|
Social & Moral Issues |
|
Social & Moral Issues |
|
SUBJECT: LOVELIFE "ONE ROLL-ON ALL WOMEN WANT" BILLBOARD - APPEAL TO THE ADVERTISING STANDARDS AUTHORITY
PRESS
RELEASE The Africa Christian Action appeal against the decision by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) to dismiss their 2 January complaint against the loveLife "One roll-on all women want" billboard (picturing a woman embracing a man, holding a condom) is given below. We believe that the public acceptance of the loveLife campaign is vastly over-rated, and look forward to the ASA appeal board's decision on this matter. For further information, please contact Jeanine McGill on 021 689 4481 or 083 491 4413.
21 February 2003
The
Advertising Standards Authority
Dear Sir or Madam Appeal Against 14 February 2003 Ruling: loveLife v Africa Christian Action As we travel around South Africa to talk to various audiences, the overwhelming response that we find to the loveLife media campaign is one of disgust and despair. We have no doubt that the HIV/AIDS pandemic is extremely serious and that behavioural changes are imperative, but even this does not justify loveLife’s assault on our society’s values. While it can be argued that those who are offended by an advertisement can switch off the television or radio, or turn the page of the newspaper or magazine, exposure to billboards is virtually impossible to avoid, and commuters see the same images daily. Billboard advertisements should thus be subjected to higher standards regarding offensiveness than other advertisements, since they unavoidably confront the same people again and again. “... brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable - if anything is excellent or praiseworthy - think about such things.” Philippians 4:8 The loveLife “one roll-on all women want” billboard is not in good taste. It is offensive, if not to the generally public, then at least to those who value sex as something beyond casual relationships. This would include most committed Christians and Muslims. We will encourage our supporters to express their views on this matter to the Advertising Standards Authority. The hyperbole of the “one roll-on all women want” statement does not excuse its offensiveness, and this hyperbole cannot be equated to that used to sell e.g. deodorants and cosmetics. The decision to purchase cosmetics is amoral, while the decision to have sex is a moral one. “The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery .... I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the Kingdom of God.” Galatians 5:19-21 To claim that a potentially offensive statement is acceptable in the context of the advertiser’s campaign, includes the assumption that the advertiser’s campaign has not already caused serious, widespread or sectoral offence. Earlier loveLife billboards were certainly offensive. loveLife publications contain crude and lewd photographs (e.g. a girl photographed with her legs wide open, a girl “measuring” boys around the crotch area). The values reflected in the text of loveLife publications are offensive to many religious people. “All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one. Their throats are open graves; their tongues practice deceit. The poison of vipers is on their lips. Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness. Their feet are swift to shed blood; ruin and misery mark their ways, and the way of peace they do not know. There is no fear of God before their eyes." Romans 3:12-18 Finally, the last two paragraphs of the Directorate’s decision are a non-sequitur. Can we assume that children can distinguish between hyperbole or puffery and truth? If not, is it not possible that the statement “one roll-on all women want” might result in moral harm to children? The fact that the commercial claims to want to protect and educate children does not exclude the possibility of the commercial being harmful, and we urge the Directorate to reconsider this ruling.
1. Hyperbole and puffery a) To broadly excuse advertising on the basis of hyperbole and puffery is dangerous. While the following statements are clearly hyperbole, this alone is not sufficient to make them acceptable:
Ø
One roll-on all black women want While loveLife’s research may show that the groups listed above are more sexually disempowered (regarding condom use) than others, the hyperbolic statement acts as an insult, or a slur on the group’s character, rather than an aid to empowerment. “Like a madman shooting firebrands or deadly arrows is a man who deceives his neighbor and says, "I was only joking!” Proverbs 26:18-19 b) Why does society freely accept hyperbole and puffery in deodorant and cosmetic advertising, but reject it in sexual matters? The answer is obvious - even casual sexual relationships are not only far more intimate and personal than the best quality deodorants and cosmetics, but they also involve other human beings intimately and personally. Deodorants and cosmetics are not jealous of one another, and they never break their users’ hearts. No-one’s deodorant kills him/her because he/she has switched to another deodorant. Few people defend their deodorant in personal conversation, but a slur on another’s lover may provoke a vigorous response. Deodorant is cheap, common and every day, but (despite the influence of sexual revolutionaries) sex is still viewed as something special by most South Africans. Using hyperbole and puffery in matters that are not terribly close to the heart may be acceptable – using it for our most intimate expressions is not. Advertising goods with hyperbole is affecting amoral decisions, while advertising sexual behaviour with hyperbole affects moral decisions. “Place me like a seal over your heart, like a seal on your arm; for love is as strong as death, its jealousy unyielding as the grave. It burns like blazing fire, like a mighty flame.” Song of Solomon 8:6 c) Young people are less likely to understand that the statement is hyperbole and more likely to take it at face value. The message then becomes counter-productive, since a young man may assume that coerced sex is not that bad as long as a condom is used (all women want is condoms, not sexual self-determination). Alternatively, a young man may assume that all women want sex, since all women want condoms. 2. Empowerment a) loveLife correctly points out that women are sexually disempowered, and claims that “roll-on” is common language for the second and subsequent women in a relationship – disempowered and inferior. How do they expect their billboard to empower these “roll-on” women? Further, if all women want “roll-ons”, do all women also want to be “roll-ons”? We would argue that this assertion, rather than strengthening loveLife’s case, weakens it, since the billboard normalises the concept of second and subsequent women in a relationship. In a society based on human dignity, equality and freedom, such a degrading view of women should not be encouraged. b) Will the assertion “one roll-on all women want” empower women? Traditionally, women have been sexually empowered by refusing to have sex with men who they are not married to. A man who wants to have sex thus has to commit to marriage, monogamy and support. In this way, women are protected against abandonment, sexually transmitted diseases and the burden of bearing fatherless children. Inside marriage, condoms are thus not required to protect the partners against sexually transmitted diseases. A man who does not keep himself within the bounds of marriage may find himself facing a divorce, with its financial penalties, possibility of losing children and social stigma. “But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband.” 1 Corinthians 7:2-3 The “one roll-on all women want” assertion promotes the idea of female sexual availability outside of marriage. This disempowers women who want to abstain until marriage, since social pressure assumes that they will be sexually active. Further, it disempowers women who are sexually active outside of marriage, since sex (even if it is coerced) can be assumed to be acceptable if a condom is used. c) Will the statement “one roll-on all women want” encourage teenage boys (and men) not to abdicate responsibility? Does it not rather send the message that protection against pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases are the female’s responsibility? 3. Making Condoms More Desirable and Acceptable a) loveLife justifies its offensive advertising by the statement that “improving condom use is a major strategy in reducing HIV/AIDS”. However, have such campaigns worked? The success of Uganda is clearly from encouraging abstinence before marriage and faithfulness within marriage, rather than condoms. In contrast, condoms have been heavily promoted in Botswana and the epidemic continues to grow there. b) loveLife asserts that no claim is made that a condom is the thing women want most. However, the hyperbolic statement “one roll on ALL women want” certainly suggests the priority to women of condoms and sex – why would ALL women want a condom if it were not so? c) loveLife claims that it wants to make condoms more desirable and acceptable in sexual relationships. However, all sexual relationships are being painted with the same brush by loveLife’s assertion that the condom is “one roll-on all women want”. The caption would be greatly improved if modified to “one roll-on all sluts want”. No doubt some sluts may get offended .... d) Claiming that it is essential to put depictions of condoms on billboards to make them more acceptable is a weak argument. Sex has sacredness and a privacy that is reflected in our unwillingness to depict genitalia on billboards. By loveLife’s arguments, should we hold live sex shows, where condoms are used, in order to promote condom use? 4. Legality As suggested above, billboards with the captions “one roll-on all black women want’, “one roll-on all black people want” or “one roll-on all Roman Catholics want” would be offensive to many people because this represents discrimination. Why is “one roll-on all women want” then deemed acceptable? “"Cursed is the man who withholds justice from the alien, the fatherless or the widow." Then all the people shall say, "Amen!"” Deuteronomy 27:19 Further, while the ASA is not a court of law, Constitutional interpretation is implied by Section II, Clause 1, in which offensive advertising is only acceptable if justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom. Section 9 of the South African Constitution states: (1) Everyone is equal before the law and has the right to equal protection and benefit of the law. (2) Equality includes the full and equal enjoyment of all rights and freedoms. To promote the achievement of equality, legislative and other measures designed to protect or advance persons, or categories of persons, disadvantaged by unfair discrimination may be taken. (3) The state may not unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds, including race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth. (4) No person may unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds in terms of subsection (3). National legislation must be enacted to prevent or prohibit unfair discrimination. (5) Discrimination on one or more of the grounds listed in subsection (3) is unfair unless it is established that the discrimination is fair. loveLife’s caption discriminates against women and is not justified in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom. 5. Patronising loveLife asserts that its offensive campaign is acceptable because it promotes a vigorous response. To say the least, this is patronising. Other advertisers are not permitted to offend the general public simply because this helps their brand. The Nando’s blind person advertisement was at least fun, and there was little chance of blind people seeing it on TV, but as we recall, the ASA took action on this one. The “one roll-on all women want” billboard offends men and women daily. Will the ASA take action, or is loveLife permitted to do anything, no matter how offensive, because loveLife claims that this will help reduce HIV infections? Thank you for your work to protect South Africans from harmful advertising. We look forward to your feedback on this matter. “Those who forsake the Law praise the wicked, but those who keep the Law resist them. Evil men do not understand justice, but those who seek the LORD understand it fully. Better a poor man whose walk is blameless than a rich man whose ways are perverse.” Proverbs 28:4-6
Yours
faithfully
Africa
Christian Action _______________________________________________ Please read our disclaimer |
|
|
