Durex: Only for Mens Pleasure?

lilmissprincess

http://blahstuff.tumblr.com/post/24977729029/when-durex-stopped-making-sex-sexy-the-rise-of-violent#notes

Just got linked to this by a friend, an article on the newest advertising that Durex have for their XXL condom - an image of a woman with plasters on the sides of her mouth, indicating that she's been injured because of the size of her partner.

Thoughts?

Mat the trasher

Agreed its a ****e ad and in poor taste.

Just buy another brand.

edit: scrap that, buy Durex xxl, ad is fake

super_furry

Nearly certain that's a photoshop. The original picture was used in an advert for some new big Burgerking burger.

Edit - Yep, here's the original http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r158/alamtampan/burger_king_realbig.preview.jpg

Morag

It was not created by/for the durex brand, it was created as a joke, unfortunately it was uploaded by who ever maintains the durex facebook page and was soon pulled as it was never an official or endorsed ad/image.

Mat the trasher

Thats the great thing about these bloggers, its all the research they put in!

Fluorescence

I think it's a bit perverse and quite crude. It's not a real ad though.

krudler

Fake so its a non story, Durex ads are usually quite clever, like their fathers day one

Catari Jaguar

It was a real BK advert though right? Surely that was implying the same thing, the innuendo of it. So is just as bad, but not as blatant, no?

Sappa

lilmissprincess wrote: »

http://blahstuff.tumblr.com/post/24977729029/when-durex-stopped-making-sex-sexy-the-rise-of-violent#notes

Just got linked to this by a friend, an article on the newest advertising that Durex have for their XXL condom - an image of a woman with plasters on the sides of her mouth, indicating that she's been injured because of the size of her partner.

Thoughts?

That is hilarious,clearly it's a joke and no woman should take it seriously.

mackg

Even if it's a fake it made me shudder, images of the joker...

kippy

Catari Jaguar wrote: »

It was a real BK advert though right? Surely that was implying the same thing, the innuendo of it. So is just as bad, but not as blatant, no?

I assume it was implying the burger king burgers were very big and if you were stupid enough not to bite the thing into pieces you'd end up with a mouth with plasters on it. 100% plausable imho but nothing to do with large c0cks.

Uriel.

Catari Jaguar wrote: »

It was a real BK advert though right? Surely that was implying the same thing, the innuendo of it. So is just as bad, but not as blatant, no?

no it's not at all really.

If it was a genuine durex advert, it could be argued that it represented sexual violence, depravity etc... against women as argued in the blog in the OP's original link.

For BK, it is meant to portray that their new "big" burger (or whatever it is) is so big it will damage your mouth trying to eat. Simple as that. You can take anything else out of it you want, but you can do that with most adverts if you want to miss the point

Sonics2k

Uriel. wrote: »

If it was a genuine durex advert, it could be argued that it represented sexual violence, depravity etc... against women as argued in the blog in the OP's original link.

Really though?

I saw it before and literally laughed at was basically a "I have a huge penis" joke.

As for the BK version being anyway inappropriate, that's just a joke about the size of the burger itself, it's not even slightly sexual.

Uriel.

Sonics2k wrote: »

Really though?

I saw it before and literally laughed at was basically a "I have a huge penis" joke.

If it was for Durex, I personally wouldn't be offended by it or argue that, but as the blog has done it has argued the negative connotations for such. Doesn't mean I agree with it, but there is more opinions than mine or yours.

I'd be so meh about that I wouldn't bother too much to the negative arguments to be honest.

analucija

Fake or not, it doesn't bother me. Why does everything have to be so pc nowadays.

Fluorescence

analucija wrote: »

Fake or not, it doesn't bother me. Why does everything have to be so of nowadays.

On the other hand, why do so many ads have to have sexual connotations to them?

Larianne

Fluorescence wrote: »

On the other hand, why do so many ads have to have sexual connotations to them?

Gets people talking like this..

Catari Jaguar

Sonics2k wrote: »

As for the BK version being anyway inappropriate, that's just a joke about the size of the burger itself, it's not even slightly sexual.

Uriel. wrote: »

For BK, it is meant to portray that their new "big" burger (or whatever it is) is so big it will damage your mouth trying to eat. Simple as that. You can take anything else out of it you want, but you can do that with most adverts if you want to miss the point

Well the first thing that came into my head was their last ad campaign.
Goes hand in hand with this in my opinion.

analucija

Fluorescence wrote: »

analucija wrote: »

Fake or not, it doesn't bother me. Why does everything have to be so of nowadays.

