Hornitos: the official tequila of identical twin date rape.
Well, it is called Horni-tos, uptight PC policewymyn. Fist-bump jizz-explosion—amirite, fellas? Tip from Kat, read her longer, less kinder review here. Ad agency: Euro RSCG, who produced a less rapey but still stupid "Cougar" spot last year. Previously in: ads with rape jokes. Related: the worst anti-rape ad ever.
posted by copyranter @ 2:15 PM
24 Comments:
It was Euro RSCG Chicago, not NY
thanks, I'll just remove the location.
I fail to see what's rapey about this spot. There is nothing in it that suggests she is about to get raped. Those who think she is need to get a life. As for Kat, she also needs to get laid.
The Law begs to differ with your assessment.
Um, if he's about to nail her by pretending to be someone else, it's pretty rapey. At the very least, it's astonishingly immoral, sleazy, and sociopathic. And it sure as shit doesn't make me want to drink their shitty tequila.
@Anonymous: Check out "rape by deception" or "rape by fraud". The woman in the commercial thinks she is consenting to have sex with her boyfriend; skeezy identical twin brother is taking advantage of that in order to deceive her into having sex that she would not consent to. His fraud violates her right to informed consent.
If you don't see why that's wrong -- maybe the twin hijinx makes the issue murkier? -- here's a concrete similar situation: Imagine you and your lady are engaging in a little light bondage. She's rarin' to go, tied and blindfolded, then you have to run downstairs to grab the riding crop. While you're away from the room, your housemate creeps in the open door and starts having sex with your girlfriend.
She's got the blindfold on and thinks it's you, so she enjoys the sexin' (well, depending on your roommate's talents); because she thinks it's you, she think she's consenting. Is this actually consensual sex?
The answer should be no. Is this a disgusting thing to do to a woman? The answer should be YES YES YES. And if your answer to that isn't yes, imagine someone doing that to your mother. Imagine them doing it to your sister. Imagine them doing it to your daughter. Still charming and hilarious?
@Kat
I shall waste no time responding to what you wrote.
I would like to direct you to the movie "Ski School." It is a COMEDY. In this movie, a woman directs two guys, who are friends with one another, to enter the same hotel room at different times and get in bed together for "an incredible night." All of it is set up to embarrass the the two guys via an early 90's version of webcam. Once again, this movie was billed as a COMEDY, was enjoyed by its limited audience as a COMEDY and no one ever complained about the "rape" that occurred, as your argument would have it. And, please enlighten me on how a woman sleeping with her boyfriend's brother is the same as a blindfolded, bound woman sleeping with her boyfriend's roommate is the same.
Massachusetts law doesn't cover rape by deception. It came up in a twin case. Gross, eh?
Matthew: comparing a TV commercial that people aren't paying to see to a sleazy movie (yes, I've seen it), that's fucking priceless.
Isn't it funny that several people on Kat's blog said they did NOT initially associate the spot with rape; they just thought it was funny, and didn't think much about it. Then comes along Kat (and now Ranter)with her ridiculous long winded commentary on date rape, sick advertisers, women being blindfolded, etc. My point is that the spot does NOT explicitly show anything sexual, say, the guy grabs her ass, kisses her, runs his hand up her skirt, etc! While it is true that in a situation like this people often end up having sex, that is NOT always the case. So the bottom line is what might have happened next is subject to speculation.
I don't think comparing a blindfolded woman is quite fair; this woman is pretty clearly able to see. The only purposeful deception then is through his failure to properly identify himself, which seems to be a slippery slope. If this is rape by deception, then what about people lying about their marital status or occupation to get someone else in bed? Should the guy who impersonated Pittsburgh Steelers QB Ben Roethlisburger to get laid be charged with rape? At what point does the woman have to take responsibility for being duped?
"At what point does the woman have to take responsibility for being duped?"
Uh...can't we start with "at what point does the duper [you know, the guy deliberately doing the harmful thing to get his rocks off] have to take responsibility for his actions?" Normally, when you're talking about a crime, you tend to focus on what the *criminal* did, not on how the victim totally should have guessed that this person was out to harm him.
I don't think we're in danger of some "slippery slope" if we require that your sexual partner either (a) KNOW YOUR NAME or (b) agree that s/he doesn't care what your name is. Really, is it so hard not to impersonate someone's boyfriend? Is this a trap the man-hating feminists are just waiting to spring on all the dudes of good will who only wanted to fuck someone who wouldn't fuck them if she knew that they were actually Bob and not Joe? Is this really a standard you all can't be comfortable you'll meet?
Friday night you get dressed and head to the club. You see a good-looking girl, well you think she's good-looking as you've had a few beers. A few more beers and bad jokes and you're back home on your couch. She's reticicent to go all the way, but er, takes "care of you." The next day you walk into the bathroom and see her there using the toilet - - while standing. How would you describe what happened to you the night before?
"Normally, when you're talking about a crime, you tend to focus on what the *criminal* did, not on how the victim totally should have guessed that this person was out to harm him."
