Turned off by ads of a delicate nature

Having largely sorted out the economy and foreign wars, Rep. James P. Moran (D-Va.) moved on to other pressing matters of state last month when he introduced the Families for ED Advertising Decency Act (H.R. 2175), a bill that calls for the Federal Communications Commission to “treat as indecent” ads for erectile dysfunction cures between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m.

Viva Viagra, indeed.

This is his second attempt to get the ads run by Pfizer (Viagra), Lilly (Cialis) and GlaxoSmithKline (Levitra) toned down; in 2005, he claimed to have reached an agreement with representatives of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.

Four years later, the ads are ever more pervasive and, according to Moran, more explicit.

Here’s a fun if staggering fact: ED drug manufacturers spent $313.4 million on measured media last year, according to TNS Media Intelligence. That’s up from $237.2 million in 2007.

I realize that all the world’s men can be roughly divided into two camps: those who have suffered from ED and those who think it’s hilarious. Even though I am a raging liberal atheist appalled by Americans’ obsessive-phobic complex over sexual matters, I am also the father of two little girls. I would really prefer not to have to explain the erection-lasting-more-than-four-hours thing to them while we’re watching NASCAR. So, yes, while it’s a slightly ridiculous issue, I sort of admire Moran’s willingness to be the stooge for it.

After all, broadcast advertising falls into a special class of discourse, insofar as we choose the programs we do and don’t want to watch but have almost no control over the advertising we are exposed to. Therefore it seems the bar of probity must be at least a little higher than it is with programming. Again, point to Moran.

There was a fascinating error in the reporting of the congressman’s bill that is quite telling. The media weekly AdAge and others reported that the bill’s ambit included ads for “male-performance-enhancement” products such as Enzyte and ExtenZe.

However, a quick check with the congressman’s office reveals that prohibiting male-performance-enhancement products was never considered, even though spokesman Austin Durrer agreed that the congressman would also find these ads “egregious.”

If I had to reverse-engineer this error, I would say that some reporter unconsciously lumped the male-enhancement commercials in with the ED ads because they not only deal with the same anatomical real estate but also are vastly more embarrassing to watch.

Daddy, who is Smilin’ Bob and why is he smiling?

So why didn’t Moran go after these ads? At least the ED commercials take a schwing at being tasteful, portraying young-at-heart couples forever seemingly renewing their vows at some tropical getaway, with his-and-her bathtubs handy. According to the narrative logic of the ED ads, these pills are the elixir vitae of long-term monogamy. Heck, St. Paul would approve.

No redeeming subtext enters into the male-enhancement ads.

And never mind matters of taste. What about truth in advertising? How is it that the male-enhancement products can continue to make their outsize claims despite zero clinical evidence that they work as advertised?

For that, you can thank the 1994 Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act, which severely limited the Food and Drug Administration’s authority to crack down on unsubstantiated dietary claims. Supplements -- everything from nutraceutical energy drinks to the male-enhancement potions -- fall under the authority of the Federal Trade Commission.

So while these ads have had to moderate their language somewhat (both the makers of ExtenZe and Enzyte have found themselves in legal hot water over false advertising), the FDA is powerless to move against them.

The FTC, it seems, has bigger fish to fry.

--

dan.neil@latimes.com