Hey remember this one: the 30 second Vagisil ad that flashed images of skunks, crusteans, and fishies to convince ladies their lack of freshness could be related to CROTCH ROT? Deviously, that little ad managed to encapsulate all the ancient, terrifying notions of Vaginas: bleedy, mysterious pits of danger and stench.
But there’s great news on the kitty-cage front! There’s been a bunch of smart, cheeky lady-product ads! Like this one: No summer dresses, unicorns in meadows, or blue liquid splashing against a mattress sized diapers. It’s just footage of a French chick playing with her BEAVER.
Delicious wasn’t it? Enlightened even! Now it gets better. You know those catty Yaz commercials where the perfect bitchy doctor tries to school all her skanky friends who are just trying to get their hump on at Hyde with her “blah blah blah you shouldn’t smoke when pop birth control pills. No I’m not judging you at all!” Listen, Harvard, sit the the fuck down and watch this ill ass commercial that makes me want to stick all sorts of plastic thingies in my choocha.
This is Slate’s take on the ad:
the lighthearted details to suggest that birth control can be a no-sweat part of your life. It shrewdly portrays the pill as an old-fashioned fuddy-duddy, something out of your mother’s or even grandmother’s youth, like a one-piece bathing costume, a swim cap, even synchronized swimming, an activity that prizes conformity over individualism.
So true! I rock the ring and I’m mos def happier for it. Truth in advertising thrills me! Do not take my exclaimtion points as indicators of sarcasm! I ENDORSE THIS PRODUCT AND ITS MAVERICKY MAD MEN.
And then of course. There’s this. Pay close attention.
Today we all have shame-caves.
This is an excerpt from a May 20, 1999 Chicago Tribune article by Jon Bigness, concerning a new series of Tampax commercials. Emphasis mine:
But a principal difficulty with the Tampax campaign is its “sanitary product” category, which is one that many advertisers and media approach gingerly for fear of giving offense. For example, in the Tampax spring break ads, Burnett had to delete a scene in which women sitting on men’s shoulders were in a contest to push each other over. The networks prohibit ads that show men physically interacting with women who might be menstruating.
Imagine letters the size of the Hollywood sign spelling out WTF.
The article is ten years old, so I have no idea if that policy is still in effect…I know that anecdotal evidence is barely worth mentioning, but ever since reading that article I’ve been watching tampon ads closely and I swear I’ve never seen one in which a dude touches a lady. (This being the Internet, of course, fifteen other commenters will immediately say that they see it all the time.)
But even if that policy was overturned the next day, 1999 is still a shockingly late date for such a thing to have been in effect.
I want to see a dude with menstrual colored war paint on his face holding up box of kotex.
[FADE TO BLACK]
And then there was a weird, rotoscoped version of the same commercial and my head exploded. (Apologies for the shitty quality, but I’m too lazy to keep looking for a better version.)
Can anyone fathom the logic behind the move to rotoscope? Hm?
P.S. CLOT-ex? Seriously? Who’s brilliant fucking idea was that name?
Nevermind, I’m a dullard. I thought that last was an actual product. I’ve stopped hyperventilating now.
I don’t think that was rotoscoped but actual animatic characters. Their eyes do that creepy follow you thing some websites have when you move the mouse. It came out before the ‘real’ one. But yeah, ok, I still hate both.