Restricting airtime for sexual dysfunction offensive 
June 15, 2009 by Leslie Ventura
Legislation would label real affliction pornographic
Advertisements for erectile dysfunction have been very commonplace in all years of watching television. One of the earliest ED references I can recall from the late 1990s featured in the a skanky Britney Spears dancing and Bob Dole, at the time the spokesperson for Viagra, watching and saying, “Down boy” – a definite innuendo.
Besides the irreversible mental image of my grandparents channeling late 70s game-shows and making whoopy, I don’t believe I have been eternally scarred.
Upon hearing that Virginia Congressman Jim Moran proposed, for the second time, legislation that prohibits ED commercials from airing during primetime hours, I felt that I must acknowledge the lack of maturity from the congressman and some U.S. citizens.
If the “Families for ED Advertising Decency Act” bill were passed, all advertisements for the prescription drugs regarding ED would be considered “indecent.”
Moran argues that he is tired of seeing these commercials and has received numerous letters requesting he put an end to erectile dysfunction advertisements. “Many parents I talk with are frustrated and annoyed by the overwhelming presence of these ads during programs they watch with their children,” Moran said.
Instead of just frustration or annoyance, the actual problem seems to be the inability of these adults to handle awkward situations as adults should.
While life is full of embarrassing moments that we are forced to deal with, it is the way we learn to address them that gives us credibility. We venture into adulthood ready to take on roles of the sensible parent and the working stiff (no pun intended), yet fail to set an example of maturity for our own children. Instead, grown Americans cry over spilled milk, whining because they are just as embarrassed about sex now as they were when they were in grade school.
Instead, Congress puts imperative issues like health care, immigration and the war on the back burner because of their obligation to tend to their constituencies no matter how ill-suited their requests may be. It is legislation like this that clogs the system ensuring nothing of importance is ever taken care of.
While parents are up in arms because their kids ask what erectile dysfunction is, their dissatisfaction shouldn’t be with the ED commercials. Perhaps it is the fact that we all asked embarrassing questions when we were kids that we now wish to stifle any chance of putting ourselves through the same situations we made our parents endure.
No matter how blush-worthy, these parental moments are simply things one must learn to laugh about. How embarrassed someone is in front of his or her two-year-old has no bearing on creating legislation or evoking governmental censorship. These advertisements aren’t forcing anyone to explain what the birds and the bees are to a child. Surely kids can be distracted by the new toys in their McDonald’s Happy Meal long enough to forgo any formal discussion on ED.
It should also be noted that erectile dysfunction advertisements are commonly confused with racier male enhancement commercials. The typical Cialis commercial depicts an elderly couple walking on a beach or holding hands on a couch while an Enzyte commercial for male enhancement gloats of “the gift that keeps on giving.” If anything should be restricted at all, it shouldn’t be ED commercials that are tame in comparison and actually address a real medical condition.
If Moran gets his bill passed, I fear what freedoms of speech would be undermined next. Non-sexually explicit material, like that of a Cialis commercial, doesn’t belong in the same category with late-night raunch-filled Girls Gone Wild ads. We risk labeling real men with real health concerns as pornographic sleaze that should be ashamed; but they are normal individuals seeking a healthier and happier lifestyle.
Reverberating the days when married couples slept in different beds on television, the Families for ED Advertising Decency Act aims to vilify normal aspects of everyday life.
The same people up in arms about ED commercials are also the ones who deem tampon commercials inappropriate. It is offensive to everyone when the public condemns unavoidable parts of growing up, making individuals more self conscious, embarrassed and ashamed of their own bodies.
The constant urge to save children and our own adult selves from the real world does nothing but create more taboo situations and make it so that things that happen to everyone everywhere can’t be discussed in a responsible adult manner.
Erectile dysfunction, menopause, tampons, condoms, birth control, cervical cancer and prostate cancer are all things that we could stop talking about because they are “embarrassing.” Yet these are real issues and they all deserve attention. Banning such material is destructive to the preservation of our people and the health and safety of our children, parents and grandparents.
