Safe sex messages geared towards young people can be a hard-sell (no pun intended). Maybe it’s because teen sexuality is still incredibly enough a taboo topic, so efforts to create meaningful and effective public health materials reflect a lack of comfort rather than marketing genius? Whatever the case, it seems to me that a successful marketing campaign that deals with HIV and is geared towards young people is a rare occurrence indeed.
Take for example the posters I’ve been seeing around Toronto lately.
Poster by ‘One Life’HIV safety awareness campaign.
These posters and the associated messages bother me.
The posters are linked to a website called the One Life Resource Centre and are aimed at gay and straight young people. Judging by the age of the models I’d put ‘young’ at between 19 - 30. This demographic apparently doesn’t know the first thing about safer sex, although that may be an exaggeration.
There are a couple of things about this campaign that make me uncomfortable. The sheer ‘sexiness’ of the models is kinda silly. I mean, sure it’s nice to look at hot people embracing but if the point is to spread a message that everyone is at risk for HIV then pick an ‘everyone’ kind of couple. The multiple arm thing could have worked even if the couple in question were two average-looking young people, making out in a TV room in Scarborough. They don’t have to look like they just stripped in the change room of Abercrombie and Fitch.
Furthermore, though it can be claimed that it is statistically more likely that you will be infected with HIV from a guy, the fact is that girls also transmit the virus.
Based on this campaign you would never know that. More to the point, I suspect that the reason there is no discussion of “her past” is that advertisers, (and, make no mistake, public health campaigns like this one are a form of advertising) are still uncomfortable with the idea that girls might have multiple partners, might choose to sleep around for a while. Young women who have a past are pejoratively labelled ‘sluts’ because there is still a bigger taboo against young women exploring their sexuality then there is against young men doing the exact same thing.
Don’t even get me started on the fact that there are no lesbians pictured at all.
Finally having completed the “are you at risk?” quiz I can safely say the ‘health science’ behind this campaign seems to be more about fear and intimidation than education: For example, questions like:
“Have you had sex with people from a country other than Canada?”
Suggests that foreign birth more then sexual practice puts you at risk of HIV, which is just plain silly.
For the record, after filling out the quiz honestly I was informed that,
“Based on your answers you are at risk of contracting the HIV virus.”
I was not given any feedback about which of the behaviors I discussed in the quiz had put me at risk, nor was I given any useful information about how I could deal with the apparent possibility that I have contracted HIV.
A possibility, which is in fact an impossibility since even though I answered “yes” to the questions: “Have I had unprotected sex?” “Have I had sex with someone who had an STI?” “Have I had sex while intoxicated?” and: “Have I had sex with someone born outside of Canada?” (Hey, I am 32 - all these things happen) the quiz did not bother to ask me whether the person I had unprotected sex with was HIV positive (they were not, we had been tested previously) or whether I had used a condom during any of these ‘risky’ encounters - I had.
So the quiz is designed to strike fear into the hearts of uninformed or vulnerable populations, without helping them learn to make better choices. And to those of us who do know what constitutes sexual health and safety, it’s pretty much a joke.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Since I don’t like to totally slam a youth-focused initiative without making some positive recommendations, here is what I would suggest the developers of One Life do to improve the take away from their campaign.
The Sense Project is one of the best youth sexual health programs in Canada, working with them on various media projects I learned some important ground rules for talking with young people about making healthy choices around sex and sexuality.
Some of the basics:
_ Respect the choices and decisions young people make. Don’t try to convince them their desires are bad or wrong; try to understand where they are coming from and validate their experiences.
_ Don’t fearmonger, it creates a climate of panic and judgment which means that people will not feel safe asking questions or getting the referrals they need.
_ Don’t make assumptions around people’s gender, sexuality or sexual proclivities. If you only address a straight audience then those are the only people you will hear from. (In the case of this campaign, it’s addressed to an audience of straight and gay youth. Leaving out lesbians, bisexuals, transgendered and transsexual youth, and any youth who have non-normative bodies. The list of young people who are not addressed in this campaign is pretty long.)
_ Don’t assume that just because you believe something is the ‘right’ choice, it will be the right choice for everyone.
In light of those basics, I just can’t get behind the One Life Campaign, no matter how important the message may be.






Digg
13 comments
To be fair, lesbians are at extremely low risk for sexual transmission of HIV - I believe that woman-to-woman sexual transmission of the virus has never been recorded, though of course lesbians are at risk via other means such as sharing needles.
It is worrying that they think women shouldn't be considered to be risk-takers, though. :/
Posted by Thene
July 10, 2009, 4:27 PM
This is true, but it irritates me that in public, non-alternative dialogues about safer sex lesbians just aren't as visible.
It would have been nice if at least the hetero poster could have said 'she' and had a wackload of lady hands all over the back of a dude.
Or perhaps that would seem too sexy, whereas a bunch of man-hands just looks threatening.
Hmm... interesting, I hadn't even considered it from that angle. See how I think on my feet ;)
Posted by Mir
July 10, 2009, 6:28 PM
"girls might have multiple partners, might choose to sleep around for a while."
