So there's this Mazda commercial that invokes the age-old Twins Fantasy. (Two slick beautiful cars you will never be able to afford, but imagine how it would be if you could: they would be kind of the same, yet different, and you'd come off like a heck of a guy if you could pull that one off...) I had read about the commercial here and here (both are unfavorable reviews), but it wasn't till last night that I actually saw it. Personally, I found it rather tame, not much more risque or "edgy" than a Doublemint commercial, really. If it hadn't been for Jackie's post, I probably wouldn't have even noticed anything about it. But that's okay. Boycott Mazda all you want. It's a free country, and if freedom means anything it includes the right to be offended by whatsoever you choose, especially if it's on TV. That's the American way.
But here's what interests me in my capacity as a word geek. Both Jackie and Gwen use the word "incest" when they characterize what offends them about the commercial and (presumably) the Twins Fantasy itself. But even granting the offensiveness, does it really "count" as incest when sisters make out with a guy? I don't mean in a legal sense, but rather as a matter of one's own internal intuitive system of semantic categories. Maybe it's just that my phallocentric retrograde intuitive semantic categories need to be updated (though that can be easier said than done), but frankly it would never occur to me to class that particular scenario as "incestuous." Implausible, maybe. (OK, OK, certainly.) But for some reason, using the word "incest" for the "I'm Terri and this is my sister Sherri and we like to party" scenario feels... inapt. Brother+Sister = a shocking tale of incest and depravity. Obviously. Sister+Sister(+/- some random dude) = a smashing film about something else entirely. Though I may just be from Mars or Venus or Neptune or however you say it...
Well, you could be phallocentric, Frank, but then Jackie and Gwen must be, um...non-twin-o-centric? Solokindcentric? How dare they judge twin behavior from such a parochial perspective?
I expected more from them, frankly. Tsk, tsk.
Posted by: JB at January 5, 2004 05:12 PMHeh. To me, when two siblings are getting their freak on in the same room, with the same person, that's pretty incestuous. And call me a pervert, but I didn't think the commercial was intimating mere "making out" with the twins.
This whole deal reminds me of Nelly's comment in Country Grammar about how one of the highlights of his success is that he's "f*cking lesbian twins now". Is this really a common fantasy for guys? Or do I not want to know?
Anyway, I hadn't thought about the Doublemint ads, but I never thought there was any kind of sexual innuendo there (rather, I thought it was just a couple of pretty girls in a gum commercial), but there was in the Mazda ad. I doubt they'll miss my money anyway.
Posted by: Jackie D at January 5, 2004 05:18 PMYeah, Jackie. I'm boycotting Mazda in the spirit of all my other inadvertent boycotts: insufficient funds.
On another note, the commercial was nowhere near as "edgy" or suggestive as the show it was interrupting (Malcom in the Middle) where a married couple affirm their love for one another by means of a kielbasa-eating contest (ending in a shared kielbasa snog) at more or less the precise moment when one of their sons is putting on a pair of goggles in preparation for being sprayed in the face with bull semen. I kid you not. It was hilarious. But maybe I was a bit desensitized, innuendo-wise, at that point.
Posted by: Dr. Frank at January 5, 2004 05:35 PMI find Doublemint ads offensive. I think all chewing gum ads are loaded with sexual inuendos. Example: "Kiss a little longer, make it last a little longer with Big Red". That's just plain vulgar.
Posted by: Ron at January 5, 2004 05:35 PMOf course there's the whole lesbians are hot and gay men are comic relief thing. Male twins getting incestous in a commercial would freak networks out, yet they don't mind women doing it.
Posted by: Al at January 5, 2004 07:48 PMAw, you get current Malcolm in the Middle. Now I'm REALLY pissed off.
Posted by: Jackie D at January 5, 2004 08:01 PMMalcolm in the Middle is a hilarious show. I haven't seen the commercial yet. I'm tending to find that people are looking for causes lately.
Posted by: Bill at January 5, 2004 11:34 PMIs it just me or does Ted Angel look like Maclom?
In any event, i drive a late 80's Mazda. It's a good car. i can't say i've ever had twins in it but i will admit it's been good to me.
PS. Frank, when did you start sounding like Grant Lawrence?
Posted by: BobbyM at January 6, 2004 12:10 AMNow when's the last time anybody made a Tony Roberts reference?
Posted by: charles austin at January 7, 2004 03:53 AMHey Charles-- it's been awhile. Thanks for noticing. My favorite line of that scene comes immediately afterwards:
"Oh, I did Shakespeare in the park. I got mugged."
Heh heh...
Posted by: Dr. Frank at January 7, 2004 06:40 AMI think Tony Roberts' relationship with his career has become a dead shark.
But he's doing well in dinner theater.
Of course, Alan Stewart Koenigsberg's career hasn't been soaring, either (I still like him.)
Diane Keaton, on the other hand, is still beloved.
Posted by: Gary Farber at January 13, 2004 05:00 AMI don't remember saying the commercial was risque or edgy, or even very offensive to me. The point I was trying to make was that the commercial fooled me by seeming, at first, to appeal to the general populace.
Normally, I'm really good at snap judgements. By the first .7 seconds of a commercial, I know who it's for and can change the channel or stop paying attention, as the case necessitates. Twangy guitar and mud-strewn landscape? Trucks for rednecks - change the channel. New age on the savannah? Cars for rich flakes - converse with my neighbor.
The Mazda, so similar to my own car, confused me with its commercial. If it had started off with lame rock and bikini'd women draped over aging frat alums, instead of with simple footage of a nice car, I'd have known not to pay attention. My point, to sum up, was that Mazda was sloppy with its marketing.
Rest assured, Frank, that I have no desire to keep Mazda execs from jerking off to thoughts of gum-stained twins while laughing all the way to the bank. Heavens, no. I love capitalism. God bless America.
Thank you for taking the time to read my post and comment on it. Please stop by my site again if you're in the mood to read more unfavorable reviews of trivial things - I have tons.
Oh, and, if you're taking a poll...
I, personally, don't get off on the idea of having sex with any of my siblings anywhere in the same room, much less with them joining in on the actual act. But that's just me. If y'all can get off on it, congratulations on expanding your possibilities. Cheers!
what about brother + sister + some random dude?
Posted by: anne at January 18, 2004 11:36 AMAnne, this is starting to sound like something from Seinfeld. What we've got is a hierarchy of sex taboos, the higher ones dominating the lower ones like a kind of libidinous CSS. I've got too much else on my mind to work out the details, but there must be some rule to be worked out.
Posted by: Dr. Frank at January 18, 2004 02:59 PM