Anything that divides people, is wrong.

I'm not sure how you can say that Kipp.

Unfortunately, people are divided on pretty much everything.

As for this article, and this billboard... I really can't see the huge fuss. Then again, I've always through people concerned with things like this should be more focused on violence rather than sex, and there's plenty of more worthwhile things that Mr Cook could be protesting.

According to the Herald Sun link:
"The ASB will be forced to raise its standards after its own research found its board's attitude towards sex, sexuality and nudity in advertising was too soft.
"Findings released yesterday showed that board decisions needed to "more accurately reflect community standards on advertisements that portray sex, sexuality or nudity and discrimination or vilification".

So it seems the advertising board is out of touch after all? I think the board is out of touch, and I would be very interested to know more about this research on community standards. The ABS really seems in the pockets of advertisers in so many ways (except if you advertise children's party food, that is). Personally, I experienced this particular Durex ad as less offensive than the headache inducing neon yellow 'Want longer lasting sex?' billboards by the so-called Advanced Medical Institute. The bureau, in hearing complaints against the AMI billboard, found that because there was no picture, this ad's text was not directly discussing (advertising) penetrative sex! That ad, as a billboard, really did concern me regarding the effects on young children. And on my psyche as well, as a community notice it seemed so...brutal! Unlike the funny tv ads the company also ran at the time.

Whilst I am not offended by the advert photo, the context of the advert is not something I want spalshed around the public areas of my suburb either.

I heard a radio version for a similar product which was played on the Pop FM channel my numerous children were 'forcing' me to endure in the car on the way back from Church.

In essence the dialogue went:

Male voice "What's a Quickie" condom?"

Female voice "it's the thinnest condom ever made...so the quicker you get it on, the quicker we can get it on!"

What is the message behind all these ads? Have a root and as long as we all use condoms everything is fine.

Not particularly edifying Sunday morning radio content. Needless to say, my children would not be here if that was my wife and I's attitude to sexuality and relationships!

The photo would be positive if it had a better catch phrase like - "If you can read this, thank goodness enough committed heterosexual monogamus couples exist in your community to ensure Western civilisation doesn't totally breakdown."

The author's general concern about the message is valid. Our local girls only highschool had a similarly ill-conceived and ill-placed clothing advert which was quickly removed.

Michael Cook wrote:
"The mask-like face of the woman is frozen and glassy-eyed. Is she being raped? Is she servicing a client?

Whatever is going on, it is raw sex, not romance, not love."

Like everyone else, I wondered if I was looking at the right photo. Raped? Servicing a client? Sorry, but she looks like she's about to get it on with someone she's totally into. Lucky her.

I think this ad is quite romantic and have no problem with sexy ads for condom. Having said that, I think the pervasiveness of sexual imagery is problematic and I dislike having to see women with their gear off everywhere I go. The late-night TV sleaze-a-thon of ads for sex lines and internet dating drives me (and my husband - because it's slightly uncomfortable to watch this stuff with your wife) batty. It's just too full-on for me. And for some of the men I know too - a friend once said to me, "I actually don't want to be turned on when I'm getting my lunch at work. I want some choice over my timing for that stuff, you know?"

Unfortunately, this article is so prudish and intellectually spurious that it's failing to make the valid points it should make.