A conspicuously rancid ad reared its ugly head towards the end of 2010, apparently to dissuade men from drinking and driving. The ad is though so tasteless and crass that someone had to report it to the Advertising Standards Authority.
The advertisement starts out with “prisoners” summing up their proclivities and interests in what can be described as a televised dating service. The scene is expanded as the camera zooms out to include a deluge of scantily clad men, intently “dressed-down” to exploit prejudices and enforce fears. All of these “inmates” would love to meet you. One decidedly dressed-as-shady “prisoner” says in a husky voice at the end: “ek wag vi jou” [I am waiting for you]. The supposed intent of the advertisement is to dissuade men to drink and drive.
Aforementioned most ill conceived ad is replete and saturated with innuendo to the point that there seems consensus that it exploits male rape as a cheap scare tactic to supposedly prevent men from driving under the influence of alcohol.
Should female rape been used in a similar fashion it would have been summarily banned and international outrage would have ensued. Why these double standards?
Sans condoning any abusive behaviour, it is abhorrent that double standards exist in our society whereby men have been subjugated as faceless sufferers who enjoy no sympathy from the public and often endure slights to their own sexuality if they report rape. Many a times men do not report these crimes and prison authorities ignore it.
For decades activists fought to have male rape recognised as a serious crime. For centuries, men who were fundamentally violated saw a miscarriage of justice as assailants were only charged with “indecent assault”, a much lesser charge carrying a much lesser sentence. Only in 2007 with the promulgation of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act , [No. 32 of 2007], was the common law definition of rape scrapped and reformulated and expanded to include male rape.
Norman Reyneker’s claim  that “...research had shown that 88 percent of South Africans would be deterred from drunk-driving by the prospect of arrest and incarceration,” does not vindicate the abhorrent advertisement in any way. Is this not the crassest manifestation of heterosexism ever? Is the consequence of drunk driving rape? Is this constitutionally fair? I think not.
Reyneker states in the IOL  article: “The campaign is not about prison life. It is about the consequences of drunk-driving.” Should we infer that the consequence of drunk-driving is what is portrayed as the in-your-face innuendo (i.e. rape)?
Victim Empowerment South Africa  states eloquently: “The idea of prison is to rehabilitate those who have broken the law, not to inflict violence and abuse against them. Those in prison may have had their right of movement restricted, but they should not have their rights to dignity removed.
Nobody deserves rape. Prison rape is not acceptable. [Emphasis in original] Nor, is it funny or sickly romantic (as is presented in this advert).”
Toy Soldiers For the forgotten men and boys who suffer in silence states  that: “Thirdly, if the research shows that most South Africans would be deterred from driving while drunk by the prospect of arrest and incarceration, why is the ad campaign not about that? In Illinois there are several drunk driving ads featuring drivers (all men, because apparently women never drink and drive) with their cars filled with alcohol. The ads end with the drivers getting pulled over and arrested, with the disclaimer that if you drink and drive you will go to jail.” It is extremely painful to have foreigners point out the self-reinforcing nature of our violent society.
A spokesperson from the ASA as quoted in the IOL article states that one should see the ad in question in context . Is the corrective services inextricably and inexplicably linked to sexual abuse? Should it be seen in this way? Does “context” justify the use of abuse tactics?