FOX and CBS reject Trojan condom commercial

Boooo, I say!

FOX and CBS have rejected a commercial for Trojan condoms on the grounds that they believed the ads stressed pregnancy prevention over disease prevention. From the NYTimes coverage:

Fox and CBS both rejected the commercial. 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."

Representatives for both Fox and CBS confirmed that they had refused the ads, but declined to comment further.

In a written response to Trojan, though, Fox said that it had rejected the spot because, "Contraceptive advertising must stress health-related uses rather than the prevention of pregnancy."

In its rejection, CBS wrote, "while we understand and appreciate the humor of this creative, we do not find it appropriate for our network even with late-night-only restrictions."

"It's so hypocritical for any network in this culture to go all puritanical on the subject of condom use when their programming is so salacious," said Mark Crispin Miller, a media critic who teaches at New York University. "I mean, let's get real here. Fox and CBS and all of them are in the business of nonstop soft porn, but God forbid we should use a condom in the pursuit of sexual pleasure." (Emphasis mine.)

You can see the commercial below:

First of all, I don't get it. Where do they even stress pregnancy prevention? The commercial doesn't stress anything. So I guess the standard is that if they don't explicitly talk about disease, then no condom commercial is acceptable. The only context under which condoms can be discussed is under the shadow of STD terror.

Two, I call bullshit. Trojan is selling a product. At no point in this commercial is sex depicted, even symbolically. Further, it is not as if FOX has ever shown anything sexual or that would offend the Christian right.

When the OC goes even a single episode with less fondling than an 80s movie about summer camp, FOX can reject this commercial without hypocrisy.

Side note: is it because the word "evolve" is in the commercial?

More like this

Looks like, once again, when somebody bothers to crunch the numbers those flimsy justifications for abstinence-only programs are found lacking. "It is remarkable that teens are becoming better contraceptors even as there are efforts afoot to reduce the information and skill-building that they…
A recent story detailing an outbreak of sexually-transmitted diseases has gotten a good deal of attention from news outlets and blogs. The reason it's newsworthy is because the individuals affected aren't teenagers or single twenty-somethings; they're senior citizens. So, let me point out the…
Especially in religious circles, much has been made about the "uselessness" of condoms for the prevention of infection with the human papilloma virus (HPV). This is the virus that is responsible for almost all cases of cervical cancer, against which a new vaccine was recently approved (for more…
Two new studies are showing the dangers of abstinence-only sex education. Both are reported here. Because abstinence-only programs are forbidden to even mention that condoms can help prevent pregnancy and STDs - it is literally illegal for them to mention anything about condoms other than failure…

Do they even understand what the term "contraceptive" means? It's a device that prevents conception! If there are other health benefits, that's just a bonus. How do any of the networks run birth-control pill commercials then? This is just stupid.

Maybe they were offended by the implication that all men are pigs?

Let me see if I understand this correctly,there is a strong line drawn between disease prevention and pregnancy prevention.Promiscuous sex with a condom is OK,if in the
interest of disease prevention.But wrong if it's promoted in
the interest of Child prevention. This is a morality issue,
a question of right and wrong. The right being aconservative religious view and the wrong being the liberal evolutionary
point of view.Liberal can also be construed as a religious view that not all of God's word is true or a choice to believe only part of it. Let's take a look at the wrong perspective,
I mean the liberal or evolutionary point of view. Man has been on the earth for over 1 million years and from the beginning to the 1960's there were 5 types of STD'S. The 1960's brought the sexual revolution where anything goes in
the arena of sexual gratification. Today, there are over 25
STD'S and 17 of them they have no cure for.As we evolve, we
have not designed a defense system to kill STD'S or cancer
or any disease of deadly proportion within our bodies,we
resort to the use of condoms,chemicals,or doctors in the case where a man wants to be a woman or visa-versa.I just don't see the evolutionary process in action do you? If each
of us woke up in the morning and said,"I want a pair of wings,I want a pair of wings," we could forget about cars and fuel and oil and emissions and Global Warming etc....
How many more millions of years will it take for us to sprout wings!I want wings but if I get them at Wal-mart it just will not be the same.Look at Science,for the last 30 years they have been precisely measuring the burn off or shrinking of the sun as it burns up energy.Scientist can
measure it by the day,week,month,and every year it burns up
over 5,000. miles of it's circumference or diameter.In 125
thousand years the Sun will be half its size,can life on the earth exist if the Sun is half its size? If you reverse those precise measurements and add 5,000 miles increase in size for each year to 125 thousand years in the past the Sun would have been so big NO life could have existed on this earth.There
are 76 Geological test's that show the earth is less than
25 thousand years old,could the Bible be true?Could there be
a Creator of all things that gave us an instruction book on
Life? The Bible claims to be the word of God and if part of it is true then all of it is true or God is a Liar!Could the
Conservative Right have insight into something that show the
Wrong in everything the Liberals do? The First word spoken to man by God stated be fruitful and multiply, God created
sex,Man created sexual perversion,promiscuity,etc...Romans
1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind,being filled with all unrighteousness,fornication,wickedness,
covetousness,maliciousness,full of envy,murder,debate,deceit
malignity,whisperers,spiteful,proud,boasters,inventors of
evil things,disobedient to parents,without understanding,
without natural affection,implacable,unmerciful,who knowing
the judgment of God that they which commit such things are
worthy of death,not only do they do it, but take pleasure in
committing those sins.Condemning themselves to eternal pain
and suffering.

By David Evans (not verified) on 20 Jun 2007 #permalink

The networks are really missing the boat here. The ad (finally!)promotes a positive attitude toward sexual health. Banning the ad simply exacerbates the larger issue. There's more discussion on the Trojan campaign at:

By jaykaydee (not verified) on 20 Jun 2007 #permalink

I just saw this ad tonight. I idea what it has to do with pregnancy. The only implication I caught, honestly, was that guys who didn't carry condoms were pigs and guys who did--especially if they carried Trojans--weren't.

As far as the moral aspect goes, frankly, if they're jumping on anyone they ought to be jumping on anyone promoting extramarital sex. I'm actually pretty much in the "right" and I do have a religious stance against extramarital sex. I'm not necessarily against use of condoms. But what I can't see most of all is how--in anyone's moral system--the reason for using them makes any difference. From what I've gathered from persons who feel less inclined to them than I do, it's pretty much the act of using one that's considered the wrong part (although in certain special circumstances, organizations such as The Catholic Church have begun to recognize a sort of intention-based discrepancy.)

So why this ad's any more objectionable than any other condom ad is beyond me.

I don't see the reason they are banning this commercial. But I do see that its offensive to men. "You're a pig unless you use Trojan condoms!" I think as men we should use another brand of condom. Why are you giving money to a company that is calling you a pig? It's worse than those Bud Light commercials that make fun of men, then expect you to go buy their beer. Can you imagine if women's products made fun of women and asked them to buy their stuff?