After existing for twenty years, Porn Star Martinis finally got their due — They sparked some outrage!
To catch you up:
Porn Star Martinis were “invented” in 1999 in London by a man named Douglas Ankrah. Regarding the name, Ankrah said: “I called it ‘Pornstar’ because I thought it was something that a Pornstar would drink, there’s nothing sexual there. Pornstar is a stylish and confident drink, it’s pure indulgence, sexy, fun and evocative.” (sic)
Though it’s a bit of a classic at this point, the Porn Star Martini — which consists of multiple vodkas, Prosecco, juices and purees, sugar and a passion fruit garnish — has beat the Olds Odds, actually increasing in popularity since the ’90s. It’s also apparently Instagram gold, providing near-guaranteed likes and loves and comments (today’s only currency) for anyone who shares a pic of one.
The Porn Star Martini is so popular, in fact, that Marks & Spencer (M&S) – a British multinational retailer that specializes in selling high quality clothing, home products and food products — started selling them in canned form last year. Here’s where the outrage came in.
This past July, a person named Sarah Gail Brand spotted some canned Porn Star Martinis in an M&S store. The presence of said beverages caused Brand to feel feelings, and on July 4 she tweeted: Porn star martini? PORN STAR MARTINI? Marks and bloody Spencer, WTF is going on?
https://twitter.com/sarahgailbrand/status/1146823601515040768
I figured this “outrage” would go the way of most pearl clutching, but I was wrong — M&S was forced to change name of the Porn Star Martini.
The Guardian recently reported that M&S has been ordered to change the name of the drink because “it breached an industry code linking alcohol to sexual activity.” The drink is being rebranded the “Passion Star Martini” and will be rolled out in M&S stores over the next three months.
According to The Guardian, the Portman Group, the UK’s alcohol watchdog funded by the industry, upheld a single complaint by a member of the public. (I’m looking at you, Sarah!) The Group stated that the drink “contravenes the Portman Code” by breaching Section 3.2d of the Code in which an alcoholic product “suggests any association with sexual activity or sexual success.”
The original complainant noted that, “If you continue to allow this, it will open the floodgates to others eg Sex on the Beach, Slippery Nipple, Sloe Comfortable Screw, Liquid Viagra etc,” which was gonna be my note. Apparently though, no one cares.
