Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Oh yeah, that .... (update)
Posted by: McQ on Monday, June 18, 2007

Apparently the fact that Fox and CBS rejected a condom ad because CBS didn't find it appropriate for their network and Fox found it to be objectionable because their policy maintains that “[c]ontraceptive advertising must stress health-related uses rather than the prevention of pregnancy” is just appalling to some.

Now you can certainly argue for or against the merits of the rejections, but what has so far amused me is that apparently portraying men as pigs in the ad is perfectly fine with those criticizing the two networks.

UPDATE: Two more.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
We’re not? Quelle Surprise!

However, I have to admit that Fox’s shows are as raunchy as they get. Pretending to be ’moral’ about this is nuts.
 
Written By: Robb Allen
URL: http://blog.robballen.com
Having written only one of the posts to which you link, I can’t speak for the others, but nowhere in my post (at Shakesville or my own blog) did I state that I was "perfectly fine" with portraying men as pigs. Perhaps the writers were playing on the impression many women get when they encounter a sea of men gathered in a pen, all nattering away on their cell phones, nary a one stepping up to say hello or offer a chair or light her cigarette. If they’d wanted to employ a more sexually-predatory archetype, surely they’d have used wolves instead of pigs.

I have to agree with one of my commenters—if the ad had shown the women as beasts, and the condom-buying guy as the hero who could pick out the one attractive woman among them, FOX would’ve aired the ad without a second thought. It’s the fact that a woman is the hero—make that a woman in charge of her own sexuality is the hero—in the Trojans ad that is unsettling to the network suits.
 
Written By: litbrit
URL: http://litbrit.blogspot.com/
Having written only one of the posts to which you link, I can’t speak for the others, but nowhere in my post (at Shakesville or my own blog) did I state that I was "perfectly fine" with portraying men as pigs.
You’re absolutely correct, but since your piece was a critical one, one assumes that whatever you didn’t criticize you found to be at least acceptable. After all, you did say they should run the commercial and you didn’t suggest the portrayal of men should be changed.

Now you’re right, it is an assumption. And you may disagree with it. But I see nothing in your post to persuade me, at least to this point, that it isn’t a valid assumption.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
I have to agree with one of my commenters—if the ad had shown the women as beasts, and the condom-buying guy as the hero who could pick out the one attractive woman among them, FOX would’ve aired the ad without a second thought. It’s the fact that a woman is the hero—make that a woman in charge of her own sexuality is the hero—in the Trojans ad that is unsettling to the network suits.
Ah, someone I can turn to for help with my stock picks.
 
Written By: Attila (Pillage Idiot)
URL: http://pillageidiot.blogspot.com/
Attila, you said it well: anyone who can know the minds of network executives so thoroughly — without having spoken to them or even having met them — should be remarkable at many other feats of cognition.

 
Written By: steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
Ah, but picking stocks (presumably high-performing ones) and observing (and/or predicting) human behavior are two completely different fields of endeavor. The former requires hard data and a certain amount of luck; the latter calls for observing tendencies and patterns over time—a long, long time, in this case. As in, half a century of television advertising. Observing the various commercials (i.e. Axe, various beers, and so forth) rife with sexual innuendo that FOX (for example) actually DOES air leads one to the conclusion that the suits would indeed greenlight an adult-themed commercial as long as the male was the hero.

As to whether I am critical of the pig thing, I suppose I will have to begin every subsequent post with a raft of disclaimers, or perhaps just one. Something like: If, within this post, I don’t specifically identify a secondary or tertiary topic and state my opinion of it upfront, it should not be assumed that I even have an opinion of it at all—in fact, I may well have been so consumed by the actual point of what I was writing about, that the omnipresent need to have things always be about me or my poor, oft-maligned gender was overwhelmed by the more pressing and newsworthy issue at hand.
 
Written By: litbrit
URL: http://litbrit.blogspot.com/
Oh, please. You can’t claim to know the minds of tv executives any more than I can claim to know your mind. There are plenty of ads, plenty of tv shows where the woman is the hero. In fact, the standard sitcom throughout the ages has featured "the idiot husband", constantly outsmarted by his wife. You can’t cherry-pick a few things and claim knowledge of anyone’s mindset. Well, maybe you can, but the more reasonable among us wouldn’t have the hubris.
 
Written By: steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
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

 
Written By: Daniel DiRito
URL: http://www.thoughttheater.com
the latter calls for observing tendencies and patterns over time—a long, long time, in this case.
Ah, naturally ... and these "suits" must absolutely conform to whatever stereotype you’ve cobbled together, musn’t they?
As to whether I am critical of the pig thing, I suppose I will have to begin every subsequent post with a raft of disclaimers, or perhaps just one.
Actually that doesn’t apply at all here does it?

