I can’t find this on the web, but I’m hearing on the radio about a UNICEF campaign to highlight the impact of HIV/AIDS on young women.
In the interview included in the piece, the UNICEF spokeswoman (didn’t catch her name, will update when/if) spoke out against the widely-adopted, US-promoted “ABC” approach to reducing HIV transmission.
“ABC” stands for “Abstain from sex, Be faithful, use Condoms,” or at least that’s the current explanation. At the 2002 Barcelona AIDS Conference, USAID representatives were telling anyone who’d listen that it stood for “Abstinence, Behaviour change and Control.”
Whatever it stands for, the approach has drawn a lot of criticism for it’s prioritisation of abstinence at the expense of promoting safe sexual activity. It’s a philosophical question until it translates into policy approaches such as the US refusal to fund safe sex programs, no matter how effective or culturally appropriate, because they don’t promote abstinence.
It’s also flawed because it assumes that people always have the personal agency to implement the ABC approach. In many developing countries, young women in particular have little or no control over their sexual selves: no matter how many times USAID tells them to “choose to abstain” from sex, it’s not going to make much difference when you’re being raped or when you live in a society in which women do what men tell them, regardless of US foreign policy.
UNICEF is promoting a different approach, and one that focuses on community-wide social change, not twelve-step-style personal responsibility. It’s called the “END” approach:
- Eliminate gender violence;
- No to transactional sex;
- Drop the teenage girlfriend.
