Grrr. I'm a Durex customer; they're cheaper, thinner, and less gooey than Trojans. But these ads stink.

What in the hell? Please tell me I'm not seeing what I think I'm seeing.

So.... I'm not seeing a strong link to domestic violence. I mean 'i'd hit that' is a common term.... like it's saying it's better to have protected sex than to hit someone? It doesn't make too much sense either way. But for some reason making condoms look sexy as oppesed to using fear seems better. Actually they should use both angles but I'm just not seeing the violence in this ad.

So.... I'm not seeing a strong link to domestic violence. I mean 'i'd hit that' is a common term.... like it's saying it's better to have protected sex than to hit someone? It doesn't make too much sense either way. But for some reason making condoms look sexy as oppesed to using fear seems better. Actually they should use both angles but I'm just not seeing the violence in this ad.

Yeah, Durex really hasn't lived up the Trojan ads. I find this one even worse--

http://www.oorei.com/imagenes/post/durexxxl.ad.condoms.campaign.jpg

I'm certainly going to be buying Trojan from now on. Gross.

I don't even understand what the text means juxtaposed with the butts (my goodness I wish mine looked like that!)

Durex sucks anyway. I don't think Trojan is using "fear" to sell condoms, they're using fact.

Durex sucks anyway. I don't think Trojan is using "fear" to sell condoms, they're using fact.

Durex sucks anyway. I don't think Trojan is using "fear" to sell condoms, they're using fact.

Count me in as one of the fearmongers. To me, "fear" implies there's an element of hype, of trumping up facts to get a mindless reaction. The Trojan ads seem to do the opposite--they state a fact and then, using positive, pro-sex language, encourage people to join together (community-minded enterprises are often the opposite of "fear") to work on the problem.

I appreciate the fact that Durex is trying to target one of the demographics--hetero males--that are most in need of condom-use increase. (Don't know the stats, but all the gay men I know are very pro-condom). But I do not appreciate taut female buttocks (or female buttocks of any type) being used as the incentive. We don't need yet more use of women's body parts to sell product. A couple making out or doing something sexy together? Fine. But naked, thonged-up, disassociated female parts? No. Wrong.

SweetZoeJane- for what its worth, i think that link is NOT a real durex ad. the image is one i believe i've seen used in a fast food commercial. still not a great image, truth be told.

anyways, this shit makes me wanna change my brand away from durex. i'm impressed with trojan.

Yes, "hit that" is slang for "have sex with" and has never, as far as I know, been used to indicate physical violence.

But still totally gross.

I don't get the message for the subway ad at all. Is it saying go out and buy some condoms so you can have sex with the women who possess those butts? Even that is a stretch, and if their unimpressive message weren't enough, the disassociated body parts has left me entirely cold.

I'm really confused by the Durex ad. I accept that "hit that" is slang for sex, albeit a generally gross, obnoxious and disrespectful one. But it says that there are "better" things to hit. So they should "hit that" (women with nice asses) as opposed to . . . what? Am I being totally dense? It wouldn't be the first time, but I'm lost.

Hm. On closer inspection, the caption doesn't seem to anything close to "There are better things to hit." The caption in the photograph has just four words, not six, and none of them seems to be "hit." I can't find a better picture anywhere. Can anyone else?

There seems to be some disagreement about what the caption actually says. I'm finding sources that say it says "You're safe with Durex," not "There are better things to hit."

http://cubeme.com/blog/2006/08/17/durexs-promotion-in-subway-stations/

That still doesn't make very much sense, but I'm wondering where AllDivaMedia got it's caption.

I believe the text is in another language, because I found this picture on a Beligian site, under the heading "With Durex You Can Get In" -- that would make sense because it seems to be some kind of subway entrance.

http://loiclemeur.com/english/2006/08/with_durex_you_.html

My guess is this might be one of those campaigns that's all over the place with varying taglines.

It is a subway turnstile gate, so provided the caption does say "There are better things to hit," I think point of the ad is that it is better to "hit" a hot-assed woman (using a Durex condom, of course!), as opposing to hitting a subway gate with your genitals as you walk though...

that ad is seriously messed up

Raven: Thanks for the context. I didn't realize those were turnstiles, and now that I know, the ad just got grosser for me.