Like I said, you were concerned because they wouldn’t run the commercial and that argues quite forcefully for you having no problem whatsoever with the portrayal of men in the ad. So don’t waste your time with meaningless disclaimers. They won’t fool anyone here.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
As the writer of another one of the posts you cited, I got no qualms saying the pig imagery doesn’t bother me. It’s a joke. Um... no one has ever heard the term, "Men are pigs," before?

It was a visual gag that goes along with the general theme of the commercial, so what’s the problem? It’s not even attempting to say that all men are pigs, just those men who attempt to engage in a specific type of behavior (in this case, unsafe sex, which really isn’t exactly the best thing to be doing now is it?).

I mean, I wasn’t overly shocked to hear that Fox and CBS pulled the add because, shudder gasp, sex might be enjoyable, and heavens forfend we remind people that once you are single and of legal age, it is totally legal and in most places socially acceptable to engage in sex.

I am still waiting to hear from the anti-science crowd to get in an uproar because the "e-word" was used.

But men are pigs? We’re supposed to get our knickers in a twist over a man being displayed as a pig? Really?

Come on.
 
Written By: Mr. M
URL: http://commentsfromleftfield.com
But men are pigs? We’re supposed to get our knickers in a twist over a man being displayed as a pig? Really?
Oh, ok, cool. So if they’d have instead depicted all the women as whores buzzing around some guy in a bar and one of the women pulled out a condom and suddenly turned into a very desirable and beautiful girl-next-door type of woman, you’d be fine with that depiction as well.

I mean, women as whores?

Come on.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
LOL. I thought the commercial was funny, but then I like pigs (which is kind of bad at slaughtering time). And, I believe I have said it before, but I will say it again, we men are pigs. What I find really amusing though, is the fact that no one seems to notice what this ad says about women.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
What does it say about women?

I mean, the analogy you make, McQ, isn’t exactly the same. A pig, and really, I think we are getting FAR too deep in analyzing this whole thing, but a pig is a pretty open ended metaphor. Putting out women as whorish barflies, is a little different.

Apples and oranges, really. Women as pigs, though... hey, it’s fair game, especially since men were portrayed first.

But the thing is, women are often times portrayed at least with the unfavorable behavioral traits in tons of ads geared towards men (I think one commenter mentioned axe for one. there’s the shaving commercial where the woman falls from her treadmill, etc.).

which brings me to Timmy’s comment?

What does the ad say about a woman? What negative thing? That she is in control of her sexuality? That she is willing to engage in safe sex? Is this a comment against an empowered woman? Or the old double standard that men can be horny pigs, but women must remain prudish until the day they die?

I’m just askin’.
 
Written By: Mr. M
URL: http://commentsfromleftfield.com
Here is some material to work with; does anyone remember the fairy tale about the Princess who kissed a frog and turned it into a Prince?
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
"What does the ad say about a woman?"

Among other things, that women will put out for anyone with the price of a rubber.

"That she is in control of her sexuality? That she is willing to engage in safe sex? Is this a comment against an empowered woman?"

LOL. Joe couldn’t have done better.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
That she is in control of her sexuality? That she is willing to engage in safe sex? Is this a comment against an empowered woman?
Please tell me you were being satirical.
 
Written By: Jordan
URL: http://
Okay, so the language was cheesy, but the point still stands. Are we to admonish all portrayals of women that don’t adhere to a puritanical model? I mean, it’s a pretty old double standard, men are revered for their virility and promiscuity, while at the same time women are reviled for it.

And it’s not like we show the woman outright humping the dude’s leg. She just shows interest.

This compared to so many commercials that are FAR more disrespectful to women. Everything from the axe commercials that have been referenced thus far ad nauseum, to the old "tastes great, less filling" women wrestling around in a fountain beer commercial.

Look, I’m not the one getting all in a tizzy here. If sex sells, go for it, I never said you couldn’t. I do find it incredibly ironic that it’s totally cool to imply that having the right body spray, car, beer, pants, etc. will result in you getting raunchily laid by some twenty-three year old supermodel nymphette, but to even hint about something with an equally attractive lady sitting at a bar in moderate dress is unheard of if the product you are selling actually has something to do with sex.

So that’s one issue.

As for how women should be portrayed, let them be portrayed as they are. Like men, there are billions of women in this world, each one of them different. Not all are standards of virtue, and not all are low life skanks. There’s a pretty wide spectrum out there and to pigeon hole women into this narrow definition, that’s a little close to stereotyping for my taste. Further, I don’t think just because a single woman has sexual appetites and seeks to satisfy them in legal and safe ways makes her anything to look down upon.

But we are fighting a socially held view that dudes who get what they can when they can are awesome, but women who do the same are sluts.

