Flavoured Condoms

Author(s): Michael Lim Tan

Source: Reproductive Health Matters, Vol. 3, No. 6, Women's Health Policies: Organising
for Change (Nov., 1995), pp. 104-106
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3775657
Accessed: 19-12-2017 06:06 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Reproductive Health Matters

This content downloaded from 103.231.241.233 on Tue, 19 Dec 2017 06:06:34 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 S-ay0ure¢- Cou¢-0mS
Michael Lim Tan

The controversy overI7avoured condoms firsthit the frontpages ofthe newspapers in the
Philippines earlyin July 1995. Out of nowhere, it seemed, the director of the Philippine Bureau of
Food and Drugs (BFAD) ordered an investigahon into theproduction and sale of flavoured
condoms in the country. Why, he asked, do we need Ravours when Wavours are added only 'to
somethingyou eat'? He received a coy answerfrom DR, one ofthe local distributors of
flavoured condoms. All this waspart of social marketing, they said. lshis is a term which few
people understand, however, and it was rehashed in the media as a 'marketing gimmick'. Only
after a few days didpeople finally get to the core ofthe issue: oral sex. Which in turn set offnew
reactions. One newspaper artcle reported that Wavoured condoms were for 'high-risk groups'
like 'homosexuals and sex workers.'

\-EWSPAPER coverage was tongue-in-
\\ cheek. An editorial in the newspaper
\\ Today observed-
'If the bishops can't bear to contemplate the pos-
sibiliDes of sex beyond the missionary position,
that's no reason why they should seek to diminish
thepleasure ofthose who do.'
Another newspaper, the Philippine Daily In-
quirer, which had just featured a series of reports
questioning the safety of health foods, asked:
'But what is it to [him] whether condoms taste
sweet or sour? Why won'the leave these innocent
r7lbbers alone and concentrate his investgaDve
talent on those toxic products passed off as health
foods?'
Even Nury Vittachi a columnist for the Hong
Kong-based magazine Far Eastern Economic Re-
viewpicked up on the story and wondered:
'How any educated adult can grow up in the
Philippines and know so little about sex worries
me.'
People did start wondering, where was the
pressure coming from? The Philippine Star re-
ported in an article dated July 11 that 'certain
consumer groups' had asked for the investi-
gation. A few days later, the Star said that gov-
ernment agencies were 'under pressure from
Roman Catholic groups'. Finally, one television
newscast showed the letter of complaint that had
been sent to BFAD. The letter came from Couples
for Christ, a Roman Catholic group.
The flavoured condoms controversy erupted
during the transition period between Acting
Health Secretary Jaime Galvez Tan, who suc-
ceeded the controversial 'pro-condom' Juan
Flavier (now a Senator), and a new appointee,
Hilarion Ramiro Jr.
Tan was mum on the issue; Ramiro came into
offlce reiterating the question about flavours. On
the day he assumed office, Ramiro declared:
'It is not for eating so it should not be Wavoured.
Besides it's dangerous -itmightbe eaten.'
He warned that flavoured condoms should not
be left around the house because children might
accidentally eat them. The Manila Times reported
that Ramiro had ordered manufacturers to with-
draw the flavoured condoms from the market. A
veteran politician, Ramiro is well aware of the
Roman Catholic bishops' displeasure over family
planning and HIV programmes. One of Ramiro's
first official courtesy calls as Health Secretary
was to the conservative Cardinal Jaime Sin. Fol-
lowing his meeting with Sin, Ramiro said: 'We
should have friendly relations. We cannot afford
to fight and fight.'
The media war continued, with editorials sup-
porting the retention of the flavoured condoms.
DKT submitted the results of a survey conducted

- - -

This content downloaded from 103.231.241.233 on Tue, 19 Dec 2017 06:06:34 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Reproductive Health Matters, No 6, November 1995

