The Durex ad that I didn't need to see on World AIDS Day

Today is World AIDS Day. And while many great attempts have been made by social marketers to get people to practice safer sex, the sexual transmission of HIV continues at a worrying pace.

The biggest barrier is that fact that nobody really likes condom sex better than bare sex. "Shower in a raincoat," etc. It will always be seen as a sensory compromise, even if it can improve length of performance or allow a more relaxed response by offering peace of mind.

And even the condom manufacturers know it:

This ad was featured today in Photoshop Disasters, because of the badly altered hand, but I found the concept itself gave me pause.

So, apparently, did @sidgestion, who Tweeted another version of the ad with the comment, "you can leave her pleasantly puzzled - do I need to get an abortion?"

Indeed, the ad seems wrong on so many levels. That a woman would muse about whether her partner used a condom or not brings up all kinds of questions about sexual health, consent, and plain old respect in the bedroom. It implies that she really would rather you forwent the Jimmy cap and jumped in au naturel, no matter what she has said to the contrary. In some ways, this is as bad as "no means yes".

Yeah, yeah, I know. It's just a stupid ad. But in a world where some men would rather have their foreskins cut off than wear a condom, I don't think it's helping the cause any.

F'd Ad Fridays: Quickdraw condom

Wow! That was fast. (That's what she said.)

It's a pretty clever product, actually. But those snappy applicator hooks scare me.

Via Illegal Advertising

F'd Ad Fridays: Unfortunate condom ad copy

Brisbane Times reports that this condom ad is drawing complaints from parents who don't like seeing pictures of sexy body-painted models so close to their kids' schools.

The complaint came via the Australian Christian Lobby's Wendy Francis. The uptight Ms. Francis has previously lobbied (unsuccessfully) to get a gay-positive safe sex PSA poster banned.

This time, however, she hit on an actually point. She insisted that the bus shelter ad is sexually offensive and contained no positive message about safe sex.

While I see nothing offensive about the imagery (condom ads should promote pleasure and fun) the headline is not very responsible. "Zero or Nothing" may be a clever play on words that implies it is the only acceptable way to cap the Jimmy, but the implication of barebacking as the alternative is not exactly public health friendly. Not a great move for this category.

F'd Ad Fridays: Why "try before you buy" does not apply to everything you wear

Ewww.

Also, "Wow! Those are cheap!

(Pic via The Consumerist)

Durex fortune teller says "cover your little feller"

Ads of The World just posted this nice ambient ad infiltration by Durex in Taiwan:



An interesting case of manipulating cultural predispositions. According to the case study, Taiwanese youth don't want to talk about condoms or sex, but are obsessed with having their fortunes told. So the agency (Ogilvy) built an old-school fortune booth that distributed condoms and warnings about unsafe sex.

Clever. The ending looks pretty staged, but still clever.

"Good Catholics Use Condoms" ads blocked in Spain

Jezebel reports that this ad campaign, slated to run on Madrid's transit system during Catholic World Youth Day, was banned by either city authorities or by the media company (they're not yet sure which):

Catholics for Choice are a group who want to encourage sexual and reproductive choices — including open sexuality, contraception, abortion and IVF — within Catholicism.

While the Pope has taken a somewhat surprising harm reduction stance on AIDS and condom use, there is obviously a great deal of gap between CFC's goals and the Vatican's hard line on sexual issues.

Nonetheless, CFC have been at it since 1973, and continue to strive for a world "where all women and men are trusted to make moral decisions about their lives."

The Spanish language version follows.