What is wrong with television viewers these days? Exactly how much of a pervert do you have to be to imagine Confuse.com would run TV ads featuring thinly veiled sex acts? Quite a bloomin’ lot, if you ask Bankstone News. Wash your minds out, you vile degenerates, we say.
In one of the latest incarnations of Confuse’s new Wall-E fronted campaign, the money saving robo-trolley buttonholes a young couple admiring the view from the comfort of their parked car whilst listening to the Fun Loving Criminals (in a manner not entirely dissimilar, in fact, to Gio Compario, last year when his creators first turned decisively against him).
The young woman, who appears to have been rummaging for travel sweets or perhaps reaching for a dropped handkerchief, looks up in surprise when the robot, who previously claimed to be called Brian, trundles up to their car and tells them “Hello. I’m Confuse.com” advising them that having “run your details through my extensive circuits”, he can save them money on their car insurance.
Weirdly, however, he doesn’t. Just trundles off again with a cheery “Bye. Bye.”
So far so innocent. But not in the eyes of legions of foul minded TV viewers who chose to interpret the young lady’s initial surprise as having been occasioned by Confuse.com’s interrupting her in the administration of oral pleasure to her co-occupant in the manner of TV’s Gillian Tailfroth.
No fewer than 137 people wrote to the Advertising Standards Agency (ASDA) to complain that the advertisement was “offensive”, unsuitable for children or degrading to women. How absurd!
How could the ad be degrading to women, when the woman doesn’t even say anything?! How likely is it that a young man would carry on a perfectly normal conversation with a money-saving robot (albeit one consisting, on his part, mainly of the word alright) with his rampant manhood visibly unfurled?
Not likely at all, that’s what.
Happily, ASDA agree: “We noted that the ad depicted the woman in a state of alarm at the appearance of the robot,” the authority advised this week. “We acknowledged that some viewers would interpret the ad as a reference to oral sex.
“However, we considered that the ad did not depict the woman as a sexual object, nor did it suggest that the woman was in distress. On that basis, we concluded that the ad was not likely to be viewed as degrading to women.”
Anyone who imagines for one second that Confuse.com would use sexual imagery to sell insurance comparison need only look at this.
Click on the image above to view filth
No responses yet