Eddy M. Elmer: Tequila ad not so bad

Tequila ad not so bad

Eddy Elmer

The University of Toronto Varsity, 30 January 1997

Re: "Ad offensive," (Jan. 21).

In her letter to the editor, Jill Lazenby regrets the Varsity's decision to run an ad for Sauza Commemorativo tequila, which features a photograph of a transsexual and the words "She's a he: Life is harsh. Your tequila shouldn't be" displayed directly underneath.

When one first looks at the advertisement, two viewpoints are possible, both of which are equally valid in their own way. However, by virtue of the fact that neither perspective is right or wrong, and that in large international centres such as Toronto we glorify the merits of free speech, I would argue that the Varsity should certainly have no regrets in deciding to run such an ad.

Seen in one light, the ad may be deeply troubling to some. In all honesty, if I were a transsexual, I might very well feel maligned as an individual. Ms. Lazenby most likely sees the ad as suggesting that transsexuals add a "hard" or "displeasing" quality to our quotidian existence, or that being a transsexual is harsh in and of itself. Her opinion, I must admit, is highly valid.

However, looking at the bigger picture, that validity may be short-lived.

The ad could easily be interpreted in a more rhetorical manner. Assume that a man, for sake of argument, goes out with someone assuming she is truly a female. Then let's say that, oh, during a merry taping of the confessional Jerry Springer Show, the man discovers that his dearest love is really a male. At this point, two emotions can prevail: disgust or disappointment.

I would argue that in this age of supposed open-mindedness, many North Americans would not feel "disgusted" with such a turn of events, but rather, disappointed—at the fact that they were lied to (whether for sake of malice or not) and just (possibly) lost a romantic partner.

Now, the ad in question could clearly be referring to "harsh" as a harsh romantic reality: life is hard for some men because they would love to have a relationship with the subject in question—one must agree, she is truly stunning—but fundamental sexual and/or emotional differences preclude that (either in the present, or may preclude it in the future). I'm certainly not saying that a heterosexual man and a transsexual could not carry on such relations, for a great many do. But the idea here is that life is harsh because it's not always what it appears to be. Our naïveté‚ that is what is sometimes harsh.

If I were a transsexual, I might very well recognise that the ad is clearly targeted towards heterosexual men, and that it works well because the rhetorical device used requires the audience to be heterosexual. Naturally, I too might have a very hard time admitting to my partner that I was a transsexual, for fear of hurting him if anything else. This is what "harshness" might mean to me—the fact that this person whom I cared about was in a sense being "deceived" by me (whether malevolently or not is not the point here). In fact, it's precisely that kind of harshness that would preclude me from confessing to my partner in the first place!

It might behoove us to also consider the role of advertising in general. It is to sell products. Controversy sells. Yet even so, the Varsity has always exercised a great deal of discretion in selecting its content and would certainly never allow anything in the paper that directly incited hatred against an identifiable group. In this case, however, as in many others, it's still not altogether clear what the ad really means. Publications can't afford to withhold a certain advertisement just because they think it might mean this or that. Otherwise, they wouldn't be running any ads—that is, assuming they would even survive in the absence of advertising revenue.

Surely, where something is open to more than one possible interpretation, it's up to the readers to decide for themselves. In the final analysis, what may be harsh here is the reality that for everything one values, there is at least one more person out there who will find it offensive, tasteless, disgusting, or whatever other word is currently fashionable for describing our dainty reaction to life's realities and our own self-imposed victimisation.

This ad forces everyone to think about what it really means—if anything—, and why it upsets them. I mean, I had to think about it for quite a while—to figure out why I finally approved, after several days of having felt uneasy with it.

But all in all, I have to say the Varsity made no wrong decision here. It's not their responsibility to ensure that everything appearing in the paper is wholesome, and unmistakably inoffensive to every single person in the world. That's what Sesame Street is for. The fact that this advertisement, and even my own article for that matter, can go both ways and can inspire such debate, is precisely what makes it good and acceptable for everyone involved.

Return to articles list

Eddy M. Elmer