Condom-ed

Ban on the ad stems from our society’s deep rooted patriarchal and hegemonic perspective on sex as an act and marriage as an institution. Sex as a topic is discussed either as an act of procreation or a sin 

When PEMRA, Pakistan’s media watchdog, decided to take Josh Condom’s advertisement off the air citing ‘’immorality,’’ what exactly was it thinking? The ad was not immodest by any stretch of imagination. It showed a newly-wed couple happily going about their daily activities with the wife being ‘’very satisfied’’ with her husband--to the utter surprise of prying neighbors. For most this scene doesn’t ring alarm bells. Yet while the commercial shied away from directly talking about the product it was advertising, the watchdog judged it ‘’immoral.’’

Although many people are still uncomfortable buying condoms because they feel ashamed, condoms are found for sale everywhere in Pakistan, from departmental stores to roadside rural shops. Probably due to Greenstar Social Marketing’s successful marketing they are also well displayed. In my experience as a social activist, the youth I’ve come across have always been receptive to information about proper condom usage. The Ministry of Population Welfare through its widespread propaganda has also eased the way to spread contraceptive-related information. In recent years an increase in condom usage has been reported by the Pakistan Statistical Bureau.

In my opinion the ban on the ad stems from our society’s deep rooted patriarchal and hegemonic perspective on sex as an act and marriage as an institution. Sex as a topic is discussed either as an act of procreation or a sin. Discussion revolves around the importance of procreation, whether incurring God’s blessing or punishment. Jokes, jibes and passing references reveal negative attitudes toward sex. Yet sex is a primal instinct and no matter how horrific the image one paints, humanity will never eliminate sexual desire—nor should we.

The purpose of sex in Pakistani society, as in all agrarian and patriarchal societies, is to further the bloodline. The more sons the family has, the stronger and more powerful the bloodline. And as the bloodline belongs to the man of the family, so does the act. This turns sex into an act of power performed by the male partner on the “other.” It is not considered mutual, in fact consent hardly matters. Much of South Asian music, both classical and popular, exhibits this reality. As long as the man remains the dominant, hence the powerful, sexual partner, he is never questioned. Pleasure belongs to the man alone. A female expressing desire or exhibiting willingness to engage in this act is met with scorn and disgrace. An honorable woman is considered a sex-less creature: she engages in sex only to play her role in furthering the bloodline of her male counterpart.

In a society dominated by a patriarchal mindset, how does one expect a television commercial centered on having ‘’a sexually satisfied wife’’ be considered normal? The image of a sexually content woman is a woman aware of her sexual needs. And a woman aware of her sexuality is a dangerous woman: she needs to be tamed, controlled and suppressed. This is exactly what the FEMEN has countered in what we consider the ‘’West.’’ But sex is not an act owned and controlled by men alone. Sexual appetite is not an impulse possessed by just one gender. And sexual satisfaction (and its importance) is not exclusive to males.

So is the commercial liberating for women? Does it shatter the chains of sexual slavery with a proudly audible chink? No it doesn’t. It still objectifies the woman as a sexual object. And it still manages to put the image of sex as an act performed by the male partner ‘’onto’’ the female one. However the fact that it does consider the existence and importance of female satisfaction is bold, and blunt. It manages to promote a concept still considered non-existent, or certainly unimportant. Previous commercials of Saathi and Touch also show satisfied families and couples. But they happened to be very subjective and they came off as ‘’clean’’ and ‘’asexual’’ ads. This one is different.

Contraception is, and continues to be, a controversial topic, which is natural for a conservative and patriarchal society like ours. Women telling their husbands what protocols to observe during intercourse, explaining that they don’t want to become pregnant or that they are not interested at that moment are behaviors that seem to emasculate men. We can see this rejection of women as sexual beings when we look at the reaction to Lady Health Workers. In 1994 Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto initiated the program to regulate and report maternal health at the community level. Yet over the years these health care workers have been met with harassment. They have suffered social backlash, violence and disregard from the government. This illustrates how difficult social outreach programs centered on modifying sexual behavior are, thanks to a deep-rooted patriarchal perspective of sex.

Josh Condoms have not set a precedent, neither do they ‘’liberate’’ women from the sexual hegemony of patriarchy. Perhaps had the advertisements continued, the television channel would have been switched in many homes, and the product ignored. But with the ban, PEMRA has done the exact opposite--the ad has been viewed by many on social networking websites. The importance of population control and contraception are too known to be further highlighted. And the importance of the social marketing of condoms and its benefits are well-documented. But whether this episode will challenge the sexual stereotype patriarchy has imposed only time can tell.