Until very recently, I was spared having Carl’s Jr. ads pop up on my television during commercial breaks. Even knowing them to be notoriously gross and filled with “meat and female objectification are pretty much the same thing” messages (yes, I know there’s probably an easier way to say that), I didn’t quite realize how much I was being spared.
Now, they’re apparently broadening their market in my area because I can’t seem to go twenty minutes without seeing an ad for their Hawaiian Teriyaki Chicken Sandwich:
Briefly, the ad is some surfer-like guy who is generically attractive, shirtless and in a VW van parked on a beach. He’s got his feet up on the dash and is casually chomping on a chicken sandwich (complete with over the top crunch sound effects) and all the while focusing intently on a Hula dancer bobble doll affixed to the dashboard. He periodically tips her on the head and watches her bounce. The camera lingers a bit on her well-endowed plastic breasts. Chicken-eating surfer alternately leans close and backs away as he takes large bites of his sandwich and wipes his mouth clean with a thumb. The voiceover says, as the above is happening and finishing the commercial, “When a guy can’t get his wahine to put some hala-kahiki all over his moa … then he’s gotta go someplace else. The Hawaiian Teriyaki Chicken Sandwich, with grilled pineapple. New, at Carl’s Jr.”
1) Some people get grossed out by gore and blood and entrails in horror flicks. Those things do not faze me. No, where I get MAJORLY squicked is eating. Gross, disgusting, loud eating. So you can see why that alone would make me hate this commercial. It’s flat-out nauseating to me.
2) The translation of that voiceover is, roughly (because I don’t know Hawaiian and can only rely on online translator tools): “When a guy can’t get his woman to put some pineapple all over his chicken … then he’s gotta go somewhere else…” Which is, y’know, even grosser than the eating issue, wouldn’t you say?
3) I wouldn’t put pineapple on his chicken either, and I feel strangely offended on a small, inanimate figurine’s behalf. It’s bad enough the implication is that if a woman doesn’t do as a man wants, he can take his entitlement (of complete satisfaction) to someone who will (apparently Carl’s Jr., which, ah…), but perving over a Hula doll is just plain ridiculous.
Reactions? Thoughts? Things I missed because I was too busy trying to keep my breakfast down?