Birth Control Ads Breed Responsibility (Not Babies)

It is an average Sunday afternoon in the fall. What are a majority of Americans doing? That's right, watching football. And we all know the commercials that come with watching football: Budweiser ad, Bud Light ad, Geico ad, Miller Light ad, Levitra ad, Heineken ad, Viagra ad, another Bud Light ad, and then, finally the game returns. There are some who would like the FCC to ban certain advertisers from airing commercials, similar to the ban of tobacco companies from producing television advertisements. Their main targets, of course, are those erectile dysfunction drugs, birth control drugs, and condoms. Yes, it seems anything related to sex must indeed be harmful to our society in general and therefore must be hidden away. I too am sick of seeing those old guys on motorcycles singing "Viva Viagra" but banning the ads completely is wrong. One of the largest arguments against the airing of commercials (specifically birth control and condom ads) is that they presumably advocate a certain reckless promiscuity. The fact is that they advocate just the opposite: responsibility. When engaging in sexual activity, using condoms or birth control is taking responsibility. It is recognizing that sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy can result and wanting to protect yourself and your partner. Now, birth control and condoms do not protect against pregnancy 100 percent of the time and condoms do not prevent against all STDs, so when couples have sex and use these products they are also recognizing that these are still possibilities, however slim the chances, and agreeing to deal with these consequences if they should arise. I will admit that this is not true of all people having sex but I would say at least a large majority do so. People who make and use these products seem to get demonized as, for lack of a better term, "easy." This is a complete mischaracterization for a majority of people. Most people have sex only with their partners in long-term relationships.Some do not follow this lead. So the real questions are: When is it okay for couples to have sex? When is it not okay? Should they use birth control or condoms? Should they be married? My answer to all of the above questions is: I do not know and I do not care because it is none of my business. This is what those who vocally advocate abstinence-only do not seem to understand. They present some very real and very poignant reasons that people should abstain from sex, usually until they are married. Most of those reasonings are valid, however, it is not their place to decide what someone else does in their own relationships. The decision to have sex is one that is made between two people and no matter what the other side may think it is almost never taken lightly. If they are two consenting adults it is absolutely no one else's business to tell them it is wrong. That is not to say that people should not be aware of all of the points that the abstinence only side promotes. But they should not be censored from seeing commercials about ways to act responsibly if they do decide to have sex. All of the energy spent denouncing these kinds of commercials is actually wasted, because I do not think it is very likely that someone who was planning on staying abstinent until marriage sees a Trojan™ commercial and suddenly decides to have sex. Nor do I think that these commercials have any effect on anyone besides the people who have already decided to have sex; And I for one applaud them for taking responsible steps like using birth control or condoms. But if the other side really does think these commercials are making a significant impact, why not run a series of abstinence only commercials? If people really are so idiotic that they absorb everything they watch on TV, then bombard them with commercials of the Jonas Brothers talking about their purity rings or Miley Cyrus on why she is still a "virgin." As far as the Levitra and Viagra ads go, here is the dirty little secret: old people have sex. I know it's gross, but they do. And that is because sex is a part of every relationship at some point. Presumably, the people who would need these products are those who have been in love for a long time and do not want the spark to go out. Sex is not all (and not even a majority) of a relationship, but it is still a part of it and if these drugs help a couple reclaim that spark then I say "Mazel Tov." Taking these ads off of the air would be an egregious form of censorship of one group dictating their values over another. Any intervention into someone else's ability to make a decision that affects only themselves (such as taking out these ads, i.e. one side of the argument) shows a lack of respect for people to be smart and responsible for their own lives. The only way that sex can be construed as affecting anyone else besides the two having it would be issues like teenage pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and abortion. (I would probably argue that some of these do not really have an effect on anyone else but there could be a case to be made.) Using the products advertised in these commercials could significantly reduce these things. In fact, if Viagra can reignite a marriage it might even cut down on the divorce rate too. Censorship is never the answer. Be a part of the discussion rather than trying to eliminate valid arguments. And most importantly, stay out of decisions that are not yours to make.