Thanks to Twitter I became aware of this recent post from the Inquisitr: Whopper Virgins: it doesn’t get much more offensive than this. I also read about it at the LA Times Blog the NY Daily News. And oooh, you can also see an introductory slide show at http://www.whoppervirgins.com/. Neat.
According to the article at NY Daily News:
The burger chain has launched a new, documentary-style ad campaign in which remote villagers in poor nations such as Thailand, Romania and Greenland pick between the twin titans of American fast food, the Whopper and the Big Mac. The name of the campaign: “Whopper Virgins.”
Why do people in “remote” areas need to be exposed to substandard food-like products such as the Whopper and the Big Mac? Hasn’t the introduction of fast food in foreign countries had a negative impact on overall health? Why should “poor nations” be targeted by Burger King and McDonalds? Do they think we’re so dummm as to see it as an altruistic endeavor? Seeing these people in their traditional garb trying to make sense of a burger just gives me the creeps. There’s a reason that ground beef is so cheap, right?! And that’s what we’re unleashing upon indigent populations in remote areas of the world?
My other issue is with the use of the term virgin. The descriptor is provocative, don’t you think? Oooo, virgins. Oooo, I gotta pop that cherry. Oooo, virgins are so pure and unadulterated. Virgins are naive and trusting. Virgins need experience, and there’s always someone there ready to give it to ’em. Poor virgins don’t know what they’re doing.
“Ooo, so and so is still a virgin? How sad.”
“Ooo, so and so is still a virgin? Well not for long, heh heh heh.”
“Of course so and so is a virgin. S/he is so unattractive.”
“I only f–k virgins.”
Well, that’s exactly what Burger King is doing . . . “f–king virgins.” Over at Inquisitr, many people who are not opposed to the ad campaign suggest that it’s harmless. Or that it’s a good idea. Maybe. But personally, I think that’s an unexamined opinion.