Safer sex billboard versus fretful mother

AdFreak has a story about how a resident of Van Nuys, California, successfully lobbied to have a safer sex billboard in her community taken down from a public thoroughfare. 

The ad in question?

Via KTLA

According to local news outlet KTLA:

"Eve Ragsdale worried about having to explain the billboard to her 6-year-old triplets. 

... 

Ragsdale had contended that her children, who read now and ask questions about everything, were not developmentally ready to have the AIDS-condom relationship explained to them. 

'It's just an inappropriate image for all of the children in the neighborhood,' she said."

I am raising a young child in an urban environment, too. He's also a kid who is curious about everything, but he rarely asks awkward questions about the condoms we see on the sidewalk, or the streetwalkers we drive past. It's not that he doesn't notice. He just doesn't care much about those things at his age.

But as a 7-year-old obsessed with nature, he knows what sex is. (He surprised an after school caregiver last year by pointing out two "mating" squirrels.) If he asked me straight out what a condom was for, I'd tell him in an age-appropriate manner. Even though young ones don't yet have those feelings, it won't be long. My belief is that it's better to normalize condom use before the occasion... arises?

But, of course, other parents may have different views. My major concern here is a very important public health massage being stifled by an individual's feeling that it is not appropriate for the public media. And the media company, who decided to take the knee-jerk approach, gave in without so much as a second thought.

According to the LA Daily News:

"Van Wagner Outdoor Vice Chairman Bill Crabtree told the Daily News that the billboard would be changed on Wednesday or Thursday. 

'I told my operations manager to move it,' Crabtree said. 'We listened to (Ragsdale), we don't necessarily agree with her, but if it's offensive to her, the last thing we want to do is offend anyone.' 

'We don't put up (ads for) strip clubs, we don't put up anything that is lewd," Crabtree explained. "But the AIDS thing is educational, quite frankly. I know people might look at some of the designs askew, but they're trying to get their point across.' 

'We don't put up ads for strip clubs, we don't put up anything that is lewd,' Crabtree said."

 Ironically, as AdFreak's David Kiefaber points out, Van Nuys is literally The Porn Capital of The World. And a recent LA law requires all adult performers to wear condoms in their onscreen couplings.

But hey, Ms. Ragsdale. Heaven forbid you should have to explain that billboard to your children.

If I were the AHF, I would not take this lying down.

Condom brand boards the "slut pride" bandwagon

It's a great idea, really. From the incident that led to Slutwalk's creation to Rush Limbaugh's recent verbal incontinence, there has been a strong will to reclaim the "slut" label foe a generation of sex-positive feminists.

Sir Richard's Condom Company knew a good meme when they saw one. This is a prophylactic producer with a cause. For every condom sold in the first world, they donate one to a free clinic in developing countries, engaging local artists and activists to brand them in culturally relevant ways.

Now, Sir Richard's has wrapped itself in the slut pride movement, launching the campaign site "Sluts Unite":

Sure, it's a money making ploy as well. But I like it, myself. Cynical or sincere, I think the only way to improve sexual health and dignity for everyone is to engage in a more natural and unashamed sex-positive dialogue.

For Sir Richard's, the front line is social media. So they have created a wide variety of avatars for people to use in the fight to make "slut" less of a dirty word:

Sure, there are people who object to this. I get it. But change should be a little unsettling.

Tip via AdRants.

The Durex ad that I didn't need to see on World AIDS Day

Today is World AIDS Day. And while many great attempts have been made by social marketers to get people to practice safer sex, the sexual transmission of HIV continues at a worrying pace.

The biggest barrier is that fact that nobody really likes condom sex better than bare sex. "Shower in a raincoat," etc. It will always be seen as a sensory compromise, even if it can improve length of performance or allow a more relaxed response by offering peace of mind.

And even the condom manufacturers know it:

This ad was featured today in Photoshop Disasters, because of the badly altered hand, but I found the concept itself gave me pause.

So, apparently, did @sidgestion, who Tweeted another version of the ad with the comment, "you can leave her pleasantly puzzled - do I need to get an abortion?"

Indeed, the ad seems wrong on so many levels. That a woman would muse about whether her partner used a condom or not brings up all kinds of questions about sexual health, consent, and plain old respect in the bedroom. It implies that she really would rather you forwent the Jimmy cap and jumped in au naturel, no matter what she has said to the contrary. In some ways, this is as bad as "no means yes".

Yeah, yeah, I know. It's just a stupid ad. But in a world where some men would rather have their foreskins cut off than wear a condom, I don't think it's helping the cause any.