So a commercial comes on for a male enhancement pill (I’ve already forgotten the name). They keep stressing that it’s not to increase potency, like that other product: it “actually makes That Part of the Male Anatomy bigger.”
They said this numerous times, also insisting that “It actually works!” I love how they acknowledge that it sounds impossible, but what could they base that claim on and not get done for false advertising?
I noticed they didn’t project the growth, the way weight-loss products are claimed to let you lose “up to” 100 pounds, so that leaves a lot of room for creative interpretation. Do they increase, or decrease, I dunno, the elasticity of the skin so that it looks bigger when erect? Might there be a disclaimer about “Not/Only if you’re circumcised”? How do they spin this so that there’s some kind of perceptible change that stays within the letter of the guarantee?
Also, the playlet was ridiculous. Goodlooking guy tells cute girl he’s ordered a male enhancement product. She thinks he means a bodybuilding supplement, and tweaks his arm. He clutches his coffee cup and says, grinning impishly, “No, it’s for That Part of the Male Anatomy!” She gasps in delight and says, “You’re kidding! Does that really work?”
All I can figure is, he’s supposed to be gay. Because I can’t see a straight guy telling his SO that, unless he had a medical problem she knew about. (And if her answer was not “But honey, you’re enough (or too much) for me right now!” she should not be an SO.) If she was a prospective SO, that’s not the best way to impress her. And if she’s a sister or friend, what the hey are they even doing discussing this? Unless he’s her Gay Pal.
I often wonder the same thing. I don’t have an answer though. I’m assuming that “It makes you bigger” means that it aids in causing an erection? Notice that the adds never say that the finished product is longer or bigger only that the product “makes you bigger”.
Going from flacid to even semi-flacid is an improvement for some guys.
If you’re bound and determined to analyze the ad for truth, look for the weasel words. Not so much what they say (though there’s probably something in that, too) but rather, the fine print at the bottom of approximately two or three frames of the most distracting part of the visuals. The stuff that usually says something like, “Wide World of Wang Ltd. cannot guarantee results. Your experience may vary. Discontinue use if you experience pain, trouble urinating, or possession by the spirit of John Holmes.”
In all probability, there are several things about this product that skirt the edges of false advertising:
There will be a disclaimer somewhere, however small, that basically says “It may or may not work, it really depends on the person.”
The pills will be purely herbal in nature, which means no FDA involvement, testing or regulation, which means they can basically claim any old damn thing as long as point 1 exists in some form.
If pressed, they could easily find some chunderhead who has used their products and will truly believe that it has made his winky bigger through the power of wishful thinking.
Basically, they get away with it because they can easily weasel out of having to prove their own claims by any more substantive methods than anecdotal testimony. That’s why we still have homeopathy.
They could always say - “Wait. You thought that ‘That Part of the Male Anatomy’ referred to the penis? Oh, sorry, no, you totally misunderstood us. We were talking about… um, let’s say prostate.”
They make a crap load of money. FTC gets on them two years later – maybe five years later. Company disappears…or signs something promising to stop… or holds out, gets sued and then stops selling after paying fines and being shut down (but re-emerges later as another company).
Either way, all the routes above are very profitable.
It doesn’t matter if it is for miracle rain gutters, hair regrowth products or enhancers for breasts or the penis. It ain’t a ‘drug’, so the FDA is out.
Mindfield, these are normally radio ads, if I’m following the OP properly. I’ve heard lots of these ads, but never have heard disclaimers. I’ll listen more closely next time.
yep-read the fine print: “This product has not been evaluated by the FDA. Not intended to diagnose or treat any disease or medical condition.”
So this crap is a “supplement”. Thank your Congress for this-they are telling you (in so many words):
“this crap is worthless. It may conatin poisons or other harful substances. We paid the Congress to keep this loophole open. Don’t try to sue us if you suffer injury from ingesting this stuff. Complain to Sen. Orrin hatch if you have a problem. Caveat Emptor”
Also, anyone who tries to file a claim against them is by implication, admitting to having an inadequately-sized penis, which might put a lot of people off taking legal action.
I thought Enzyte was a prescription drug for treating erectile dysfunction, in the same class as Viagra and Cialis. Coulda sworn Enzyte was an actual drug that went through proper FDA channels. Guess not :smack:
The radio ads aren’t for Enzyte, though … and the radio ads seem more insistent on their promises (as opposed to Enzyte TV ads, that rely on humorous innuendo).
My local cable company has pre-empted the Bob ads every time they come on anymore. I hear that bouncy music for half a second, then another commercial comes on and replaces it (usually the Comcast Slowskis who aren’t much better).
Enzyte’s wikipedia entry reveals that the manufacturer is under indictment right now for several types of fraud. ETA: What Duckster wrote above.
Jebus … never thought an operation that shady would purchase high-dollar network TV advertising during prime-time. Middle-of-the-night local cable TV advertising, perhaps. Big-budget television advertising during Monday Night Football, no. Talk about painting a target on one’s back.
I’m guessing this is the best answer. Somehow these outfits figure out how to advertise their snakeoil so it qualifies as a “supplement” under the law. This gives them a license to steal. Hatch is at the center of stopping regulation of suppliments and you can bet there’s some influence peddling behind it.
OY, can we have a few more facts and a little less editorializing in GQ, fer chrissakes? I’m not saying this product is any good, or legal, but let’s not paint with such a wide brush where it’s not warranted.
But the important part to answer this question is in the Nutritional Support Statements section of the regulation:
In short, having a smaller “part of the male anatomy” than you would like is not a disease. Therefore, this product does not diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease. This falls pretty squarely into the “well-being” category, which supplements are allowed to claim - HOWEVER, they still need to be *accurate *claims to be legal.
My guess is that either the application of the product (say, if it’s in a cream), temporarily increases the length or girth of the penis, or they’re simply banking on selling enough of the stuff before getting shut down to make a profit, but I don’t have a GQ worthy cite for that.
