AIDS: Approaches and Funding

[Nerdanel]

Originally posted by Radagast
Who's Jessica Simpson?

I wish I could ask that too..

[Rían]

She's some type of celebrity in America - I'm not even sure why she's famous. Maybe she was on one of those reality shows or something.

[Nerdanel]

I think she's supposed to be a singer.. but she's more known for the 'show' Newly Weds.

btw, what had this to do with aids?

[Janny]

Yes, I wanted to revive this thread just to comment on a German ad campaign I became aware of on holiday. It has thoroughly changed my view of the arguement.

The series of billboard adverts formed the 'Mach's mit' campaign. I don't know if there were adverts in other media, I did not watch TV there for example.

The billboards used topics such as sport and music get the message across. A condom replaced a football in an image and the top of a microphone in another. Many also formed the image of a gummi bear (a pun in German as gummi means rubber [the matieral, not rubber as in US English]).
Besides a slogan for each individual poster, there were the words 'Mach's mit'* and the slogan 'Gib Aids keine Chance'**

I was disturbed by the tone of these, which seemed equally to promote actually having sex and using a condom, which, when confronted with the actual campaign, seems greatly flawed. It struck me as an advert for having sex with a condom more than an advert for using condoms, if the distinction is clear.
Anyway, as a result of this, I believe that abstinance must be taught, as telling people to usea condom cannot be achieved without advocating intercourse.

Mach's mit

*The translation of meaning would be 'use one', but the phrase actually includes the phrase 'Do it' (Mach es)
** 'Don't give Aids a chance', but this has the keine / eine (no/a) inclarity.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Janny

I was disturbed by the tone of these, which seemed equally to promote actually having sex and using a condom, which, when confronted with the actual campaign, seems greatly flawed. It struck me as an advert for having sex with a condom more than an advert for using condoms, if the distinction is clear. Anyway, as a result of this, I believe that abstinance must be taught, as telling people to usea condom cannot be achieved without advocating intercourse.

i remember my teen years, and i honestly don't think i needed any 'advertising' to inspire me to want to have sex... it's a pretty primal instinct... especially among males

if you say 'you should only teach abstinance' you are leaving out the 60, 70 or 80 percent who decide to have sex anyway... the small, or even large, amount of people who might be inspired to have sex due to condom ads is a worthy trade-off considering the alternative... aids and unwanted pregnancy due to unsafe sex... one cannot hide their head in the sand when it comes to something that important

i think the goal of the ad campaign you mention was more to make condoms 'cool'... this was an issue when i was growing up, just before aids hit the radar (80s)... condoms were not considered 'cool' for reasons i won't go into... and most males tried to avoid them at all costs... sure, pregnancy was always a risk, but male teen's are not the most consequence-oriented thinkers on the planet

simply put, if you leave birth control out of the discussion, it will be used even less than it is today... much, much less

[Janny]

Well, posters such as the gummi bear would appear to appeal to little kids more than teenagers, a group being told to use a condom even before they know what sex is. In my book that's indoctrination.

I would much prefer condoms to be taught in the context of something you do when you choose to have sex if compatable with believe etc etc, rather than in the sense of urgency.
To say children will have sex because they want to, does not justify telling them that it's okay and ultimately further forcing them into it.

Btw, how is it believed that AIDs originated?

[BeardofPants]

The pandemic that is aids is a global problem, that, if we want to see it defeated, needs to be approached with an educated mind-set. If 70-80% of people are going to have sex, they need to make sure that it is SAFE sex. If you want to call that indoctrination, then by all means, stay under that rock and watch humanity embrace being an aids-ridden culture. I think that ad is a step in the right direction. People need to be made more aware of the dangers of contracting aids through unprotected sex, and ads, especially clever ones, could be one way of passing the message along.

[Nerdanel]

i agree, bop.

and i got 12 of 12 right on the quiz!

[Janny]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

The pandemic that is aids is a global problem, that, if we want to see it defeated, needs to be approached with an educated mind-set. If 70-80% of people are going to have sex, they need to make sure that it is SAFE sex. If you want to call that indoctrination, then by all means, stay under that rock and watch humanity embrace being an aids-ridden culture. I think that ad is a step in the right direction. People need to be made more aware of the dangers of contracting aids through unprotected sex, and ads, especially clever ones, could be one way of passing the message along.

I call adverts which promote sex primarily and condoms secondarily as indoctrination. And foolish as telling people to have sex will not help when the pandemic is sexually transmitted.

Originally Posted by Me

Btw, how is it believed that AIDs originated?

[The Gaffer]

How can you promote condoms without mentioning sex? Or, more importantly, how can you effectively promote a positive image of using condoms without giving a positive image of sex?

