Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Fox Rejects Humanoid Pig Condoms
A Trojan condom ad has been rejected by Fox and CBS, presumably because of its inappropriate focus on sex. The ad depicts men as humanoid pigs trying to chat up a woman in a bar. One pig gets wise, goes to the bathroom to get a Trojan and returns as a young hunk ready for action. Fox and CBS haven't said why exactly the ad is a no-go, but, The New York Times speculates:
Both had accepted Trojan's previous campaign, which urged condom use because of the possibility that a partner might be H.I.V.-positive, perhaps unknowingly. A 2001 report about condom advertising by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation found that, "Some networks draw a strong line between messages about disease prevention - which may be allowed - and those about pregnancy prevention, which may be considered controversial for religious and moral reasons."
Jack|6.20.07 @ 10:06AM|#
Score one for the "abortion should be illegal, but in the meantime let's have as many as possible" crowd.
BTS|6.20.07 @ 10:18AM|#
So wait...has anyone had the thought enter their mind that it might be a wee bit, y'know...distasteful to imply a pig is gonna get it on with a human being? Pure speculation here, but if I were gonna reject it, that's why I would. Or at least say I would; jeez, NYT, sometimes the answer is more obvious than you know.
BTS|6.20.07 @ 10:20AM|#
Oh wait. Now I watch it, and it makes more sense, along with
being less offensive. But it's still kinda creepy, because what I
take away from it is: "our condom will transmorgify you from a
filthy barnyard animal into a relatively good-looking human
male!"
Oy, though I feel really stupid for watching it after I made such
blanket comments about it which now make absolutely no sense.
ed|6.20.07 @ 10:21AM|#
Maybe Fox and CBS have an aversion to bestiality. But how did the hot slut I mean bar fly know the sleazy hound dog had a condom? Does she have nice tits and X-ray vision? This ad confuses me and therefore fails to convince. I have spoken.
|6.20.07 @ 10:24AM|#
Wow--seems totally unobjectionable. The only message I see is "men who are responsible and use condoms are more attractive to women." So?
|6.20.07 @ 10:26AM|#
So even if we assume Fox is afraid of offending the
sensibilities of some of its viewers, what's the big deal?
...sometimes it seems like some people think that if only it wasn't
for the FCC and a secret shadow government of evangelicals, hard
core porn would be available to everyone over broadcast television.
I suspect, rather, that even in Libertopia, many broadcasters,
especially those who catered their programming to more conservative
customers, would probably censor themselves.
So even if this is purely driven by Fox not wanting to offend some
of its viewers' religious sensibilities... So what?
Jack|6.20.07 @ 10:33AM|#
Ken, what does libertarianism have to do with this discussion at
all? Nobody's arguing the legal permissibility of these actions,
we're talking about whether Fox made a good decision--from a
utilitarian standpoint condoms are clearly a plus to the "abortion
is the greatest moral evil of our time" crowd (giving them the
benefit of the doubt that the real agenda isn't punishing
promiscuous women)
Not to mention this is Fox, not Fox news. Any content standards on
their part ring a little hollow
|6.20.07 @ 10:41AM|#
"Nobody's arguing the legal permissibility of these actions,
we're talking about whether Fox made a good decision--from a
utilitarian standpoint condoms are clearly a plus to the "abortion
is the greatest moral evil of our time" crowd (giving them the
benefit of the doubt that the real agenda isn't punishing
promiscuous women)."
Okay, well from a utilitarian standpoint, I can see how from Fox's
perspective, maybe not alienating a small but vocal portion of
their audience is more important to them than doing the real work
of anti-abortion activists. ...over the objections of anti-abortion
activists.
Mike Laursen|6.20.07 @ 10:50AM|#
Nobody's arguing the legal permissibility of these
actions...
This comes up so often here. What about "NTTSBALAIB" (Not That
There Should Be A Law Against It, But..."?
thoreau|6.20.07 @ 10:53AM|#
Now, from a utilitarian standpoint, what should Fox do about
global warming?
