I can’t see how the models are being exploited in a negative way; they’re choosing to do it, not being forced & aren’t being hurt by it.

Few can claim ignorance to the prevailing knowledge that HIV/AIDS is for the most part sexually transmitted. Simple education works for some people but not for others. I’ve worked in the governmental sexual health policy field of my country and we know that just telling people the facts doesn’t stop them from taking risks.

It appears that the target audience for this section of the campaign are the ones who are living active sexual lives, sexualization is already part of their mental language – they’re more likely to take up a message or get involved when something is coming at them on a familiar wavelength.

It’s well recognized that ‘sex sells’; It’s an incredibly effective marketing tool, one that we can’t use directly while working in governmental areas as, with an adversarial political system, whomever is in power will get attacked for using it along the usual ‘family values’ lines.

It’s sex that’s caused the epidemic, it’s sex that’s perpetuating it and to sideline the use of the ‘language o sex’ as an awareness raising tool by _not_ using sexualized images may be more irresponsible and damaging than whatever hurt the columnist envisioned may happen with the current set of campaigns.

I do, however, think that there is a good point here. I do think that the gay male culture has swung a little too far to one end of the spectrum and maybe there could be some reigning in of the use of sex to sell us everything. I do think Mr. Quilici has a good point and would make a great guest for your show. I may, myself, be a little numb to this type of advertising. Usually when a topic like this sparks so much debate, there’s some truth on both sides of the equation.

My problem here is with the pandering and with exploiting sexuality to boost awareness for what is still, primarily, a sexually-transmitted disease. Your argument that “everybody’s doing it” (marketing via pandering) is one that hardly a rebuttal makes. You’re going to have to do better than that, my dear.

Additionally, while the models aren’t gyrating or engaging in explicit pornography, they’re still nude and are obscured only by provocative language inciting readers with words like “bare,” “harder”, “dig deeper”, “faster.” Classy? OK. Well-produced? Without a doubt. Explicit and potentially irresponsible? You betcha.

A colleague of mine likened this to (in an extreme): using naked or semi-nude children to advocate against child pornography. I found that jarring and more than a little fitting.

If you want to have an actual discussion about this, you know where to find me. I’d be curious to hear more than one point of view….? Wouldn’t you?

xo