*sigh*
 
Written By: Mr. M
URL: http://commentsfromleftfield.com
"I am still waiting to hear from the anti-science crowd to get in an uproar because the "e-word" was used."

I think you came to the wrong place.

"men are revered for their virility and promiscuity,"

Speak for yourself.
" to pigeon hole women into this narrow definition, that’s a little close to stereotyping for my taste. "

As you just did to men? And the point of the commercial is that she is a role model for women, as your own words seem to confirm.



"Are we to admonish all portrayals of women that don’t adhere to a puritanical model?"

Oh, puleeze. There are alternatives to puritanical that do involve a little more selectivity.

"I don’t think just because a single woman

" And it’s not like we show the woman outright humping the dude’s leg. She just shows interest."

Of course not. That is for regular shows with warnings like NYPD Blue, etc. "just hows interest". LOL. More humor? She wasn’t making a concert date.


" Look, I’m not the one getting all in a tizzy here."

No? You certainly are putting in a lot of time and effort on this.


" I don’t think just because a single woman has sexual appetites and seeks to satisfy them in legal and safe ways makes her anything to look down upon"

You don’t get it, do you? The babe is a slut, just like the pigs in the bar. There is a reason that places like that are called ’meat racks’. That wasn’t a Phi Beta Kappa key that opened the gates here, a library card to the Library of Congress, or even an American Express Centurion card, it was a $.50 rubber(prices may vary). She is just another pig at the bar, and pretending she is sophisticated, discriminating, and tasteful just because she is too cheap to buy her own condoms is a bit ridiculous. What’s with the "legal" reference? Lastly, there ain’t no such thing as safe sex, not with another human being anyway. Ir she wants safe, she should use a vibrator. Aside from the diseases, there is no telling what kind of whacko you wind up with when you settle for a 30 minute interview process, the most important point of which seems to be the possession of a prophylactic.

 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
You don’t get it, do you? The babe is a slut, just like the pigs in the bar. There is a reason that places like that are called ’meat racks’.
Dear God, a woman who goes to a bar is a slut, just because she goes to a bar? Does this apply if she goes to a happy hour with a group of girlfriends and has a diet coke? Or is she only a slut if she goes alone and drinks something with alcohol in it? The definition of slut, insofar as I understood it, is someone who has frequent sex, indiscriminately, with multiple partners, and without regard for any consequences. It does not make a woman (or, for that matter, a man) a slut if she does go to a bar alone, meets someone she’s attracted to, and later decides to have sex with him. And as an aside, the notion that a woman goes to a bar for one reason and one reason only—to pick up a man for sex—is risibly outmoded. Is that the only reason YOU go to bars, or do you sometimes meet friends for drinks, watch a soccer game, or even network with business associates?
She is just another pig at the bar, and pretending she is sophisticated, discriminating, and tasteful just because she is too cheap to buy her own condoms...
This is hilarious. Now women are not only pigs, but we’ve sprouted penises, too—I mean, condoms are still designed to fit on the male sex organ, aren’t they? Women have, primarily, been the responsible ones taking all the risks with hormone pills and IUD’s and Norplants and shots in order to avoid unplanned pregnancy. For men, condoms are the extent of their involvement in birth control, and it’s a non-invasive, non-medical method with no side effects. I suppose it’s hopelessly old-fashioned to think that they might pick up the tab for the odd condom or two—in the interest of disease-prevention, if nothing else—given the expenditures and risks that women have taken on all along.
Lastly, there ain’t no such thing as safe sex, not with another human being anyway.
And certainly not with an inhuman being who clearly has some profound issues with women.
 
Written By: litbrit
URL: http://litbrit.blogspot.com/
it is totally legal and in most places socially acceptable to engage in sex - Mr. M
I am reminded of one of the only three jokes I can ever remember. The one where the couple are told not to come back to the A&P.
 
Written By: Linda Morgan
URL: http://
For men, condoms are the extent of their involvement in birth control, and it’s a non-invasive, non-medical method with no side effects.
Vasectomy

Definition

A vasectomy is a surgical procedure performed on males in which the vas deferens (tubes that carry sperm from the testicles to the seminal vesicles) are cut, tied, cauterized (burned or seared) or otherwise interrupted.
 
Written By: tom scott
URL: http://
A vasectomy is a surgical procedure performed on males
Yeah, and a tubal ligation is a surgical procedure performed on women. Your point?

Both are considered sterilization, as opposed to birth control, though the results are the same (no babies). Ask any doctor which procedure has the longer recovery time and is more invasive.

 
Written By: litbrit
URL: http://litbrit.blogspot.com/
Ask any doctor which procedure has the longer recovery time and is more invasive.
Damn patriarchy!
 