Build an air conditioner
|6.20.07 @ 10:53AM|#
So a condom commercial gets nixed because it boils down to "Use
our product and you'll get laid!"
As opposed to all of the
soap/gum/toothpaste/car/motorcycle/hotel/vacation/wombat ads that
already use that same tactic.
The irony. It does cause my head to spin.
|6.20.07 @ 10:54AM|#
The ad creeped me out, so from a utilitarian standpoint, I'm glad they rejected it. We all know that if we put a dress on a pig, its still a pig. But Trojan is now trying to sell us the idea that if you put a condom on a pig it ceases to become a pig?
|6.20.07 @ 10:55AM|#
My only reaction to this:
So...?
It also goes along pretty darn well with the conservative
"abstinence only" education bit. I don't really see how this is
inconsistent, even IF Fox has aired previous condom commercials.
Now CBS OTOH would do well to scrap all their crappy sit-coms and
ONLY air commercials like these.
VM|6.20.07 @ 10:57AM|#
But... but... but...
If people are hooking up and engaging in safer sex practices...
[sighs] there will be fewer opportunities to BATE.
/kicks Noam Chomsky Blow Up Doll
|6.20.07 @ 11:06AM|#
I didn't see the previous Trojan ad, but if all it was saying
was that if you were going to have sex, using a condom could
protect you from STD transmission, that's a message I think most
conservatives would get behind.
However, this ad portrays casual sex as a desirable and socially
acceptable thing, so I can see why conservatives would be pissed. I
know that you folks wouldn't have a problem with this commercial,
but I think you can understand why those of a different viewpoint
would.
Barbar|6.20.07 @ 11:27AM|#
crimethink, great, now what do conservatives think about the regular TV programming on Fox.
Dr. Joseph Dolan|6.20.07 @ 11:44AM|#
Isn't there a children's book about an elephant named
Babar?
It's an odd name. I don't recall ever seeing it in the club
register...
Aroused conservative, skimming|6.20.07 @ 12:04PM|#
most conservatives would get behind
...if we did what?
ed|6.20.07 @ 12:15PM|#
I know that you folks wouldn't have a problem with this
commercial
Libertarianism = casual sex with bar sluts?
Has anyone told Ron Paul?
|6.20.07 @ 12:17PM|#
Fox Rejects Humanoid Pig Condoms
This has got to be the most Weekly World News-worthy headline I've
ever seen on Hit and Run. I just had to visit this thread after I
saw that headline.
I think maybe FatDrunkandStupid was the only commenter who came
close to my viewpoint on the ad:
The ad creeped me out, so from a utilitarian standpoint, I'm glad they rejected it. We all know that if we put a dress on a pig, its still a pig. But Trojan is now trying to sell us the idea that if you put a condom on a pig it ceases to become a pig?
Seriously - I'm surprised no one else has pointed out the obvious
objection: the ad makes sex look totally unappealing! What the hell
was Trojan thinking? That women would see the ads and think, "Wow,
I want to go out to the bars tonight! There's a whole lot of pigs
waiting for me!"? I mean, the ad was blatantly suggesting that men
are pigs. If Trojan is willing to support that old feminist insult
by making an ad of it, that isn't a very good marketing technique,
says I...
...not to mention, the other obvious objection: namely,
from all the men who will view the ad as an insult. Last time I
checked, not all guys enjoy being called pigs.
M|6.20.07 @ 12:19PM|#
crimethink - If it stopped after the first 40%, it would be a snazzy endorsement of abstinence, don'tcha think?
|6.20.07 @ 12:49PM|#
However, this ad portrays casual sex as a desirable and
socially acceptable thing, so I can see why conservatives would be
pissed.
You do realize that this is the same network that brought you
Temptation Island right?
