The conflicting teen sex messages of Candie's

Creepy much? Via Hollywood Life

Teen fashion brand Candie's seems to want it both ways. On one hand, they sell the idea that teens can look sexy in their clothes, featuring provocative images using young spokespeople like 16-year-old Disney Channel actress Bella Thorne, above.

At the same time, their Corporate Social Responsibility arm, Candie's Foundation, is an organization that seeks to prevent teen pregnancy by preaching abstinence. They've also been heavily criticized for using celebrities to shame teen mothers.

In fact, their whole plan is to instil a fear of pregnancy in teens. From their web site:

Our campaigns are making a difference. Research has shown that teen girls who have been exposed to the foundation and its messages are more likely to view teen pregnancy and parenthood as stressful and negative, and they are more likely to be skeptical of the media's portrayal of teen pregnancy and parenting. They also think teens should wait longer to have sex than girls who are not aware of the foundation and its messages.

There's something quintessentially American about a brand that sexualizes young girls, then tells them to suppress their sexuality or risk ruining their lives.

Interestingly, even the right-wing blowhards at Fox News see an issue with this.

Fox 411 quotes Katie Yoder, of the socially conservative (read: Fundamentalist Christian and anti-choice) Culture and Media Institute:

Candie's isn't selling clothes, it's selling sex and teaching young girls to act seductively. Thorne sends the message that being feminine has nothing to do with being genuine and that confidence means popping your hips and shaking your butt.

When both bleeding hearts like me and the One Million Moms brigade actually agree, you know there's a problem. Although I doubt we see it the same way.

I have nothing against teens expressing their sexuality among their peers. I just think they need the right information and support to do it safely, to avoid exploitation, unplanned pregnancy, regret, and the threat of rape. Candies wants girls to feel like sexual objects by buying their clothes, but also wants to terrify them out of actually acting on that agency by threatening grave consequences.

This is no way to raise a generation of women.

Durex France proves that you can still make a great condom ad

You can see the gag coming (sorry) from a mile off, but it doesn't hurt this ad's effectiveness.



When condoms advertise disease or pregnancy prevention, or even consequence-free sex, they can be creatively intriguing but haven't told us anything special about the specific brand. They're indistinguishable from safer sex PSAs.

This one, directed by Charlotte Rabate for Durex France,  is different. It feels like an overpromise if taken literally. But by making us think about durability while enjoying childish hijinks, it gets the message of protection through strength across... flawlessly.

Tip via Creative Criminals

Campaign to ban lifejackets: Great concept, poor execution

Via Buzzfeed

While this poster tries a little too hard, the concept is a good one: what if right wing politicians treated every safety device the way they treat birth control?

I think where this gag petition goes wrong is when it changes mid-stream from making fun on abstinence-only education and attempted healthcare exclusions (and even bans) on birth control  to wade into the murk of Rep. Todd Akin's biologically-questionable "legitimate rape" comment:

“It seems to be, first of all, from what I understand from doctors, it’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut the whole thing down.”

Not that Rep. Akin doesn't deserve the full might of the snarky internet against him. It's just that every professional communicator knows that you have to focus your message. The Akin thing is about abortion, not contraception, and the life jacket metaphor isn't nearly as strong.

Fly safe with Durex

Adrants posted this funny stunt by Durex Poland. It's really quite simple, and a rather intuitive brand association with"safety instructions":



The only problem I have with it is that I don't believe the "guerrilla" aspect of it. I simply can't imagine getting that many camera angles on the reaction shots without very obviously making a video. It appears very staged to me.

Funny, though.

With all the sex in fashion advertising, it was bound to happen

Via The Essentialist

In addition to his shirt, I think he should have been wearing these more often:

Via liveinternet.ru

Oh well, I suppose the world can always use more beautiful people...

New condom ad rolls out an old idea

This condom ad by Marcus Thomas, in Cleveland, brings back the old "parenthood is a nightmare" gag that seems to appeal to younger singles.



The problem is, it's been done before — by a much better ad.



The only advantage of this new ad is that it brings a unique product benefit into the mix. But hearing about penile sensation while watching screaming children is not exactly a great viewer experience.

Via Ads of The World

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.

F'd Ad Fridays: Killer condoms

Found on Buzzfeed, this unprovenanced imgur is captioned "Found it while eating pizza at my Nannas. I almost choked."

The political context of the publication is blatant, but I thought I'd give Dr. Green the benefit of the doubt.

