonnas DD is clearly an independent woman who doesn't want to be invisible because of her disability, yet posts under her mother's user name.

people need to realise that disability is all around us and we are not all fragile, sexless, delicate people who you need to be serious around 100% of the time.

Absolutely this. I think it's a subtle as a massive sledgehammer double entendre but it's funny and it works. A single entendre surely would be her actually using words like wanking?

Advertising has used sex to sell for years and The words would go over a kids head. They won't infer anything from it she isn't describing his knob, hell she doesn't even use any of the many words for penis.

I'd actually rather my kids saw this advert containing 2 very normal girls laughing and joking than some half naked supermodel parading about fellating things...

Why the fuck has this turned into a let's have a go at the way my dd and I post?
Piss off!

I honestly don't get how anyone can think this is a double entendre.

Ok- she doesn't actually say the word 'wank' but she says something like 'my hands wandered, then they spasmed, he enjoyed it, and...' Cue spurting Maltesers.

There is absolutely no double meaning. They are not pretending to talk about knitting whilst actually talking about wanking.

The Maltesers are a substitute for actual spunk thankfully but there's absolutely no doubt about what they are talking about.

What exactly do you think the 'double' part is?

I've just had to Goigle to see what the fuss was about. My thoughts were.

I laughed.
I wasn't offended on anyone's behalf.
I work with teenagers and young people of all types and believe me the conversations aren't that far off the mates around the table in the ad.
Made me want some malteasers!
Bloody great to see something a bit risqué and the main character is disabled and leads the joke.

All this fuss!!

They just don't understand what a double entendre is, op.

We have scaffolding on our property at the moment. In some of their online advertising the company use the tag line "our erection is your satisfaction" - a classic naughty double entendre. You think about sex, but they are talking about scaffolding.

This maltesers advert does not contain one! I share your frustration that people don't understand.

bib, honestly, unless maltesers and jizz are the same thing, it is a double entendre. It really, really is.

No, it really really isn't. The maltesers are a prop or a device. There is no alternative meaning to what they are doing.

I'm off out to the cinema now for some light relief!

Of course there is an alternative meaning.

You have already established that. But then, if you go looking for your examples of rhetorical tropes in builders' slogans, perhaps this is all a bit too high-level?

I had to go looking for the ad (usually fast forward through the ads!), but I thought it was bloody brilliant. I once had a hilarious conversation with a disabled friend about much the same situation. Sadly we had no Malteasers but the £1 shotsI miss student prices!were just as good!

lrd what is the 'alternative' meaning.

Just because the MalteseRBS aren't actually spunk it doesn't mean that's not what they are supposed to be.

The whole point of a simulation of something is to show it with alternative props and that's what is happening here. It's not supposed to be something else.

bear, either she's spilling the sweets, or she's re-imagining the ejaculation.

Obviously.

The whole point of a double entendre is that the literal layer is 'supposed to be' representing the figurative layer too, isn't it?

After all, that's why we understand it as a double entendre, and not a bizarre enigma from outer space. Isn't it?

She is absolutely not 'just spilling the sweets'.

She only does it to demonstrate what happened as a result of her hand spasming when it was on her partners cock.

I can't actually believe anyone could be stupid enough to not comprehend this or to think the advert is about someone spilling sweets when there's a narrative describing what the hand actions mean.

Yes ... and thus ... the spilling of the sweets is one idea, and the sex is another idea. Like, like ... two of them ... like a double entendre? Yes?

Calling me stupid doesn't change the fairly obvious facts here.

To try and illustrate the point- theFlake advert absolutely was a double entendre.

Literal image

Woman in bath enjoying a bit of chocolate

Alternative image

Woman sucking on a cock.

The massive difference is the advert doesn't tell the viewer anything- they get to choose which image they see.

In this advert the viewer is told what is happening. It is not supposed to be anything else.

I 100% agree with you bear, I find the ad completely inappropriate and blatant. It's got nothing to do with disability but the crude and blatant imagery. I was quite horrified when I saw it.

Even my first year undergraduate students are capable of grasping this stuff.

bear, you only think you have 'no choice' what to see because you can't imagine someone watching it, who would just see the sweets spilling and wouldn't understand that another meaning is implied.

OP - come down from that high pedestal and stop waving your thesaurus.

No, the advert was not in poor taste but its ok that you think that. Stick to the radio in future, sex is out there AND PEOPLE ARE MAKING JOKES ABOUT IT!!