Ortho Promoting Promiscuity in Young UNMARRIED Women.

Ortho Evra ad ^ | 5-29-2005 | myself

[Future Useless Eater]

Ortho is promoting promiscuity and unsafe sex in young UNMARRIED women.

A commercial for birth control devices by OrthoEvra shows a young woman saying: "My life goes a million miles a minute, so remembering to take the pill every DAY can be such a hassle. So I thought the weekly patch might be a good thing." The problem is, this young woman is NOT wearing a wedding or engagement ring on her left hand's 'ring' finger but she is instead wearing a large EXTREMELY OBVIOUS ring on her NEXT finger (closer to her thumb) which typically indicates an unattached woman who is 'available' and 'on the market'. This actress was encouraged, I.M.O, to flash her 'ring hand' many times throughout the commercial, including several close-ups with her left hand by her face. By comparison, this woman (who statistically would be right handed) never flaunted her ring-less RIGHT hand even once. She was also wearing her watch on ler left wrist, which is another indication of her right-handed-ness. The ad also shows a young woman doctor recommending the patch, who is also apparently unmarried. Now even if you ignore the moral problems with this ad, the patch, because it offers NO protection at all against AIDS, should NOT be MARKETED towards UNMARRIED young women, especially those who are advertising they are 'available'. The commercial ended with the actress encouraging young women of America to: "Talk to your health care professional so you can be smart about your body, and smart about your birth control."

[David Lane]

Editor of Rubber Chemistry and Technology, Dr. C. Michael Roland of the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory in Washington D.C., spoke about his research on "intrinsic flaws" in latex rubber condoms and surgical gloves (published in Rubber World, June, 1993).

Roland said that what I am about to relate is "common knowledge among good scientists who have no political agenda."

Electron microscopy reveals the HIV virus to be about O.1 microns in size (a micron is a millionth of a metre). It is 60 times smaller than a syphilis bacterium, and 450 times smaller than a single human sperm.

The standard U.S. government leakage test (ASTM) will detect water leakage through holes only as small as 10 to 12 microns (most condoms sold in Canada are made in the U.S.A., but I'll mention the Canadian test below).

Roland says in good tests based on these standards, 33% of all condoms tested allowed HIV-sized particles through, and that "spermicidal agents such as nonoxonol-9 may actually ease the passage."

Roland's paper shows electron microscopy photos of natural latex. You can see the natural holes, or intrinsic flaws. The "inherent defects in natural rubber range between 5 and 70 microns."

And it's not as if governments don't know. A study by Dr. R.F. Carey of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control reports that "leakage of HIV-sized particles through latex condoms was detectable for as many as 29 of 89 condoms tested." These were brand new, pre-approved condoms. But Roland says a closer reading of Carey's data actually yields a 78% HIV-leakage rate, and concludes: "That the CDC would promote condoms based on [this] study...suggests its agenda is concerned with something other than public
health and welfare." The federal government's standard tests, he adds, "cannot detect flaws even 70 times larger than the AIDS virus."

Such tests are "blind to leakage volumes less tha one microliter - yet this quantity of fluid from an AIDS-infected individual has been found to contain as
many as 100,000 HIV particles."

As one U.S. surgeon memorably put it, "The HIV virus can go through a condom like a bullet through a tennis net."

It's the same story with latex gloves. Gloves from four different manufacturers revealed "pits as large as 15 microns wide and 30 microns deep." More relevant to HIV transmission, "5 micron-wide channels, penetrating the entire thickness were found in all the gloves." He said the presence of such defects in latex "is well established."

For Canada, the story is the same. A standard Health and Welfare Canada test of condoms manufactured between 1987 and 1990, based on stringent
tests of pressure, leakage, and volume (as in the U.S., there is no effort to examine micron-level leakage), reported that an astonishing 40% of the condoms tested failed at least one of the tests. Tests in 1991 showed an "improved" 28% rate.

[Rca2000]

I have to say, that I, too knew nothing about the ring finger thing. Not somethng I normally worry about, either. Guess I am out of step again.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

She does look a bit out of place for someone pretending to be an OB-GYN, doesn't she?

Kind of like those thirty year-olds in "Happy Days" who were supposed to be mischievous teenagers.

[Paul C. Jesup]

This story is an F.R. exclusive. The EDITORIAL is my own.

We call this a 'vanity' thread.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

Jimmy Fallon:

(In unnecessarily melodramatic tone of voice.)

I HAVE AN OPINION!!!!!!!!!

(Anticipatory drum roll.)

[Paul C. Jesup]

(Anticipatory drum roll.)

Personally, I am waiting for the gong.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

[Scenic Sounds]

So if any teenage daughters catch AIDS due to this, can parents sue Ortho?

Sounds like a tough case, FUE. But, you're right about one thing - there is no ring there. Good catch!!

Thanks for the ping. ;-)

[The flashlight]

This is for everyone, but I picked your reply to start. The real issue is that a major threshold has just been crossed this week. Prior to this new and a similar one, Ortho and it's competition ALWAYS showed women with either, 1. a wedding ring in plain view or 2. no visible left hand in the ads or an obscure/fuzzy angle. How do I know this? Because I have been paying attention, as have apparently some other astute observers. In this era when we hoped that TV programmers and advertisers would police themselves, Ortho was doing a pretty good job (until now). Why now the deliberate policy change? I would hazard a guess that other astute (women) observers were *eeks* offended that no obvious single women were depicted as pill customers and it made them uncomfortable/angry and they wrote to the company. I have been watching the change in advertising standards for the last few years, and of all the examples breaking generally excepted standards for RESPONSIBLE ADVERTISING! (oxymoron?) for that extra buck, this one ranks right up there. Can we agree that (yes, even though it is happening every second) pre-marital sex without a physical barrier is something that should not be PROMOTED. And definitely not for PROFIT? Can anyone argue with this?