Fi 1

r'-o-?
Demonstration, San Francisco 1987

by the Health Department's Field Epidemiology
Training Unit among 304 women sex workers in
Pasay. The survey found that 'of the 136 who do
oral sex, 55 do not use condoms' and 21 cited the
bad taste and smell of latex condoms as their
reason for not using them during oral sex.
Then, surprise, surprise, on July 20 the dir-
ector of the Bureau of Food and Drugs an-
nounced that, well, the flavoured condoms were
safe and effective after all. He cited the Health
Department study and the observation that the
use of flavoured condoms could 'potentially in-
crease acceptance of condoms among those who
engage in oral sex.' He said that flavoured con-
doms did not pose a threat to public health but
that their use 'is a question of propriety.' The
move was, to say the least, anti-climactic. But is it
a happy ending?
If any good came out of this, it was free pub-
licity for DK7r and their condoms. Many people
were unaware that flavoured condoms were
available. As July came to an end, rumours began
to circulate that condom manufacturers were
going to start producing new flavours: chicken,
shrimp and beef (nope, nothing for vegetarians).
Health Secretary Ramiro, in a press interview,
said he was not aware of such plans.
Unfortunately, the event did little to raise
public awareness about other, more substantive
issues. The old stereotypes remain or probably
have been reinforced: that you need condoms,
flavoured or not, 'only' if you are a homosexual
or a sex worker because, after all, everyone else
is doing'normal''AIDS-free' sex.
Unaddressed, too, is the issue of what exactly
condoms can do. Simply distributing condoms is
not enough: the correct use of condoms still
needs to be explained and this is often not
possible, given the moralistic environment we
have. (The Health Action Information Network,
for example, has not been able to include Roman
Catholic schools in its HIV prevention campaigns
because administrators do not allow us to speak
about condom use.)
Flavoured condoms in fact raise biomedical
concerns about efficacy: biting and nibbling
(sorry if that sounds explicit) can damage the
condoms. Discussing these possibilities reqiires
an environment in which people can be candid
about sexual practices and behaviour.

This content downloaded from 103.231.241.233 on Tue, 19 Dec 2017 06:06:34 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Tan
One final issue: even if one partner is anti-
condom use, often for non-religious reasons,
then even the tastiest condoms will be useless.
And that, unfortunately, is the situation for many
people.
RESUME
La controverse au sujet des preservatifs
aromatises a fait la une des journaux philippins
en juillet 1995, quand une enquete sur leur
fabrication et leur vente a ete ordonnee par le
Directeur du Bureau des produits alimentaires et
pharmaceutiques. Un distributeur local a declare
que l'aromatisation faisait partie du marketing
social, a l'intention de ceux qui pratiquent la
sexualite orale - et cela a donne lieu a nombre de
plaisanteries, sans pour autant apporter au
grand public des informations sur des questions
plus importantes, en renforc,ant les idees re,cues
sur les categories de personnes exposees au VIH.
On nta pas non plus profite de ltoccasion pour
enseigner a la population ce que peuvent ou ne
peuvent pas faire les preservatifs, et la fac,on de
les utiliser correctement - ce qui ne fait pas partie
du marketing social. L'efficacite des preservatifs
aromatises pose une question d'ordre biomedi-
cal, du fait que les dents risquent de dechirer le
preservatif. Il faut, pour discuter de ces possi-
bilites, un environnement ou les individus
peuvent en toute liberte parler de leurs pratiques
sexuelles. Enfin, si l'un des deux partenaires est
contre le preservatif, celui-ci, quel que soit son
gout, ne servira a rien - et ctest malheureusement
la situation pour beaucoup de gens.
This content downloaded from 103.231.241.233 on Tue, 19 Dec 2017 06:06:34 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Note
This article is reprinted with kindpermission from
Health Alert, July 16-31, 1995.
RESUMEN
La controversia sobre los condones con sabores
recibio cobertura de primera plana en julio de
1995 en las Filipinas, cuando el director de la
Oficina de Alimentos y Medicamentos ordeno
. . ., .
una mvestlgaclon so Dre su producclon y venta.
Un distribuidor local dijo que los sabores
formaban parte del mercadeo social, dirigido a
aquellos que practican el sexo oral, a partir de lo
cual se desencadeno una oleada de humor. Lo
sucedido no contribuyo precisamente a elevar el
nivel de conocimientos de la gente con respecto a
otros temas mas importantes y reforzo los
estereotipos con respecto a quienes se hallan
bajo riesgo de contraer el VIH. Tampoco fue
atendido el tema de ensenarle a la poblacion lo
que pueden hacer exactamente los condones y
como utilizarlos correctamente, lo cual no forma
parte del mercadeo social. Los condones con
sabores, de hecho, son causa de preocupacion a
nivel biomedico en relacion a su eficacia: el
morderlos y mordisquearlos puede danarlos.
Para discutir dichas posibilidades hace falta un
ambiente en el que la gente sea honesta con
respecto a sus practicas sexuales. Finalmente,
solo con que un miembro de la pareja este en
contra del condon, incluso el mas apetitoso de
ellos resultara inutil, y desafortunadamente, ese
es el caso para mucha gente.