Plan B ad - Offensive?

[KieranTheWerewolf42]

Wow, that's pretty offensive, especially how it suggests that if you're asexual you're "a-everything". I don't have sex, therefore I can't have a social life! Quick, someone put me out of this misery!

I sent them a message about it and linked them to AVEN, suggesting that they do their research next time. I hope they remove this ad.

Thanks for posting this.

I was going to do the same thing! But alas, I have work and will have to postpone it until I get back in a few hours.

Also, Did anyone notice the colors they used?

[Changed773]

What really annoys me is I'm one of those kinky asexual fetishist types of people. A few things she pulled out of her drawer to throw away...are things that I own in my home or wear on occasion.

[Oro]

What really annoys me is I'm one of those kinky asexual fetishist types of people. A few things she pulled out of her drawer to throw away...are things that I own in my home or wear on occasion.

That just shows how wrong they are about asexuality. And you're right, it makes it even worse.

:(

Call me a cynic, but this ad couldn't have been made out of total ignorance. It was catchy so they did it anyway.

[Lord Happy Toast]

As the asexual community grows, gains more visibility, and begins to more seriously challenge many of our notions about sexuality, I anticipate one of the groups whose toes we really step on will be the pharmacuticals, especially with their quest for a "cure" for so-called "female hypoactive sexual desire disorder." They really want to create distress around lack of interest in sex, and our saying that there's nothing wrong with being interested in sex won't help them in their effort.

Part of me wonders if this wasn't simply the first attack on us by Big Pharma. I am presently expecting them to become our biggest political enemy in the future.

(As an aside, I don't have anything against pharmaceuticals, so much as I do against their marketing departments.)

[ShahidAfridiBOOMBOOM]

Aren't people being a tad over-sensitive? She's painted as a highly sexual person at the other end of the sexuality scale to us, so she's sort of wishing that she could be asexual cos it would make elements of her life easier (obviously she's not being rational, which is the point of the advert). So I don't get the big deal really, but maybe I'm missing something. Not that I'm a fan of adverts in general, I'd ban them all in my world but I don't find much to get offended by in this one, if anything I found it fairly amusing and I think the girl had good comic timing.

[swankivy]

Aren't people being a tad over-sensitive? She's painted as a highly sexual person at the other end of the sexuality scale to us

Actually, I was going to say something similar to this--I don't think anyone's being "over-sensitive," but I do think it's absolutely clear that she's supposed to be absurd and that someone as super-sexual as she has been would never consider abstinence as a "real plan." The ad execs may not care about what we say because we completely are not the target audience.

The problem with it is that it upholds the status quo and reinforces that "master narrative" that people like this have the only lifestyle that should be respected as "real," and of course it's also just plain inaccurate (though not, in my opinion, insidious or nasty) to use the word "asexual" to describe her plan.

I don't think there's any intention to frame asexuals as people who are also asocial or "a-everything," of course--they don't mean asexual like we're asexual--but it's certainly a damaging concept to suggest that celibacy or even basic responsibility in one's sex life is "not a real plan." From what I gather, Plan B is sort of like a morning-after pill, and while it's something I believe should be available, I don't think it's . . . well, it's not a "plan." It's an emergency measure. Being condescending toward people whose "real plan" includes celibacy (or even cutting down a little or becoming more conservative with sex) is not a good advertising idea. Their misuse of "asexual" in the ad is unfortunate, and I believe it should be corrected so it doesn't attach this ridiculous idea to our term for our orientation, but I do not believe that's the most offensive thing about it.

Bottom line is she's a caricature, and most people can see that she's a caricature, but less extreme ways of dealing with birth control-related mistakes shouldn't be framed as "not a real plan." As someone else pointed out, I don't think someone throwing out all her lingerie and sexual clothes and even anything that makes her attractive is going to be a good "plan" to stop her from getting pregnant. The tone is just extremely condescending toward people who aren't getting laid (no matter what their situation is), so that's what I object to. (I'm not seeing red, though, or seething about it. I just think "Unfortunate, poor taste, and ad execs need education about the word 'asexual.'")

