Ads and Condoms and Pigs

[Richpo64]

Ads and Condoms and PigsBy Brent Bozell III
Friday, July 13, 2007

The condom makers at Trojan have come up with a new ad. It shows a bar full of human-sized pigs attempting to gain women's attention. The women look bored. Only when one pig wanders into the bathroom, buys a condom and -- voila! -- is transformed into a human male hunk are the women suddenly attracted. "Evolve" is the word on screen at the ad's end.

Trojan sought to buy airtime for this commercial on CBS and Fox, both of which have accepted Trojan ads in the past, but this time -- voila! -- the unexpected happened. The broadcasters rejected the ad, citing their broadcast decency standards, when it comes to commercials. The New York Times reported that in a letter to Trojan, CBS wrote, "While we understand and appreciate the humor of this creative (sic), we do not find it appropriate for our network even with late-night-only restrictions." In its written response, Fox said that it had rejected the spot since "Contraceptive advertising must stress health-related uses rather than the prevention of pregnancy."

Are congratulations in order here? Perhaps we should commend the networks for demonstrating some sense of right and wrong on this decision: a sexually charged predatory bar scene over the public airwaves is just not appropriate. So call it a small victory for reticence in an era of endless sexual logorrhea. But why apply that sense of morality just to these commercials?

CBS made a moral argument in its letter, while Fox tried to suggest the ad wasn't medical enough. But in each case, the network also managed to open itself to the charge of galloping hypocrisy.

In a letter to the Times, Vanessa Cullins, the vice president for medical affairs at the Planned Parenthood lobby, protested: "Fox and CBS have been taking sex to the bank with shows like 'Temptation Island' and 'The Victoria's Secret Fashion Show.' To reject these condoms ads is the height of hypocrisy and irresponsible programming."

While no one would categorize Planned Parenthood as a lobby against sexually explicit TV, they're right that the hypocrisy is obvious. CBS and Fox entertainment programming has been far more sexually explicit than these commercials. Fox had an entire series ("Skin") based on the pornography industry. CBS is not only infamous for its breast-exposing Super Bowl halftime show, but for following that up with a teen-orgy scene on "Without a Trace," which was formally cited as "indecent" (ya think?) by the FCC and which was re-aired and aired yet again in reruns with the CBS middle finger flying in the face of that agency.

CBS also looks hypocritical given that in 2003, when it was still owned by Viacom, along with its sister network UPN, it ran a series of condom-promoting scenes within its sitcoms as part of an AIDS-education initiative with the Kaiser Family Foundation. The Kaiser Foundation folks apparently believe that sex scenes on broadcast television during prime time are acceptable -- as long as the condom-education message is present.

There are dozens of raunchy sex scenes on these networks' programming every week that on the offensiveness meter surpass what was presented by the Trojan ads. And what about all those other sex ads these networks do carry? TV watchers of all stripes complain about sexual-product ads on TV, especially the Viagra-Cialis ads that seem omnipresent to sports fans. ("Daddy, what's a penile erectile dysfunction?") Yet Fox hasn't rejected those for not being health-related enough.

It's possible that the two networks rejected this ad not because it was too sexual, but it's too sexist -- against men. Can you imagine the makers of female contraception casting women as farm animals because they haven't gone on the pill?

Viacom stations no longer aligned with CBS, like MTV and Comedy Central, are naturally running these Trojan ads. So, too, are ABC and NBC. Perhaps for this reason alone CBS and Fox should be commended. But they cannot escape the charge of hypocrisy until they do more to demonstrate to both advertisers, as well as their programming assembly lines, that there is a moral line somewhere in TV Land that should not be crossed. There is some border, some frontier where sexual manipulation of the audience goes too far. This time, the pigs didn't win.


Lecturer, syndicated columnist, television commentator, debater, marketer, businessman, author, publisher and activist, L. Brent Bozell III, 51, is one of the most outspoken and effective national leaders in the conservative movement today.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/BrentBozellIII/2007/07/13/ads_and_condoms_and_pigs

[Universe Prince]

The condom makers at Trojan have come up with a new ad. It shows a bar full of human-sized pigs attempting to gain women's attention. The women look bored. Only when one pig wanders into the bathroom, buys a condom and -- voila! -- is transformed into a human male hunk are the women suddenly attracted. "Evolve" is the word on screen at the ad's end.

[...]

Are congratulations in order here? Perhaps we should commend the networks for demonstrating some sense of right and wrong on this decision: a sexually charged predatory bar scene over the public airwaves is just not appropriate.

Wow. We moved from guys trying to get the attention of women to a sexually charged predatory bar scene. Predatory? Is he serious?

a sexually charged predatory bar scene over the public airwaves is just not appropriate.

