According to reports carried in the Sunday Nation
dated 24th March 2013, the
National Aids Control Council convened an impromptu board meeting on Monday to
address the raging controversy surrounding the ‘’Weka Condom Mpangoni’’ TV advertisement that was suspended from
the airwaves following mounting protests from a cross-section of religious
leaders. The outcome of that meeting is yet to be disclosed.
Sponsored
by the Population Service International (PSI), the TV ad was intended as a
public campaign tool encouraging condom use among married women in illicit
sexual liaisons outside their matrimonial bed, more commonly known as ‘’mpango wa kando’’ in street slang.
For
those who missed it – in a nutshell – the ad was about a short drama featuring
two married women at a market place, with one encouraging her counterpart who
is sexually involved with another man outside her marriage, to use condom in
her flings to “protect her loved ones”.
That
the bold condom ad – a first of its kind in the fight against the HIV pandemic
– sparked very heated debate across the country, especially on the social media
platform, with protagonists and antagonists alike putting across varied reasons
for or against its relevance, is a fore-gone conclusion. Against a backdrop of research depicting married couples to be three times
more likely to be infected with HIV in comparison to prostitutes, the move by
the sponsors of the ad in seeking to help protect the marriage institution was
indeed a benevolent one. Indeed, it is an indication that despite the runaway
problems facing the basic foundation of the society – the family institution –
the society is still concerned enough to dare conceptualize extraordinary
measures in the wake of extraordinary challenges in an endeavor to salvage the
situation.
But it is in seeking to protect the marriage institution that
the promoters and sponsors of the ad found themselves unwittingly seem to
further destroy the very same institution they were seeking to protect by
appearing to condone (though not necessarily their original intention)
extramarital affairs. And this perception by the public that the ad seemed to
accept and indeed not discourage extramarital affairs that rightly stoked anger
and protest from across section of the society and the church in particular.
Anything that directly seems to launch an attack on the fabric of the marriage
institution and by extent that of the society, even when it’s a daily
occurrence, will and should always draw public scorn and uproar. It is not
about burying ones head in the sand or being hypocritical, it is about standing
up for what is moral.
Weighing what the long term implications of such a permissive ad
would entail. For example, while it could result in reduced infection rate,
would it not encourage most us to easily succumb to the temptations of
extramarital flings safe in the knowledge that there is always a condom at hand?
In essence, the promoters of the ad must have forgotten or
overlooked a few facts surrounding HIV and the family unit. The first one being
that there is no sexually active person (married or otherwise) who does not
know about the existence of HIV. People already know that HIV exists, that it
has no cure just yet and that it is majorly spread through engagement in
unprotected sexual contact with an infected person. If there is anyone still
unaware of the facts surrounding HIV, then they are not among the population
with access to Television, so we can safely say such individual was not a
target audience of the ad. In other words there is absolutely nothing new to
pass across in regard to the ways of contracting HIV virus.
Secondly, anyone that knows about how HIV is spread also has
knowledge regarding how it can be prevented. People already know that safest
way to avoid contacting HIV is to first abstain from sex altogether, use a
condom or stay faithful to one sexually negative partner if you cannot use the
first two. There have been plenty of condom adverts across various media
platforms. Literally every corner of the streets and shops are littered with
either condom ads or the condoms themselves. Everyone knows they are very
affordable. However, with a prevalence of 6.2 percent according to UNAIDS 2012
Global Report, people still get infected by the virus on a daily basis. This is
not because there is a shortage of condoms, not because we are
unaware there are condoms, not because we are unaware that condoms protect
and not because we are too poor to afford condoms. Again there is no new
information regarding condom and its use in preventing the spread of HIV.
On the other hand, infidelity is a fact of today’s society. Many
marriages are constantly caught up in this unfortunate web illicit of
extramarital affairs when one or both spouses find themselves sexually straying
and wondering away from the marital bed. It is one of the challenges bedevilling
the sanctity of marriage and family institution. Again everyone knows about
this unfortunate state of affairs. And anyone that has failed the true test of
marriage by yielding to the lure of extramarital affairs at least knows they
should use a condom to protect themselves and their loved ones. But they mostly
don’t. And from unprotected sexual escapades, they jump right back into the
marriage bed where condom usage is not even a topic for discussion. Marriage
therefore, according to recent studies, provide a conducive breeding ground for
the HIV pandemic, with more than 44.1 per cent of all new HIV infections
occurring in stable or long-term relationships including marriages.
Now, since we all are aware about the existence of HIV, the
means of contracting it and the best ways to prevent its spread, the question
that we should all be asking is, why are we still carefree with our lives and
reluctant to employ the use of available means of preventing HIV to protect
ourselves and our loved ones from the pandemic? What is it about a condom that
discourages its use? What is it about sex that makes condom use an
afterthought? Besides, honest people will tell you that at least in their first
three sexual encounters with an individual of the opposite sex, they invariable
used protection. But after that, a sense of trust naturally takes over as
condom usage becomes history. What is it that makes human beings develop this
sense of trust to make us throw caution to the wind?
In conclusion, the urge for usage of condom is laudable. But the
packaging of this “call” is what was amiss. When you know your son is
concurrently sleeping around with numerous sexual partners, do you give him a
pack of condoms and tell him to continue?
No comments:
Post a Comment