Let's take a chance and fly away somewhere...
Bill Holden is my boyfriend

Advertising Death Match: Cialis v. Viagra

You know those bluesy Viagra commercials, showing the guy he's still a righteous dude who now has the cash and confidence to indulge in all the stuff he used to think was cool from afar?

I am just of an age to find the men in those commercials very attractive. And for those very reasons, but also because they always choose fairly handsome men, of course.

Yeah, I wrote those lines a couple months ago, still thinking this over. The other day, I saw an ad in which a slightly scruffier-than-my-type was suddenly locking eyes with a woman while contemplating the fresh fruit aisle. I was intrigued for a second or two, then it wandered into Cialis AbstractLand, with a rain of oranges that ended in a grove somewhere, and there were more oranges, and I said to myself, "Well, at least they got rid of the freaking twin bathtubs-in-the-woods thing." But then at the end of the commercial, there they were, metaphoring sex by sitting in side-by-side porcelain containers. 

It wasn't nearly as groovy as watching a handsome man fill the radiator of his old sports car.

  

Who are they truly marketing to? The man who is embarrassed about needing these pills, or the women on the receiving end of the medical miracle? 

Because if it is the women (and it often is, even if you think it's a "man's product" only,) then I'm gonna say it. Cialis, you don't get women at all. There's a reason we're ("we're") attracted to Roger Sterling even though we know he's a bastard. And no, it isn't  "ooh, bad boy mystique." It's because we dig power, different kinds of power, you understand, not just money or a name on an office door. 

It's kind of a grrr thing. It's 2011, we know it would suck to actually be married to a man like that. But we'll gladly fantasize about him, anyway.

Actually, I think Cialis is advertising to wives, while Viagra is advertising to men on the loose, or men who like to think of themselves that way even if they aren't. You know. 

They're defining "romance" differently, is all. Men may not think of romance in as definitive terms as many women do, or the same terms, but we all crave it from time to time. Now, my idea of romance cannot be expressed by an image of people sitting side by side in matching bathtubs in the woods. And I truly don't grasp the oranges, unless you tell me it's French or Italian, and the movie is in black and white, with no sound except a flock of birds screaming in the distance…no, I mean, that isn't romantic to me. It isn't sexy. It's just goofy. 

I can't find that oranges ad online. And I highly suggest you not search for it unless you're made of stern stuff. But here's an equally stupid one. 

 

I'm just musing here. They're two different kinds of foreplay. In the Viagra ones, the music, the scenery, and the speech are intended to show nerves on edge. In the Cialis ones, it's the equivalent of a wife texting her husband and threateningteasing him by saying she's bought a new nightgown to wear tonight and it's see-through. You know, kinky. (Here is where you giggle.)

I dunno. It's like the difference between him looking into your eyes and saying "I haven't tasted enough and neither have you," or leaning in to whisper in your ear, "Did you go?" before nodding off to sleep. And I know which one I'd prefer. 

Comments