I think the message is that advertising is always laughable but never more so when they try to tiptoe around explosively sensitive subjects like women being human beings who (SURPRISE) might like having sex.
You'll notice this trepidation entirely absent in your average Cialis or Viagra add, where the smarmy look of IMPENDING NOOKIE is pretty much standard and where the only things you're told that the drugs prevent you from suffering is from lack of said rapacious nookie.
As someone who uses birth control primarily to avoid periods that were festivals of pain on an irregular basis, I have no problem with the advertising selling itself as a means to end suffering of that sort. I almost encourage it. The more people we sell on buying birth control just to make their lives easier, the more we get it out there. If only there were someway to convince people that condoms make your lives better--longer, stronger erections! no more impotence! something having to do with penises!--we'd all but eliminate opposition to them.
It's okay if it's guys getting laid. They're allowed to and encourage to have all the sex they'd like. Where you get into trouble is if you dare to suggest the women involved might want it (and like it!) just as much.
I understand your point, but this example seems slanted. I may not be an expert on Viagra but I didn't think it served any other purpose than allowing old guys to get it on. Even if the commercials want to avoid the issue of women having sex, couldn't someone theoretically be taking it for those other reasons?
Actually, viagra was discovered as a heart medication, I believe, so a hard-on is the "other reason" to take it. Which, fine, that's great. The point is that sex is not only not mentioned, pregnancy isn't mentioned for a product typically known as birth control. Given the squeamishness about it, I'd half expect they'd prefer not to even mention the word "period."
And plenty of women, especially younger ones, take the pill to regulate. You could argue, then, that these ads assume the words "birth control" sufficiently describe what the pills/rings do, and therefore they only try to market them to prove which has the best side-effects. Except that people generally have A LOT OF QUESTIONS about contraceptive methods and there's also the very important fact that the pill doesn't protect against STIs (also not mentioned). So just going "It's a magical emotion pill!" is rather disingenuous and stupid.
Even if it was like that, is there anyone out there actually taking it as heart medication? That was my point. There's no other way to advertise Viagra. I'm not saying it's not the dumb way out to advertise birth control for women as period control, but it's not like they COULD be putting up heart medication Viagra ads. I was just taking issue with that particular example.
Birth control is a thorny issue. I said above, I don't have a problem with this marketing method if it means we sneak birth control to people because lord knows we could use more. What I have a problem with is that we're totally fine with using sex to sell everything, so long as its catered to the male gaze. Trying to let women know that, hey, sex doesn't have to be babies! Is taboo. So taboo, in fact, we can't say what, exactly, the benefits of not having babies are except for better periods. Because heaven forfend we abandon the "babies make us better women" narrative.
In short, this isn't just about birth control; it's still about ignoring women's sexual drives.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2008-08-04 09:54 pm (UTC)You'll notice this trepidation entirely absent in your average Cialis or Viagra add, where the smarmy look of IMPENDING NOOKIE is pretty much standard and where the only things you're told that the drugs prevent you from suffering is from lack of said rapacious nookie.
As someone who uses birth control primarily to avoid periods that were festivals of pain on an irregular basis, I have no problem with the advertising selling itself as a means to end suffering of that sort. I almost encourage it. The more people we sell on buying birth control just to make their lives easier, the more we get it out there. If only there were someway to convince people that condoms make your lives better--longer, stronger erections! no more impotence! something having to do with penises!--we'd all but eliminate opposition to them.
no subject
Date: 2008-08-05 01:14 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-08-05 05:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-08-05 08:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-08-06 04:02 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-08-06 05:32 am (UTC)And plenty of women, especially younger ones, take the pill to regulate. You could argue, then, that these ads assume the words "birth control" sufficiently describe what the pills/rings do, and therefore they only try to market them to prove which has the best side-effects. Except that people generally have A LOT OF QUESTIONS about contraceptive methods and there's also the very important fact that the pill doesn't protect against STIs (also not mentioned). So just going "It's a magical emotion pill!" is rather disingenuous and stupid.
no subject
Date: 2008-08-06 09:55 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-08-06 04:04 pm (UTC)In short, this isn't just about birth control; it's still about ignoring women's sexual drives.
no subject
Date: 2008-08-06 04:06 pm (UTC)