Feminist Knowledge | Student Writings

The loveLife Brand: Replicating the Dominant Constructs
by Laura Templeton

Originally launched in September 1999, loveLife is the largest HIV/AIDS youth education organisation in the world. The intended mission of the organisation is to cut the HIV infection rate among South African youth by 50 percent. To achieve its intended goal of reducing the rate of transmission among youth by 50 percent, loveLife states that they, "…combine traditional marketing techniques with the best principles of public health education to create a lifestyle brand with which young people will associate healthy, positive living. To create this level of association among loveLife's 12 to 17-year-old target group, the loveLife brand is positioned as part of popular youth culture." [1]

loveLife's strategy in reaching its goal is three-pronged, and begins first with building awareness among its target audience through media. Second, it seeks to develop support services to help young people understand and incorporate its messages. Finally it intends to continually monitor and research the impact of the organisation. This three-pronged approach works on the assumption that, according to loveLife, "Behaviour change requires internalisation by the target group of the desired changes. To be successful, loveLife has to change pervasive values and attitudes among adolescents to sex, sexuality and gender relations." [2] Of critical note is that loveLife's task, then, is not simply to reduce transmission rates by 50 percent, but instead to fundamentally alter the relationship that teenagers have to sex, sexuality and gender.

The exploration of gender constructs as they impact on HIV transmission is critical to any social marketing effort. For women engaging in heterosexual sex, barriers to condom use can be linked to both constructions of gender as well as structural inequality. Constructions of femininity, economic dependency, lack of access to resources and gender-based violence all have been shown to impact on HIV transmission. Further, these categories are not static and often overlap and influence one another.

For example, constructions of femininity within many locations in South Africa can act as a barrier to suggesting or negotiating condom use. In many locations throughout the country pre-marital sex is seen as inappropriate behaviour for young women, and young women who are sexually active are, therefore, reluctant to seek out information about prevention methods or visit clinics. [3] Often, when they do visit clinics, they are ostracised or chastised for being sexually active by clinic staff, thereby impeding their access to health care; these staff members are often also members of the communities where the young women reside. [4] Alternatively, in some locations constructions of femininity dictate altogether different social mores. For example, proving fertility prior to marriage is important to a woman's social status and, thus, condoms are possibly an interference with securing marriage. [5] Both of these examples make evident that notions of femininity can be elastic according to location. They also serve to highlight that in each case, these constructions of femininity make women more vulnerable to HIV. In the first case communities regulate the sex lives of these young women so if they are to have sexual desire and act upon it they are acting outside of the regulations imposed by the community. In the second case, proving fertility involves having sex without a condom, again rendering young women vulnerable to HIV transmission.

Gender constructs as they relate to the spread of HIV are not harmful to women alone. While they may not be in the highest risk category for contracting the virus, men are also harmed by these constructs as they increase barriers to condom use. Constructions of men - particularly impoverished, black men - as highly sexual beings who are unable to control their sexual desire are common. Hobson and Collins note, "Men are seen to need sex in ways in which women do not, and this constrains opportunities for women to either refuse sex or take the time to negotiate or raise the issue of safe sex." [6] However, what Hobson and Collins do not note -- and their omission again contributes to a discourse in which women are perceived as responsible for condom use - is that this construction also constrains opportunities for men to refuse sex or raise the issue of safe sex, because to do so might put their masculine identity at risk. Furthermore, these constructions underscore ways in which constructions of masculinities can further entrench and normalise racist and classist stereotypes.

Yet while loveLife articulates the critical importance of changing pervasive values and attitudes among adolescents to sex, sexuality and gender relations, I believe that an examination of their advertising shows that loveLife's constructions of gender are both narrow and problematic. By and large, women are either wholly responsible for sexual relations, or they are victims of their own passivity. Men, on the other hand, are either highly sexual beings, or they have simply succumbed to the directive of their female partners. This is evidenced in the following examples.

One prominent loveLife billboard reads:

"I only do it skin on skin" James, 18
"I told James to wrap it or zip it" Zola, 17

In effect, Zola appears to be loveLife's challenge to constructs of women as subordinate to men. In other words, constructions of women as able to stand up for themselves and control their sexual behaviour and the sexual behaviour of their partner will help women to internalise a feeling of empowerment, which will then help them to act to protect themselves. Women will then be better able to protect themselves against transmission of HIV. This construction is not without merit. Certainly, young women do need to internalise the notion that they are not less than men are.

This construction, however, replicates discourses of female responsibility and empowerment in which women alone are seen as responsible for sexual behaviour. This construct presents a young woman who has educated herself about sex and contraception. She has also educated herself about how to protect herself from the negative consequences that may come with sex. Alone, this sort of self-education is not negative. However, it becomes the responsibility of Zola to not only educate herself, but to also be responsible for the behaviour of her partner. It is Zola's responsibility alone to protect herself against James. James does not take responsibility and this construct of Zola reinforces notions of women as the keepers of responsibility for sexual behaviour.

The impact of this is dual. First, Women become responsible for implementing safer sexual behaviour and men are absolved. The second impact, however, is a contribution to discourses of blame and stigma. Anna Strebel points out that if women are responsible for stopping the spread of the virus, then "They are also by implication responsible for spreading the virus." [7] Thus, constructions of women as responsible for transmission of HIV/AIDS also overlap with discourses of blame and stigma, both of which increase women's vulnerability to transmission of HIV and vulnerability for those living with HIV/AIDS.

Constructs of women as empowered are also dangerous in that they ignore structural inequalities and power differentials. The paradox arises in that women are made responsible for controlling sexual interactions, but are often without the power to do so. Thus, these constructs render women culpable in situations where there is often little space for them to take action. Furthermore, there is an assumption that knowledge translates into the power to implement behaviour change.

In looking at loveLife's constructions of men in this advertisement, James is constructed as a "playa" through his statement that he will only "do it skin on skin". From his statement, the audience learns that James will not have sex with a condom. This statement indicates that James is irresponsible in his approach to sex, and consequently, irresponsible regarding his own life as well as the lives of his partners.

Another billboard reads:

"I wanted to wait, but Abram was inside me before I could say no" Sandy 15
"Sssho…did I rape her? Now that we talk, I understand love is not just sex"
Abram 17

This advertisement shows statements from both Abram and Sandy after they have had sex. Sandy is regretful. She states, "I wanted to wait", but instead of speaking up and telling Abram this, she kept quiet. Conversely, Abram is worried. He is not sure if he forced Sandy to have sex. He questions himself, stating, "Sssho, did I rape her?"

Two central questions emerge. First, was Sandy raped? Second, whose fault was it? Neither question is addressed, but is instead left up to interpretation by the audience. What we do know about Sandy, however, is that she did not want to have sex with Abram at the time that they had sex. She says, "I wanted to wait". The reason she gives is that Abram moved too quickly, and "was inside me before I could say no." Was Sandy forced to have sex by Abram? Was she confused about what was happening? Why did she not speak up before they came close to having intercourse?

However, Sandy doesn't speak up about her feelings and it is only in the aftermath that it becomes clear that the sex was not consensual. Sandy is constructed as a victim of her own silence and passivity, and, while the audience does not receive answers to the questions listed above, the negative consequences are made clear by the advertisement. At best, Sandy's sexual experience was highly negative, at worst the audience is introduced to the possibility that Sandy may have been raped as a result of her passive behaviour. In effect, she is constructed as a victim of her own disempowerment, who then suffers the consequences.

There is a possibility that the advertisement also attempts to empower Sandy in the aftermath of her sexual encounter with Abram. This is evidenced through Abram's statement that, "Now that we talk, I understand love is not just sex." If, in his statement, the "we" refers to Sandy, then we see a transformation in Sandy. Her newfound ability to communicate with Abram about the situation may have given her a newfound empowerment. However, because the "we" is not clarified, it leaves the interpretation to the audience. Regardless, I still argue that the print campaign produces two primary constructions for women. Either women are empowered or victims. And, while there is room for movement between either of these constructions, I argue that alternative constructions of women do not emerge in these advertisements. Moreover, this ad virtually erases any discursive space that could begin to explore violence against women experienced in the form of rape. While Sandy describes a non-consensual situation, Abram dismisses it by conflating issues of rape, sex and love. Had Sandy been able to "talk about it" before they even came close to a physical relationship, she would have been able to control and direct the situation accordingly and not put herself in danger of being raped.

Meanwhile, Abram represents a young man in the process of reforming his beliefs. While the question of whether a rape occurred remains vague, it is evident that Abram was willing to engage in sexual intercourse with Sandy without former discussion. This stands in opposition to the loveLife tagline "Talk About It'. There is no time for Sandy to speak up - as we know, "Abram was inside me before I could say no." Thus, Abram is constructed much like James, a 'playa' who is hungry for sex, regardless of the consequences.

