MANILA, Philippines--THE CURRENT BROUHAHA RAISED OVER THE radio-TV ads for condoms strikes me as the reproductive health version of the ?gays in movie houses? stories that reporters resort to on a slow news day.
You know the drill. A police TV reporter with no hot story in sight decides to join a police team in raiding a theater which caters to a largely male clientele. Expectedly, the raid produces sensational, titillating footage of men caught in the glare of camera lights, like roadkill before the moment of impact. Sometimes, the crew might even be lucky enough to catch some of the men scampering out of the theater and seeking shelter in the filthy restrooms. If they?re really lucky, they might be able to get some penitent aging fairy, or teenage boy, to tearfully confess to indiscretions in the dark of the theater.
Everyone knows the real aim of such raids is extortion, but the police and the reporter always couch the story in terms of morality or public order. Which they also do in stories about raids on bars, motels or houses of prostitution, with the added thrill of some unseen hand trying to yank the bed sheets and other coverings that the women use as they?re fleeing from the unrelenting glare of obtrusive cameras.
Not surprisingly, none of these hot stories has led to the closure of the decrepit theaters or the curbing of whatever goes on inside them. The same holds true for the sex industry. All that moralistic coverage has done little to make our women less vulnerable to sexual exploitation. Indeed, even more women are being victimized by traffickers, since the intermittent raids are seen for what they are: publicity gimmicks, and not honest-to-goodness attempts to rescue the women and girls from the trade.
* * *
MY initial reaction to the publicized demands for government to regulate the airing of radio-TV ads promoting condom use was a weary ?here we go again.? Even the reasons cited were old hat: how condom promotion supposedly encourages premarital sex among young people; how condoms abet promiscuity; and even that the condom is an ?abortifacient,? or something that leads to the termination of a pregnancy. It?s rather difficult, though, to trace the logic arch that leads from condom use (that prevents a pregnancy) to abortion. (How do you terminate a non-existent pregnancy?)
A congressman from Marikina, Marcelino Teodoro, was quoted as saying that condom commercials ?would only heighten the practice of pre-marital sex among the youth.? The ads, he added, ?are designed to ignite pre-marital sex with the use of their young and hip models, and in turn, increase the manufacturer?s profits.?
In the first place, you don?t need radio-TV commercials about condoms to ?ignite? a young person?s curiosity about or eagerness for sex. Hormones initiate the process, but so do contemporary values, adult guidance, self-discipline (or lack of it) and opportunity. And if the use of ?young and hip models? turn on young people to sex, then Representative Teodoro should seek to censure as well ads for shampoo, jeans, soft drinks and toothpaste.
And in an effort to put the condom manufacturers? motives to doubt, Teodoro imputes that all they seek is ?increased profits.? Well, if it?s right for shampoo, jeans, soft drinks and toothpaste manufacturers to make a profit, why can?t condom makers? Would these ads be all right if the marketer was losing money?
* * *
DKT, which markets ?Trust? and ?Duralex? condoms, reportedly the biggest-selling condom brands in the country, and a pioneer in social marketing of reproductive health products around the world, recently issued an official statement in the wake of the renewed campaign against condoms.
Among the reasons for engaging in the promotion of condom use, DKT said, is to address ?the prevention of unplanned pregnancies that are resulting in unwanted or abandoned children and abortions.? The company said it also seeks to address ?the significant level of sexual activity that already exists among young people.?
The company cites statistics that show that as of 2002, 23 percent of young Filipinos, ages 15-24 (about 4 million) have had premarital sex. Eighty percent of these sexually active youth said they did not use any form of protection, and 75 percent of their most recent sexual experiences were unprotected. ?Therefore,? said the statement, ?millions of young Filipinos are being exposed to the risk of unwanted pregnancy and acquiring sexually transmitted infections.?
Curbing or totally censoring ads for condoms and other forms of contraception and protection not only deprives them of information, it also violates their basic right to knowledge that will help them make decisions responsibly. Old fogeys like Representative Teodoro might insist that young people learn about contraception only in school (where a proposed comprehensive sex education program has met with stringent objections) or from their parents. But given the high dropout rate of our student population, and the reluctance of parents to talk about sex with their children, the media are about the only recourse of most young people seeking information and education about sex.
And if we can inform and educate them in a fun, humorous manner, as the ads do, shouldn?t that be counted as a blessing?
* * *
HERE?S a text message sent to priests by Leonida Vera, ambassador of the Philippines to the Holy See: ?Today I have tendered my resignation as ambassador ?. My grateful heart wishes to express my most sincere gratitude and appreciation for the love, kindness and support you have so kindly given me. I can only promise you prayers.?
Was Vera?s resignation on the agenda of the recent dialogue President Macapagal-Arroyo held with some bishops?
More Inquirer columns
Previous columns:
For love of coffee ? 01/24/08
A pattern of intimidation ? 1/22/08
Missing Cardinal Sin ? 1/22/08
The people we honor ? 01/19/08
Pinoys to cheer for ? 01/17/08
