I can see why the Evolve advertising campaign for Trojan condoms could be considered sort of annoying, but Im dumbfounded at how it can be construed as offensive.
The ad, which debuted earlier this week, opens with a classy lounge full of cocktail-swilling swine unsuccessfully hitting on women. After getting rejected by a blonde at the bar, one pig scampers off to a condom machine, and is transformed into a sort of schlubby-looking dude who successfully chats up the babe who rejected him when he looked like the movie character Babe.
The way the woman instantly knows the dude is packing a prophylactic doesnt make sense exactly; did the pigs who made the unwanted advances try to woo women with promises of unprotected sex? Strangely, both the CBS and Fox networks have refused to air the ad, not for logical inconsistency, but for its alleged offensive content.
Fox said that it had rejected the spot because, Contraceptive advertising must stress health-related uses rather than the prevention of pregnancy.
In its rejection, CBS wrote, while we understand and appreciate the humor of this creative, we do not find it appropriate for our network even with late-night-only restrictions.
After watching the ad twice, Foxs supposition that it somehow stresses the prevention of pregnancy remains a mystery for me at least.
On the blog Pandagon, Amanda Marcotte notes that networks have no problem broadcasting spots for male sexual enhancement products, and suggests that the Evolve ad is getting heat for being too respectful to women, and not fearful enough of pro life letter campaigns.
The networks are cowering because theyre scared to death of anti-choicers writing in and bitching about the idea that sluts should escape their due punishment for having sex.
But maybe the agenda here is anti-women as much as it is anti-fun. Neither Fox or CBS had a problem with Trojans last campaign, which according to the New York Times, urged condom use because of the possibility that a partner might be HIV-positive, perhaps unknowingly. It seems like the TV stations think condom use is OK as long as sex is portrayed as disease-ridden and scary. If its something thats preventing a pregnancy from occurring during a bar hook up, apparently thats a problem.
Of course, if the pigs had evolved into men after, say, ordering a name brand vodka or pulling out an expensive cell phone, networks probably wouldnt utter a single objecting squeal.
This is one of the funniest ads I've ever seen. In fact, it's one of the few adverts on TV now that doesn't make me want to jump out the window. And besides, pigs need affection too!
I think the thing that gets to them to most is that it portrays women who might have premarital sex as attractive, normal, sophisticated, in-control types of people...not the fucked-up, nutty, self-hating Jezabels they want them to be. The idea of sex as a part of a healthy night of fun or even a relationship makes them angry!
Fox said that it had rejected the spot because, "Contraceptive advertising must stress health-related uses rather than the prevention of pregnancy."
what the eff?
are we living in puritan times again? doesn't this mean tv shows shouldn't be allowed to portray (or imply) bar hookup sex either?
i don't understand.
4
mk700c
Ann Arbor, MI
December 2003
JUN 22, 2007 11:28 AM
Fox said that it had rejected the spot because, "Contraceptive advertising must stress health-related uses rather than the prevention of pregnancy."
That's all I need to hear. This is clearly an "every sperm is sacred" issue for FOX.
5
mk700c
Ann Arbor, MI
December 2003
JUN 22, 2007 11:30 AM
Hunter said:
I think the thing that gets to them to most is that it portrays women who might have premarital sex as attractive, normal, sophisticated, in-control types of people...not the fucked-up, nutty, self-hating Jezabels they want them to be. The idea of sex as a part of a healthy night of fun or even a relationship makes them angry!
Yeah, the honchos at FOX usually have to pay for their indiscretions.
I'm not all that deep, but I understood the commercial as suggesting that not using a condom during a casual sex encounter makes you a pig, which I guess is not the most unreasonable assertion I've ever come across.
I agree though - the song is offensive to my ears.
Heracleitus said:
I'm not all that deep, but I understood the commercial as suggesting that not using a condom during a casual sex encounter makes you a pig, which I guess is not the most unreasonable assertion I've ever come across.
I agree though - the song is offensive to my ears.
that's what i assume it meant, too, which is an entirely fair implication for a condom commercial to make.
it's moronic that they pulled it for these absurd reasons.
9
Formus
Milwaukee, WI
May 2007
JUN 22, 2007 12:47 PM
It's in the same line of evolution as Viagra being covered by insurance but not the Pill. Men should definitely be allowed to have sex with all sorts of women, just not safely and without pregnancy. It's a women's rights issue, one that should have been settled 20, 30 years ago.
10
Formus
Milwaukee, WI
May 2007
JUN 22, 2007 12:51 PM
Fox said that it had rejected the spot because, "Contraceptive advertising must stress health-related uses rather than the prevention of pregnancy."
That's odd...
"con·tra·cep·tion n. Intentional prevention of conception or impregnation through the use of various devices, agents, drugs, sexual practices, or surgical procedures."
I can understand the offensive material in the commercial, its showing men as pigs....i mean come on, how is that not a little offensive. But on the other hand I don't get upset over the commercial, its just a commercial. I don't find the commercial interesting or funny, but I don't find it hurtful either. Personally I miss the old trojan commercials, at least when the headless soldier showed up it was funny
After watching the ad twice, Fox's supposition that it somehow stresses the prevention of pregnancy remains a mystery -
Is clear to me... this campaign embraces bondage, fist fucking, pissing, menage a trois and child molesting.
Is there... is subliminal... (you can't see it but is there).
PAGE:
1 | 2
Comments
DeadBilly
Burnt Cabins, PA
February 2004
JUN 22, 2007 10:57 AM
Hunter
SUICIDEGIRL
New York, USA
JUN 22, 2007 11:26 AM
RileyStClair
Los Angeles, CA
September 2006
JUN 22, 2007 11:27 AM
mk700c
Ann Arbor, MI
December 2003
JUN 22, 2007 11:28 AM
mk700c
Ann Arbor, MI
December 2003
JUN 22, 2007 11:30 AM
Heracleitus
Arlington, VA
May 2005
JUN 22, 2007 11:43 AM
MrCrisp
I'm lost
August 2004
JUN 22, 2007 11:45 AM
RileyStClair
Los Angeles, CA
September 2006
JUN 22, 2007 11:54 AM
Formus
Milwaukee, WI
May 2007
JUN 22, 2007 12:47 PM
Formus
Milwaukee, WI
May 2007
JUN 22, 2007 12:51 PM
Shaun0fTheDead
Lebanon, OH
August 2006
JUN 22, 2007 12:52 PM
JunkyardAngel
San Gabriel, CA
February 2006
JUN 22, 2007 01:37 PM
SirPsychoSexy
Ridgewood, NJ
January 2004
JUN 22, 2007 01:42 PM
Gillionaire
Manchester, NH
February 2007
JUN 22, 2007 01:43 PM
videoeye
Los Angeles, CA
July 2005
JUN 22, 2007 02:10 PM
PAGE:
1 | 2