OK, I am ready to get flamed.

First: We can't tell what the Durex ad says. There are four words, but I am not even sure it's in English. But at least one of the links with a slightly clearer picture does NOT support the hypothesis that it says "There's something better to hit." More importantly, assuming it's not in English, I am really, really uneasy about assuming anything about the meaning unless I have a good dictionary of the relevant language and a native speaker handy.

But there's something a little more disturbing I want to bring up. I'm no fan of the ad per se. But dammit, if a right-wing misogynist went around saying "feminists say they hate men" Vanessa would be all over that, saying (rightly) that it isn't true.

Let's get the facts. FACTS. We're supposed to be the reality-based community, right? The ones who value discussion based on what we can verify.

So far, not only can none of us verify what the ad says, but a few people (Vanessa included) have hit the outrage button without even checking it out. That's just wrong, no matter who does it or why. Wrong wrong wrong.

Like I said, I don;t think ads that objectify are a good thing in any case. But godammit, let's make sure we get outraged about the right things, m'kay?

(Personally I love the Trojan ads with the pigs in them, for the record).

Taking a step back and thinking things out for a second is damn hard. But it behooves every single person who considers themselves a progressive -- and a feminist-- to do that.

I'm ignorant of what the ad says. If anyone has a better picture to link to let's see it, please, 'cuz I wanna know.

De-lurking to contribute a positive comment: I'd like to laud the Trojan website for containing lots of relevant, well-cited facts, links to some great resources like the Advocates for Youth Parents' Sex Ed Center, and a petition supporting comprehensive, positive sex education. And a quick vlog from Dr. Jocelyn Elders. I love me some Dr. Elders!

The Trojan ads are certainly better, but the "hit" reference is probably a play on a) the turnstiles, b) the "hit that" thing others have mentioned, and/or c) a possible spanking reference.

Jess: You're not going to get flamed for that! :-) I think most people aren't outraged about what the ad supposedly says (b/c, we don't know what it says), and were actually sort of confused about it, b/c the supposed caption didn't make sense with the ad. I didn't really see a lot of anger over the caption, but I think it's fair to be disgusted about the ad, without being able to read the caption, b/c even without it, it's pretty gross. Since you have to go through the turnstiles and the butts are at exactly the level of an adult's pelvis.

I like the Trojan ads. A lot of people I know, including my younger sister, think they are great and positive, and that's saying something.

I don't know anything about Durex.

Hmmm...

I have one word for condom users:

Inspiral

Love, love, love them. They are a tad more expensive than the major brands, but I think they are totally worth it (hubby likes them best too). Bonus, no sexist ads.

Not that this is a competition of offending ads, but that Durex XXL "Really Big" ad at the top of the linked article made me feel nauseated after I caught on to the "joke."

I see at coloribus [dot] com, one source for the above photo (a subscription site, beware all the pop-ups) that among the 150 or so international Durex ads archived, that subtlety or "good taste" (no pun intended), are not their strong points.

While I agree that the Durex ad is extremely objectifying, and it makes me uncomfortable, I also have a problem with the Trojan ad.

I think it is great that it is informing the public of one of the good reasons to use condoms, and I know that that statistic has made recent news in the US, but the advertisement to me has a slight "protect yourself from the dirty girls" edge -- I would have liked to have seen the ad with a more neutral statistic. In this age of misinformation I know I'm nitpicking, but it still makes me feel a bit funny.

I agree that using that headline has that connotation, Placebogirl. Part of the problem is how the media framed that study in the first place.

I think what offends me the most about the Durex ad is how it's not just marketed towards men, it's put out in a way that makes it look like they have forgotten people besides heterosexual men exist. I don't think it would offend me less if it were put in, say, a men's bathroom, but having it there so that everyone who goes in, whether they like female butts or not, has to hit them, offends me in another way.

Man what the hell. I don't care what that ad actually says and I don't care about the "oh that's europe all the time" line, no way in hell would I want my daughter or son walking through that when I'm just taking them shopping. EEW.

I wanted to ask those who are saying that there's no sexual violence in the phrase "I'd hit that/it" if you really understand everything that's going on in that phrase?

