Have you heard the debate regarding erectile dysfunction commercials airing during prime time?  Apparently some people want these commercials aired after 9pm, not during family viewing hours.  A congressman calling for the action stated that he was watching TV with his grandchildren when a Viagra commercial came on.  You know the one, with the couple who is trying obviously unsuccessfully to have a romantic interlude.  At the end of the commercial, after the introduction of Viagra, they both have smiles on their faces.  The congressman states they are an inappropriate interruption to his family time.  He states he isn’t against the advertisement, simply that it should be moved to a different time slot. 

What do you think about this argument?  I’m not sure myself.  I do have children.  Middle schoolers who live and breathe anything remotely sexual and/or scandalous.  We’ve been watching TV together when these commercials have come on and they’ve never said anything.  They’ve never asked me what the medication is for.  They’ve never run from the room screaming in embarrassment.  Is there a difference between Viagra commercials and say, period commercials?  It’s “inappropriate” to view erectile dysfunction commercials but not “inappropriate” to view Tampax commercials?  Honestly, if I see one more “have a happy period” commercial I might lose it myself.  They are both biological/physiological functions right?  What about all the yeast infection commercials?  Talking about the smell and discharge.  Yuck.  Maybe all these commercials should come on later at night. 

Or maybe we should be more accepting.  Men suffer from erectile dysfunction.  Who knew?  Maybe these commercials serve as bonding moments for men.  Lord knows they could use some real bonding.  Maybe it allows them to talk more openly about their erections.  Or lack of.   I know I’m much more sensitive to the topic.  I always feel relieved for that couple in the commercial getting joint massages.  It’s nice to know that due to a Viagra intervention they’ll be getting some action later on.  Sweet.  Where’s the harm? 

And thanks to the barrage of feminine hygiene commercials my husband is now an expert.  Our daughter had a little itching going on down there.  I didn’t think it was a yeast infection.  Maybe a soap allergy.  It was the middle of the night and he ran to Walgreens.  He came home with every feminine itching product known to man.  He had wipes, creams, suppositories, and some kind of gel.  He didn’t feel embarrassed.   He has openly applauded Always for their wings invention.  He’s very mechanical and appreciates the genius of attaching wings to protect panties.  He and my son both know the difference between panty liners vs. pads.  Maybe it’s a good thing.  We women look out for our men.  How else would we learn about erectile dysfunction and what can be done about it?  Our men surely aren’t going to bring it up.  (Pardon the pun).

I think they should stay on.  I think to be open is to be accepting.  I think there’s value in being accepting.  Females have periods.  Men have erections, or are supposed to anyway.  Why be embarrassed?  Why hide it?  Big deal.  And if these commercials lead to happy periods and better sex, yippee!  I’m all for it.    

 
   

 


 
 
saikotikgunman on
Re: Erectile Dysfunction has changed our world.
How about bra commercials?  Seeing nearly naked models walking around in borrowed undies is fun for me, but doesn't seem very Puritanical.

I think all prescription drug commercials should be banned.  They're pointless.  If your doctor thinks you should be on this drug or that, he'll prescribe it, whether or not they air commercials for it in prime time.
jen022871 on
Re: Erectile Dysfunction has changed our world.
Very true.  I think I have more issues with my son seeing naked women everywhere he turns vs. corny erectile dysfunction commercials. 
onewalrus on
Re: Erectile Dysfunction has changed our world.
Erectile dysfunction is natures way of telling a man his reproductive years are over and to focus his energies elsewhere.
jen022871 on
Re: Erectile Dysfunction has changed our world.
Another interesting point.  My girlfriends theory is that pharmaceutical companies are manipulating the natural aging process to make money.  Gasp!  That women don't need to be taking hormone replacement therapy and men don't need to be taking Viagra.  That if we left it all alone everyone would be on the same page.  Women wouldn't have a hormonal desire for sex and men wouldn't be able to perform anyway.  I guess everyones happy then?  Sounds kind of sad to me.  But she is one of the puritanical ones mentioned before. 
onewalrus on
Re: Erectile Dysfunction has changed our world.
The influence and intents of the pharmaceutical giants cannot be dismissed. Their influence and power is unbounded. I don't think it's puritanical or unreasonable to hold the opinion that far too many people are on medications which they probably don't need.

As far as the TV commercials, the mates they show are always attractive (of course, it's TV). A friend made the observation, "Hey if my wife/gf were that attractive, I wouldn't need viagra to ... ."

 
Login to replyToggle picture size
 

Latest Comment
Re: Deer Hunting - They are easy to love. :D

Read...


 
© 2005-2007 MindSay Interactive LLC
| Terms of Service
| Privacy Policy
My Account
Inbox
Account Settings
Lost Password?
Logout
Blog
Update Blog
Edit Old Entries
Pick a Theme
Customize Design
Modify Plugins
Community
Your Profile
Wiki Pages
MindSay Tags
Video & Photos
Geographic Directory
Inside MindSay
About MindSay
MindSay and RSS
Report Spam
Contact Us
Help