CONDOM-ED

When PEMRA, Pakistans media watchdog, decided to take Josh Condoms advertisement off air citing
immorality, what exactly was it thinking? The question isnt that baffling in all honesty. The ad was
not immodest or immoral by any stretch of imagination. A newly-wed couple happily going about their
daily activities and the wife being very satisfied with her husband to the utter surprise of the prying
neighbors doesnt ring any obscene bells for many. It is indirect and it shies away from directly talking
about the product its advertising, yet the watchdog considers it immoral.
Condoms are found for sale everywhere in Pakistan, from departmental stores to roadside rural shops,
although many people are still uncomfortable buying them as they feel ashamed. And they are displayed
very visibly, probably due to the successful marketing done by Greenstar Social Marketing. In my
experience as a social activist, the youth Ive come across have always been very receptive to
information about proper condom usage. The Ministry of Population Welfare through its widespread
population control propaganda has also eased the way, if not make it entirely comfortable, for
contraceptive related information to be spread. An increase in the condom usage has been reported by
the Pakistan Statistical Bureau in recent years.
The ban on the ad stems from our societys 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, hence turning the only discussion on sex into talks about the importance of procreation and Gods
design or the Godly punishments associated with the act. Jokes, jibes and passing references continue to
be the norm despite the negativity, as sex is a primal instinct and no matter how horrific the image one
paints, man can never do away with the desire of sex.
Sex in the Pakistani society, as in all agrarian and patriarchal societies, is considered to further the
bloodline. The more sons one has in his children, stronger & more powerful is considered the bloodline.
And as the bloodline belongs to the man of the family so does the act, turning sex into an act of power
performed by the male partner on the other. It is not considered mutual, and consent hardly even
matters; a fact very well exhibited in much of South-Asian music, both classical and popular. The mans
duty is maintaining his status quo; the womans duty, maintaining the honor. And as long as the man
continues to remain the dominant, hence the powerful, partner in this activity, he is never questioned or
cajoled. Pleasure, belongs to the man. A female expressing desire or exhibiting willingness to engage in
this act is met with scorn and disgrace, as an honorable woman is a sex-less creature, only expected to
further 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; that
woman needs to be tamed, controlled and suppressed. This is exactly what the FEMEN has countered in
what we consider the West. That sex is not an act owned and controlled by the men alone. That
sexual appetite is not an impulse possessed by just one gender of the human population. And that
sexual satisfaction (and its importance) is not exclusive to males only.
So is the commercial this liberating for women? Does it shatter the chains of sexual slavery with a
proudly audible chink? No it doesnt. It still objectifies woman as a sexual object. And it still manages to
put the image of sex forth as an act performed by the male partner onto the female one. But the fact
that it does consider the existence and importance of female satisfaction is bold, and blunt. It manages
to exhibit and advertise a concept yet considered inexistent, or else unimportant. Previous commercials
of Saathi and Touch also show satisfied families and couples. But they happened to be very subjective
and did come off as clean and asexual ads. This one, however, is not.
Contraception is, and continues to be a controversial topic, which is natural for a conservative and
patriarchal society like ours. Women telling their husbands when not to have intercourse and what
protocols to observe during it or that they dont want to reproduce more is a behavior that does
emasculate men, but rightfully so. Lady Health Workers, which are nothing more than community health
workers appointed to regulate and report maternal health at a community level, were initiated under
the Prime Ministers program by Benazir Bhutto in 1994. Since then they have been met with
harassment, social backlash, violence and disregard from the government. This exhibits how difficult our
social outreach programs centered on sexual behavior modification are, all thanks to a deep-rooted
patriarchal perspective of sex.
Josh Condoms have not set a precedent, neither do they liberate our women from the sexual
hegemony of patriarchy. And had the advertisements continued, the channel would have been changed
in many a homes, letting the product go ignored, maybe. But with the ban, PEMRA has done the exact
opposite, the ad has been seen by many a people on social networking websites. The importance of
population control and contraception are too known to be highlighted further. And the importance of
social marketing of condoms and its benefits are well-documented. Will this episode somehow
challenge the sexual stereotype imbued in our heads, only time can tell.