Erectile dysfunction advertisements are not intended to make the public ashamed or embarrassed. Rather, these commercials strive to make the awkward more normal and the embarrassing more commonplace. While Moran rallies to protect families from being embarrassed in front of one another, men all around the world are enjoying a “sleigh full of confidence” and actual important legislation is being brought to the table.
What about all the tampon commercials? I have to watch those during all hours of the day as well, they are just as uncomfortable as the Erectile dysfunction ones, at least if my son asks me what Viagra is I can say “medicine for men” but when he asks me where tampons go I am speechless. I saw another related post about Jim Moran trying to pass this bill, I will see if I can find it and post the link, it has a similar opinion on this.
Lady, just because you’re mind is young and has been polluted with vulgarity to the point where you rationalize lack of morality doesn’t mean everyone does. I have 2 young children I don’t want to have to listen or see the junk on television either. I am 33-years old and Yes, I am old-fashioned I guess because I can remember when there were about 4 channels on television to choose from and not one of them talked about penises or vaginas in every other commercial like today. If you don’t draw the line somewhere then you will allow anything. The sad part is you probably won’t understand that until you are in your 80′s and it’s too late for you to make a difference,
Well we could regress to the “good old days” when the sexual education kids obtained was conducted by their peers behind the barn. If you object to various advertisements use your freedom of speech and air your complaints with the various companies and advertising agencies involved. Use the power of your purse to boycott the companies whose actions offend you. Don’t try to impose your morals on the world through bad legislation. Censorship is one of the more tyrannical acts any society can perform. Once we start down the censorship path the limits tend to become more and more repressive over time. I don’t think that a free society requires censorship. It does require active citizens who engage in thoughtful and productive modes of change.
I do not see why it is any different from watch tampon commercials, my son asks men where they go? What am I suppose to say there? ED commercials are ok, I can at least say its medicine for older guys. Search http://www.youtube.com for a video on this but could not find one
If you can get by with telling your son that ED pills are medicine for men, why is it so hard to tell your son tampons are just special cotton products for women that absord blood?
If you read the article, the issue of tampons is clearly discussed; as is addressing things like colon and cervical cancer. The author is obviously arguing that none of these should be banned or deemed inappropriate, and that there is a right way and a wrong way to go about discussing them. Read the article.
To me its different For tampon commercials they are not as obvious as Erectile dysfunction ones. They are also not related directly to sex but when you have a man saying erectile dysfunction in a commercial it is harsh on kids ears. This commercial for Levitra was one that aired for months where I live http://www.edguider.com/edblog/2009/05/21/no-more-impotence-or-ed-ads-during-peak-hours/ and the guys in it all say ED at least 3 times! Now when tampon commercials start saying Vaginal Bleeding, then I would be worried.
[...] Restricting airtime for sexual dysfunction offensive : The Rebel Yell [...]
Fore the most part these discussions are well articulated and reasonable. For what it’s worth I think that parents ought to decide what to tell their children and when, not manufacturers and advertisers.
Would it not be reasonable to suggest a “watershed” whereby after say, 9:00 pm, such advertisements might be aired?
Erective Dysfunction, Feminine Hygeine, Lubricants with “magical effects” and “growth” pills could all be broadcast at a time when, more likely than not, the appropriate audience is actually watching.
But please, spare me the stool softener ads at dinner time, they put me right off my dessert!
i find the ads offensive and i also find the whole pharmaceutical business offensive since every third commercial seems to be another pill to make us feel better or look more youthful (with all kinds of terrible side effects they throw in at the end). don’t talk to me about free speech! in this economy when everyone is broke, these companies are raking in the big bucks. i say tax ‘em like mad and if they have to be on tv in my face, then the networks should charge them 10% more money per commerical and give that money to the schools or the old people. yes i am offended. i’m offended by these stupid people justifying this garbage on free speech…