Censored and Silenced: The Hidden Cost of Advertising’s War on Women’s Health
When we talk about censorship in advertising, we’re really talking about power—who gets to be heard, who gets funded, and whose health gets prioritized.
And right now, women are losing on all three fronts.
Women’s sexual health products face endless barriers online. Ads get flagged for being “too suggestive.” Words like “vagina,” “clitoris,” or even “pleasure” can trigger rejection. Brands are forced to water down their language or play the euphemism game just to stay visible. And if they can't advertise clearly, they can’t grow.
Meanwhile, men’s sexual health products are advertised freely, often with direct language, benefit-driven claims, and playful innuendo.
This isn’t just a policy issue. It’s a systemic one—with real consequences for women’s health, funding, innovation, and freedom of expression.
Women’s Health Ads: Welcome to the Euphemism Olympics
Most women’s sexual health brands can’t speak clearly about what they do. Not because they’re shy, but because if they say the wrong word—like “sex,” “clitoris,” or “moisturizer for vulvas”—their ad might get flagged, rejected, or quietly buried by the algorithm. So they’re forced to play it safe. They swap in euphemisms like “self-care,” “V,” or “intimate wellness,” hoping the robots won’t notice.
This isn’t just a creative challenge. It’s a systemic one. And it sends a clear message: women’s bodies are inappropriate. Too explicit. Better discussed in whispers.
Meanwhile, ads for men’s sexual health run freely. Erectile dysfunction pills? Go for it. Performance boosters? Approved. Winking innuendo? Totally fine.
Reinforcing Shame and Stigma
These policies—and the way they’re enforced—don’t just restrict advertising. They reinforce cultural shame.
When platforms block or suppress women’s health content for being “too suggestive,” they’re saying this information is inappropriate. That women’s pleasure is taboo. That our bodies are something to be hidden, sanitized, or made palatable for the feed.
And when brands are forced to censor themselves to stay live, it teaches algorithms—and audiences—that women’s health is dirty or embarrassing. That pleasure is shameful. That accuracy is offensive.
Algorithmic Policing of Women's Bodies
On an episode of The Indicator from Planet Money this week, I was clear about my outrage at the double standard women's health brands face. So the producers asked Meta, TikTok, and Google how they handle ads related to women’s health and pleasure. The answers were telling:
TikTok bans sex toys and “the enhancement of sexual pleasure.” Even condoms and lubricants must not focus on pleasure or be “overtly sexual in nature.”
Meta says it welcomes sexual health content—but not if it includes “sexualized content,” “adult sexual activity,” or focuses on “sexual pleasure.”
Google says it allows a “wide range” of women’s health ads, but "there are some restrictions...depending on the content of the ad."
And most of these decisions? They’re made by machines. Not humans. Machines that weren’t built to understand context or cultural nuance because they weren’t designed through a female lens. When the people creating these tools don't reflect the people they're meant to serve, the result is a skewed system that defaults to exclusion. So when these robots that were never meant to serve us scan for what’s ‘unsafe,’ they often mistake honesty for obscenity and education for risk.
On paper, the policies sound reasonable. In practice, they’re vague and inconsistently enforced. What counts as “suggestive?” What’s “overt?” What’s “too much?” Are those definitions for women and men different? It seems so.
And when your content gets flagged, good luck finding a human who can explain why—let alone fix it. The result is a system that over-censors the very content meant to educate, empower, and support women.
Even worse? That bias gets baked into the algorithm. We’re not just fighting outdated rules—we’re training AI to think women’s health is inappropriate.
Why Euphemisms Hurt Us
When brands can’t use direct, clear language, the result isn’t just awkward. It’s damaging.
Using euphemisms like “down there” or “V-care” to describe basic health functions reinforces the idea that women’s bodies are shameful or should be whispered about. It makes it harder for women to access accurate information, and teaches a new generation to be embarrassed by normal, healthy experiences.
This is about more than words. It’s about what we’re allowed to say, who gets to say it, and what happens when those stories are silenced.
The Real-World Consequences
Reinforcement of Harmful Notions
Male pleasure is treated as normal—even essential. Female pleasure is treated as dangerous or indecent. That imbalance is baked into the policies, and it affects how we talk about sex, health, and bodies.
Silencing and Self-Censorship
Marketers in the women’s health space are constantly editing themselves—rewriting captions, avoiding key terms, or deleting posts altogether. The goal? Stay live. Stay compliant. The result? Be quiet. Be invisible.
A Roadblock to Growth and Innovation
If a brand can’t advertise clearly, it can’t drive sales. If it can’t drive sales, it can’t attract funding. Without funding, it can’t innovate and create real advances to real issues women encounter in their real lives.
That’s one reason why only 2.3% of venture capital funding in healthcare goes to women’s health. These products are treated as niche or risky. Not because the demand isn’t there, but because the platforms make it hard to prove it.
This Isn’t Just Censorship. It’s a Systemic Barrier.
When we talk about censorship in advertising, we’re really talking about power—who gets to be heard, who gets funded, and whose health gets prioritized.
Women’s health isn’t offensive. Pleasure isn’t dangerous. Accurate language isn’t obscene. But when platforms force women’s health brands to tiptoe around the truth, we all lose. We lose information. We lose access. We lose progress.
This double standard doesn’t just shape what’s allowed on screen—it shapes what’s possible off-screen.
And if we keep letting algorithms decide what’s appropriate, we’ll keep teaching the world that women’s health is something to be ashamed of. It’s not. It’s essential. And it deserves to be seen.
If you’ve experienced this kind of censorship—or are trying to build a brand in this space—I’d love to hear from you.
