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."
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:
Comments to "Fox Rejects Humanoid Pig Condoms":
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.D.A. Ridgely | June 20, 2007, 10:14am | #
[insert sausage casing joke here]BTS | June 20, 2007, 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 | June 20, 2007, 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.
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.
Wow--seems totally unobjectionable. The only message I see is "men who are responsible and use condoms are more attractive to women." So?
Ken Shultz | June 20, 2007, 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 | June 20, 2007, 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
Ken Shultz | June 20, 2007, 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.
Ken Shultz | June 20, 2007, 10:41am | #
Now, from a utilitarian standpoint, what should Fox do about global warming?Tom | June 20, 2007, 10:49am | #
All condom ads are equal on some condom ads are more equal than others.Mike Laursen | June 20, 2007, 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 | June 20, 2007, 10:53am | #
Now, from a utilitarian standpoint, what should Fox do about global warming?Build an air conditioner
mediageek | June 20, 2007, 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.
FatDrunkAndStupid | June 20, 2007, 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?Reinmoose | June 20, 2007, 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 | June 20, 2007, 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
Sen. Rick "Man-on-Pig" Santorum | June 20, 2007, 11:01am | #
I hate to say I told you so, but...crimethink | June 20, 2007, 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 | June 20, 2007, 11:27am | #
crimethink, great, now what do conservatives think about the regular TV programming on Fox.Dr. Joseph Dolan | June 20, 2007, 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 the posts | June 20, 2007, 12:04pm | #
most conservatives would get behind...if we did what?
ed | June 20, 2007, 12:15pm | #
I know that you folks wouldn't have a problem with this commercialLibertarianism = casual sex with bar sluts?
Has anyone told Ron Paul?
smacky | June 20, 2007, 12:17pm | #
Fox Rejects Humanoid Pig CondomsThis 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 | June 20, 2007, 12:19pm | #
crimethink - If it stopped after the first 40%, it would be a snazzy endorsement of abstinence, don'tcha think?Lancelot Link | June 20, 2007, 12:20pm | #
Maybe the problem was that the ad says "Evolve" at the end?M again | June 20, 2007, 12:33pm | #
...as smacky at 12:17pm has pointed out.Lancelot Link | June 20, 2007, 12:38pm | #
Wha?ChicagoTom | June 20, 2007, 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?
M | June 20, 2007, 12:56pm | #
Sorry, LL, I was continuing my own thought posted above yours. Pig that I am.Lancelot Link | June 20, 2007, 1:04pm | #
No problemo. Have a banana on me.VM | June 20, 2007, 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 | June 20, 2007, 1:12pm | #
"I also want people to perform bestialities for me."—David Cross as Kevin, Satanic poster boy for the sin of slothOink | June 20, 2007, 1:15pm | #
If you're not into that, great, too.Whaddayagoddahangupboutsexorsumpin'?
Brian Sorgatz | June 20, 2007, 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.]
crimethink | June 20, 2007, 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.
Stevo Darkly | June 20, 2007, 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 | June 20, 2007, 1:48pm | #
understand the risksConservative 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.
de stijl | June 20, 2007, 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 | June 20, 2007, 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.ChicagoTom | June 20, 2007, 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?
Ken Shultz | June 20, 2007, 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.
Robert Stacy McCain | June 20, 2007, 3:25pm | #
Jack | June 20, 2007, 10:06am | #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."
Score one for the "abortion should be illegal, but in the meantime let's have as many as possible" crowd.
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.
smacky | June 20, 2007, 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
jh | June 20, 2007, 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.
J sub D | June 20, 2007, 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 | June 20, 2007, 9:22pm | #
Aren't slut, fattie, and crusade quick condemnations?M | June 20, 2007, 9:26pm | #
Also, to support your observation, not all libertarians are models of cultural tolerance.M | June 20, 2007, 9:27pm | #
But I wouldn't have it any other way! ;-)dj of raleigh | June 21, 2007, 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.
lily | June 21, 2007, 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?