"For a while"? Not "always," or simply "sleep around"? Sounds like they're sleeping around for now, but will eventually settle down in a monogamous relationship.
Posted by Jelly
July 10, 2009, 7:29 PM
Hey Jelly,
That was not what I intended with that sentence, it was not a prescription just a description.
Posted by Mir
July 10, 2009, 9:56 PM
I am at risk for HIV because I answered yes to the question "Have you ever had piercings or tattoos?"
My ears were pierced more than 12 years ago.
Dangerous, dangerous website.
Posted by Elle
July 12, 2009, 3:12 PM
It's funny, I was looking more closely at the print version of the ad the other day, and realized that in the 'hetero' version the woman is actually being embraced by a pair of mens hands, and then a whole bunch of ladies hands,(I suppose indicating the man's sexual past as being entirely heterosexual).
In any case visually, it throws a bit of a queer spin on the whole thing -- but perhaps not in a way the campaign designers intended. I mean it looks like if you took it in a different direction that the girl on top is a voracious bisexual. Which I realize is not what is intended. But it kinna made me snicker.
Posted by mir
July 12, 2009, 3:29 PM
This is so important, since the ads are all over. I agree with what's been said about the implicit sexual message to women. Also, why do advertisements speak only to the female half of the hetero relationship? Are girls STILL the only ones who are expected to be responsible? Forgive me for dreaming that an ad should suggest there's any hope of getting all those little sex-crazed men the media loves to create to percolate on the potential risks in their behavior.
Posted by Myra
July 12, 2009, 9:37 PM
Academic and activist Vivian Namaste just won a human rights award for her work understanding the HIV/AIDS education needs of trans and bi people, and sex workers:
http://www.xtra.ca/public/National/Tr...
It's a cool article, and good to know other people are out there thinking about who gets erased or left out of these "public education" campaigns.
Posted by Anna
July 14, 2009, 11:37 AM
This survey says that I'm at risk for HIV.
I'm fourteen, and have only had sex with one person.
This bothers me. I'm far from contracting HIV, considering my boyfriend was a virgin before me,
and I live a pretty rated G life.
I guess anyone COULD contract HIV...
I mean maybe if I was suddenly raped, or forced to inject drugs, which I doubt will happen any time soon.
Posted by Sarah
July 14, 2009, 12:09 PM
I just took the quiz and as an experiment answered "no" to all the questions, and was still told that I'm at risk to contract HIV. I guess the point they're trying to make is that everyone is potentially at risk, and to point out various risk-factors that you might not have thought of (some of which are misleading or at best confusing, like having sex with someone from a country besides Canada). I suppose it's ethically (and legally) questionable for a website to tell someone they're perfectly safe, but as Mir pointed out it does seem a bit fear-mongerish. I definitely prefer The Sense Project's "safer sex is fun and hot!" approach.
Also, can someone please tell them that being forced into sex (i.e. rape) doesn't constitute risky "behaviour"?
Posted by Anna
July 14, 2009, 12:45 PM
Wow. yeah I hadn't really considered the bias of that question. That's just plain offensive.
Posted by Miriam
July 14, 2009, 1:55 PM
A majority of the questions are offensive. And I think the reason why, when you answer no to every question, you are told you are at risk is that a Canadian HIV vaccine ready for human tests, and this site is put out by a pharmaceutical company (Bristol Myers-Squibb Canada Co.)
If big pharma makes every person feel they are at risk, every person will purchase the vaccine, no? This isn't a public service announcement - in my eyes, it's a marketing campaign.
Posted by Stacey May
July 14, 2009, 4:41 PM
Ugh, I couldn't agree more.
On this topic, did anyone at Shameless ever cover the heinously offensive Gardasil pamphlets that were circulating around clinics about a year ago? They were square-shaped and had a blushy naked-looking woman on the front with perfectly tousled brown hair?
Anyway, said pamphlet depicted only het couples and described genital warts as "ugly [and] embarrassing". Awesome! Let's make everyone living with HPV outbreaks feel like shit about their bodies!
Posted by clara bee
July 17, 2009, 8:55 PM
Leave a comment
This blog post is older than 90 days old. All comments submitted regarding this post will be automatically held for review by the editors before posting. Your comment will not appear on the site until it has been approved.
Our comment policy
Shameless prides itself on the diversity of opinions expressed by our writers, and we encourage and appreciate different points of view. Our intention at Shameless is to foster community and to maintain a safe and positive blogging environment; we do not consider it our duty to give a voice to anybody with an opinion.
Discussion on this site is moderated. We will delete comments that:
(We get to decide what's discriminatory, hateful, attacking, or inflammatory).
In some cases, we will cap off comments on a discussion when we feel they are spiralling out of control and fostering an unwelcoming space for bloggers and readers. Comments will be closed by the Web Editor, unless the post is by the Web Editor, in which case the Editor in Chief will close them.
If your comments repeatedly make the same point, they may be deleted. This also applies to comments made by multiple members of the same organization.
Your comments should be about the topic of the post, not its writer—although we certainly encourage praise for our writers, if you want to say something nice.