My mom called me the other day outraged because NBC refused to play PETA’s proposed Super Bowl commercial because they deemed it “too sensual”.  She contended that there are numerous commercials that fall into the sensual category and that PETA was denied because of its position as an animal activist organization (that and the fact that the commercial praises vegetables) rather than for its sensual content.  I went online and viewed the commercial, and I agree with my mom that there are many other commercials aired on the major television networks that are just as sensual, if not more so.  However, while watching the Super Bowl, I noticed that the commercials aired were not sensual at all.  As a matter of fact, the commercials aired were rather benign, placid and all together boring.  The products themselves were also benign, mostly financial or food related—or worse, promos for the NBC line up of new shows (yawn).

Which got me thinking…It is interesting how the Super Bowl has become a barometer for moral appropriateness in the United States.  The Super Bowl is portrayed as the quintessential wholesome family entertainment, and therefore should only provide wholesome entertainment.  “Wholesome entertainment” (apparently) does not include selling products with any inference, innuendo, or mention of sex/sensuality, in either a positive or negative light.

It seems that if “sensual commercials” are avoided while the Super Bowl airs, then they don’t exist, or that their influence does not reach the young impressionable viewers that NBC was protecting by refusing to air the PETA ad.  However, this is incongruent with the placement of these “sensual” advertisements in the rest of television.  Dinner time seems to be prime time for ED (erectile dysfunction) commercials and Carl’s Jr. ads, which are always sensual.  I think the last time I saw and ED commercial was during the Super Bowl where Janet Jackson had the “wardrobe” malfunction, which I think has been the catalyst for much of negativity toward sexuality in advertising.  On a side note, I was at a Super Bowl party the year of the infamous wardrobe malfunction took place, and I have to tell you the five year old little boy was sitting directly in front of the television when it happened didn’t notice anything wrong, would not have thought about it ever again, except for the reaction of the adults in the room.  Which leads me to ask, exactly who was scandalized by this incident?

I did a little internet research, to see some of the other commercials that have been banned from the Super Bowl throughout the years.  It became apparent to me fairly quickly that “inappropriate” commercials are comfortable with sexuality, portray women in positive light, and are politically incorrect.  While an argument can be made for the politically incorrect commercials (which has gotten completely out of hand, by the way, but that is a topic for another day), the overwhelming discomfort with sexuality to me is appalling and alarming.  One Rolling Rock commercial that was banned is a little bawdy, but silly and playful, however it has faint overtures of sexuality which apparently cannot possibly be tolerated.  It portrays an out of control baseball that bounces from one male to another hitting each one in the groin.  At the end of the commercial, the tag line is “Don’t forget your cup.”  It’s a silly commercial, but a banned commercial?  Really?

One banned commercial I really enjoyed was the Pro Age campaign by Dove.  It depicted bare, but benign female body parts of older women over which were written the words “too old to be in an anti-aging ad.”  There are a few full body shots of women who are naked, however they are positioned is such a way that their “inappropriate” parts are not revealed.  The end of the commercial states: “But this isn’t anti-age, this is pro-age”.  What an amazing pro-women commercial!  It is recognizing the female body in a form other than 20 and perky and giving it praise!  No wonder why it was banned!

The executives that are in the position to deem commercials appropriate are making their decisions based on terrible biases.  They are demonizing sexuality by not even allowing us to find humor in it (like the Rolling Rock baseball commercial) and reinforcing negativity towards women—by deeming a commercial where woman are portrayed outside the “perfect” female body as inappropriate.  Defenders of the decision to ban the Dove ad with argue that the naked, (yet covered!!) bodies were the inappropriate part, but that is just goes to prove the fear and demonizing of sexuality!

It has come to light that the public “outrage” expressed over the Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction was orchestrated by only one woman, and that the thousands of letters that CBS received were mostly from her.  However, this conclusion was not reached until several years after the incident and the damage had already been done.  This new “morality barometer” alienates sexuality from appropriateness and creates an image of terribly Puritanistic ideals.  An image most American’s do not agree with.  However, this overwhelming negative stigma towards sexuality has sent most people into reclusion.  For some reason most people (decision makers who deem commercials inappropriate, or commercial makers who are banned and quietly slink away, defeated) won’t stand up and say they are comfortable with sexuality, for fear of being labeled….I don’t know what that label is, but it is there and people are afraid of it.  It is as if talking about sexuality makes you morally reprehensible, but if you keep your sexuality behind closed doors it doesn’t matter what you do.  I was once accused of being a whore/slut for suggesting to take pole dancing lessons at a gym (it was a unique gym) for a bachelorette party!  The woman, a friend, who accused me was known for her promiscuity, giving blow jobs to the entire football team in high school, amongst other things.  None of us had ever called her a whore to her face.  But what I did was talk about sexuality, bring it to the forefront.  What I did was want to have fun and laugh at a bachelorette party that included sexuality.