The ad ran throughout the month of December in gay press and publicly in the Marais, Paris's gayborhood. It was accompanied by this TV spot:

The BVP's statement, which has no problem with the TV ad, says that the print version "very crudely represents two nude male characters engaged in a sexual act" and has put into place an "after-diffusion intervention procedure."

The Inpes decided to do the entire campaign's run anyway, but ACT-UP Paris called the victory "temporary" in which "nothing was gained."

But more shocking than the BVP's lack of concern for HIV infection rates (the statement was released along-side another one about a gay/lesbian Dolce & Gabbana ad and makes no mention of the fact that the goals of the two are different) is this statement (emphasis theirs):

It is certainly difficult to decide on subject where two deontological principles of equal legitimacy find themselves in contradiction: on one side, the principle of protecting children, following the previously-mentioned logic from parents who wrote us and, on the other, the principle of nondiscrimination towards minorities.

Because this ad is going to damage children's fragile psyches just as much as HIV has hurt gay men.

Mm-hmm.

(And, frankly, if you saw some of the other billboards that go up around here, this isn't uniquely "hyper-sexual." I had to email Bil and ask him if it was OK to post it on this American blog because I've become so desensitized to naked and sexy advertising.)

ACT-UP Paris is calling the BVP on this, saying that the ad doesn't present "even one ounce of a private part" (evidently the French measure cock-shots in the English system). From them:

ACT-UP Paris denounces homophobia in media watchdog groups. The criminal irresponsibility of these bodies proves more than a displaced prudishness; it shows a rare incompetence by putting commercial ads and HIV prevention messages on the same footing. Twenty-five years after the start of the epidemic in France, we are no longer satisfied with heteronormative prevention messages and impressive insipidness.

All I know is that the ad got the message across to me that even in the sexiest of sex, the threat of the virus is still present. I also appreciate the fact that both the TV and print versions were ethnically inclusive.

And, well, I know it caught my attention. When I was on the phone with him the other night, R. asked me a couple of times if I was "still looking at that ad." To which I responded that I was just getting educated.

Sheesh!

You can't blame a boy for trying to learn something.