Yet, as I previously stated, the constructions are not static and there is room for movement within. Since his initial sexual encounter with Sandy, some time has elapsed in which Abram has reflected on several things. First, he has questioned his behaviour, querying, "Sssho…did I rape her?" He does not answer the question directly, but Abram is now constructed as a man willing to undergo self-examination.

Next he states, "Now that we talk, I understand love is not just sex." Since their sexual encounter, Abram has clearly had a conversation with someone about his attitudes towards sex and love. Again, it is not clear if this person is Sandy or someone else. It is clear, though, that Abram has broadened his understanding of love as no longer simply synonymous with sex.

In looking at this construction, I return to an earlier point that alternative constructions of men are in short supply and they are also not entirely clear. For example, the positive construction of an empowered woman is fairly straightforward: she is someone who has educated herself and protected herself against sexual behaviour that may put her at risk for STI's or teenage pregnancy. On the other hand, there is not a clear, concise construction for men. This absence alone replicates an environment in which women's responsibilities are clearly defined while men's are quite vague, if not altogether absent.

While he is largely absolved of responsibility, it does seem, however, that loveLife is trying to represent Abram as a man who has become more informed about relationships. This is evidenced by his statement: "Now that we talk, I understand love is not just sex." However, his preceding statement, "Sssho…did I rape her?" largely negates this. Abram is not made to take responsibility for the possibility of rape; he is only made to gain a greater understanding of how sex fits into a loving relationship. Furthermore, Abram is only able to reach this understanding after this incident. Couched within the dialogue is a replication of constructions of men as unable to control their sex drive, and therefore not responsible for their behaviour. Abram is readily pardoned in the aftermath.

Finally, as mentioned previously, it is highly negligent, indeed, even harmful that loveLife, as an organisation attempting to educate around positive sexuality, conflates an incidence of rape with meanings around love and sex. Not only does this advertisement confuse the issue for young people, it also lends to a normalising of rape and gender-based violence.

After reviewing the constructions of gender in these advertisements (constructions that are echoed in other loveLife advertisements), it is important to make a few final points. First, these constructs largely represent a hetero-normative value system in which there is little room for exploration of context. The result of this is that men and women are narrowly defined and also, provide very little in the way of alternative or challenge to dominant constructs for young people to emulate. Second, however, while the billboards are seen by loveLife as vehicles to brand awareness, I argue that as advertisements, these texts convey an entire set of values to youth. That the texts are static gives youth the opportunity of an in-depth, critical reading. These representations do not simply raise brand awareness but are also resonant in leaving an impression about gender constructs that further dictate behaviour as either good or bad within the loveLife value system.

Women and men have sex for many different reasons, some positive and some negative. However, in framing the motivations of both in such a limited context, loveLife exposes its inability to view gender in any kind of complex form. There is little discursive space to explore women as highly sexual beings, nor is there space to explore men as anything but highly sexual beings. There is little space to look at how socio-economic contexts may impact on sexual behaviour, or even how emotions impact. Overall, I argue that loveLife represents gendered relationships to sexuality in a manner that is both confining and exclusionary, and that also assumes fully rational behaviour on the part of individuals.

The effect is that dominant constructions are not challenged, but instead they are replicated. Alternative, complex constructions do not emerge. Moreover men and women are homogenised in such as way as to exclude any discussion of how vulnerabilities to HIV/AIDS are mediated by structural inequalities pertaining to race, class, geographic location or otherwise. Certainly, loveLife is not alone in doing this. Yet, as the world's largest HIV/AIDS youth education organisation in the world, I believe that it is imperative that the strategy to change behaviour by changing pervasive attitudes and values as they relate to sex, sexuality and gender relations must begin to be infiltrated throughout their advertising materials. Otherwise, loveLife is merely appropriating the language that raises the importance of examining gender as it impacts on transmission of HIV.

References

Gerntholtz, L. and Richter, M. 2002. "Young Women's Access to Reproductive Health-care services in the context of HIV," Agenda, No. 53.

Hobson, S. and Collins, A. 2001. "Women, Culture and AIDS: How Discourses of Gender and Sexuality Affect Safe Sex Behaviour," Working Paper presented at the AIDS in Context Conference, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, 4 - 7 April 2001.

LoveLife. "Our Story," loveLife Brochure.

Strebel, A. 1997. "Discourse Analysis in AIDS Prevention," in Burman, et al. eds. Culture, Power and Difference: Discourse Analysis in South Africa. Cape Town: Zed Books.

Footnotes