Andy Gray, Pepsi and does 'No' mean 'Yes?'

A young 'office' type in a bar is rebuffed by a beautiful woman. She is not interested in him, but at that moment her attention is attracted by a news broadcast on the TV warning of the earth's imminent collision with an asteroid and the "end of life as we know it." By now everyone's attention is on the TV reporter who advises that the collision will occur in less than 10 minutes. The bar is stunned until the silence is broken by the bartender. He leaps across the bar smashing glasses and pushes his way out screaming, "we're goin' to die!" Immediately, the rest of the customers descend into panic and follow the bartender out of the door.

Only the original man and young woman are left behind. Their attention is again drawn to the reporter who is saying, "...reach out to someone, anyone who is near, I don't know exactly how much time we have, but show someone you love them, don't be alone." The woman catches the eye of the man, smiles shyly, lunges, kisses him and they fall to the floor.

We cut to the man walking into an apartment. The 'reporter' from the TV is there alongside the 'bartender', "And?", says the 'reporter', "Thank you guys, I love you." replies the 'office' type. The whole thing was a scam and we can infer that the man got what he wanted from the woman. But this is not, the beginning of a gritty drama, it is a Pepsi ad. The whole thing was a scam to get into the girl's knickers. Is that too crude? Well not as crude as the advert, which seemed like a form of rape.

Rape is a strong term and, of course, sexual lying is at the heart of some of the worlds oldest stories. Waking up to find that the person you think you went to bed with is somebody else, plays a role in Shakespeare, Greek myths, Arthurian legend and even Bible stories. In a 1996 paper, Wendy Doniger from the New School for Social Research, argued that there was an element of 'self-deception' for all of the 'victims' in these stories. They let themselves be deceived or took steps so they could not discover the truth. In other words: they were asking for it. Of course, those stories were written hundreds of years ago. We've moved on since then haven't we?

On a basic level, rape is a type of sexual assault, involving sexual intercourse, against another person without consent. Consent is generally the key point to prove. But what if that consent is given because of deception by one of the parties? In a case that drew worldwide attention last year a man was convicted of raping an Israeli woman despite her giving consent after it was revealed that he was not Jewish but Palestinian. The man was convicted of 'rape by deception' because the woman would never have consented to sex have sex with a Muslim.

In summing up the case the court concluded that:

"The court is obliged to protect the public interest from sophisticated, smooth-tongued criminals who can deceive innocent victims at an unbearable price, the sanctity of their bodies and souls. When the very basis of trust between human beings drops, especially when the matters at hand are so intimate, sensitive and fateful, the court is required to stand firmly at the side of the victims--actual and potential--to protect their well-being. Otherwise, they will be used, manipulated and misled, while paying only a tolerable and symbolic price." 

In the USA, a number of recent cases have questioned whether deception can challenge the traditional view of rape as simply involving force. In 2008 Raymond Mitchell, was convicted in Tennessee of rape despite having the consent of his three victims. Following other cases where the element of force could not be proved, Massachusetts debated introducing a crime of 'rape by fraud'. Of course, it would be a rather difficult crime to police, would a push-up bra represent misrepresentation. Would women have to stop wearing make-up? 

Viewers complained to the Advertising Standards Agency that the advert condoned rape, sexual assault or deception as a means of obtaining sex. Given the current debate going on in courts around the world this seems a fair criticism. The fact that it isn't technically rape doesn't make it any less distasteful. Pepsi said the theme of men attempting to gain the attention of attractive women was universal in storytelling and frequently featured in broadcast content. It's a revealing comment.

'Gain the attention'? He did that in the first moments of the ad but she didn't seem interested. The scam is quite clearly designed to gain more than just attention. However, the Pepsi response seems to imply that, like the 'victims' of those old tales, the woman from then on allows herself to be deceived. She could leave after she rebuffs his first advance, she could leave with everyone else in the bar but instead she stays, listens to the TV and then becomes the protagonist of the ensuing sexual activity. Her little smile before she lunges is the clue. What Pepsi are telling us, is that she wanted him all along some. 'No' means 'yes'.

Now I'm not a feminist theorist or particularly politically correct. In fact, if the subject is raised, there is a very good chance that, as long as I'm not 'on air' (a remote possibility) and with consideration to how well I knew my audience, I would make some disparaging comment about female referees. Most of the men I know I think would agree; but it would be for social rather than intellectual reasons. Breaking taboos can be a powerful form of male bonding. It is certainly part of the football ritual and of, course, expresses itself in a variety of ways, some of which are even less palatable.

So what has this got to do with Pepsi? I first noticed the advert over Christmas and I only ever saw it on Sky Sports. My initial thought, like many who complained, was that it was condoning a form of rape. However, many complainants believed the ad was sexist, demeaned women and portrayed men as sexual predators. The ASA investigated all the complaints but ruled that no further action should be taken, arguing that the ad presented a “fantastical” scenario and was unlikely to cause widespread offence. Compared to Andy Gray it has hardly become a cause celebre. It received only 49 complaints.

Pepsi said they "did not believe that it contained concepts which offended against generally accepted moral, social or cultural standards or offended public feeling". Rape, sexual assault and sexism? I found it much more offensive than Andy Gray's comments. He and his colleagues are a handful of idiots or football fans if you like, but Pepsi is a huge corporation. Their advert was developed and refined to capture a particular audience. On one hand, the ad is suggesting that what women really want is to have sex with a stranger on the floor of public bar, and, on the other, it is saying that it is ok for men to 'con' women into bed. The fact is that Pepsi were targeting Sky Sports viewers with this advert. This is how one of the world's major corporations see British sports fans. Are they wrong?

Now, while my Mrs is cooking the tea, putting the kids to bed and doing the washing: are there any women out there who can explain the LBW law to me?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CDH7IaNG6E