Why?

CBS is not only infamous for its breast-exposing Super Bowl halftime show, but for following that up with a teen-orgy scene on "Without a Trace," which was formally cited as "indecent" (ya think?) by the FCC and which was re-aired and aired yet again in reruns with the CBS middle finger flying in the face of that agency.

Good for CBS.

There are dozens of raunchy sex scenes on these networks' programming every week that on the offensiveness meter surpass what was presented by the Trojan ads.

I'm starting to think Mr. Bozell doesn't get out much.

But they cannot escape the charge of hypocrisy until they do more to demonstrate to both advertisers, as well as their programming assembly lines, that there is a moral line somewhere in TV Land that should not be crossed. There is some border, some frontier where sexual manipulation of the audience goes too far.

Sexual manipulation of the audience? Mr. Bozell must be more easily entertained than I am. Or maybe I just don't watch the shows with all the raunchy sex scenes like he apparently does. There is a moral line, of course. It exists at the plane of one's television screen. And whether something crosses that line or not is up to the viewer. If you don't like what you see, turn off the television set. No one forces Mr. Bozell to watch television. And there are plenty of Christian channels he can get on cable or satellite.

I don't begrudge Mr. Bozell his views or even his desire for television without sexual content of any kind. I just happen to think he has misplaced the blame. If people like him would stop watching the shows with raunchy sex scenes and E.D. drug ads, et cetera, then the television stations would more likely be concerned about taking such content off the air. As long as he and others like him keep watching, the content will keep coming. He needs to take responsibility for his own television watching behavior.

[kimba1]

sexually charged predatory bar scene

I bars i go to aint all that predatory (for the guys)

All ya need is just buying the drink.
theirs not much else to do except make sure you bath earlier.

[Xavier_Onassis]

If the woman sees the man as something other than a pig because he possesses a condom, how does the judge know whether the attractiveness she sees in him is due to her not wishing to get knocked up or not wishing to contract some sort os sexually transmitted disease?

As a rule, all the condoms I have seen say "sold for the prevention of disease only", not "sold for the prevention of pregnancy only".

I suppose the idea is that selling sex is okay, but selling the actual sex act is somehow not okay.

[yellow_crane]

Somebody could write a book about the enormous impact two single people have had on the American culture--Queen Victoria and her fawning minion, Sigmund Freud.

Queen Victoria realized that a queen who embraced the sword of sin would be immensely powerful, her dominion in all matters secure.  With the Sword of Sin in her claws, one can see that Victoria, the Queen, on all levels public and private, was the quintissential Decider.

With the puritanical sword of sin, one can enter another's home--even their private minds.  It can cause brother against brother.

Freud, over his head but opportunistically ahead of others (like Edison to Tesla), outed the subconscious beyond the halls of religion and magic (thus making magic a fugitive and religion an empty suit.)

Freud saw the power of the Sword of Sin and quickly cobbled up a complementary schtick.  His movie starred Lady Sex, whose enchantments were really nightmares, promising a hell of inner sin to properly yinyang Victoria's heaven of earthly sinlessness.

All nobility must realize the framework of having and keeping power over others, even if your office was obtained by shooing in.

Power over others.

Victoria's imperialistic puritanism has choked our psyches with pathological repression ever since her minions landed on our shores and began pointing their fingers at the local pagans.  This finger pointing has, at times, bestowed potent control.  The pointed-out pagans had to be tortured and killed for, you know, purification purposes.  Though its effect is supposedly tangential, the power it coincidentally confers on political types is obvious.

Finding sin in others is one's tool for domination.  This tool, once the province of the nobility of both nation and church, is now embraced by the whole current political spectrum, at least in tawdry America.  Once primarily the  province of religio-political types, it is now embraced by the whole political spectrum, from Starr to Flynt.  (If it weren't for the common sense types like Flynt, the Democratic Party would continue to hiss but produce no cream.)

The entire Republican Party, untill recently revelling in its potent power, is now sitting way, way back in the pews, hoping for extended moments of silence.

The puritan from Louisiana is now self-sequested incommunicado for five days now.

Larry, though bound to his wheelchair, has gathered the branches for the puritan's bonfire.

[Plane]

Victoria's imperialistic puritanism has choked our psyches with pathological repression ever since her minions landed on our shores and began pointing their fingers at the local pagans.  This finger pointing has, at times, bestowed potent control.  The pointed-out pagans had to be tortured and killed for, you know, purification purposes.  Though its effect is supposedly tangential, the power it coincidentally confers on political types is obvious.

Interesting.

How was Queen Victoria worse than earlyer Monarchs ?
I thought that in her time forced conversion had ceased and whichburning was illeagal.