CON
The majority of public opinion regarding Joe Sperm is favorable. Most people in Eugene and on campus view the mascot as nothing more than that — a mascot to usher in a new advertising campaign. He’s been in a parade and several newspaper ads and even graces our mass transit vehicles.
Planned Parenthood defends their new campaign as an innovative way to make people think about how to engage in sexual activity more responsibly. They believe that when young people see Joe Sperm’s smiling mug on the side of a bus, they’ll be more inclined to make use of free medical exams and contraceptives.
This is ridiculous. I see Joe Sperm as a danger to young people and a bad choice of a mascot.
How can young people understand the seriousness of sex when something like Joe Sperm is so enthusiastically supported? Studies by the University Health Center show that many University students had sex for the first time when they were between the ages of 16- to 18-years-old. To me, this means they were thinking about having sex when they were likely between the ages of 14 and 15. At that age, children are looking for something to help them make the decision about whether to have sex. Going to an agency like Planned Parenthood — which should help young people avoid sexual mistakes — and finding some cartoon that both trivializes and makes sex even more attractive will only induce young people to make mistakes.
The pro argument claims the mascot helps Planned Parenthood relate to young people. I agree, the mascot does, but in a such way that will defeat the mascot’s purported purpose. Is Joe Sperm funny? Yes, he is, to college students who know the consequences of sex. But unfortunately, he also is funny to young people who don’t know how emotionally damaging and physically dangerous making a wrong choice about sex can be.
Sex is not a joke. Would it be funny to have a Barry Bong or Sammy Syringe teach children about the dangers of drug use? I can’t think of a better mascot to teach kids about proper sexual choices, which makes me inclined to argue that there should be no mascot to raise sexual consciousness.
The best way to teach proper sexual values is between parent and child, and failing that, through a responsible campaign that frankly lays down the potential risks involved with sex.
Using a contraceptive is a mature decision. How can Planned Parenthood expect young people to make that mature decision when they attempt to relate to them by using a joke of a mascot such as Joe Sperm?
PRO
By Michael J. Kleckner
Oregon Daily Emerald
Planned Parenthood has introduced its latest marketing tool and mascot, Joe Sperm, and I couldn’t be happier. Joe is an accessible, joyful way to reach out to young people and educate them about the consequences of sex.
Some people have expressed concern or outrage at the Joe Sperm campaign. I find this just a bit silly, but it’s a serious conversation, so I will engage it seriously.
According to its mission statement, Planned Parenthood’s main concern is to provide health care services while guaranteeing each individual’s right to reproductive self-determination and promoting understanding of the implications of sexuality. They want to cut down on unwanted pregnancies and STDs. Good mission.
How does Joe Sperm help bring these goals to fruition? By appealing to younger people in a playful manner — which is how many younger people treat sex. Many teenagers have a casual attitude toward sex, many of them are uneducated about sexuality and most of these people are at risk. This is a huge public health concern.
Perhaps sex should never be treated in a light, playful manner. Perhaps its a very serious, sacred act of love that is only to be expressed within the confines of a publicly committed relationship. And perhaps some of us just really dig on sex, y’all.
Joe is reaching out, in an admittedly frivolous manner, to those people who treat sex frivolously. It’s likely to get their attention, and then it’s likely to get a few more people thinking seriously about playing safely. This is good.
The con argument claims that young people don’t know the consequences of sex and that there should be no mascot to raise sexual consciousness. But this isn’t dealing with the real world. In reality, teen-agers are interested in and are having sex. Parents can engage in this dialogue, but Planned Parenthood isn’t a mother or a father. This is a public health campaign, and it needs to appeal to the masses.
Does Joe Sperm perpetuate trivialization of this most sacred of acts? Probably. Is that bad? Depends on your outlook. But I think it’s a worthwhile trade-off if we end up with fewer teen mothers who can’t support themselves, and fewer people dying of AIDS. Because people are still having sex. They do it quite a lot.
I think treating sex with a serious attitude is a worthwhile moral concern for those who feel that way. And I think it’s the job of parents, organized religion and peer groups to preach and teach all about it. That’s a good thing.
But I don’t think it’s the job of non-profit, health-advocacy groups. They are facing the reality of teens having sex. And it’s their job to educate, in the most effective manner possible, those who may be at risk. Joe Sperm does that wonderfully.