If you're really worried about the promotion of sex, why not start with the millions of totally unrelated products which are routinely advertised using sexual imagery?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Janny

Btw, how is it believed that AIDs originated?

here's a decent summation of the theories on the origin of AIDS origins

[Janny]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

How can you promote condoms without mentioning sex? Or, more importantly, how can you effectively promote a positive image of using condoms without giving a positive image of sex?

If you're really worried about the promotion of sex, why not start with the millions of totally unrelated products which are routinely advertised using sexual imagery?

There si a clear distinction between using pretty women in adverts and telling people to 'do it'.

[Janny]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

here's a decent summation of the theories on the origin of AIDS origins

Thanks brownjenkins. Most useful.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Janny

There si a clear distinction between using pretty women in adverts and telling people to 'do it'.

Yes, at least telling people to "do it" is honest.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

If 70-80% of people are going to have sex, they need to make sure that it is SAFE sex.

saf-ER sex, that is. The little buggers that cause the problems can get thru condoms. They're bigger than sperm (the other little buggers that can cause problems! ) I think using the term "safe sex" is misleading and harmful and wrong. It should be "safer sex", or something like that.

[BeardofPants]

Well, it's not exactly misleading, since they* say to use both condoms and spermicides, and birth control pills. :shrug: You're supposed to use multiple birth control mechanims. But I do take your point, however, as compared to using null birth-control/STD products, it *is* safe sex. ::shrug::

*Family Planning agencies

[Rían]

No, I"m not talking about "safe" in the sense of not getting pregnant; I'm talking about "safe" in the sense of not getting sexually transmitted diseases. I think calling using a condom "safe sex" in the sense of "hey, if you use a condom you WILL NOT get a sexually transmitted disease!" (which is strongly implied in the word "safe") is really misleading and wrong and hurtful.

(BTW, did you see my question on hairy bodies in the animal rights thread?)

EDIT - you did! Let me whisk back over there and read it

[The Gaffer]

I heartily disagree

There are no guarantees in life. However, all the evidence shows that condoms are very effective at preventing the transmission of STDs.

Here's what the US Center for Disease Control has to say on the matter:

When condoms are used reliably, they have been shown to prevent pregnancy up to 98 percent of the time among couples using them as their only method of contraception. Similarly, numerous studies among sexually active people have demonstrated that a properly used latex condom provides a high degree of protection against a variety of sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV infection.

To undermine the message that condoms provide protection against STDs is potentially disastrous. It's difficult enough to persuage teenagers to use them without people going around saying that they don't work.

I think we've agreed that abstinence is the only guaranteed protection (although that might depend on what counts as abstinence). However, given that lots of kids are going to do it anyway, we really need to get behind all the messages that are going to protect them.

To say that you can still get an STD even is you use a condom is like saying that you might still get lung cancer even if you don't smoke. Technically, it's true, but is it good advice?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I think we've agreed that abstinence is the only guaranteed protection (although that might depend on what counts as abstinence). However, given that lots of kids are going to do it anyway, we really need to get behind all the messages that are going to protect them.

To say that you can still get an STD even is you use a condom is like saying that you might still get lung cancer even if you don't smoke. Technically, it's true, but is it good advice?

good point!

from my experience most people will latch on to the smallest excuse possible to refrain from something they do not want to do or believe in

[Rían]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I heartily disagree

To undermine the message that condoms provide protection against STDs is potentially disastrous.

I heartily disagree

I think the truth (spoken in love) is always the right course in these types of things. Yes, condoms provide protection against STDs. and yes, it is NOT complete protection. Don't you think it's only fair to inform people of the truth? And the truth is that it's "SAFER" sex, not "safe" sex, to use condoms.

Telling a girl who has contracted an STD (even tho a condom was used) that has robbed her of her ability to EVER have a child, "well, it isn't really safe sex to use a condom, you know - just safer - but we thought you were too stupid to act on the actual truth, so we kept it from you" is pretty poor comfort, IMO. I would be furious if I were in her situation.

However, given that lots of kids are going to do it anyway ...

And maybe some would NOT "do it anyway" if they were told the TRUTH.

And maybe they would do it anyway if they WERE told the truth, but at least they were not deceived, and can only blame themselves for their own actions, based on knowing the truth.

BTW, this is a perfect example of something I see (usually on the more liberal side, IMO) that really disturbs me - the people in control (typically with an agenda) keeping truth from the masses that they apparently consider too stupid to make an informed decision when given the whole truth. There's a lot of this going on in the abortion industry, too ("oh, it's just a quick little trip to a clinic, then your problems are all over!" - NOT!)

Let's inform people of the truth and let them choose!