Durex(Red) — A New Approach to the Sale of Sex
Authored November, 2018 — Graphic Language
This month, the American condom and lube company, Durex, launched a campaign teaming with (Red) and the Global Fund to fight AIDS. The marketing video for the campaign, which stars Swedish pop-singer Zara Larsson, is scripted below:
Zara Larsson: “Fuck. We hear it in songs. See it on our favorite movies, On the street, Online, And in private… The word has a bad reputation. But it can be… Fucking beautiful. We get so excited with it.”
“Un-fucking-believable”
“It’s Zara Fucking Larsson.”
ZL: “We use it when we’re amazed.”
“Fuck yeah!” “Fuck yeah!” “My fucking hero.” “Fuck yeah!”
ZL: “We love to acronym the fuck out of it.” *Animation* “While it also helps us apologize to the ones we love.”
“I’m sorry, I fucked up.”
ZL: “It leaves no doubt.”
“Have you had sex in the last three months?” “Abso-fucking-lutely yes. Yes I have.”
ZL: “But most importantly, it shows that we care. Give a fuck. With Durex Red, you can literally give a fuck.”
“You can have sex” “And save lives.” “Have sex” “And save lives.”
ZL: “Give a fuck with Durex(Red).” “Now go to bed.”
This advertisement is fascinating for a number reasons — primarily that it has everything to do with sex, but is liberated from assumptions about the roles that gender and sexuality play in the deed itself. The advertisement uses dialogue in a way that transcends sexual and gendered identities regarding the word “fuck,” to get down to a universal understanding of the act that is accessible to all genders and sexualities. The content, addressee, audience, genre, and purpose of this discourse come together to challenge the notions we have about sex. Our traditional ideas about what sex is, how it is had, who has it, how it is discussed, who discusses it, and what purpose it serves — are all tested in this commercial.
As we discussed in class, sex is traditionally understood to have two actors — he who fucks, and she who is fucked. The gendered nature of these roles is reflected in sex across the board — for example, the concept of having “top” and “bottom” participants in gay sex, whose positions are reminiscent of the gender roles that appear in straight relationships. This advertisement explores the word “fuck” in a way that is both separated and attached to “the deed,” however, it does so in a way that transcends the roles that gender and sexuality are assumed to play in sex. The advertisement starts by explaining the ways that “fuck,” can be applied to any number of situations, interactions, and relationships — separating the word from the deed. By explaining “fuck,” in all of these contexts, the dialogue asserts that it is a universally accessible and acceptable word to use and activity to partake in.
Having established “fucking” as a non-discriminating word and activity, the advertisement pushes “fucking” from an inherently private act, to one having a public nature. In class we discussed aspects of sex such as participants, theta roles, and context — concluding that is a deed shared between people (regardless of gender and sexuality) that usually takes place in a private setting. Sex, in many cases, is a means of private fulfillment — in which the ultimate goal is pleasure for one of both parties. However, the slogans “Give a fuck,” and “Have sex, save lives,” make sex a public act — implying that sex can be philanthropic. This juxtaposes with the idea that philanthropy is usually something that people engage in to improve their public image, or show that they are a good person. This advertisement groups sex in with philanthropy in a way that confuses the nature of both acts. Philanthropy, a public act, becomes something that cam take place in the bedroom, while sex, an inherently private act, becomes a means by which to engage in a philanthropic cause. This mixture of philanthropy and sex transcends the gendered or sexual norms usually associated with this kind of discourse by framing sex as a display of charity, to be engaged in by citizens of all genders and sexualities, for a greater cause.
The primary “speaker,” of this dialogue is Zara Larsson, who’s role in this advertisement has everything to do with gender, in contrast to the other aspects of the advertisement. While Zara Larsson’s role in the advertisement is grounded in gender, her participation does not reinforce the gendered aspects of sex. By using such profane dialogue, Zara Larsson, and in turn Durex, challenge societal norms about sex in this commercial. In “Language and Women’s Place,” one of Robin Lakoff’s primary arguments is that women’s language is inherently more polite than mens — and following her theory the words “fuck,” and “fucking,” would rarely appear in women’s speech, let alone in such public discourse. While Lakoff’s theories were problematic, they are reflective of the social norm that public profanity is reserved for men, and that women — or “ladies” — should use euphemisms to discuss the “deed” publicly. This advertisement completely breaks these norms by having a feminine figure — a petite blonde — engage with extremely profane words and concepts. Zara Larsson’s dialogue also explores gender roles pertaining to sex when she says “Now go to bed,” which is a line one might expect to hear coming from a mother in regard to her children. Larsson’s version, however, challenges our notions about this specific command, and uses the line to encourage use of the product, or engagement in sex. The line subverts female gender stereotypes — as Zara Larsson is clearly not a mother, and the addressee is clearly not a child. I believe that Durex’s choice to cast Zara Larsson, and have her engage with such vocabulary and concepts, achieves it’s marketing goals of asserting that sex and fucking are universally accessible and acceptable — because even Zara Larsson, a physical embodiment of ladylike femininity, can engage with such concepts and language. While I believe that Zara Larsson’s role as an initiator in this dialogue is very gendered, it challenges the antiquated notions that discussions about sex and the language used in these discussions are reserved for men or private settings — thus challenging the role that gender traditionally plays in sex.