[Palovana]

First of all, they are making the claim that someone who doesn't have sex basically doesn't have a life, which is BULLSHIT.

And...I wonder if it was designed like that...on purpose? I doubt it, but it does have me thinking that maybe someone decided to slip in a little inside joke to take a stab at asexuality...this could just be my paranoia talking but I wouldn't but it past some people to do something like that.

[swankivy]

First of all, they are making the claim that someone who doesn't have sex basically doesn't have a life, which is BULLSHIT.

I know what you mean. I see the actress as representing a caricature that no one actually believes in, but they are definitely making it seem like withdrawing from sex-related risky behaviors would necessarily involve removing oneself from anything social, etc. She's suggesting that abandoning sex means abandoning LIFE, and no one wants that, oh horrors!

And even though it's clearly over the top, a lot of people do feel in some way that not having a sex life is the same thing as not having a life at all, and those of us who frequently have to deal with other people assuming we're "no fun" or "repressed" or "sad" because we aren't interested in sex are definitely not going to be helped by these kinds of statements circulating about people who don't have sex. The message is clearly "NO ONE WANTS TO HAVE TO TURN INTO THAT KIND OF PERSON JUST TO AVOID PREGNANCY! BUY OUR PRODUCT FOR A REAL ALTERNATIVE TO BEING A SAD LONELY PERSON WHO DOESN'T DO ANYTHING FUN!"

[Siggy]

In trying to do some research on this topic, I haven't been able to find any versions of the visual ad that's linked towards the beginning of this thread (other than ones by people objecting to this ad that were almost certainly created as a result of this thread.) Have they taken it down? Or is my google-fu just not good enough?

If anyone can point me to a link, that'd be fantastic.

Well besides the image that Pugnacioun put at the beginning of the thread, someone independently took a snapshot along with another image from the same ad campaign. She said that she saw the ad on YouTube. I refreshed the page, and it didn't show up, so it might not be there anymore.

[Gatto]

Basically, my main complaint with the ads are not their snub of asexuality, but their sexism.

If you look at the one in which the woman is "bargaining", it raises the question, to whom is she speaking? I think, presumably, it must be God, or some form of supernatural entity. Clearly, the cameraman is in no position to help her with her "predicament"; only by entreating the supernatural could discarding of "sexy things" effect a prevention of pregnancy from a sex act which has already occurred. Of course, praying is not much of a plan.

The other video, with the couple in bed, is really obnoxious. The scenario is just silly:

"Hey. Where's the condom?"

"What do you mean, where's the condom?"

"Well, I mean, I put it on, but... it's not there."

"Did it come off before or after?"

"Well I don't know."

"How do you not know?"

"I don't know."

Let me just clue anyone who doesn't know this, in: condoms do not just "disappear" without being noticed, and men do not simply "forget" them. It would be like showing up at work and realizing, for the first time, that you are not wearing pants. It just does not happen like that. If the guy has such a pencil dick that his condoms keep falling off, then he needs to be buying Parvums™.

In any case you can show me where a guy claims such a thing has happened, I can show you a man who wanted to go bareback, and a woman who's been taken advantage of. End of story.

As for the woman's reaction... if she had hit the dude over the head with a shovel, that would be understandable. But, instead, she becomes hysterical. In short, she's a stereotypical, histrionic, dimwitted bimbo. Suffice to say I do not find this very respectful.

Additionally, the campaign refers to the demographic likely to use Plan B as "girls". The woman in the video is obviously fully grown. I don't think that calling women "girls" is automatically condescending or patronizing, depending on the circumstance; it could simply suggest familiarity between friends. However, that level of casual familiarity is, to my mind, wholly unprofessional when it comes to dispensing medical advice. Doctors should not refer to their patients as "girls" (pediatrics excepted), any more than patients should refer to their doctors in such a manner. It's totally inappropriate, and I hope it does not normally happen between doctors and patients. The whole idea of advertising drugs directly to consumers is sort of an end-run around doctors, the traditional source of medical expertise. But at least in the US, this has been going on for quite a few years; the drug companies went to great lengths to convince the authorities that they could advertise directly to consumers in an ethical manner (here is a link on DTC advertising to drugs, if you are interested). As the saying goes, you give them an inch and they will take a mile (and they have). Nowadays, the ads for drugs have gone completely beyond the pale; they are bombastic, insulting, disgusting and, especially, deceptive (though they tend to use language that is vague enough not to be outright lying, just barely not actionable). And the bar for what they can get away with keeps getting lowered. I really wish that politicians and regulators would step in and restrain these corporations, because the market certainly is not going to do it, and they are not going to restrain themselves, either.

Indignation is not going to compel them to change their strategies, until and unless it results in regulation. People can be indignant all they want, and the companies will not care. As far as they are concerned-let's take this case in particular-say the executives hear that the Plan B ad is upsetting asexuals. What do they care? Asexuals are not the demographic likely to buy Plan B, and if an asexual should ever happen to need a morning after pill, her disdain for the company that makes it is not likely to be her chief consideration. The same goes for feminists who, as far as the top corporate brass are concerned, are either dykes, or if they have men as partners, they are surely eunuchs (har har har, they will laugh). Not their market, again. They need to worry about offending the people they offend about as much a Larry Flynt does. Indignation, outrage, if there is enough of it, might seem to result in a particular ad pulled (which will have already served its purpose: that is, getting attention), but they are not going to change their overall marketing strategy. Tactics, maybe a little, but strategy, no, not at all. Only congress and the FDA could effect such a change. And they are corporate bitches (and, no, that is not a term of endearment).

[Gatto]

And also, conflating "asexual" (in the more vernacular sense of sexual abstinence, as opposed to the "official" AVEN one) with "asocial" implies that sexuality is a girl's woman's only social currency.

[kitchenwitch]

We're up to 193 thumbs-downs on the YouTube video -- and there hasn't been a single additional thumbs-up! Yayyy! If you haven't rated the video down, please do --

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InxaH6DpCgc

She's suggesting that abandoning sex means abandoning LIFE, and no one wants that, oh horrors!

The message is clearly "NO ONE WANTS TO HAVE TO TURN INTO THAT KIND OF PERSON JUST TO AVOID PREGNANCY! BUY OUR PRODUCT FOR A REAL ALTERNATIVE TO BEING A SAD LONELY PERSON WHO DOESN'T DO ANYTHING FUN!"

THIS & THIS. Thanks, Ivy, for once again making absolute sense. This is the reason why we have to do something. We all know that abandoning sex does not mean abandoning life, but unless we pro-actively educate on it they won't know.

And also, conflating "asexual" (in the more vernacular sense of sexual abstinence, as opposed to the "official" AVEN one) with "asocial" implies that sexuality is a girl's woman's only social currency.

And this too. We're not just standing up for ourselves, but against the objectification of women. Seriously, this ad stinks, and they need to know about it.

**

So, I'd like to suggest a conference call for anyone and everyone who is interested in getting together and implementing David's plan. I asked him already, and he's agreed. If you've never been on a conference call before, you are given a US number to call (you can call from Skype) and everyone calls in at the same time. It's usually a long-distance number but it's a generic conference call line. For those who are concerned about being out at home, the line cannot be traced to AVEN at all -- it's independent. I'm still working on the time and date (because I want to include as many timezones as possible). I'm planning it for the week of December 27th.

Even if you're saying "I don't have anything to contribute," I hope you'll join us on this call. We have a rare moment right now to come together and push back against this.

A final thought -- I know there is often segmentation between the boards here; can someone cross post this info where it'd be appropriate both on other boards within AVEN and on other ace boards?

[ShahidAfridiBOOMBOOM]

It says on the facebook group that it's anti-asexual, but if anything I'd say it's more anti-sexual. Also it's not just women that it's taking a pop at, they make the guy out (in the other vid) to be quite dopey, so I think that's why it doesn't bother me much, cos it's poking fun at all sorts; sexuals, asexuals, guys, girls, so it's just meant to be taken light-heartedly.

[quarridors]

My test for whether something is offensive is to swap out one orientation for another. This is playing on stereotypes of asexuals being anti-social, what if it was playing on the negative stereotypes of a different sexual orientation?

OK yes, that is offensive and damaging to asexuals. I doubt the ad agency would ever consider putting out a variation talking about a possibly pregnant woman irrationally considering becoming a lesbian, it's obviously offensive and would produce huge amounts of negative publicity.

So all other considerations aside about the content and message of the ad and the product it sells, it's playing on negative stereotypes and would not be acceptable if any other orientation were substituted for ours.

[Oro]

My test for whether something is offensive is to swap out one orientation for another. This is playing on stereotypes of asexuals being anti-social, what if it was playing on the negative stereotypes of a different sexual orientation?

Okay.

That was brilliant.

o__o

You're an illustration magician.

[ShahidAfridiBOOMBOOM]

I agree that if you just read the text alone it could be seen as offensive, but in the context of the video the tone is obviously light-hearted. Just like if she said the stuff in the lesbian one you created, then it would depend on the tone as to whether I found it offensive or not.

[Oro]

I agree that if you just read the text alone it could be seen as offensive, but in the context of the video the tone is obviously light-hearted. Just like if she said the stuff in the lesbian one you created, then it would depend on the tone as to whether I found it offensive or not.

I'm not sure I quite agree with this. Rape jokes aren't funny, even when they're light-hearted. Neither are 'fag' jokes. (Please excuse my language on both accounts) Because they shouldn't be funny. Why should asexual jokes be any more funny? Humor is not a good excuse. Maybe I'm taking this too seriously, but to me they feel on the same level.

[SASE Icecream man]

After I watched the whole commercial...yeah...I'm pretty annoyed now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InxaH6DpCgc&feature=player_embedded

That's rediculous. Now I'm kinda <_< . Why did they have to make a video?

[Palovana]

My test for whether something is offensive is to swap out one orientation for another. This is playing on stereotypes of asexuals being anti-social, what if it was playing on the negative stereotypes of a different sexual orientation?

OK yes, that is offensive and damaging to asexuals. I doubt the ad agency would ever consider putting out a variation talking about a possibly pregnant woman irrationally considering becoming a lesbian, it's obviously offensive and would produce huge amounts of negative publicity.

So all other considerations aside about the content and message of the ad and the product it sells, it's playing on negative stereotypes and would not be acceptable if any other orientation were substituted for ours.

You have a point there. Perhaps we should all write to the company. Oooh, oooh, wait, can we press charges??? Somehow even if we did I think we wouldn't be taken seriously and end up losing our case. :(

And you know, they could have always just used the word "celibate", hmm?

[kitchenwitch]

I agree that if you just read the text alone it could be seen as offensive, but in the context of the video the tone is obviously light-hearted. Just like if she said the stuff in the lesbian one you created, then it would depend on the tone as to whether I found it offensive or not.

I'm not sure I quite agree with this. Rape jokes aren't funny, even when they're light-hearted. Neither are 'fag' jokes. (Please excuse my language on both accounts) Because they shouldn't be funny. Why should asexual jokes be any more funny? Humor is not a good excuse. Maybe I'm taking this too seriously, but to me they feel on the same level.

I agree with Oro on this -- it shouldn't be funny. The video isn't funny to me, it's misinforming people about asexuality. If we let asexuality be defined as a boring person who doesn't own cute clothes or have any sort of meaningful relationship, we're going to be complaining about a lot more than invisibility.

Perhaps we should all write to the company. Oooh, oooh, wait, can we press charges??? Somehow even if we did I think we wouldn't be taken seriously and end up losing our case. :(

And you know, they could have always just used the word "celibate", hmm?

I think we should all write to the company (denise.bradley@tevausa.com), and participate in the petition campaign that's going to start soon (see page 3 of this thread). This is a valuable moment for us to come together and say no loudly as a community. No, we can't press charges, but there are lots of other ways that we can make our voices heard and known.

[+Lee]

XD My Mom thinks we should sue them as a group.

Just posting because I thought it was interesting she said that.

Anyway, I think we are doing the right thing as we are right now.

[Gatto]

XD My Mom thinks we should sue them as a group.

Just posting because I thought it was interesting she said that.

Anyway, I think we are doing the right thing as we are right now.

Sue for what? Hurt feelings?

[swankivy]

Sue for what? Hurt feelings?

Closest actual charge to that would probably be defamation, but this doesn't even come close to fitting the requirements for it. Nobody's suing anyone. Heh. (Legal action is for people doing things that are illegal. This isn't illegal. It's just accidentally misleading, and it sucks.)

[Mugen Puchipuchi Hime]

My sister(not ace) was surfing YouTube when she saw and ad for Plan B emergency birth control. It said: "After a little problem with my birth control, I could vow to become a asexual, a-social, a-everything girl, or I can get a real plan."

I was a kind of offended by that. Asexuality isn't really a choice, like being homosexual or heterosexual. I get what they were really trying to say (celibate), but that's not what the actually said. It just proves that no one knows we exist or have proper knowledge if they do.

There are a couple ads with their own YouTube channel. Here's a link.

"I'm not even asexy and I still find that offensive." My sister, Katlyn. (I love how she knows that word! I say it sometimes.)

Any other opinions?

This whole commercial fiasco reminds me a lot of what Meg Griffin learned in the Family Guy episode Brian Sings and Swings: Lois tries to explain her daughter that she does not need to pretend being somebody else to fit in with her peers; having a certain type of sexuality is not from a random conscious choice, but from a multiple of factors that influenced one's life.

[KAGU143]

I found that video to be very offensive and I added another thumbs down since it was all that I could do at the moment. (aside from sending an email)

They are trying to equate the term "asexual" with the insulting words "prude" and "frigid" and to turn the name of our orientation into an insult.

If they were to substitue the words "frigid and prude" for asexual, their ad would make a tiny bit more sense but it wouldn't cash in on all of the work that the asexual community has been doing to make ourselves known.

They are taking full advantage of the fact that asexuality IS known, and the use of purple and grey is no accident. Neither is the veiled reference to aromantics. I would bet money on it.

They are USING US, pure and simple, and they are probably not worried about our reaction since they know that we are a very small group.

I believe that there is a slight but real chance that it is intentionally malicious, even though it is very subtle. Asexuality does, after all, threaten the very profitable aspects of the pharmaceutical industry which are concerned with convincing people that they have sexual dysfunctions so that they can then be "treated." For a price, of course.

The whole scenario portrayed by this video, both implied and stated, makes me very angry.

It denigrates ALL women - sexuals as well as asexuals.

-gb

[SASE Icecream man]

I found that video to be very offensive and I added another thumbs down since it was all that I could do at the moment. (aside from sending an email)

They are trying to equate the term "asexual" with the insulting words "prude" and "frigid" and to turn the name of our orientation into an insult.

If they were to substitue the words "frigid and prude" for asexual, their ad would make a tiny bit more sense but it wouldn't cash in on all of the work that the asexual community has been doing to make ourselves known.

They are taking full advantage of the fact that asexuality IS known, and the use of purple and grey is no accident. Neither is the veiled reference to aromantics. I would bet money on it.

They are USING US, pure and simple, and they are probably not worried about our reaction since they know that we are a very small group.

I believe that there is a slight but real chance that it is intentionally malicious, even though it is very subtle. Asexuality does, after all, threaten the very profitable aspects of the pharmaceutical industry which are concerned with convincing people that they have sexual dysfunctions so that they can then be "treated." For a price, of course.

The whole scenario portrayed by this video, both implied and stated, makes me very angry.

It denigrates ALL women - sexuals as well as asexuals.

-gb

Now that you put it that way, I'm . I didn't know much about it, so I thought it was just a misunderstanding. Does anyone know the email address so I can send them a piece of my mind? Or any way I can send a message online? to anyone that can.

[Rilig]

AVEN gonna get a Facebook? So joining.

I'm really glad I started this thread. I had no idea it would get such a strong response. I'll send the petition to my friends, especially my LGBT friends. I'll email that denise.bradley@tevausa.com person, too, while I'm at it.

And 231 thumbs down to that video already? Wow.

[Library Cat]

I flagged the video for promoting hatred for a sexual orientation. Who'll join me?

[Gatto]

I believe that there is a slight but real chance that it is intentionally malicious, even though it is very subtle.

I don't see this as out of the question. As has been mentioned by others, the font is suspicious. It may be that someone behind the ad wished to take a shot at AVEN, for whatever reason (probably nothing more malevolent than scorn). If that were the case, of course, the joke would be completely lost on most people, since most people have never heard of AVEN, and to 99.9% of English speakers, "asexuality" really does mean either sexual repression or sexlessness. If it is a joke, it is probably lost on the client (Teva), too, though there's no way to tell.

Doing a quick Google search, I was unable to find out which ad agency was behind "get a real plan", but DraftFCB has handled Plan B in the past; I would guess they still do. These are the people who brought you the "wear the pants" Dockers campaign.

Men’s testosterone levels have dropped 17% percent in the last 20 years. 82% of jobs lost in the last year were by men. There’s more. The new Dockers ® Wear the Pants ™ campaign is a call to inspire the masculinity in all men.

From the "Man-ifesto":

Once upon a time, men wore the pants, and wore them well. Women rarely had to open doors and little old ladies never crossed the street alone. Men took charge because that's what they did. But somewhere along the way, the world decided it no longer needed men. Disco by disco, latte by foamy non-fat latte, men were stripped of their khakis and left stranded on the road between boyhood and androgyny. But today, there are questions our genderless society has no answers for. The world sits idly by as cities crumble, children misbehave and those little old ladies remain on one side of the street. For the first time since bad guys, we need heroes. We need grown-ups. We need men to put down the plastic fork, step away from the salad bar and untie the world from the tracks of complacency. It's time to get your hands diry. It's time to answer the call of manhood. It's time to WEAR THE PANTS.

Of course, we all know that Dockers ® is the garment of choice of manly men from the manliest walks of life: lumberjacks, firemen, blacksmiths can all be seen sporting Dockers. One could not imagine a manlier form of pant. Dockers ® wearers are well known for such feats of manliness as eating lots of red meat and uprooting small trees with bare hands. Dockers ® also sells women's pants.

So, we know big business tends to be fairly sexist, as demonstrated by the number of female CEOs at Fortune 500 companies, among other things. But if you really want to take sexism to the next level (on a logarithmic scale), you can always count on Madison Avenue. We should expect nothing less.

[kitchenwitch]

I believe that there is a slight but real chance that it is intentionally malicious, even though it is very subtle. Asexuality does, after all, threaten the very profitable aspects of the pharmaceutical industry which are concerned with convincing people that they have sexual dysfunctions so that they can then be "treated." For a price, of course.

I think this is slightly possible, but not probable. It'll be interesting tomorrow to see if anyone gets letters back from Denise Bradley at Teva, since it's Monday tomorrow and most of these letters have come in over the weekend. Even so, the Christmas week can't even be an accurate judge of whether or not they're going to pay attention to us; we'll really have to wait until after the first of the year to know for sure that they're ignoring us.

Now that you put it that way, I'm . I didn't know much about it, so I thought it was just a misunderstanding. Does anyone know the email address so I can send them a piece of my mind? Or any way I can send a message online? to anyone that can.

denise.bradley@tevausa.com is where you should send your emails. Make sure to keep them informative -- while there's speculation that this was done to us, I think the much higher likelyhood is that it was done in ignorance. Take the chance to educate and give them the benefit of the doubt in your letter.