VM|6.20.07 @ 1:07PM|#
"casual sex as a desirable and socially acceptable thing"
it can be. Go for it, understand the risks and protections you
face/need/can use, and enjoy!
If you're not into that, great, too.
Brian Sorgatz|6.20.07 @ 1:12PM|#
"I also want people to perform bestialities for me."-David Cross as Kevin, Satanic poster boy for the sin of sloth
Brian Sorgatz|6.20.07 @ 1:15PM|#
Maybe Fox and CBS have an aversion to bestiality.
"I also want people to perform bestialities for me."-David Cross as Kevin,
Satanic poster boy for the sin of sloth
[Of course, this is how I meant to publish my
comment.]
|6.20.07 @ 1:15PM|#
You do realize that this is the same network that brought
you Temptation Island right?
Yes, and they cancelled it very quickly thereafter. Maybe they've
learned their lesson: Don't fuck with the Jesus-people.
|6.20.07 @ 1:26PM|#
Hey! Did anyone else notice that the dude in the commercial kind of looks like Nick Gillespie? After he attains human form, I mean. The guy in the commercial, that is. You know what I mean.
M|6.20.07 @ 1:48PM|#
understand the risks
Conservative opinion holds that truly understanding the
invisible risks (actually not so much risks as
predictability of damage) would be enough to prevent casual sex,
and that inviting someone to engage in sex casually is a species of
deceit, even if the inviter has dulled his own conscience
sufficiently to be insensible of that deceit.
Conservatives believe that sex by definition cannot be radically
casual, because it radically alters parts of the soul, and whether
it does so redemptively or corruptingly depends on its social
conext. Hence they feel that the equiposed "If you're not into
that, great, too," does not authentically apply to the profound,
irreversible consequences of sexual seduction.
That is why some conservatives support the regulation of even some
(improperly so-called, they believe) "consensual" sexual conduct by
law: Subjecting one's own chastity to violation cannot be the truly
free choice of an agent/patient wholly cognizant of the
consequences. Hence, conservatives view debauchery, like induction
into any vice, as the initiation of fraud.
Philosophical materialists who discount non-material risks brush
off concerns about the non-existent soul, both their own or the
other's.
And there are in-between points-of-view, how logically consistent I
don't know.
|6.20.07 @ 1:54PM|#
Yes, and they cancelled it very quickly thereafter. Maybe
they've learned their lesson: Don't fuck with the
Jesus-people.
Yeah, after three seasons they finally learned that lesson.
M|6.20.07 @ 1:54PM|#
I should add that among conservatives who deny the possibility of casual sex, some, namely the libertarian ones, maintain that, grave a matter though it be, regulating sexual conduct should be a cultural rather than legal responsibility.
|6.20.07 @ 2:42PM|#
Yes, and they cancelled it very quickly thereafter. Maybe
they've learned their lesson: Don't fuck with the
Jesus-people.
Not quite.
The show lasted for 3 seasons.
From tv.com:
Premiered: January 10, 2001
Last Aired: September 29, 2003
So maybe you want to try again to reconcile your statement with
this fact?
|6.20.07 @ 2:45PM|#
"That women would see the ads and think, "Wow, I want to go
out to the bars tonight! There's a whole lot of pigs waiting for
me!"? I mean, the ad was blatantly suggesting that men are
pigs."
I think the ad was directed at guys. ...men who don't want to be
seen by women as pigs but who, maybe, like to see themselves that
way.
...kinda like in the way that some guys like to imagine themselves
as dogs?
I think you bring up an interesting point... I'd bet that an awful
lot of condoms are actually bought by women. ...like Men's
underwear sales. For a commercial, you don't put a hunk in some
briefs to appeal to men. That pitch is to women 'cause they know
that women buy most of the men's underwear in this country.
I bet a large proportion of the condom sales in this country are to
women.
|6.20.07 @ 3:25PM|#
Jack | June 20, 2007, 10:06am | #
Score one for the "abortion should be illegal, but in the meantime let's have as many as possible" crowd.
