Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

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 21:43

multivac, it's put me off buying Maltesers so it hasn't exactly had the desired marketing affect has it?

OP posts:
metaphoricus · 05/10/2016 21:43

I'm really pissed off that I cannot tolerate watching The Last Leg, because Josh Widdicombes voice sets my nerves on edge.

multivac · 05/10/2016 21:47

Just because an implication is bloody obvious, that doesn't make it not an implication. Again - you say that there's nothing else that could possibly be inferred from the finale; but would a five-year-old make that inference?

It's the non-double-entendre equivalent of Mrs Slocombe's pussy.

WorraLiberty · 05/10/2016 21:49

multivac, it's put me off buying Maltesers so it hasn't exactly had the desired marketing affect has it?

This thread is public though, so by the end of just this month (for example), it will probably have been read by 100s of people.

Bedsheets4knickers · 05/10/2016 21:55

Can't say I like it either .. I do find the broken foot one funny .

PickAChew · 05/10/2016 22:00

Skimming through this thread has made me peckish.

So I've just eaten a sausage.

Original poster
Bearbehind · 05/10/2016 22:04

The advert is shown after the watershed multivac, it's not intended for a five year old to see.

Having said that, even you agree it's not a double entendre now so, so far, no one is in agreement with lrd on that point.

OP posts:
multivac · 05/10/2016 22:04
crashdoll · 05/10/2016 22:07

Can anyone link to the ad please? Oddly, I can't find it.

multivac · 05/10/2016 22:07

Yes, we know it's not aimed at five-year-olds. We know that every viewer is expected to 'get' the hilarious joke. But that still doesn't mean it's not implied. Because it is implied. And whilst I have agreed that this is not an example of double entendre, this is only because no words are involved. So I'm not agreeing with you, either.

Hateloggingin · 05/10/2016 22:08

It's NOT a double entendre.

LRD you've been weirdly rude to op on that point, telling her she's thick etc.

I actually like the advert but op is right on the NDE point

I also think two people posting under one account is weird. If anyone cares.

Original poster
Bearbehind · 05/10/2016 22:09

Fine, I can live with an abstention Grin

OP posts:
multivac · 05/10/2016 22:11

I am not absteining! I am choosing a Third Way.

multivac · 05/10/2016 22:32

Visual metaphor.

That's what it is.

Original poster
Bearbehind · 05/10/2016 22:38

I'll go with that mulitvac

It is absolutely something symbolic of something else.

It is absolutely not something with 2 differing meanings.

OP posts:
multivac · 05/10/2016 22:47

It is something that can be interpreted as a visual metaphor, as you are doing. Or could simply be seen as a literal event, as a child would (and yes, we've already established the target audience; that's irrelevant).

Original poster
Bearbehind · 05/10/2016 22:57

It's not irrelevant as a child wouldn't understand the narrative alongside it.

It's pretty bonkers that this has descended into 'is it a double entendre or not' but it did because lrd was so patronising about it.

The bottom line is, in my opinion, it's an unnecessary gratuitous use of wanking imagery and narrative, somehow made socially acceptable by the use of a disabled actress, in order to promote chocolate, which is a bit too grim for me.

OP posts:
metaphoricus · 05/10/2016 23:33

Bloody hell. Metaphor. How did I miss that?

Whathaveilost · 05/10/2016 23:46

crashdoll
I cant link at the moment but google malteaser advert disabled and it will come up with some links. I watched the vid throuhj thecDaily mirror website.

bibbitybobbityyhat · 05/10/2016 23:49

Ah I see you are reduced to pulling intellectual rank yet again LRD. I think my "our erection is your satisfaction" quote is a perfect example of double entendre, in the finest English Carry On tradition. You are v patient op!

Whathaveilost · 05/10/2016 23:52

The bottom line is, in my opinion, it's an unnecessary gratuitous use of wanking imagery and narrative, somehow made socially acceptable by the use of a disabled actress, in order to promote chocolate, which is a bit too grim for me.

Of course it is a gratuitous use of wanking imagery. Many people thought it was funny,, including me. Nothing up with a bit of smut after the watershed. I dont want everything sanitised and suitable for childrens tv!! So it was a bit grim for you. It wasnt for a lot of us
Different tastes and all that!

SoupDragon · 06/10/2016 07:21

It's not like she sits there graphically wanking an imaginary penis. It's over in about a second. which would be disappointing I would have thought

SoupDragon · 06/10/2016 07:23

AIBU To think the Malteaser advert is in really poor taste?

To answer this, no you aren't unreasonable to think that. You can think what you like. It doesn't mean you are right or that others will agree with you. People have different tastes.

Even the Daily mail thought this ad was funny rather than offensive though and they find everything offensive I thought.

multivac · 06/10/2016 07:44

It is irrelevant. A child wouldn't understand the second meaning of Mrs Slocombe's pussy - that doesn't make it a single entendre!

SoupDragon · 06/10/2016 08:01

There is no double entendre in this advert. That simply is not what this is. It's just a smutty visual joke. I still don't find it offensive or distateful at all.

It's irrelevant what a child would think because, as I understood it, this is only shown late.

Swipe left for the next trending thread