Here's what he really said:

In 2003, Norman Hearst and Sanny Chen of the University of California conducted a condom effectiveness study for the United Nations' AIDS program and found no evidence of condoms working as a primary HIV-prevention measure in Africa. UNAIDS quietly disowned the study. (The authors eventually managed to publish their findings in the quarterly Studies in Family Planning.) Since then, major articles in other peer-reviewed journals such as the Lancet, Science and BMJ have confirmed that condoms have not worked as a primary intervention in the population-wide epidemics of Africa. In a 2008 article in Science called "Reassessing HIV Prevention" 10 AIDS experts concluded that "consistent condom use has not reached a sufficiently high level, even after many years of widespread and often aggressive promotion, to produce a measurable slowing of new infections in the generalized epidemics of Sub-Saharan Africa."

Let me quickly add that condom promotion has worked in countries such as Thailand and Cambodia, where most HIV is transmitted through commercial sex and where it has been possible to enforce a 100 percent condom use policy in brothels (but not outside of them). In theory, condom promotions ought to work everywhere. And intuitively, some condom use ought to be better than no use. But that's not what the research in Africa shows.

Why not?

One reason is "risk compensation." That is, when people think they're made safe by using condoms at least some of the time, they actually engage in riskier sex.

Another factor is that people seldom use condoms in steady relationships because doing so would imply a lack of trust. (And if condom use rates go up, it's possible we are seeing an increase of casual or commercial sex.) However, it's those ongoing relationships that drive Africa's worst epidemics. In these, most HIV infections are found in general populations, not in high-risk groups such as sex workers, gay men or persons who inject drugs. And in significant proportions of African populations, people have two or more regular sex partners who overlap in time. In Botswana, which has one of the world's highest HIV rates, 43 percent of men and 17 percent of women surveyed had two or more regular sex partners in the previous year.

These ongoing multiple concurrent sex partnerships resemble a giant, invisible web of relationships through which HIV/AIDS spreads. A study in Malawi showed that even though the average number of sexual partners was only slightly over two, fully two-thirds of this population was interconnected through such networks of overlapping, ongoing relationships.

So what has worked in Africa? Strategies that break up these multiple and concurrent sexual networks -- or, in plain language, faithful mutual monogamy or at least reduction in numbers of partners, especially concurrent ones. "Closed" or faithful polygamy can work as well.

In Uganda's early, largely home-grown AIDS program, which began in 1986, the focus was on "Sticking to One Partner" or "Zero Grazing" (which meant remaining faithful within a polygamous marriage) and "Loving Faithfully." These simple messages worked. More recently, the two countries with the highest HIV infection rates, Swaziland and Botswana, have both launched campaigns that discourage people from having multiple and concurrent sexual partners.

Don't misunderstand me; I am not anti-condom. All people should have full access to condoms, and condoms should always be a backup strategy for those who will not or cannot remain in a mutually faithful relationship. This was a key point in a 2004 "consensus statement" published and endorsed by some 150 global AIDS experts, including representatives the United Nations, World Health Organization and World Bank. These experts also affirmed that for sexually active adults, the first priority should be to promote mutual fidelity. Moreover, liberals and conservatives agree that condoms cannot address challenges that remain critical in Africa such as cross-generational sex, gender inequality and an end to domestic violence, rape and sexual coercion.

No, I didn't expect the Christian Right to read all that either.

NHS invites you to choose your own (sexual) adventure

Osocio shared the latest "Choose Your Own YouTube Adventure" video. This one's  from Britain's National Health Service, and what impresses me is how a government campaign can be so bold and realistic — especially when it comes to frank depictions of casual sex from a participant's POV:



I'll warn you in advance that you'll need a YouTube account to access any of the naughty bits, because they've been flagged as "adult". No nudity, but if you're at work you may want headphones...

Cloning the talking baby

A few months ago, I blogged on Osocio about Bristol Palin's PSA for the Candie's Foundation, an American not-for-profit that tries to show girls the realities of becoming a teenage mom.

Now there's a new spot out with Bristol's endorsement, although this one is less about comparing her wealthy life to that of poor teen moms. Instead, it steals E*Trade's talking baby concept (which itself was an old idea) to demonstrate what a tyrant a baby really can be:



Mind you, teen parenthood is a very serious issue, and I hope this PSA convinces a few girls (and boys!) to take steps to avoid it. But it's always a shame when lazy ad people waste an opportunity for originality by ripping off a well-known idea and then doing a poorer job of it.

I do, however, love the line "and you thought your parents were controlling?" coming from the daughter of someone who almost became Vice President of the United States.