Equal Opportunities?
Equal opportunities? Whether it’s STIs or guidance on how sex and relationships education should be delivered, let’s have a level playing field! It’s time we moved on from the one-size fits all approach – one camp of people ‘dictating’ how SRE should be delivered whilst credible theory and guidance from another camp offers valid ways of work with young men. Hegemony indeed… Young men just want condoms – yep some of them do – but what incentive are you giving them to wear them? Images of STIs may indeed cause stigma (which we can work with) – and may cause some recipients of images not to act – however, they may also act as a motive for condom use for others; we’re not talking about a one-size fits all approach at all – we believe that sexual health initiatives should be delivered via targeted work that is inclusive of many different theories and approaches. If that includes an approach that only uses discussion, participation and group work – fine – it works, but not for all; if it uses a long-term societal change approach that too is fine – but it won’t work for all; if we use a targeted shock and show approach for work with other young men – fine again – and it doesn’t work for all.
Consideration of a real social marketing stance should be part and parcel of our approach to work with young people – our SRE initiatives should be targeted – a stiletto, segmented approach to specific, identified groups rather than the one-size fits all blunderbuss approach currently being touted by statutory and some government accredited organisations. E.g. – if you want to get young men to wear condoms – yes have a condom distribution scheme by all means – but if we’re talking a social marketing approach, let’s also consider what investment there is for young men to wear them. Prevention of STIs and pregnancy yes, but is that uppermost in the mind of a young man? Ask the question ‘why do men want sex?’ Apart from the procreation bit – in which case a hair shirt may be the order of the day, it is pleasure – the pleasure principle…
So, let’s be honest about it – what are the three things a man craves when he has penetrative sex? What makes it a pleasurable experience? Moisture, pressure, and warmth. What don’t you get with a condom? The first one – moisture – i.e, a case of reduced sensitivity…so, why are we not making a great play around advertising how great it is to use a gel-charged condom for enhanced sensitivity? Is it because it’s only seen as the province of gay men and that heterosexual men won’t use it? Forgive the pun – but that doesn’t stand up. After all, if we’re talking ‘masculinities’ men do not fit into just one gay and one straight category – and the pursuit of sexual pleasure is not confined to gay men. A considered social marketing campaign around condom use, gel charging and the subsequent pleasurable sex aimed at heterosexual men is one way of hitting one segment of heterosexual men who may indeed respond positively to such a campaign. True, it won’t work for all – but that’s the point of social marketing – a segmented approach to health work that doesn’t lump all and sundry together and states, ‘our way works and nobody else’s will’, ‘your theory is wrong’ etc (the current state of affairs), but considers the biological, sociological, psychological, ecological, environmental, cultural etc, etc factors that cause people to behave as they do – and what investment there is for people to change their health-related behaviours. Horses for courses…So let’s have a level playing field – eh chaps?
Leave a Reply