Another large corporation has placed its weight behind the trendy issue of same-sex marriage. A TV commercial promoting Magnum Ice Cream featuring a same-sex wedding was aired last month. The ad, entitled “Pleasure is Diverse”, highlights a woman walking down the aisle to meet her bride-to-be, the ceremony concluding with the women sharing a kiss. Despite its being screened during family viewing time, the ad was cleared by the Advertising Standards Board.
Complaints about the ad have been dismissed by the Board. One such complainant was reported:
“Promotion of lesbianism during family viewing time. I know this will not be taken seriously as ramming this down our throats now happens daily.”
Like this complainant, a great portion of the silent majority are equally as concerned about this type of content airing at prime time. Unilever, Magnum’s parent company, maintained that since the scene was not sexually suggestive, there was no reason to tag it as offensive. Furthermore, it stated the ad was rated category C – general unrestricted – which is permitted to be played at any time other than during preschool programs.
Another complainant specifically challenged the claim that the advertisement was not sexually suggestive:
As gay marriage has not been legalised in Australia I feel this type of advertising is promoting gay marriages not their product. It also has sexual connotations claiming "pleasure is diverse"
The advertisement also ends with the words: “Magnum for pleasure seekers.”
Despite the obvious sexual connotations, the Advertising Standards Board turned a blind eye, instead suggesting that the reference to “pleasure” related to getting married and eating ice cream. The Board ruled:
The Board noted that the tagline of the advertisement is ‘pleasure is diverse’ and considered that this relates to both the choice of the women to get married and to their choice in the Magnum ice cream one of the woman is shown being fed by the other women.
A lesbian kiss, the tagline “pleasure is diverse” and the Advertising Standards Board expects us to believe that the reference to pleasure was about weddings and ice cream?
It is fairly clear that Unilever are using their commercial clout to back same-sex marriage. This is not surprising, considering the vast number of corporations doing the same thing.
What do you think? Should the ad have been banned? Let us know!