Written By: Jordan
URL: http://
LITBRIT can do broken field running to such a degree he puts Marcus Allen to shame.
 
Written By: Sharpshooter
URL: http://
Well, to answer a question from yesterday, the only reason I’m here is because I like the debate. Or, at least, I like to debate when the debate makes some semblence of sex.

I mean at this point what is the debate?

As I understand it, the condom commercial is now not okay because it portrays women in a bad light?

This is it, right? It has to be it. I can’t imagine what the hell we’re arguing over if it isn’t. Otherwise we’re just arguing to be arguing.

Which I guess I’m game for anyway.

Since we’ve already analyzed this way further than I think the designers of the ad expected, or further than the ad actually warrants, I’ll just go on, shall I?

Take the two players in the ad as two totally separate entity. The pig thing, that has nothing to do with the woman, it is all about the man. He is lesser because he’s not packing protection.

This is kinda in keeping with the concept that inspired the ad. The fact that people just don’t buy condemns when they should. There’s a social stigma, which is kinda silly. They are an extremely effective method of birth control, and the only method of birth control effective at stopping numerous sexually transmitted diseases.

But this image persists. I know first hand. I can’t buy condoms. I mean, I look over my shoulder when I go down the dreaded condom aisle, and as I walk to the cashier, I’m psyching myself. What will they think,"Oh, god, he has SEX?!?!" Or the less flattering, "Yeah, you have sex... right." Or even, "Ugh... pig."

And if the cashier turns out to be a woman. Forget it. I’m done. Luckily my wife mysteriously has no qualms, and manages to buy a box of condoms as easily as she would a carton of orange juice.

So thank God for her.

So that is at the core of what they are trying to turn around. The negative stigma against buying and having in your posession condoms.

The woman, one can assume, doesn’t even know he has condoms. That’s what’s silly about the argument. It’s about the transformation of the guy, not how the girl sees the guy. It would be different if she saw him buy the condom, or worse, he came out waving the thing around, like, "Hey baby, I got me some rubbers, wanna have some of that awesome sex all the cool kids are talking about?"

And if at that point she said, "Yeah, okay, since you have protection".

But that’s not the issue.

She doesn’t know he has condoms, she just knows that the person she saw coming out of the bathroom is more attractive than the person walking in (and I know, somehow someway someone is going to twist this one around, but go for it).

Further, I’m gonna back litbrit up on the whole, people go to bars for one reason only thing. I am a barfly. I got a favorite bar, and me and some dudes go there all the time, and it’s never, "Hey man, wanna go see if we can go pick up some chicks?"

Nope, it’s always, "wanna grab a beer?" or "wanna go shoot a round of pool?"

Strangely enough, I frequent this bar about a couple times a week, and between me and my friends, it’s never about seeing what we can go pick up. It’s about enjoying the atmosphere and the music and the staff who’ve become friends as well.

And considering that I know a lot of the patrons there, male and female alike, I can tell you very few of them show up lookin to "get some."
 
Written By: Mr. M
URL: http://commentsfromleftfield.com
illitbrit;

"Dear God, a woman who goes to a bar is a slut, just because she goes to a bar?"

You might try to understand the commercial. The woman was there to get laid, just like the pigs. Hence her sudden interest at the sight of a prophylactic. Or maybe she just likes to make balloon animals. It was not a book of poetry that effected the transformation. She is a slut, just like the pigs. Clear enough?

" Is that the only reason YOU go to bars,..."

No, but then I also don’t separate the pigs from the humans on the basis of possession of a condom. I actually talk to women without seeing them as pigs even if they do not exhibit any mating signals.

"Now women are not only pigs, but we’ve sprouted penises, too..."

I have no idea why you think I am speaking of all women, other than to strike a blow against the patriarchy, since I believe i use the word ’she’(singular), throughout, not ’they’(plural). Perhaps things are not so liberated in your native land, but in this country women sometimes accept responsibility for their sexual activity, which sometimes includes the purchase of condoms or other items. Women can also wear pants in this country.


" I suppose it’s hopelessly old-fashioned to think that they might pick up the tab for the odd condom or two"

And this is relevant because....?

" nary a one stepping up to say hello or offer a chair or light her cigarette"

Odd how someone who seems to cherish the old ways seems so offended at my characterization of sexual promiscuity and treating the opposite sex as animals as sluttish.


"And certainly not with an inhuman being who clearly has some profound issues with women."

Ah, the point. The woman in the commercial sees men as pigs unless they spring for a condom, but she has no issues.

************************

" Further, I’m gonna back litbrit up on the whole, people go to bars for one reason only thing."

Who has ever said people only go to bars for one reason? You people have to learn to read for comprehension, and not see what is actually written, not what you want or expect to see.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider