Jewelz replies...
A few of our readers noticed that there are FX wraps of Frenzy Condoms roaming Metro Manila. Frenzy is definitely getting SPANK'd!
Frenzy used to be advertised on television with the tagline, "Get into it," which was a message targeted to teens. They portrayed it in an attractive and cool manner to be able to get the attention of teens. Furthermore, Frenzy used FX Wraps for their below the line advertising which reinforced the idea of pre-marital sex targeted to teenagers.
This is definitely a sin product because for one, condoms are mainly used as a contraception so that those engaging in sexual intercourse would prevent the girl from becoming pregnant. Second, this should not be even marketed because it goes against procreation. Third, it allows two people who are not married to behave indecently without having to deal with the consequences.
If one wants to argue that condoms are used to prevent sexually transmitted diseases, maybe one should think about finding the right person and getting married first.
Having Frenzy use FX wraps to market to teenagers is not a good idea because it degrades our society which upholds strict values such as human dignity, respect and togetherness of the family. It also promotes sexual promiscuity among the youth.
Frenzy condoms shouldn't be marketed at all, especially to teenagers. These ads violated the Advertising Code of Ethics, Article 1, Section 8, which says,
“Advertising has a social, economic, and cultural responsibility to the community and the advertiser’s interest should take into account community interest.”
“Advertising has a social, economic, and cultural responsibility to the community and the advertiser’s interest should take into account community interest.”
Thank you to Jox, 61 and to those who suggested that Frenzy condoms should be SPANK'd. We strongly agree with you.
What else do you have to say about Frenzy condoms?
18 comments:
i really do not agree on advertising pro-sex materials such as this. What more if it is out there and can be seen by innocent kids. it is very colorful and it will really attract teens and would make them curious. spank this ad!!!
Two thumbs up agreed with Ate Jewelz Frenzy Condoms should be Spanked!
This leads to misconception about sex on teenagers.
We as Filipinos,still strongly believes that sex is for married people and not just for fun for young couples!
Even the Bible despises pre-marital sex.
i like the ad since it is creative but it should not be targeted to the youth. yeah they do it, but it's like saying go ahead do it, it's fun especially when you've got frenzy condoms. How sad!
what's an FX Wrap?
Wraps are placed on PUV (Public Utility Vehicles) such as FXs (public utility vans in the Philippines), Taxis, Buses.. etc.
Steph... Definitely! The attractive colors do make children curious.. Especially if they sell Frenzy condoms in Mini stop and 7 eleven where the colorful packages are in children's reach! Speaking of teens, they should not have these transportation wraps roaming around..
Bernadette:
Thank you for the comment! :)
Anonymous... They shouldn't advertise condoms, right?
Agree. Condoms should not be advertised in wraps, where children could see. They might have the wrong idea about sex.
Anything about sex education should be discussed in health subjects in school, Family programs in church, and most especially,parents to children at home.
Yes. I think parents should be aware as well so they can protect their children and make sure they are taught what is right and wrong.
In todays society, young children and in particular young adults, are very easy to lure into something that are highly questionable in nature. How much more when they see a very colorful picture of a condom! Sure there are pros and cons about this subject, however, lets not forget that one of the main reason that condoms exists, is for sexual purposes! It is simply inexcusable for the advertisers not to think about the ramifications that it pose to young children and teenagers! We can even include adults that are engaged in extra marital affairs! It is true though that condoms can be use as preventive measures to minimized deseases, but it is unethical to advertised this product in this manner. Hence, the existence of this ad must be terminated at once!
Creative thinking when designing a product ads must be competetive in nature to be marketable. However, once you crossed the lines of indecency, then you pay the price of being marked and labelled as "greedy." Money is not the only key factor in creating ads, it should and must put into consideration the reaction of the customers. The general public is not stupid enough to bite the ads with this magnitude. Another point of view to raised is that condom ads can be done by interjecting appropriate design in order not to offend the intended audience. I am not saying that condom ads is impossible to make, because realistically, it has great importance in the medical field due to its precautionary measure intent. There must be a medium whereby condom ads can be allowed to coexist acceptable to the general public, in particular to the children, teenagers, and adults alike.
Although I selected the thumb down, I just wanted to emphasized that condom saves lives. In the third world countries were there is a prevailing HIV problems, condoms is needed there. I agree that the way the ad was displayed is irresponsible, but the use of condoms and educating the public about its proper use can prevent HIV to escalate further. Millions of people are infected with HIV and it can be minimize and even slow it down if people know about condoms. Many people still do it anyway even if condoms is available. Would rather have it to be on the safe side? Teenagers experiment early regardless of condom existence. We can pout all day but in reality, the world needs it more now to curtail HIV to even progress to untolerable level.
Thank you for sharing the other benefit of condoms which is to prevent HIV. However, the main benefit of condoms are to prevent getting pregnant. I agree that HIV may be rampant, however, why not have advertisers promote abstinence instead?
To:
charmine said...
Although I selected the thumb down, I just wanted to emphasized that condom saves lives. In the third world countries were there is a prevailing HIV problems, condoms is needed there. I agree that the way the ad was displayed is irresponsible, but the use of condoms and educating the public about its proper use can prevent HIV to escalate further. Millions of people are infected with HIV and it can be minimize and even slow it down if people know about condoms. Many people still do it anyway even if condoms is available. Would rather have it to be on the safe side? Teenagers experiment early regardless of condom existence. We can pout all day but in reality, the world needs it more now to curtail HIV to even progress to untolerable level.
To Cherylene who said... "There must be a medium whereby condom ads can be allowed to coexist acceptable to the general public, in particular to the children, teenagers, and adults alike."
If you think about the condoms as products, don't you think its main benefit is to allow people to have sexual intercourse without having children? When it is placed as an FX wrap, teens who are commuting come across the ad and somehow get the idea that using condoms is okay and may engage in premarital sex. It was also mentioned in a comment earlier by another reader that the Frenzy FX wraps may also be targeted to adults as well who may be engaged in extra marital affairs. Condoms in itself is already promoting behavior that is not acceptable. How much more if it is being advertised where it's message is to inform people that it is available at any convenience store. More teenagers and adults will easily purchase it and use it.
They say that condoms are used to prevent sexually transmitted diseases, however, if a person is married and committed to his or her spouse, then they wouldn't have to worry about contracting diseases. Condoms are used to promote sexual promiscuity among the youth. There shouldn't be any medium which would allow condoms to be promoted unless perhaps you would use direct mailers towards married couples and you know for sure that the spouse has an STD.
Thank you Zachary for your comment, I agree! Thank you for pointing this out.. "Sure there are pros and cons about this subject, however, lets not forget that one of the main reason that condoms exists, is for sexual purposes! It is simply inexcusable for the advertisers not to think about the ramifications that it pose to young children and teenagers! We can even include adults that are engaged in extra marital affairs!"
Rebel without a clue
Selling sex
By Patricia Evangelista
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 22:50:00 02/02/2008
MANILA, Philippines--CONDOM ADS, ARGUES JO IMBONG OF FAMILY MEDIA Advocacy Foundation (FMAF), “convey a vulgar message and mock the sensibilities of the audience.”
I’d like to ask what she means by “a vulgar message.” If she is against the manner by which these advertisements are made, then her argument is not against condom advertisements in general, but against particular ads that “mock” her sensibilities. And yet FMAF and other conservative groups are calling for a blanket ban on all condom commercials, irrelevant of content. There is only one common denominator in all condom commercials, whether they involve King Kong, lingerie, or a doctor giving an opinion—it is that sexual activity must be accompanied by condom use. It is not the advertisements per se that Ms Imbong finds vulgar, it is the message that artificial contraception itself is acceptable.
Pro-Life Philippines’ Edgardo Sorreta says that these commercials “violate the innocence of the young, as their impressionistic minds are subconsciously formed on wrong values on sex.” Again, who determines what “the right values” are on sex? Sorreta and his group assume that they have a monopoly on morality, and that their perceptions and judgments are the perceptions and judgments of the millions who watch television. It follows, by their own limited perspectives, that because they perceive artificial contraception to be evil, others must be denied the right to this choice.
This is not only a debate on advertising; it is a debate on free choice. The right of the conservatives to choice is protected by the state, but so is the choice of the others to use artificial contraception. Unless they are able to prove, beyond personal and religious conviction, that artificial contraception is a danger to the individual, the state cannot and must not be compelled to deny its other citizens of the right to choose. I wonder how this group would feel if government mandated denying the public of information on natural family planning, and refused its teaching in public schools.
But let us give its members the benefit of the doubt. Let us assume that all they are against are condom commercials. Essentially, the anti-condom advertising lobby argues that advertisements encourage people to have sex. Marikina Rep. Marcelino Teodoro says that condom commercials “would only heighten the practice of pre-marital sex among the youth.”
The argument that condom commercials lead to sexual activity presupposes several things. It assumes that young people live in a vacuum devoid of the influences of school, the pressures of home, hormones and the daily onslaught of popular culture. There are no studies to prove this, but statistics do show this—that as of 2002, 23 percent of young Filipinos, ages 15-24 (about 4 million) have had premarital sex. Eighty percent of these sexually active youth said they did not use any form of protection, and 75 percent of their most recent sexual experiences were unprotected. I cannot believe that this predisposition for sexual activity is due to the sight of a young couple choosing condom flavors at a drugstore (in the case of Frenzy condoms) or due to Winnie Cordero interviewing a doctor about Trust condoms. The argument presumes that no other factors exist, and that young people live in a glass bubble. If condom commercials have such a profound effect in this manner, it follows to reason that the sight of these condoms on supermarket counters is enough to make innocents indulge in a frenzy of sexual activity. A condom commercial, in the face of current realities, is a warning, the offer of a choice to many who are unaware and uneducated. The fact that they are shown on prime time is only correct, because the more young people see these commercials, the more they will be aware that they too can be protected.
Perhaps before arguing that contraception advertisements are an insult to public morals, it is best to define what these morals are. After all, we live in a country whose tourists flock to ABS-CBN Studio 3, where the Wowowee girls, wrapped in scraps of neon jersey, thrust hip and cleavage at bedazzled audiences. Cosmopolitan’s cover announces it has “News that will change your sex life,” while a ripe Andrea del Rosario arcs her naked back on the cover of Maxim. On television, red-bikinied amazons charge at a man spraying Axe deodorant, while in another commercial, three beautifully muscled young men, for some inexplicable reason, prance through a rainforest dressed in their Bench underwear. And yet conservatives talk on as if condom advertisements are out of the ordinary in the context of modern Filipino culture.
Their logic assumes that the citizen is unable to make decisions, as if Robin Padilla wielding a gun and shooting indiscriminately in a telenovela will induce every man to go racing for an AK-47. If they persist in believing they define Filipino culture, and assume that the individual cannot make independent judgments, I suggest they ban every TV show from “Friends” to “Desperate Housewives,” every youth-oriented commercial, every other soap opera, romance novel and romantic comedy, burn literary classics and half the paintings in the national museum. After all, all these may lead to promiscuity.
Former CBCP president Oscar Cruz is right in that there is a danger of condom commercials misleading the public into believing that they prevent AIDS a hundred percent. There is nothing to stop the AdBoard from slapping a surgeon-general’s warning at the end of every ad that condoms only work 98 percent of the time. That fact, however, does not deny the utility of condoms in responsible sexual activity—according to the United Nations Joint Program on HIV/AIDS and the World Health Organization, condoms are “the best defense” in preventing sexually transmitted diseases—if people insist on having sex, a 2-percent danger is better than a hundred percent. And yet he thunders with his most imposing point: “If that ‘thing’ can prevent the spread of AIDS and other diseases, how come AIDS cases are increasing?” The answer, I hazard, is because “that thing” is not being used—what with the removal of subsidies, a lack of access to contraceptives, and a strong conservative lobby against sex education.
Conservative groups are asking the courts to ban condom advertising—essentially depriving many citizens of their only source of information on condom use, and the right to make responsible choices. That, for me, mocks the public’s sensibilities.
* * *
For comments e-mail rebel.inquirer@gmail.com
I will never hire self-righteous, close-minded idiots from UA&P. You have no right imposing your personal beliefs on other people.
Post a Comment