June 20, 2007

Trojan Commercial Rejected

Filed under: Interesting News,Politics,Religion — acepundit @ 8:27 pm

Tonight Bill O’Reilly aired a commercial for Trojan Condoms called “Evolve” that Fox and CBS have refused to run. In the segment he debated with another commentator on whether or not it’s offensive.

The commercial, which you can watch here, takes place in a pig-infested bar where one is hitting on an uninterested woman. The unsuccessful pig walks to a condom vending machine and as soon as the wrapped prophylactic hits his hand he “evolves” into a good-looking young gentleman who sparks the interest of the woman who previously rejected him.

The commercial ends by telling men to “evolve” and “use a condom every time.”

Supporters of the ad have been quick to criticize the hypocrisy of both networks for refusing to pick it up; CBS is known for its graphic crime dramas and FOX for its raunchy television series such as “Family Guy.”

Both networks fail miserably at justifying their reasons. From the NY Times:

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.”

Because they both run salacious content it’s hard not to find their moral objections to the commercial questionable. But I actually like it and support its message, which I interpreted to mean that men who try to bed women unsafely are pigs.

Nothing scandalous about that. O’Reilly noted that there are some 65 million Catholics in the country who could find it objectionable but, c’mon. I mean, I met a lot of Catholics in college. The sororities are full of them.



  1. Wow. Fox hits a new low. A question: is it possible that Fox’s problem with the commercial is actually based on the message, “evovle,” rather than the content of the ad? I’m just curious. Three of the Republican candidates for prez publicly admitted that they don’t believe in evolution. Is it possible that Fox is just as lost as they are?

    Comment by Stryker — June 21, 2007 @ 12:23 am | Reply

  2. CBS, too. Forgot to mention them.

    Comment by Stryker — June 21, 2007 @ 12:23 am | Reply

  3. I think the decision has more to do with the lawyers and network advisors than the bigheads who run the networks. More so than politics, these decisions are influenced by what makes money and what doesn’t bring lawsuits. The latter relies on playing it safe.

    Comment by acepundit — June 21, 2007 @ 12:31 am | Reply

  4. I applaude FOX and CBS for not runnning this commercial. I am not a Christian and very to the left of the political spectrum but this idea of calling men pigs and this feeling that they are justified in doing so is both amazing and distressing to me. People know when they are being insulted, even if the poeple doing the insulting try to be subtle or try to hide it seemingly good intention (I don’t believe the intention is good here despite what Trojan is saying, the intention is just the bottom line) . To me the real story is why is it OK for Trojan to put a commercial when they the sexist streotypes that all men are PIG and think men will respond favorably? Comparing with other salacious content is not the right comparison, it should be compared with other commercials that cleary shows comptempt and insult the people they are trying to reach.

    Comment by j dumas — June 26, 2007 @ 2:23 pm | Reply

  5. Like J, I fall to the extreme left in matters political, and still I find this commercial mildly offensive on the basis of its sexist implications; true, men who try to bed women unsafely are pigs, but what about women who try to bed men unsafely? It may be a rarity, but there have certainly been cases in which a woman has lied to or otherwise deceived a man regarding use of contraception in order to trap him with a child he did not consent to fathering. Nonetheless, this miniscule margin of the female population does not represent the whole of the female population by any stretch of the imagination. If a commercial similar to this were to air depicting women in a uniformly “unevolved” light, there would be a massive public uproar over it. So why is it acceptable to depict your cliché “male-chauvinist pig” (again, a fairly tiny margin of the whole) as representative of the entirety of the sex? It’s standard Madison Avenue fare—make the target demographic ashamed to be without the product, as though their lives are incomplete or in some other manner subhuman—and it’s fundamentally demeaning to men as a sex.

    Comment by Mark — June 28, 2008 @ 4:08 pm | Reply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at

%d bloggers like this: