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?

Exactly that is what inclusion is this is the points PPs have been trying to make the whole thread

Right. So the disabled actress is a victim. Gotcha.

But it's not inclusion if it's only been done to get away with pushing boundaries of what is acceptable in advertising.

To me that is the opposite of inclusion as its only a disabled actress who could have done it, abled bodied actresses were excluded.

No the advert wouldnt be made with able bodied actors but most able bodied people dont spasm. the adverts were made for the paralympics about disabled people being in awkward situations because of their disability.

The able bodied actresses were busy with the cup cake boobies dont worry about them.

gotcha

That exactly demonstrates why it's pointless me trying to discuss this with you- you and others are determined to twist this into something it's not.

If you're happy that inclusion is gained by using a disabled actress to illustrate something that an abled bodied person wouldn't get away with in an advert that's fine- it doesn't mean I have to agree and it doesn't mean, because I disagree, I automatically 'feel sorry' for the disabled person.

I think it's a real shame that the disabled community have to take inclusion in this as a victory. I realise it's because they are marginalised but to be pleased to be part of something that divides opinion on whether it is in very poor taste or not is quite sad to me.

Please don't speak for the 'disabled community' (WTAF is that anyway, we're not some kind of secret society and disability comes in many different forms. We are certainly not one homogeneous group).

Disabled actors are constantly marginalised in favour of able bodied actors - Eddie Redmayne, Daniel Day Lewis etc. There are many people with disabilities who want to act but find acting schools inaccessible or directors who don't want to cast them because of aesthetics. An able bodied actress could have done this role, but why shouldn't it go to someone who understands the situation and is therefore better qualified?

This, like every time a disabled actors pops up in a soap or drama or whatever, is a victory.

It is also a victory because the disability is directly addressed. Not in a 'poor them' way like the close up of Jane's damp crotch in Eastenders this week but because the character is having a chat with friends and is relating a funny story about something that happened because of her disability. No sweeping under the carpet or making her a character who 'just happens to be disabled'.

The final victory is because it acknowledges that disabled people have human desires and like sex too. The fact that people on this thread have commented that they get asked if they're capable of having sex, how they do it, who they do it with shows there us still an assumption that they don't have urges or sex. No, it's not a few random knobheads asking that, it happens frequently. Nearly all of my chair-using friends have been asked this in some form or another.

And inclusion does actually mean acknowledging differences, not ignoring them. Yes, it was a situation only someone who spasms will have (so not even me as I don't have spasms), but by having a platform to talk about that situation, to acknowledge that that is some people's existence and experience, that is inclusion. You may feel it isn't because you find it crass or only acceptable because there's a disability involved but it's an example of positive discrimination, which works to increase inclusively.

There will be people who watched it and said "Yes, that happened to me too!" who suddenly feel included and represented in mainstream advertising where they haven't been before.

But inclusion does not mean the same as Bear just like equality does not mean same as

Or what Rhonda said

Bear you seem to want to be offended for something that the has nothing to do with you. In fact disabled people are happy they are being shown on tv as normal sexual people.

An able bodied actress could have done this role, but why shouldn't it go to someone who understands the situation and is therefore better qualified?

That's my whole point. Even if they'd used a an abled bodied actress she would have had to act disabled to get the advert passed the ASA.

I genuinely don't see how you can class something as inclusive if it would have been deemed beyond decency ASA requirements unless it exploited the disability element.

Please don't get offended by the use of the word 'community' it was only supposed to represent those people who expressed the opinion that this advert was a victory to them

Now it seems to have turned into well able bodied advert would not get away with ejaculating maltesers

It hasn't 'turned into ' that mrsjay, I've made that point from the start- it's exactly what I'm trying to say.

You are speculating wildly about the ASA there, OP. Any evidence, at all, to back up your assertion?

Of course, you'd have to think of an equivalent storyline. Can you?

It is a niche advert shown for the paralympics that has made it onto mainstream that you find crude and offensive you are allowed to think that your reasons for offence is what I and other posters disagree about your mind isnt going to be changed your perspective of the advert is still the same but I dont think you are right.

You are speculating wildly about the ASA there, OP. Any evidence, at all, to back up your assertion?

Yes- the fact that no other advert I've ever seen in the UK has been that graphic.

