Camel Tanks ruled against for ad featuring domestic violence against a man
A TV ad for the manufacturer of poly rainwater tanks has fallen foul of the ad watchdog for a depiction of domestic violence against a man.
The 15-second ad for Camel Tanks featured a man showing his friend his new water tank during a barbecue. The man hugs the tank which results in his wife slapping him on the head.
A complaint against the spot argued it “could give young girls the idea it’s ok to use violence against boys, but not the other way round”.
Oh dear! They’d better round up all copies of the old Benny Hill Show too, and send them to the CItadel of Censorship for destruction.
In the 21st century, no-one may laugh. It has been forbidden by the latte-Left.
Imagine if movies were similarly filtered for politically correct content by a watchdog … why are ads more likely to corrupt us?
@Andrew: Ads are short, interruptive and often repeated. If you are watching a show you don’t get to control the ads you see, while there’s more implicit permission around what you see in a movie since you’ve chosen that experience. Plus movies / TV shows can spend more time dealing with context and outcomes around an event such as a woman striking a man.
“Corrupt” is a strong word, but the entire point of an ad is to drive behaviour change. A movie might only have the aim of entertainment.
@Andrew, after I saw this ad I had a sex change just so I could be female and hit men. THAT’S how corrupting it is.
@mike, benny hill tapes have been locked up for years now, what with all of those politically incorrect saucy birds getting chased by the man himself.
@huw, i like this comment, good point.
@ Hummus, I absolutely disagree with you, and the comment by huw that you say you “like” and label “good point,” is in my opinion, a cyclical intellectual waffle.
Most people watching free to air have full control over the medium; that telephone sized thing with all the numbered buttons, has a mute, a kill switch and a channel changer, and the repetitive nature of ads allows the viewer to instantly recognise the ad that supposedly offended last time/first time one viewed it.
Movies or series episodes are unknown quantities as a rule, and are therefore likely to offend at any instant, so sensitive plants beware.
The complaint was obviously not “violence against a man,” but violence against a man perpetrated by a woman!
There are many examples of violence against men in movies, series episodes and ads.
Punch and Judy, an off chute of the Commedia del Arte, depicted violence as humour , the result was always the hangman, we lost the message somewhere along with worry about Noddy and Gollywogs.
Sorry about the typo, I meant Offshoot of course.
My point stands: screen content regulation is a selective, possibly socio-politically driven and inconsistent.