The relationship between (a) the availability of abortion, and (b)
the willingness of women to have sex with men they barely know is
not irrelevant to this topic, since all methods of contraception
have something called a "failure rate."
Suppose that condoms have a contraceptive failure rate of 1%; this
means that for every 100 acts of intercourse using condoms as a
means of contraception, one pregnancy will result. Ergo, if 1,000
lounge lizards "score" tonight in DC -- and hey, Take Back America
is in town -- there will be 10 "unplanned pregnancies" to be dealt
with.
Contraceptives make the casual hook-up feasible, and the law of
large numbers thus necessitates the availability of abortion as a
backstop.
Bar trivia -- Polls show that single men ages
18-29 are the most solid pro-choice constituency.
It's Madisonian: the politics of self-interest.
|6.20.07 @ 3:26PM|#
I think the ad was directed at guys. ...men who don't want
to be seen by women as pigs but who, maybe, like to see themselves
that way.
...kinda like in the way that some guys like to imagine
themselves as dogs?
Yeah, but that's equally unappealing. Just contemplating the notion
that there are guys out there looking for sex who are laughing to
themselves and thinking "yeah, I am a pig" or "yeah, I am a dog"
makes me shudder.
I wouldn't ever want to cross paths with a guy like that. And,
personally, seeing that in an ad would just be a helpful reminder
to avoid casual sex.
But yeah, I agree with you that the ad is clearly directed at
guys.
Bad advertising. Plain and simple. That's about as effective as a
cough corn syrup manufacturer parading around a bunch
of fat people to advertise their product.
|6.20.07 @ 5:13PM|#
"Bar trivia -- Polls show that single men ages 18-29 are the
most solid pro-choice constituency.
It's Madisonian: the politics of self-interest."
If by "self-interest" you mean "convincing women to kill your own
unborn child". A curious philosophy. Surprised any woman would want
to sleep with a guy with such a brutal viewpoint, though I imagine
it's described more euphemistically than that.
|6.20.07 @ 7:33PM|#
I can't take it any longer. Casual sex - Yes, I've done it. Yes,
I've enjoyed it. Yes, as I've matured casual sex in my lifestyle
has been reduced radically (is "doesn't happen" a radical
reduction?) No, I can't promise it will never happen again.
I suspect that those are so quick to condemn casual/recreational
sex are ex-sluts. Kinda like ex-smokers and ex-fatties with their
respective crusades.
On to the important question. Mediageek, what brand of wombat is
going to help me with the ladies? Mine is useless in that
regard.
M|6.20.07 @ 9:26PM|#
Also, to support your observation, not all libertarians are models of cultural tolerance.
|6.21.07 @ 1:34AM|#
Fox has the right to run their business,
on the one hand,
and Pigs are picked on way too much
on the other hand.
One place Jews and Islam agree on
is that pigs aren't fit to eat.
Red necks eat them, call it Pig Pickin'
People who don't like cops, call em pigs.
Fat people are pigs.
Ugly girls are pigs.
Feminists think men are pigs.
Why is everyone picking on pigs?
Well, took a fox to look out for a pig.
|6.21.07 @ 11:50PM|#
I saw this on the colbert report, of course, and had to google
it so I could watch the ad (thus I found this blog). I think the
NYT article has missed the point, as others have said. It's not
that the commercial might talk about preventing unwanted pregnancy,
(it doesn't), it's that the commercial makes you think that chick
at the end is going to have hot piggy love. Yuck.
As a conservative myself, (but not a fox news fan) I'd have to say
that the commercial didn't offend me at all. (That's just one
opinion). Of course, I'm a girl and not a guy, so I wouldn't be
offended, would I? I think the offense is all on the male side. Men
are pigs? Wow, we knew that all along, but it took Trojan to admit
it, huh?
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245