******************** THIS BLOG HAS MOVED TO WWW.LEGALINSURRECTION.COM ********************

This blog is moving to www.legalinsurrection.com. If you have not been automatically redirected please click on the link.

NEW COMMENTS will NOT be put through and will NOT be transferred to the new website.

Wednesday, May 25, 2011

Pampers Rorschach Test

What messages -- intended by Pampers or not -- do you see in this commercial?

(h/t @TomBevanRCP)

Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube

Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!

Bookmark and Share


  1. What a wonderful commercial (and yes, I get what you're saying). It's the kind of commercial that will make me smile all day. Thanks!

  2. *giggles* Poopie face at the end! *goofy mom-grin* Aaaaw....

    True, I'm a PERFECT target for this ad right now, being pregnant and sleep deprived at the moment....

    I don't think they MEANT for it to be pro-life, but it's hard for diapers to not be pro-baby.

    The IVF image thing was creepy, but that's probably because I'm familiar with the issues involved with IVF...I'm think the image they used was of genetic testing, or maybe prepping an ovum for cloning. (Step one: scrape out contents.)

  3. (Incidentally, I'm a rather big fan of the tag line. Too true.)

  4. Heh. You can bet that Planned Parenthood already sent a very nasty letter to P&G about that ad.

  5. I am offended that they are implying that I need diapers! oh, wait....

  6. Let me count the ways! I posted this video on my FB page, with your question. Thanks for sharing.

    Life is beautiful.

    "Choose life, that you might live...." Deuteronomy 30:19

  7. I really love the part where the baby comes from a mother AND father who courted, dated, got engaged, married, saved their money, bought a home and then, knowing this baby would be truly their own and not the taxpayers, conceived him. Seeing that bundle of joy enter the world was really a testimonial to our American way of life.

    Oh, you mean THIS commercial?

  8. I guess Pampers did a study that showed most parents are pro-life. :) They take a position in mommy wars by endorsing home birth.

  9. Ummm, when did owning a house become a necessary step to parenthood? I've raised 11 kids and have yet to purchase a home.

    And yeah, let's disparage anyone who doesn't meet our middle-class test and tell them they are categorically bad parents. Poor people and 17-year-olds are not suitable for parenthood after all. That will put a crimp in the abortion rate....

    And you wonder why people call conservatives hypocritical.

  10. Danby, you might have had a point but for

    "17-year-olds are not suitable for parenthood after all"

    In our society, that's basically true.

    And what does it have to do with abortion?

  11. Understandable that Pampers would not be concerned about an inevitable boycott from the boycott-happy people WITHOUT BABIES who would find this objectionable... but they may have underestimated the number of such adults who require diapers and pacifiers themselves.

  12. I watched it over and over again until it came to me clearly that P&G was subtly urging those involved in the debt ceiling debate to at least consider that the practical application of the Ricardian equivalence theorem in light of the present (and continuing) monetary contraction may not have the dire consequences that we all fear, and that we need to stop ignoring this particular elephant in the room and deal with it.

    Either that, or "poop can be fun" (which, as it turns out, is just a simpler way of expressing the first idea.)

  13. "And yeah, let's disparage anyone who doesn't meet our middle-class test and tell them they are categorically bad parents. Poor people and 17-year-olds are not suitable for parenthood after all."
    - - -

    The two-parent, sufficient-income-to-feed-everyone, mature-enough-to-deal-with-life model of parenthood didn't become the ideal simply so we suburban types would have someone to make fun of.

    It became the ideal because kids born into such situations tend to - note that I say TEND TO - have better lives than those born to poor people who cannot feed themselves much less dependent kids, or to fourteen-year-old gumchewers who couldn't afford to buy a pet that would love them and so instead had a pet baby.

    Yes, one situation tends to be better for the kids than the others. Are we issuing a blanket condemnation of all people involved in such "other" situations? No. Blanket condemnations are more in your bailiwick.

    It may hurt the feelings of fourteen-year-old moms to hear this. That is not sufficient reason to pretend that each situation is as good as any other situation.

  14. Quote "And you wonder why people call conservatives hypocritical."

    Just because you heard a big word on MSNBC doesn't mean you should try using it in a sentence without looking it up in a dictionary first.

    What does genius think happens to the abortion rate when you act approving of promiscuity out of wedlock? If irresponsible parenting is touted as a fabulous lifestyle... do you think more or less people are going to have irresponsible sexual relationships? And more or fewer irresponsible relationships will lead to more or fewer irresponsible family decisions?

    In what bizzaro world does encouraging a culture of irresponsibility on one area discourage irresponsibility in a closely related area?