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 · 07/10/2016 16:55

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

FFS, you do enjoy twisting what I say to suit your cause. Hmm

I don't find it distasteful because it wouldn't be allowed if she were able bodied.

I find it distasteful and I don't think it would be allowed if she had been abled bodied.

Can't you see there's a very big difference.

OP posts:
Blu · 07/10/2016 17:22

Able-bodied actors, actresses, directors, producers 'get away with' all sorts of things in all sorts of content on TV all the time. Have you read the background to how these ads were developed, and why? They were made specifically to go alongside the Paralympics and are as much to do with altering our (generally prejudiced) perceptions of disability and disabled people as the Games were, and as much profile raisers / perception changers as adverts. You might just as well say it was Mars sponsoring a short item showing disabled people in a wider light than they are often seen in on TV and in the wider world.

Poor taste. What the hell is 'poor taste'? It was an ad designed to go out after the watershed alongside the Paralympics. Children will not understand it, and how badly are grown adults really affected by 'poor taste'? Has it disturbed you? Frightened you so you can't sleep? Encouraged you to commit a crime? Is it likely to be of offence to someone in distressed and vulnerable circumstance? It isn't a rape 'joke'.

If no to these questions, 'poor taste' is just a subjective quality. And one which points the way to censorship.

As for describing the actor as 'exploited' - she is an accomplished young woman who has had roles in The InBetweeners, a regular role in New Tricks , and supported by the RSC has written and produced her own film RE-defining Juliet shown by the BBC, which looks at stereotypes of women and who gets to play Juliet.

OP - Do write to the ASA. You must have a green biro somewhere?

Original poster
Bearbehind · 07/10/2016 17:39

Jeezo, blu, you've twisted what I've said too.

I haven't said the actress was exploited.

I said Malteasers exploited a situation where they'd be able to push the boundaries further by using a disabled actress.

As with my last post, there's a big difference.

OP posts:
MrsJayy · 07/10/2016 17:50

Yes they did exploit it you are right but there is nothing wrong with that

Blu · 07/10/2016 17:51

And the whole point is that it is a disabled actress, talking about an incident connected to disability.

OK - you didn't say she was exploited, but the issue of exploitation is irrelevant because disability is the whole point.

And in any case, so what if they pushed boundaries? Masturbatory sex is legal, we all know about it, there is nothing non-consensual suggested, what does it all matter?

They pushed boundaries to encourage people to push their own boundaries in their perceptions. The Whole Point. They made this to challenge perceptions of disabled people, as much as they did to promote their brand.

Original poster
Bearbehind · 07/10/2016 18:32

I can see your point blu, I just think pushing boundaries by using wanking to advertise chocolate is a step too far but I completely agree that's just personal taste.

OP posts:
RhodaBorrocks · 07/10/2016 18:37

Thank you Blu, I totally agree with what you've said.

OP you're really just nitpicking now. What exactly is the difference? You find it distasteful and you don't think it would be allowed if she was able bodied. Don't you see how that is making it about her disability and ergo, ableist?

Instead of moaning on here about how none of us understand and are all twisting your words, just go and put that complaint in: www.asa.org.uk/Consumers/How-to-complain.aspx

Original poster
Bearbehind · 07/10/2016 18:54

You find it distasteful and you don't think it would be allowed if she was able bodied. Don't you see how that is making it about her disability and ergo, ableist?

I don't find it distasteful because she is disabled.

It's distasteful because is using wanking to advertise chocolate.

No other adverts get away with being that explicit so it's not unreasonable to assume it's because they used a disabled actress.

If you can prove me wrong on that point by finding another advert that is that explicit but uses abled bodied actors then I'll happily eat my hat.

If it's inclusion you're after, surely you should want disabled actors to feature in adverts interchangeably with abled bodied ones, not because advertisers get away with more by using disabled actors?

OP posts:
RhodaBorrocks · 07/10/2016 20:21

But they don't get away with more! That is just your perception.

Inclusion isn't about "getting away with more", nor is it about disabled and able bodied actors being "interchangeable". It is about acknowledging that disabled people have unique issues not faced by able bodied people and ensuring they are accounted for, accommodated and that they have as much visibility as able bodied people.

I accept that you find the wanking distasteful, but I will continue to disagree with you that the it's only been allowed because the actress is disabled.

Able bodied actor:

Original poster
Bearbehind · 07/10/2016 20:29

rhoda It's not my perception- that Irn bru advert is on a completely different level

That advert is about a woman who thinks her son is wanking but he's actually using a hand exerciser thingy.

The Maltesers advert is about wanking and nothing else.

Can you really not see the difference?

OP posts:
RhodaBorrocks · 07/10/2016 20:50

The visual metaphor is the same. He is no more wanking in that advert than she is wanking a bag of malteasers. From a visual standpoint they are on the same level.

Look, you obviously think you're right about this, just go and complain already.

Original poster
Bearbehind · 07/10/2016 20:56

It's not the same.

Neither are actually wanking but

The Irn bru advert is misinterpreting something completely innocent.

The Malteaser one is talking about and demonstrating wanking

OP posts:
contortionist · 07/10/2016 21:48

"demonstrating wanking" ? The version I saw had chocolates in it, not penises.

Original poster
Bearbehind · 07/10/2016 21:57

That's why it was a 'demonstration'

If it had been a penis I'd have just said wanking.

OP posts:
Blu · 07/10/2016 22:00

Well, technically, she is demonstrating having a spasm. because it is having a spasm that she talks about - and just happens to have her hand on her bf's penis at the time.

Able-bodied people don't generally have spasms. This isn't something that would happen in an able bodied context. The advert places a disability norm at the centre of the scene. Spasms cause some disabled people to spill stuff. . In this case she tells a story about a spasm in a sexual context.

What harm does this do? What harm does 'poor taste' cause anyone?

Original poster
Bearbehind · 07/10/2016 22:04

It puts me off Maltesers Grin

OP posts:
Blu · 07/10/2016 22:19

Luckily that is a problem easily solved Grin

Original poster
Bearbehind · 07/10/2016 22:21

True- I'll resort to Cake

OP posts:
childmaintenanceserviceinquiry · 08/10/2016 23:07

Blanche - thank you for the video. 1992, by that time I was already working abroad and didn't see this. The Flake advert I remember from my childhood in the 70's and early 80's was most certainly running through fields. At that time it was VERY proactive.

SlottedSpoon · 08/10/2016 23:43

The advert sounds as though it's in very poor taste, the fact that it features someone with disabilities is irrelevant..

Who wants to watch and advert for chocolate that is about someone getting a handjob? Seriously? Hmm

Willow2016 · 09/10/2016 20:29

Some Flake adverts were banned/taken off the air in the 70s as they were considered too suggestive! One never got aired at all!

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/chocolate-week-ten-worlds-sexiest-2361756

Check out these... not much subtelty in any of them! Do watch the '1984' choc bar one Shock Smile watch those cocoa beans and the melted choc carefully! Bloody hell I love my choc but it never did that for me! Where can I buy some?

bibbitybobbityyhat · 09/10/2016 23:02

So which ones would those be Willow (that were banned/never aired) ? I clicked on your link and it was just a page of "sexy chocolate adverts" but I need more specifics than that.

TaterTots · 09/10/2016 23:48

You do realise no one actually wanks during said advert, right?

lifeaintblackandwhite · 10/10/2016 01:05

RazWaz yes! we spoonies are human and have the same interests as many of our able bodied peers do!

Rrross1ges · 10/10/2016 17:04

Spasms cause some disabled people to spill stuff

Oh God that has tickled me. My mind has been in the gutter since 1973!