That's not evidence, sorry. It's not even objective.

Whilst I agree it's not hard evidence, it is true based on what I've seen.

I've you can find me an advert that is as explicitly talking about wanking or any other sexual act as that one is I'll happily concede.

I've said before, I realise there is a fine line between the old double entendre and explicit descriptions as to what is appropriate but this is blatant and I genuinely don't believe there is any situation that could have been used for an abled bodied person to talk about wanking that explicitly on an advert and it not be banned.

I suppose time will tell. If I'm wrong then I suspect more and more adverts will push the boundaries as, if sex sells and the shock factor gets people talking then why wouldn't advertisers do it.

If I'm right then nothing will change because advertisers constrained by the ASA boundaries.

An able bodied actress would have to have acted disabled because that's what the storyline called for - it was a situation arising directly from her disability.

Personally I find the ads where women have screaming orgasms over shampoo and yoghurt much more grating. 1. Who the fuck does that? Oh wait it's another metaphor and 2. Why is a woman's orgasm any more tasteful than a man's. They're allowed past the censors and are on earlier in the evening.

I'd say that at least this was in context, and should any child see (although it's shown post watershed) it's easier to explain her hands shake so she spilled her sweets than it is to answer "Why is that lady shouting about yoghurt?"

But hey, if you're offended by that that's cool, it's your opinion. And wanking is kind of gross, though malteaser ejaculate would mitigate that for me. But don't try to make this into some sort of crusade "It's only allowed because she's disabled, I feel sorry for her, what a victim of the big bad media." You're moving the goalposts and beginning to sound really ableist, even if that's not your intention.

Im really sorry to say this again but what Rhonda said she is much more articulate than I am

rhonda if you and mrsjay weren't so determined to pounce on me every time I post you'd see that I'm not moving the goal posts at all.

Try reading my third post on this thread.

I've never viewed this as a disability issue other than to the extent I think disability has been cynically used to allow an advert that would have been deemed beyond the pale with an abled bodied person all for the sake of chocolate.

I don't 'feel sorry' for the disabled actress. I don't think she's a victim- why would I? You just want to convince yourself that that is my underlying view to confirm your own bias.

The fact remains, I think the advert is grim whoever is in it.

You do think it is a disability issue you might think ejaculating maltesers advert is grim but the reason you are offended is because a disability caused the malteser ejaculation therefore a disability issue

mrsjay stop talking such shite.

Do you think if you keep telling me what I actually think I'll suddenly agree you were right all along?

It's actually pretty offensive that you keep trying to twist the round despite me never once indicating in offended because it's the disability that causes the ejaculation.

I couldn't careless whether the actors were disabled or not, I don't like it because using wanking in a chocolate advert is unnecessarily grim.

I don't mind if you disagree with me but at least do me the courtesy of basing your arguments on what I've actually said rather than what you think I really mean.

You may as well argue with yourself if you're going to do that.

Just reread, I completely misread your earlier post as saying you felt sorry for the actress being exploited. I hold my hands up to that error.

However, I will continue to maintain that your assertions about this being allowed only because of the actress' disability are ableist.

These adverts were made specifically to be broadcast on one channel, post watershed, during the paralympics. They were made to normalise disability and to an extent, offset what was being shown (athletic disabled people) by showing them in normal settings too (whilst I know several athletic people with disabilities, one a former paralympian, one a hopeful and more who just enjoy sport, you also get ones like me, who is a gold medalist at lounging on the sofa dicking around on the Internet whilst eating chocolate ).

The adverts were so well received (a quick Google will tell you that) that they have been given a longer run.

However, you are perfectly at liberty to find it distasteful for the wanking. In which case: www.asa.org.uk/Consumers/How-to-complain.aspx

Finding it distasteful because 'it wouldn't be allowed if she was able bodied' is ableist.

I'm not pouncing on everything you say, and to be honest, I'm not massively bothered either. My friends and I get a lot of this kind of thing, I'm used to it. All I was hoping to do was point out a few places where your views may not sit comfortably with the opinions of actual disabled people and perhaps help you to understand where most (not all, because some certainly would find this distasteful too) disabled people are coming from when they say this is a positive advert.

MrsJayy - thank you! I'd say it's more verbal diarrhoea than anything else though!