On the other hand, why do so many ads have to have sexual connotations to them?

Considering it's for condoms, what connotation should there be?

Using sex to sell bathrooms is a lazy option, using sex to sell condoms is, I don't know, obvious.

MagicMarker

Uriel. wrote: »

If it was a genuine durex advert, it could be argued that it represented sexual violence, depravity etc... against women

It really couldn't.

Sonics2k

analucija wrote: »

Fake or not, it doesn't bother me. Why does everything have to be so pc nowadays.

Well, it's an ad for Durex, so I can't really think of anything else?

As for general advertising? Simply put, sex sells. There's just a fine line between doing it well and doing it badly.

Fluorescence

Larianne wrote: »

Gets people talking like this..

They say any publicity is good publicity, but I care to disagree. Terrible or offensive ads are likely to make customers deliberately turn against them. While I'm not one of those people who will boycott a product/service because of advertising, there are plenty who do. Advertisers should be more cautious.

analucija wrote: »

Considering it's for condoms, what connotation should there be?

Using sex to sell bathrooms is a lazy option, using sex to sell condoms is, I don't know, obvious.

I meant in general - so many ads have sexual undertones to them. I question why that is.

Sonics2k wrote: »

As for general advertising? Simply put, sex sells. There's just a fine line between doing it well and doing it badly.

The sad truth, methinks. I can't help but think that it's lowest common denominator, in-the-gutter, lazy advertising. That poster for Burger King is so crude, it's insulting to the intelligence of anyone who looks at it. Is there nothing to be said for subtlety or wit in advertising anymore?

Sonics2k

Fluorescence wrote: »

The sad truth, methinks. I can't help but think that it's lowest common denominator, in-the-gutter, lazy advertising. That poster for Burger King is so crude, it's insulting to the intelligence of anyone who looks at it. Is there nothing to be said for subtlety or wit in advertising anymore?

I agree for the most part.

I do think a well played out 'sex sells' type ad can be highly effective, and not come across as crass or over-the-top crude.

It can be a great way of grabbing attention, and even holding it a bit longer.

But as I said before, it's a really really fine line, and even the slightest error can throw it on the wrong side.

analucija

Fluorescence wrote: »

I meant in general - so many ads have sexual undertones to them. I question why that is.

Sonics2k wrote: »

As for general advertising? Simply put, sex sells. There's just a fine line between doing it well and doing it badly.

The sad truth, methinks. I can't help but think that it's lowest common denominator, in-the-gutter, lazy advertising. That poster for Burger King is so crude, it's insulting to the intelligence of anyone who looks at it. Is there nothing to be said for subtlety or wit in advertising anymore?

Yup, my marketing profesor used to say that people use sex in ads when they run out of ideas. I'm not disagreeing with you there, I just don't find that particular ad offensive, even if it would be for the condoms.

Sappa

Considering it's for condoms it's a bit misleading,no woman would make a man wear one giving him a blowjob.

Fluorescence

Sappa wrote: »

Considering it's for condoms it's a bit misleading,no woman would make a man wear one giving him a blowjob.

What do you think flavoured condoms are for, exactly?

Meirleach

Sappa wrote: »

Considering it's for condoms it's a bit misleading,no woman would make a man wear one giving him a blowjob.

Eh what, lots of ladies do. People can catch things from oral sex too you know...

krudler

Sappa wrote: »

Considering it's for condoms it's a bit misleading,no woman would make a man wear one giving him a blowjob.

eh? thats why they invented flavoured ones

Lia_lia

Fluorescence wrote: »

On the other hand, why do so many ads have to have sexual connotations to them?

Sex sells and at all that.


None of these sexually suggestive ads bother me, really. I don't really care. Advertising agencies know what they are doing, they usually make them really controversial to get people talking and thus attracting a larger audience (duh).

krudler

those are (afaik) actual durex ads, clever and on the right side of fun without being lewd.

Tefral

Just shows you some people will jump on anything to be outraged. I actually cant believe the blogger managed to write so much without actually researching the origins of the ad or indeed even contacting Durex about it..

And going on the thread title actually Durex are making alot of products that enhance womens pleasure; vibrating cock rings, durex pleasuremax condoms with ribs and dots on, finger vibrators and even full on vibrators, lube specifically designed to be placed on the clitoris only, so I would say that they have branched out and really have brought women into their sphere of thought over the last few years.