In fraud cases, the reliance of the victim is an element of the crime. The existence of reliance in and of itself doesn't satisfy this, there is usually a threshold of 'reasonableness' that must be met.
I think it's at least worth discussing the idea that reasonable reliance be an element for a charge of rape by deception. That's not to say this should be the focus (or that the girl in the commercial's reliance was unreasonable or reasonable), but it sure seems relevant.
The question you should be asking yourself is: why does your mind go *there* first? Why, when faced with one-sidedly appalling behavior by one party, is your natural reaction to try to figure out how to blame the other party? In short, why is your focus on just how much lying you can get away with before you can actually be prosecuted or condemned?
(P.S. Not to bring in information about how the law actually works, but it's quite difficult to prove the unreasonability of reliance in most fraud cases. You don't get a pass on fraud because your victims are naive or trusting. Even if they are as ridiculous as the girl in the ad, who is somehow silly enough to think that she's on a preplanned date with her boyfriend just because a dude who looks just like him met up with her!)
In most of the United States, the behavior depicted/alluded to in the ad is not criminal (much less "rape"). It does seem highly unethical though.
Because it's not always "one-sidedly appalling behavior", there are varying levels of reprehensibility. I'm not disputing that the guy in this commercial is a dick, but I don't think his actions even come close to as obviously being "rape" as the guy in the blindfold hypothetical (my original point). If this is the case, then there's probably behavior out there that comes relatively closer to being "okay". It's not like I'm trying to figure out what I can get away with (if this were the case, why would I even be having this discussion?); I think a rule has to have a little more detail beyond "deception+sex=rape" for it to be sensibly enforced and for there to be an expectation that people will be able to follow it.
Tortious? Yes. Criminal? Likely not, at least not as "rape." "Rape by deception/fraud" does not exist under the Model Penal Code nor in most jurisdictions.
Wow, there are a lot of Anonymous douche bags working at Euro RSCG Chicago. Public ones too.
When I first saw this commercial I immediately saw it as a type of rape. People are getting hung up on the definition of rape. It doesn't have to be violent to be rape. A woman found out she was married to a foreign spy who married her to gain access to the united states and they lived happily married for many years and had an active sex life. However, once she found out she was being used she took him to court and he was Convicted of rape! This commercial promotes the idea that deception to get inside of a woman is ok. And is it? I feel there should be consequences for people who deceive in order to fuck you...for both men and women. And about the scenario where a man thinks he is with a woman and it turns out they have a dick...the cross dresser is a rapist. That is rape. We have to know when we have crossed the line from I am making myself look really good by saying all these slightly skewed awesome things about myself to I am flat out lying bc if she knew who I really was she wouldnt want to fuck me. Both are immoral but the latter is some form of rape. I totally agree with the original poster and all those opposed either have a guilty conscience or don't have a daughter. :)
All this proves is that many women are uptight and don't have sex they would enjoy for stupid reasons. It isn't rape if she says OK, and that woman's boyfriend is probably bored of her and not giving her good sex, so if a twin, who looks identical, gives her good sex, everyone is happy. This whole debate shows we still believe in the sexist double standards and are still Puritan and anti-sex. Every woman on here needs to get laid, but they probably won't because the guy doesn't say the right thing or have the right job, none of which is relevant to the sex she needs. I have daughters and will raise them to be sexually open-minded, not repressed anti-sex people who trade sex for other things like you. They'll be able to enjoy sex for it's own sake.
I feel like everyone who says "you need to get laid" in response to people's offense to this commercial are straight up rapists. That mentality, that a woman is complaining about rape (or housework, or life) because she needs sex...that is a rapists mentality...that is a way of justifying rape. And to the man who defends this commercial and has daughters...you aren't thinking of them...imagine if they were the girl in this situation and they called their daddy up crying because their husband's twin just raped them. I am sure you would feel differntly.
True, but I hope my daughters won't be uptight. If you enjoy the sex, you should relax, some sex is casual. If it's rape, it's because you feel you should have held out for a relationship, not just good sex, which is the old attitude of women don't like it as much as men, aren't pure unless they're virgins, should trade it for money, attention, marriage, spending. I reject that. Rape is when you clearly tell a person no.
Here's another example of women holding up the sexual revolution. In the '80s you always heard don't be sexist, don't call women sluts, women have equal rights to sleep around. Now that some women are doing so openly, you only hear slut from women. I never hear a man use that word, but women try to pressure other women to be less fun and not have sex, so much so that something which both people enjoy is something many men have to pay for, because women won't just act normal in society and have sex when they're horny and attracted to someone.
I do think many women need an orgasm. Yes, rape is wrong, but a trick and a joke shouldn't be ruined. Millions of people are laughing at this. The woman acted in it, she believed in the commercial, thought it was funny. You're a killjoy. You probably are the type that make men go on 3 or more dates before sex and if they glance at another woman, make them wait another, and if they say one thing wrong, make them wait another. You're a control freak. Loosen up.
Post a Comment
<< Home