Gender and sexuality have little bearing on the addressee of this discourse. The advertisement targets anyone who partakes in any form of the deed, regardless of gender or sexuality — with the exception of lesbian women, as they likely have no need for condoms. This population aside, I believe that the advertisement targets a wide variety of consumers, because the dialogue is absent of implications or assumptions about what kind of sex is being had, or who is engaging in the act. As I discussed earlier, the dialogue frames “fuck,” and “fucking,” as words and acts that do not discriminate — hence, the addressee of this discourse could be anyone does it. While the condom and sex industry have traditionally targeted straight men, the advertisement challenges this norm. Sexuality is usually understood as a category for identity rather than desire — as Deborah Cameron and David Kulick discuss in “Language and Sexuality.” However, identity categories do not account for everything that would fall under the umbrella of sexuality. This commercial, even through it has everything to do with sex, discusses sex in way that is separated from the identity category affiliated with a person’s sexuality. By separating conversations about sex from conversations about identity, this advertisement markets it’s product as one that is universal to all types of sex and desire, instead of selling to particular identities. Additionally, having a female speaker could be understood one of two ways, either, as a way to arouse men, or as a way to make the sex industry more friendly and personable to women. Other speakers in the video include a young man of color, two woman of color, a middle aged man who’s race is ambiguous, and young white man. The diverse nature of these speakers demonstrate that sex does not discriminate, thus affirming the notion that anyone can have sex, and anyone can save lives by buying this product — regardless of gender, race, or sexuality.
This discourses’s genre, as marketing material intended to sell a product, is tied to its purpose. In this instance, the genre has far more to do with the purpose, or the sale of sex, then it does sexuality or gender. Genre is a key element in this discourse because it indicates that it isn’t just a discussion of the word “fuck,” or a conversation about sex, but one that is meant to sell a product which is universally appealing. In order to sell the product, however, the seller must also sell sex on the whole — and in this ad, the seller starts by selling the word “fuck”. By repeating the pronoun “we” throughout the discussion of the word, the discourse makes the word and all of its associations accessible to “us” — the sexually active citizens of the world. By selling “fuck,” and sex in general, the company then sells on the idea that sex can be philanthropic — in fact, consumers can even “save lives,” when they engage in such an activity. The genre is most easily identifiable at the end of the commercial, when Larsson says “With Durex red, you can literally give a fuck,” — which reflects a traditional marketing slogan model (“With _____ product, you can _____!”). Which is followed by the repeated slogan “have sex, save lives,” also highlighting the discourse’s genre and purpose as an advertisement. The discourse ends with a call to action, cementing its genre as a commercial, when Zara says “Now go to bed,” immediately before the scene cuts. The product references, slogans, and calls to action indicate that this discourse falls under the genre of advertising — making it easy for a consumer to identify this that this discourse is intended to sell condoms and sex. As an advertisement, this discourse’s genre and purpose inevitably draw on selling sex, but have little to do with the aspects of gender, sexuality, and identity that come with it.
While I found the full commercial online after googling Durex(red), the campaign was initially brought to my awareness when I was looking at Snapchat. Snapchat, a popular social media platform, has ads that pop up as you scroll through other content — such as “stories” (pictures and videos that are posted by friends), content published by other outlets such as Cosmopolitan Magazine, GQ, Allure, and “episodes,” put out by E-News, NBC News, and other sources. The advertisements on Snapchat vary widely — ads selling perfume, iPhone games, fast food, and clothing are only a few examples. Snapchat generally is a platform that has a stronger correlation with the age of its users than their gender or sexuality — as roughly half of its users are between the ages of 18-24. The majority of my friends — both male and female, gay and straight, use Snapchat. Hence, I find that the context of this advertisement is more likely influenced by age than by gender or sexuality. Durex’s decision to advertise on this platform and to this age group is logical — as I imagine that people in the 18-24 age range who use this platform are more sexually active and explorative than the demographics watching sitcom re-runs on cable. Advertising to this age group also ties strongly with the fact that the advertisement avoids gender and sexuality in it’s conversation about sex — as young Americans are becoming increasingly opposed to traditional notions regarding the roles of gender and sexuality in sex. Hence, approaching the sale of condoms and sex in a way that capitalizes on traditional roles would not help sell the product to young consumers. Ultimately, this discourse’s appearance in this context makes perfect sense — as it sells an image of sex that is accessible to a particular demographic on a platform where it will likely be accessed.
This advertisement, and the discourse that takes place within it, contradicts the way we have traditionally approached sex as a society. Sex has long been understood as a word to describe a very specific act — one which carries fixed gender roles and identity categories. Our traditional ideas about sex are reinforced throughout our daily lives, as many of our interactions are guided by the genders roles we play in sex, or the identity category we occupy if we have a “different kind” of sex. Sex, in this sense, has been a basis of judgement for normality, as those who do have not conformed with their “normal” gender and sexuality categories have been outcasted, other-ed, and scorned throughout history. This dialogue challenges this framework of thought in a number of ways — such as establishing the deed and the word “fuck” as universally accessible, challenging our notions about the role of women in sex and society, and discussing sex in a way that does not collapse sexuality onto identity — which ultimately demonstrates the societal shift in attitudes regarding sex. As younger generations move away from traditional notions about sex in general, it is promising to see that the sex industry is following suit, and creating discourse that deals with sex in a way that questions how we have thought about and associated with it in the past.
Works Cited
Aslam, Salman. "Snapchat by the Numbers: Stats, Demographics & Fun Facts." Omnicore. 9/17/18 Web. 11/28/2018 <https://www.omnicoreagency.com/snapchat-statistics/>.
Durex, U. K. "Zara Larsson Tells The World To #GAF With (DUREX)RED – Full edit." YouTube. 11/2/ 2018. Web. 11/28/2018 <https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=9&v=p7sn81mdxT8>.
Kulick, Don, and Deborah Cameron. Language and Sexuality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Print.
Lakoff, Robin. Language and Women's Place. New York: Harper and Rowe, 1975. Print.