Not only is it reducing the said person they are going to "hit" to an object - (it, that) or maybe just reducing them down to their genitals, it is also conflating "hit" and "sex".

Placebogirl, did you go to the Trojan Evolve website? It expands upon the ad above, and talks about how we can do better for the women in our country.

Well, the first word that comes to mind is...gross! The second thought, though, asks why condom makers do not market to gay couples (of either gender) or to women. What's wrong with women buying the condoms? A smart girl is a protected girl...

I think this all comes back to one issue with our country: we can not talk about sex seriously and openly. When sex is brought up openly, as with these ads, it has to be done so in a joking, albeit crude, manner. The ad simply can not say "use a condom and have safe sex" because it is too real for our nation.

We seem to be one of the few, or only, "western" countries that still maintains this prehistoric view of sex. I agree it should be a private act, but with a rise in teenage pregnancy, STIs, and aids, one has to wonder why we have not turned to a more open discussion.

I come from a closed family where we never had a "sex talk," but I was still informed. I knew what STIs (then STDs) were, and how they were transmitted. In my health class at public school we did discuss the correct failure and protection rates for different contraceptive measures, though of course we were told that abstinence was the only sure fire protection. KNOWING about contraceptive measures, and having access to them, did not influence my decisions about when, and with whom, to have sex. It did, however, make those decisions informed and safe.

Why don't we stop putting band-aids on a treatable wound? And why, as women, do we stand for the thought that if WE know about contraceptives, than WE, our gender, will go on a sex rampage and start popping out babies or having numerous abortions as teenagers?

Just bypass both brands and try Beyond Seven or Crown (same manufacturer). Beyond Seven's aloe condom is especially nice! They are far superior to both Trojan and Durex, which to me now feel like dish gloves in comparison. Although sometimes hard to find in stores, you can order from drugstore.com.

Jen,
I may be mistaken on the brand but I do seem to remember trojan ads for gays at least in print when I was in california. As far as why they dont do that on a national scale in their primary ads, well that ones pretty simple to me. I see it as a form of homophobia but also as smart marketing given how our society currently is. Hetero outnumbers homo by around 9 to 1 so youd want to get the bigger group. Why not go for both groups? If you are seen as the condom of choice for gays, a lot of hetero men wont buy your product, fucked up but there it is.

I know I have seen condoms marketed towards women but I really have no huge problem with the majority of ads being marketed towards men and couples as men need to take responsibility and condoms are pretty much the only means and the only generally accepted means we have for them to do that. If we wanted to market towards specific sectors Id bring out a huge campaign supporting condoms for men on the DL or whatever you want to call it. Amazing the number of men I was with who were married, I always played safe but a lot of them dont and then expose their wives to diseases, frustrating situation and one that never really gets talked about, just like you were saying about our attitude towards sex in this country. Why dont we see more ads for the "female condom"? Too impractical?

BTW, has anyone else seen this ad for Zazoo condoms?

http://ma-tvideo.france2.fr/video/iLyROoaftYbh.html

Jess,

Unless the copy says, "Sorry for this really offensive line-up of asses" I would still say we have a good reason to be outraged.

Last time I was in the "feminine hygiene" aisle, I noticed a bunch of male condoms which were clearly marketed to women. I can't remember the brand, but it was one of the major ones. I was a little confused by the whole thing, actually. I mean, putting condoms by the tampons is a great idea, but why only that selection? Why didn't the store put the usual selection in with the tampons?

Elexa by Trojan is the brand I saw.
http://www.elexabytrojan.com/

One the one hand, fabulous, someone is marketing condoms directly to women and they are placed in stores to be visible to a large proportion of sexually active women. On the other had, it sort of stinks of the "those wacky women, they buy stuff! who knew?" mindset that seems to pervade female targetted products and marketing. As though women wouldn't buy condoms unless the box had a woman on it. But what do I know, maybe Trojan did the market research and found that women do actually respond to this type of packaging and are more likely to buy these than the standard Trojan brands. I can't get too down on anything that gets women to feel comfortable buying and carrying condoms .

What really bothers me about the durlex adds is the advertisment in public places. The whole thing bothers me, yes. I see the domestic violence tie in, being from a DV childhood. I find the slang 'hit it" to be just as bad as any other refferance to DV.

