A thorough gumming
Job well done
The Advertising Standards Authority has ordered Sky to be more careful with its telly scheduling after it showed a racy condom advert just after a kids' film. A viewer wrote to the ASA to complain about the Durex ad, which was shown directly after Ice Age 4 at 9.32pm on Sky Movies Premiere. The concerned telly lover was …
Job well done
Mmmmmm..... a thorough gumming......
At 9pm it is vital that your children are sent to their bedrooms. The TV programs at that hour are no longer appropriate, your children can find far better porn on the web on their PCs/Tablets/Phones etc..
Quite right too...
I shall be phoning Sky immediately to complain that I switched on the TV at 9pm and hoped to see a movie with adult themes instead of a cartoon for small children!
I shall forthwith be cancelling my Sky subscription ... err - if I was a Sky customer!
> your children can find far better porn on the web
Although Swiss lawyers might start sending you letters if they do.
Unless you have Bt broadband and their smutwall, then just watch channel 5.
That will help them getting knocked up when they are 15 (or knocking someone else up, just to be inclusive), who knows.
Who knows also seems to be the answer to the question of why was a kiddies show so the ending was after the watershed time? Is there any competent people at Sky and, this is the big one, why do you pay money for 30 mins of adverts per hour?
Don't let the kids know about sex things - it could lead to us having the highest teenage pregnacy rate in the whole of Europe.
Oh - we already do?
Perhaps if kids learn what condoms do at an early age, the incidents of AIDS and other sexual diseases will be reduced. The attitude of "They're only children" only works so long.
"Sky has escaped a serious pounding. "
I see what you did there
Sounds like an advertisement for a weak beer.
They could have just shown a condom pack wrapped in a plain brown envelope with a warning "Use that or you will soon have to watch Ice Age 5 ... and 6, and 7..." written underneath.
I think it was perfect scheduling. Adults are watching it too, and need reminding that they should stop reproducing at some point ;)
We can definitely assume 1 Adult was watching it and unlike other parents probably did which is just plonking their children in front of the flat-screen childminder whilst they are in another part of the house, they may remember to send the kid to bed at some point in the evening.
I think there should be no taboo for advertising condoms. We've had too many years of denying sexuality. Enjoy it as a natural part of our existence and don't saddle young people with guilt, shame, and blame from the ignorance of the past.
Pooing is natural but we still tend not to do it in public. "It's natural" is not a valid argument in itself. Wanting to punch people is natural, but we are taught not to do this too often.
I agree. Those Andrex adverts disgust me, no matter what time they are shown.
> Pooing is natural but we still tend not to do it in public.
Speak for yourself.
Lucky for you, taking a shit usually doesn't result in pregnancy or disease.
Great way to stop your teen pregnancy problem, Britain.
Kraut, peace and out.
Showing a condom ad to people not even interested in sex seems rather pointless. Most kids who get pregnant HAVE had sex-ed. They just do it anyway. Just as kids are all told smoking is bad, but so many still take it up.
"Pooing is natural but we still tend not to do it in public." unless of course you live in India where it is a way of life.
Post watershed showing an advert promoting safe sex. Maybe if it was a porno I could understand complaints but surely durex is sending the right message and sky broadcast it when impressionable minds (by age) should have been sent to bed.
I must have been about ten, certainly not more than twelve, when they showed us what condoms were and how they work in sexual education class.
If I write to the ASA (what's the last 'A' stand for, btw? It's not like it's any real authority anyway) to tell them that the one person who wrote to complain is just a sad wanker and that there's nothing wrong with condom ads, will they retract their statement?
> ... to tell them that the one person who wrote to complain ...
From the article: The concerned telly lover was grumpy
[ feeble joke alert ] So maybe he was writing on behalf of the other 6 dwarfs, as well?
Nobody's arguing about the need for sex education, I think the objections were about how sensual the ad was. To protect our children we need to make sex sound as boring as possible....
Well yes, you don't want them having unrealistic expectations ;)
Like they're going to buy that one. The more you try to hide something from kids the more interesting it is to them. Make watching those adverts compulsory and they'll avoid them in droves.
So the ASA are telling Sky off for showing a condom advert on a TV show after the 9pm watershed?
So, really, the ASA are against sex education and the promotion of safe sex to children who are already learning about these things in schools?
No, no, no, you've got it wring. The ASA is against parents being put in positions where they might have to explain sex to their children. Big difference you see...
"No, no, no, you've got it wring. The ASA is against parents being put in positions where they might have to explain sex to their children. Big difference you see...
Now you've said that, it all makes sense. The ASA are there to prevent you from having that awkward moment when theres a sex scene on the TV and your mother and father are in the same room. The mother wishing her husband would do that to her, the father wishing his wife's sister was in to it, and you just wishing you were somewhere else.
I TOTALLY see the point now.
* Complain about a contraception advert during normal hours...
* Then complain about teenage pregnancy rates being so high...
WAY TO GO!
As far as my kid goes, I figure either
a) ...he doesn't know about sex yet, in which case a condom ad with sexual overtones will just be nonsense and he'll forget about it
b) ...he already knows about sex, in which case the condom ad isn't going to alter anything one way or another
I have yet to discern a flaw in my logic in this regard. The goal, of course, is to make sure I get to him with something *more* than innuendo before someone who thinks something like, "You can't get pregnant the first time" does - but all the suggestive language in the world isn't going to affect *that*.
If only a single child later gets pregnant or dies of AIDS it will all have been worth it.
Well *that's* obviously a really stupid thing to do...
... gods forbid that those "impressionable minds" get the idea that condoms are a good thing to use to avoid unwanted pregnancies and STDs...
Advertising safe sex, such as condoms in an appropriate way should not be considered bad for children. If the child is old enough to understand the commercial, then that child is old enough to know about safe sex options.
But the cut-off time and age restrictions are there not to protect children from anything but to protect parents from having to discuss things which they may find embarrassing with their children.
With DVRs it'll most likely be viewed another time.
This voiceover was found to have "heightened the sensual nature of the ad".
systemd'oh! DNS lib underscore bug bites everyone's favorite init tool, blanks Netflix
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017