Saturday, 27 March 2010

Rapey papey

More feminist wittering here:

A guy hits on a woman in a bar, she makes it clear she’s not interested. Then a news item comes on the bar TV saying that an asteroid is about to hit earth. The woman is seen to panic, she and the guy make eye contact, and as everyone else in the bar screams and runs away, she jumps on him in a passionate embrace and they (presumably) have sex on the sticky and beer-soaked floor. Then we see the same guy go behind the scenes to where his mates are standing in what turns out to be a fake TV newsroom, they do high fives and he drinks a Pepsi Max.

I am not lacking a sense of humour.


I fucking beg to differ.

I am not known for political correctness. But hello? If you make a woman think she is about to die in order to have sex with her, that is a bit rapey.


Actually, I have an entirely fucking different perspective: if she wasn't interested before she was going to die, why should she be interested after she "discovered" she was going to die? Perhaps she was just playing hard to get, or perhaps she's just a closet slut looking for motivation. Perhaps a million-billion other things. But speaking as a butt-ugly lard-arse, if that situation occurred to me and I was the bloke, I'd tell the fucking cheap, amoral whore to fuck off. After I'd walked her round to the "studio" to show her how fucking pwned she'd been.

So what that advert says to me is that both of the protagonists were sluts as bad as each other.

And anyway, it's a fucking advert for fuck's sake. Get a fucking life.

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

'A bit rapey'.

It either is or it isn't.

What's the difference if a man pretends to be a racing car driver (or whatever)? The guy is guilty of immoral behaviour; the woman of stupidity. But both consent.

This constant blurring of what something is or isn't is just rubbish and causes more problems than it solves (and cheapens issues - such as race and rape).

JuliaM said...

I hereby apologise on behalf of my entire sex for this dim, humourless little Puritan.

'A little bit rapey'..? Jesus wept! That alone is an insult to every woman that's been genuinely raped.

MTG said...

I was about to suggest that ragey feminists would fall out of the woodwork in response to rapey but I am just too late.

Anonymous said...

Dare you to leave a link to this on the discussion thread.

Wat Dabney said...

In my day we just used to tell the girl we loved her.

thefrollickingmole said...

They sound like they could do with a good dicking over there.


Maybe Dr Tran could help?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FO0kRE5OTZI

Willy said...

On the video i watched it shows a passionate embrace and kissing, but no sex.

Is misleading a girl into a kiss and cuddle now regarded as rape?

woman on a raft said...

There's more to this one than there appears as there is a 14 year history of legal disputes between Pepsi, Coke and (recently) Apple, about the subject of deception in advertizing.

I'll unravel it later (if I can be arsed) but one way of reading the current ad is that Pepsi have made a deliberately unacceptable film expecting the audience to go "that's outrageous, it's obviously a no-no to obtain sex by deception". It is indeed a bit rapey - that's the point.

Disappointing then to find a readership of this level of sophistication thinking that so long as it's mildly funny, that suspends the underlying moral dynamic.

Pepsi are not really talking about sex here. They aren't even really talking to the consumer audience; they are talking about whether their competitors should be allowed to tell lies in order to get the customer to behave in a way which they would not, if they knew the real facts of a case.

Highlights (for want of a better word) of legal history:

In 1996 PepsiCo ran an unlikely advert about saving points to get a Harrier flight. When somebody saved the points, the company reneged. He sued them (this is the US) and I can't be bothered to track what happened. Google is your chum. However, that looks like Pepsi started it this issue of telling fibs in order to get sales.

In 2004 there was some dispute (sorry, you'll have to untangle this one for yourself) when Pepsi and Apple collaborated on the subject of intellectual property and made an ad which had to be pulled because of claims that they had used deception to get children to appear in an advert. Brian Flemming has the pulled advert and the background.

By 2007 Pepsi was complaining that Coke was not being wholly truthful in its adverts. Don't weep too hard; both companies benefitted from the acres of coverage their spat got.

Disclosure: it's all muck and it rots your teeth. Just Say No.

Obnoxio The Clown said...

WOAR, I rarely disagree with you, but as far as I'm concerned, the "victim" of the deception in this case was merely a person of low moral standards being exposed.

And really, isn't most sex obtained under deception anyway? The deception of "honour and obey", the deception of "I promise I'll divorce her", etc., etc.

None of these reasons are right, but picking on an advert seems to be missing the point somewhat.

El_Quince said...

Viz Top Tips had a debate ending take on this:

http://twitter.com/VizTopTips/status/11025602818

Krauser said...

So what if it IS "rapey".

TV adverts are full of men portrayed as dimwits, clowns, lechers, perverts etc.

There's plenty of ads that condone or get humour out of violence against men, and "making him pay".

Plenty more that make out that the woman is doing a man a favour if she'll grace him with her air-headed presence.

So tough titty if something is "rapey". I'll take these femtards seriously about their "equality" when they campaign against the rampant misandry currently polluting the airwaves.

john miller said...

Reminds me of the old (apocryphal?) story.

The guy says to the lady:"Will you have sex with me for 10p?"

She says go away.

He says:"Will you have sex with me for £1million?" she thinks and says:"Well, ok."

He says: "Will you have sex with me for a tenner?" She says:" What sort of woman do you think I am!?"

He says:"We've established what sort of woman you are, madam, we are now merely negotiating the price..."

I think that was attributed to some politician, but I can't remember his name.