But as a woman who's moral choices have lead her to ware long dresses and cover body parts in public leaving that kind of nudity for family/partner and having friends who have similar belief because of faith reasons(ie.like muslim women)choose to cover themselves willingly, it really upsets and bothers me to see womens bottems in almost nothing in such a public place. not a magazine or poster on the subway wall but right up on the gates. it just makes it even more discusting. and in my world, emberassing. I dont show my ankles to strangers let alone that part. I don't know. I don't know how to explain it beyond, what would a victorian lady think of such an image? thats a naked body to me. mite as well be. esp when they make refferance to having sex with said body part. on the subway gate!!!! and then to imagine my male loved one using said gates...

I dont know. the whole thing discusts me for so many reasons.

I'm actually impressed with Trogan posting facts about stds. Not very expected.

augh. every time I think our culture cant sink much lower....

blech

"it just makes it even more discusting. and in my world, emberassing. I dont show my ankles to strangers let alone that part. I don't know."

Meanwhile, I wonder how many other people would be disgusted because of the way these models are showing cellulite in public instead of hiding such a non-"ideal" part in shame...

I still stand by Avanti condoms. They are a bit more pricey, but they are polyurethane, so they're more sensitive, and have smaller micropores so they protect better. You can find them in some places, check online. I am in Madison, WI and I get mine at Community Pharmacy. Later!

Mina: I highly doubt there's one hint of a dimple on those airbrushed booties. If there was even the faintest suggestion of cellulite on those butts, I would die from the shock.

"Mina: I highly doubt there's one hint of a dimple on those airbrushed booties."

They all seem cellulitey to me, but I couldn't find a zoomed-in copy of the pic to be surer.

Former sex shop lady here: even if they didn't have a lousy ad campaign, I would still advise everyone to steer clear of Durex. I've had so many reports of their condoms failing it's not funny. To quote one of my ex-co-workers: "A friend of mine considered giving her child the middle name 'Durex'."

I think (but I'm not sure) that Trojan is working with Advocates for Youth and that may be why their messages are so wonderfully wonderful.

Also, Trojan has a history of supporting reproductive and sexual health organizations like Great American Condom Campaign. I believe that they donated the condoms that the Condom campaign gives out... which I've heard has also been handed over to Advocates for Youth.

Well... I think if you're looking to get rid of female objectification in condom ads, good luck. Would an increase in condom use be worth the trade-off?

I think making jokes about violence goes too far, but it's not clear what the text says and 'hit that' would almost certainly be a purely sexual reference. You might not like the phrase, but I'm pretty sure that most of the population doesn't consciously make the connection to violence. This is one of those where the outrage might be better directed elsewhere.

mpowell, Trojan has proven with several ad campaigns now that they don't need to show sex or sell women's bodies and sexuality to sell their product. Their current ad, with the pigs in the bar, is a good example of promoting condom use to protect yourself AND your partner. Their former ads, with Trojanman, seemed to promote condom use for safety AND mutual pleasure. In contrast, the Durex ad is promoting the same tired sexist cliche that you see for everything like car sales, diet pills, beach vacations and underwear. Unless you stop to look at the whole ad, all you see is a woman's butt. And this is anecdotal evidence, but I've asked a few friends and family to name the first condom brand/company they could, and Trojan was the answer every time. Though my sample was all of 6 people, 5 of them couldn't even think of a second company. I'd prefer a sex-positive, woman-friendly campaign in addition to increased condom sales if possible. It doesn't need to be an either/or.

You may think feminists should only focus on the bigger or obvious issues, like violence and rape in parts of Africa, but I have to respectfully disagree. Feminists are perfectly capable of focusing on many issues simultaneously, no matter how large or small and the great thing about feminism is that even the small things can bring about big changes. It's just as important to get outraged about smaller issues because things like this Durex ad serve to reinforce the sexism rampant in the US culture. Subliminal messaging if you will. It's easy to ignore it because it's not actively hurting anyone, but it's still doing damage, and so it's deserving of outrage. It contribute to women having body and sex issues and men expecting sex. It doesn't really send a sex-positive message to anyone. No, this ad won't be the sole reason for the damage, but I believe it only takes one straw to break a camel's back :)