Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think the Malteaser advert is in really poor taste

560 replies

Bearbehind · 04/10/2016 21:55

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?

OP posts:
Original poster
Bearbehind · 05/10/2016 20:45

We are never going to agree lrd despite the fact you are completely wrong so i think we need to just put this to the vote Grin

If anyone can be bothered to keep reading and posing on this thread please can you start your post with

DE if you think it's a double entendre

Or

NDE if you think it's Not a double entendre

OP posts:
LRDtheFeministDragon · 05/10/2016 20:46

Or, you could brush up on the basics of how the English language works?

Original poster
Bearbehind · 05/10/2016 20:48

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.

How can you not understand what it's about when the narrative tells you. It is not implying anything- it's telling you.

OP posts:
LRDtheFeministDragon · 05/10/2016 20:51

Well, I understand because I am reasonably conversant with the English language and with double entendre.

The narrative doesn't tell you literally. It implies.

You show that advert to a five year old and ask what's happening.

They will all tell you the lady spills her sweets.

That's because, while it is implied that her spilling the sweets is the visual conclusion to the sexual narrative that tails off, it is not actually stated.

Original poster
Bearbehind · 05/10/2016 20:55

FFS lrd the advert is on after the watershed. It's not meant to be viewed by children.

its aimed at adults and explicitly explains what the demonstration is depicting.

The narrative is not 'implying' anything, it's explaining it.

You really don't have the grasp on the English language you claim to.

OP posts:
MycatsaPirate · 05/10/2016 20:59

Well I think that I will write to the people who do the maltesers ads and suggest that their next advert does not use sex or disabilities or innuendo.

In fact I shall suggest they have someone open the door to a Weight Watchers meeting and throw in 2kg of maltesers and watch the entire room erupt into a human game of hungry hippos.

LRDtheFeministDragon · 05/10/2016 20:59

I know it's on after the watershed.

I am trying to explain it to you by suggesting you imagine a child's response.

Yes?

Original poster
Bearbehind · 05/10/2016 21:02

But as its on after the watershed it's clearly not supposed to have a dual meaning to adults.

Yes- kids will see something different to adults but that doesn't mean it actually has a different meaning. It means they don't understand what is being spoken about.

OP posts:
LRDtheFeministDragon · 05/10/2016 21:04

I'm sorry, but you are being ridiculous. It has a double meaning. This is not one of those situations where we all need to sit and ponder Barthes to understand it.

multivac · 05/10/2016 21:06

I'm afraid that LRD is correct, OP.

The script explains the sexual encounter, yes. But not its conclusion. That is implied by the visual image of the chocolates. Thus... DE.

Original poster
Bearbehind · 05/10/2016 21:13

Of course it's a conclusion.

What else can it possibly mean, given the supporting narrative?

I'm not denying it's not an actual true representation of a cock and spunk, on account of the fact it's depicted by Malteasers but it is absolute not a 'double entendre'

OP posts:
metaphoricus · 05/10/2016 21:25

NDE

multivac · 05/10/2016 21:26

Again. The conclusion of the sexual encounter is implied only. That's really not a matter of opinion.

multivac · 05/10/2016 21:26

(Perhaps you need reminding that not all masturbation leads to ejaculation?)

metaphoricus · 05/10/2016 21:29

A double entendre has to actually involve the spoken or written word.
They are talking about how she accidentally wanked the boyfriend.
There was no double entendre there. The spilt Maltesers were imagery,
not a double entendre. Which has to be written or spoken.

Original poster
Bearbehind · 05/10/2016 21:29

So what else are the Malteasers representing multivac?

That's the whole argument about whether it's a double entendre or not.

If it is then there has to be a second meaning to the Maltesers spurting everywhere- what is that meaning?

OP posts:
LRDtheFeministDragon · 05/10/2016 21:30

It doesn't, multi?! Shock

Next you'll be telling us people with disabilities are allowed to have sex, too.

Klkl · 05/10/2016 21:34

NDE. Not that it matters because the main problem is the ad is not funny and is crude.

Original poster
Bearbehind · 05/10/2016 21:34

I agree a double entrendre can be depicted via imagery eg the Flake advert even if the definition of the word is based on it being written or spoken.

The second sentance was completely unnecessary though lrd Hmm

Where has anybody suggested that that was the issue with the advert, other than those trying to twist it round to being about that?

OP posts:
Original poster
Bearbehind · 05/10/2016 21:35

Completely agree klkl

OP posts:
multivac · 05/10/2016 21:36

The second meaning is 'oops, I've spilt my chocolates'.

Although I'm U-turning now, as metaphoricus makes a fair point. Without words, it can't be a double entendre. But it is imagery that implies only - it is the viewer who has to make the final connection (and a child, for example, wouldn't).

I don't even like Maltesers very much....

metaphoricus · 05/10/2016 21:37

I didn't mean imagery, I meant an image. Damn.

TinklyLittleLaugh · 05/10/2016 21:38

Hmm as a disabled woman who has sex and talks about sex with her friends, I am not offended by an ad about a disabled woman talking about sex per se.

But this is a bit crude and unescessary to be honest. Maybe I'm an old codger but I don't really see the need for it.

More shocked by people saying the Last Leg isn't funny actually. It's the best thing on the telly.

multivac · 05/10/2016 21:41

Really? 14 pages of discussion on one of the highest-traffic boards on a high-traffic social media platform with recognised consumer power.... and you don't see the need for an advert that pushes the boundaries?

Original poster
Bearbehind · 05/10/2016 21:41

The second meaning is 'oops, I've spilt my chocolates'.

Sorry but that's absolute bollocks.

She spills her chocolate demonstrating her wanking hand action and I'm sure she actually pauses then 'spurts' the chocolates.

It's a deliberate action not an accident.

How do you explain the narrative leading up to the spurting Maltesers if the story is meant to mean anything other than ejaculation?

I can't actually believe we're arguing about something so completely obvious.

OP posts: