So let me get this straight: as long as you are promoting the prevention of STI's you're perfectly fine, but once it's about preventing pregnancy you've crossed the line? WTF? Are they just so stupid they don't think that people already KNOW condoms prevent pregnancy and that's probably the MAIN reason people buy them? Good god how stupid does FOX and CBS think their viewers are? And why don't they allow their viewers to see the ads and make up their own minds?

But of course, ads promoting men having sex (though god might have given them erectile dysfunction) is perfectly fine?

ugh.

Wal Mart uses college to market condoms!

contraceptive advertising must stress health-related uses rather than the prevention of pregnancy

...Um, the ad (at least the one linked in the article and this post) doesn't say anything about using condoms only to prevent pregnancy. The ad doesn't say anything at all. The people in the ad could very well be thinking, "Hm, I'd like to prevent STIs while still gettin' it on, so I think I'll use a condom." CBS and Fox are full of it.

As soon as I forget that I don't need to be married to a man and pregnant with his baby to have a healthy, happy sex life (and therefore non-sex life), the right-wing-owned media outlets remind me that nothing matters except their power over me. I want to quit the world.

regardless of the campaign message, Trojans still feel like latex gloves compared to a brand like Beyond Seven.

Excuse me, but I'm pretty sure that pregnancy is fucking health related! God damn religious people!

Excuse me, but I'm pretty sure that pregnancy is fucking health related! God damn religious people!

But Lindsay, you're missing the point! Pregnancy will only affect the woman, but MEN can get STIs, and we all know it's only a problem when it could hurt men -- we can't have women thinking that their health or well-being actually MATTERS, unless it hurts teh menz, too!!!

/sarcasm

But Lindsay, you're missing the point! Pregnancy will only affect the woman, but MEN can get STIs, and we all know it's only a problem when it could hurt men -- we can't have women thinking that their health or well-being actually MATTERS, unless it hurts teh menz, too!!!

/sarcasm

See a satirical tongue-in-cheek visual of an Evangelical Brand Products ad that responds to the Trojan condom ad campaign and that would be acceptable to Fox and CBS...the networks that rejected the Trojan ad...here:

www.thoughttheater.com

I blogged about this earlier today. I agree with everyone who said that the ads DO not say anything about pregnancy and do not rule out STD protection. Also, I kind of like the ads, despite the flaws that Vanessa has pointed out.

I think I'm losing my mind here... "Contraceptive advertising must stress health-related uses rather than the prevention of pregnancy." I'm sorry...isn't the DEFINITION of "contraceptive" the freaking prevention of pregnancy??? I checked the dictionary just to be sure, and yep, sure enough, here it is: "tending or serving to prevent conception or impregnation."

What do you have to say to that, Fox News? CBS? Anybody?

I think I'm losing my mind here... "Contraceptive advertising must stress health-related uses rather than the prevention of pregnancy." I'm sorry...isn't the DEFINITION of "contraceptive" the freaking prevention of pregnancy??? I checked the dictionary just to be sure, and yep, sure enough, here it is: "tending or serving to prevent conception or impregnation."

What do you have to say to that, Fox News? CBS? Anybody?

I think I'm losing my mind here... "Contraceptive advertising must stress health-related uses rather than the prevention of pregnancy." I'm sorry...isn't the DEFINITION of "contraceptive" the freaking prevention of pregnancy??? I checked the dictionary just to be sure, and yep, sure enough, here it is: "tending or serving to prevent conception or impregnation."

What do you have to say to that, Fox News? CBS? Anybody?

I think I'm losing my mind here... "Contraceptive advertising must stress health-related uses rather than the prevention of pregnancy." I'm sorry...isn't the DEFINITION of "contraceptive" the freaking prevention of pregnancy??? I checked the dictionary just to be sure, and yep, sure enough, here it is: "tending or serving to prevent conception or impregnation."

What do you have to say to that, Fox News? CBS? Anybody?

I think I'm losing my mind here... "Contraceptive advertising must stress health-related uses rather than the prevention of pregnancy." I'm sorry...isn't the DEFINITION of "contraceptive" the freaking prevention of pregnancy??? I checked the dictionary just to be sure, and yep, sure enough, here it is: "tending or serving to prevent conception or impregnation."

What do you have to say to that, Fox News? CBS? Anybody?

I think I'm losing my mind here... "Contraceptive advertising must stress health-related uses rather than the prevention of pregnancy." I'm sorry...isn't the DEFINITION of "contraceptive" the freaking prevention of pregnancy??? I checked the dictionary just to be sure, and yep, sure enough, here it is: "tending or serving to prevent conception or impregnation."

What do you have to say to that, Fox News? CBS? Anybody?

I think I'm losing my mind here... "Contraceptive advertising must stress health-related uses rather than the prevention of pregnancy." I'm sorry...isn't the DEFINITION of "contraceptive" the freaking prevention of pregnancy??? I checked the dictionary just to be sure, and yep, sure enough, here it is: "tending or serving to prevent conception or impregnation."

What do you have to say to that, Fox News? CBS? Anybody?

I think I'm losing my mind here... "Contraceptive advertising must stress health-related uses rather than the prevention of pregnancy." I'm sorry...isn't the DEFINITION of "contraceptive" the freaking prevention of pregnancy??? I checked the dictionary just to be sure, and yep, sure enough, here it is: "tending or serving to prevent conception or impregnation."

What do you have to say to that, Fox News? CBS? Anybody?

Like Cara, I put up a blog post as well.

My theory on the real reason CBS and Fox declined this ad: it promotes (subtly, but I definitely think it's part of the core of this commercial's message, and certainly part of Trojan's new campaign) women having sex just because they enjoy it. Since we have condoms, we can pick and choose who we have sex with, and that is what's so threatening and subversive here.

Misinformation about the inefficacy of condoms is one of my biggest peeves. I teach a Planned Parenthood course at the girls' home where I work, and if I had a dollar for every time one of the girls said, "Condoms don't work!" I could go ahead and retire. I've taken to putting a condom over my arm (all the way up to my elbow!) in group and the gasps are audible. :)

Misinformation about the inefficacy of condoms is one of my biggest peeves. I teach a Planned Parenthood course at the girls' home where I work, and if I had a dollar for every time one of the girls said, "Condoms don't work!" I could go ahead and retire. I've taken to putting a condom over my arm (all the way up to my elbow!) in group and the gasps are audible. :)

You know what I'm finding funny? (And by "funny," of course I mean "appalling and stupid and not really funny at all.")

You can run ads on these networks promoting products -- Viagra, Levitra, etc. -- that help men get it up. In other words, products that help people have sex.

But you can't run ads for a product that helps people deal responsibly with the consequences of having sex.

In other words, it's okay to prepare for sex by popping a pill, but not by having a condom in your pocket.

Emerson had it wrong. Inconsistency is the real hobgoblin of small minds.

There is no doubt that the hypocrisy surrounding sexuality and sexual health (both emotional and physical) in this country is abominable. As a sexuality educator (and a featured speaker on the trojanevolve.com website), I feel compelled to talk about the other aspect of the Evolve campaign - not just the insanity behind Fox and CBS's refusal to air the ad. Because this is not just about advertising. This is about the greater issue of how we look at issues of sexuality and gender today. We need to recognize that sexuality is an innate (and wonderful) part of our lives. We need to start taking better care of our bodies, our partners, and start respecting diversity of all kinds. Using a condom (and being able to carry a condom without embarrassment or judgment) is a sign of responsibility, empowerment, and yes, proof that we care enough about ourselves to be protected - whenever we choose to make a decision about sex. Being an evolved society doesn't mean that we all have to agree, but it does mean that we are tolerant and respectful of people's personal choices. We are not a sexually healthy nation by any means...but we can be.

On a frivolous note, I must say that I really like the ads. The message seems to be, "Men who want to have sex without using condoms are thoughtless, gross pigs that no woman would give the time of day to." Now that's an advertising message I can get behind.

EG, I agree with you entirely (as usual), but I thought you were allergic to latex.

Sorry, but I couldn't stop myself from making another joke at your expense. I'm not a pig though, because I always used latex before the relationships I have been in got serious. And I of course strongly recommend the use of latex to all couples who are not exclusive, or have not been together for a while (6 months).

Just saw this commercial on Comedy Central while watching Scrubs! Almost makes up for the fact that they run end to end Girls Gone Wild commercials after midnight or so.

Almost.

My brother goes to college in the fall, I bought him a few kinds of condoms, a couple dental dams, and a few of those little one use water based flavored lubes. Yes it's a weird present to get from your older sister, but I'd rather he have them.

But Lindsay, you're missing the point! Pregnancy will only affect the woman, but MEN can get STIs, and we all know it's only a problem when it could hurt men -- we can't have women thinking that their health or well-being actually MATTERS, unless it hurts teh menz, too!!!

Ah, but that's where you're wrong. It has already been framed that way.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6133452241464387103

just to be picky, but Itazura, 6 months isn't really long enough to wait. HIV takes between 4-6 months to show up in a test, sometimes longer. So if you have engaged in ANY risky behaviors within that time period, you're still very much at risk (to say nothing of other STDs).
Wait it out for a year, go get tested together, talk about ways that you both can be responsible for disease and pregnancy prevention, THEN have at it.
*takes her AIDS educators hat off, puts it on a chair, and backs carefully away.

OK, you're right, my mistake.

Wait a year, and get tested together.

just to be picky, but Itazura, 6 months isn't really long enough to wait. HIV takes between 4-6 months to show up in a test, sometimes longer. So if you have engaged in ANY risky behaviors within that time period, you're still very much at risk (to say nothing of other STDs).

But Lindsay, you're missing the point! Pregnancy will only affect the woman, but MEN can get STIs, and we all know it's only a problem when it could hurt men -- we can't have women thinking that their health or well-being actually MATTERS, unless it hurts teh menz, too!!!

Ah, but that's where you're wrong. It has already been framed that way.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6133452241464387103

just to be picky, but Itazura, 6 months isn't really long enough to wait. HIV takes between 4-6 months to show up in a test, sometimes longer. So if you have engaged in ANY risky behaviors within that time period, you're still very much at risk (to say nothing of other STDs).
Wait it out for a year, go get tested together, talk about ways that you both can be responsible for disease and pregnancy prevention, THEN have at it.
*takes her AIDS educators hat off, puts it on a chair, and backs carefully away

The idea that condoms should only be presented as tools to ward off STD's is completely negating of the fact that, if used effectively, condoms demonstrate a very high rate of success at preventing unwanted pregnancies. Especially for girls and women who do not have access to more exacting methods of birth control, or for whom access is difficult.

The not so subtle negative implication inherent in the add, is that by promoting condoms as something to prevent potentially life threatening diseases", while ignoring the pregnancy angle, serves to reinforce the idea that sex is shameful, and the wages of sexual sin is illness and death.

I think the point that was made by ponies and rainbows is key. Like so many other concepts, programs that have an agenda around maintaining health, often ignore the realities and often times separate needs of women.

I agree, EG! The message was clearly, "Don't be a pig/Don't date pigs".

As an aside, in one year of high school my design was printed on the covers of the student planner. I had drawn a sprawl of objects that might be found in a student's backpack -- including a condom, whose inclusion amused a lot of students. I found out later that one of the school's few born-agains had mistaken the condom for a lollipop, and coloured it accordingly.

I quite like the written mission statement on the Trojan website. I think they've really got the hypocrisy of our culture nailed--sex everywhere you look, used to sell EVERYTHING, but don't you dare go out and HAVE it, or you're dirty slut!

That said, I can't say I like the ad much at all. I don't have sound on this computer, so I can only address the visual element, but I found the ad very sexist. I think that's getting overlooked here because it's the men who are getting the unflattering portrayal this time around, but really--implying ALL men are filthy, disease-riddled pigs? How would we be responding to this ad if all the women in it were protrayed as giant fish? Maybe it's only because I just finished reading the recent Vagisil post, but I don't see how an ad that says men/penises are dirty and diseased is any better (or less sexist) than an ad that says women/vaginas are dirty and smelly. Am I wrong?

I think Trojan has a great message to communicate here--I just wish they'd chosen a method of communicating it that didn't bash half their customers along the way. The promotion of positive attitudes toward sex and consideration for one's sexual partners is a laudable goal, but as a friend and lover of many men who already possess both, I'm offended by the implication that they're all just...pigs.

We can do better than this, can't we?

I don't know, Vervain. I didn't think that the message was that men/penises are dirty and diseased. I thought that the message was that men who want to have casual sex without condoms are selfish, nasty pigs.

What really gets me is the idea that seems to be running around these days that anything that prevents pregnancy is awful and bad and kills babies and makes God hate us. Why all the hostility towards pregnancy prevention?

What really gets me is the idea that seems to be running around these days that anything that prevents pregnancy is awful and bad and kills babies and makes God hate us. Why all the hostility towards pregnancy prevention?

I thought pregnacy prevention was a health-related issue. Silly me.

I'm not denying that some guys are like that, and those guys I would call "pigs." But every guy in that commercial except for the one who bought a condom was a pig. To me that seems to imply that all men are too dirty and nasty to have sex with unless there's some barrier between you and him. It just seemed very negative. Even if we go with your interpretation, that men who want casual unprotected sex are pigs, does is the fact that ALL the men in the commercial are pigs imply that ALL men want casual, unprotected sex and don't care about their partners? That's not terribly fair, flattering or accurate either.

I'll allow that it may come across differently with the sound enabled than it does without, though. It's possible the silent visual generates a stronger impression regarding the perceived symbology of the imagery than it would with the added sensory input or music or sound effects.

In any case, I think the overall message about fostering a more healthy cultural attitude toward sex and sexuality is awesome, and bang-on-target.

That last comment was a response to EG, sorry.

Well, fair enough, I guess. I think the idea that all men want casual sex without having to think about any consequences or take responsibility for any precautions is a pretty widespread cultural assumption (Knocked Up springs to mind). It's not terribly fair, flattering, or accurate, but what is, in pop culture? If we can get a cultural pressure anxiety thing going where men worry that women will that they're thoughtless piggish assholes if they don't use or have condoms, I don't really have a problem with it. I like this commercial because for once anxieties about men being attractive to women are being brought into play, as opposed to all those damn commercials and tv shows where women have to be uber-pretty and perfect while the men just slob around. "You don't want to be a pig, do you?" seems like a cool message to me.

I think the idea that all men want casual sex without having to think about any consequences or take responsibility for any precautions is a pretty widespread cultural assumption

I agree, but I feel like this feeds into that, which isn't necessarily a good thing.

If we can get a cultural pressure anxiety thing going where men worry that women will that they're thoughtless piggish assholes if they don't use or have condoms, I don't really have a problem with it.
I'm more worried that they've already absorbed the message, but don't care because they've been taught that's "just how men are" and behave accordingly.

I like this commercial because for once anxieties about men being attractive to women are being brought into play, as opposed to all those damn commercials and tv shows where women have to be uber-pretty and perfect while the men just slob around.

This is a fair point. I suppose given how unbalanced things are in this area, a little turnabout isn't entirely a bad thing.

In the end I guess I have to look at it in terms of how the average person will view it, and not someone like me, who typically scrutinizes ads for underlying messages. I imagine Joe or Jane Average will just read it as, "if you want to get some, use a condom, otherwise you're a pig," and since that will probably encourage more condom use, I can't hate on the ad too much. Since I think the message is sound, I guess I can get behind it.

Just wanted to throw in my two cents that are pretty much unrelated to the threads that are already going on...
Last year I worked as the health promotion coordinator for my school's health services and part of my job was to put together frosh kits for the incoming freshman. they mostly included pamphlets, but they also always had condoms and a few other things. Last summer, Trojan donated enough condoms so that we could put one in each frosh kit without losing money. In fact, they liked that we were giving them out with information so much that they donated over 50,000 condoms to my school with the stipulation that they be distributed for free and with information on sexual health and/or how to use a condom properly.
So, even though I do find the ad a little disturbing,I actually kind of love Trojan. (except for their "elexa by trojan" line... that kind of weirds me out, too.)
No real point to this story other than Trojan is apparently pretty awesome.

If anybody feels like writing to FOX or CBS to let them know how flippin' ridiculous and hypocritical they're being, Planned Parenthood issued an Action Alert page for this issue that helps you send an email to both networks in a few seconds. It's mad easy and a good way to be active about this, since I'm relatively sure the ad guy at Fox isn't checking the Feministing boards on a regular basis. :)

Your link doesn't seem to be working, SoyMilk.

"What really gets me is the idea that seems to be running around these days that anything that prevents pregnancy is awful and bad and kills babies and makes God hate us. Why all the hostility towards pregnancy prevention?"

My guess is that the attitude's some lingering residue from the days when women and girls were expected to be contantly pregnant (when not nursing or starving) from marriage or menarche (whichever came second) to menopause or death (whichever came first).

But when were those mythical days? They haven't existed for literally hundreds of years! Time for the anti-choicers to get over it, I think.

This is actually shocking to me.

When I watched this commercial for the first time with (my younger female sibling) both of us being teenage girls, agreed that it was a "cute" condom commercial .

There was nothing about this commercial that made me extremely uncomfortable or offended and I liked the fact that the woman was portrayed as being more attracted to a man who was willing and able to use a condom during sex.

And the overall slogan of "evolve" is definantly something I would support.

This is actually shocking to me.

When I watched this commercial for the first time with (my younger female sibling) both of us being teenage girls, agreed that it was a "cute" condom commercial .

There was nothing about this commercial that made me extremely uncomfortable or offended and I liked the fact that the woman was portrayed as being more attracted to a man who was willing and able to use a condom during sex.

And the overall slogan of "evolve" is definantly something I would support.