::sigh::

I think I’m back onto Vanilla Coke for a while. :\

It’s confusing, because right now I’m trying to define my views on rape culture without getting into the the back-and-forth muck of college group battles (best available source on r.c. issues that I could find was a fairly comprehensive 1993 book, but still…) and I’m trying to get clear definition so that I don’t get sucked into extremism, better hold my own in discussions, etc. I mean, wow, weirdly enough, the rape culture vs. censorship issue is much more universal than I knew.

But I get the sense that this ad just doesn’t cross that line, that is, the endorsement of sexual assault. The objectification is thick, but the effectiveness, at least as I can see, arises from how greatly removed from reason and decency such a trade would be. In this case, if the crime were replaced with something of *similar* magnitude, say… Say there’s a hitman wielding a steel string; in the shadows behind him, a man tied to a chair gazes in fear (with the obvious implication of impending murder); and a third party presents his payment–a suitcase of Pepsi.

I don’t think that Pepsi would be endorsing murder, in that case–though the implication is that it’s inevitable. They’re definitely shooting for memorable shock value, taking the outrageous and the unthinkable somewhere new, but I don’t think people look at this and think “huh, fair trade.”

…then again, some of the people who have replied here make me doubt that. ack,

Yes. I would be offended. Sexual assault is sexual assault. The fact that the vast majority of assaults are committed against women by men doesn’t trivialize others or make them amusing. And you should be offended, too.

And don’t get in my face about the fact idea that a child would sexually assault one. Talk to whomever made the ad. Also, the kid is clearly pubescent. And pubescent underage males can and do assault people. Take it from someone who knows.

first off, the idea that the CHILD would sexually assault someone is absurd. And if the assumption is made because the child is a male then thats a contradiction in feminist beliefs. Feminism (if i am wrong about this then i apologize.) is based around the idea that stereotypes and generalizations are what create inequality. Making the generalization that since the child is male he would sexually assault her is shooting yourselves in the foot don’t you think?

what if this was reversed, say an elderly lady trading a pepsi in order to save some attractive male. would the same principle apply? should i be offended? if the answer is no, then neither should you.

please feel free to disagree.

The imagery of it is just sickening. Nothing more than subliminal advertising, while not very subtle, it still is what it is. Bah. Things like this do not belong in advertising, even if it is online. Molestation, rape, abuse, etc..is NOT OK, and for an ad to normalize such behavior is NOT OK either. Especially while trying to add the “cute” element to the whole thing, that’s the worst part of it. Now, not only is sexual violation ok, but also “cute”. Great, fan-effing-tastic.

Don’t get me wrong, I laugh at a lot of black humor. However, there’s a difference AND there’s a time and a place. I often find many internet comic strips containing not so politically correct material, knee-slappingly hilarious.

but this..

This is not black comedy, this is pure horse crap. It is not “deliciously offensive”, nor is it playing with taboos or providing a dark social satire of sorts, which is what black humor is set out to be. So no, not deliciously offensive at all. It’s DISGUSTINGLY offensive and turns my stomach.

However, I would not expect anything less from a corporation. They’re not there to help people or send a positive message, they’re there to make money and control as much of society as possible.

What else is there to say except..disgusting?

I can certainly believe that this ad may have “slipped out” without official consent but what I can’t believe is that nowhere in those automated replies does it state that the Pepsi company is angry that this ad has “slipped out”… or upset with the nasty message it may be delivering.
Yes, they say that they are sorry that the ad has upset the reader… but, if I had any connections to the Pepsi empire… I’d also be stating that the ad angers me as well.

Their replies make ME feel like *they* are “sorry that this has upset you” solely because they may lose customers or gain bad publicity… not because they feel bad for the people it is upsetting… or it’s vulgarity.
JMHO