A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION

Bravo for Dr. Art Ulene’s terrific series on so-called “safe” sex last week on KABC-TV Channel 7’s “Eyewitness News.” It was clear, concise and--considering the threat of AIDS--extremely valuable.

As Ulene noted, you cannot assure safe sex, only saf er sex by using condoms and other contraceptive methods. The only sure way to avoid getting AIDS from sexual contact, he pointed out, is by practicing abstinence or by making sure you have a “safe” partner. And the latter can be awkward:

Your place or mine?

Mine. But would you mind stopping by the hospital for a blood test first?

While Ulene was spending the week dispensing graphic sex information on Channel 7, ironically, the station was said to be still deciding whether to accept condom advertising.

KABC-TV, KNBC Channel 4, KCBS-TV Channel 2 and other network-owned stations are not bound by their parent networks’ policies prohibiting the airing of condom ads. Channel 2 said it will accept condom ads, and Channel 4 is still undecided.

Isn’t that democratic? Each network gives the stations it owns autonomy on condom ads, but no freedom to reject heavily sexual network programming.

The networks and most local stations reject contraceptive advertising on the grounds that these commercial messages would be offensive to many of their viewers. Wondrous, isn’t it? The 21st Century is just around the corner, and TV still has to be pulled, scratching and biting, into the 20th.

Let’s get these hand-wringing broadcasters off the hook.

Yes, as Ulene noted, no contraceptive is absolutely safe. But let’s assume that the great minds of broadcasting understand that running pro-contraceptive messages is still a responsible way to help combat the spread of AIDS.

They know it makes sense, but they’re stubborn. They’re infants. They stamp their feet and bawl if challenged. They know change is inevitable, but they don’t want to lose face.

So forget the paid condom ads.

Let’s accept the argument that the first priority of contraceptive manufacturers is to make money, not save lives.

And let’s accept the even more specious argument that these so-called money-grubbers will make commercials that will offend all of America, promote promiscuity and turn us into a nation of hedonists.

Who needs paid condom commercials, anyway?

Public-service announcements are a better choice.

ABC has already agreed to air 30-second public-service spots from the American Foundation for AIDS Research quoting Surgeon General C. Everett Koop’s endorsement of condoms as “the best protection” against AIDS barring abstinence.

The spots will air “several times throughout the week” in all time periods starting March 2, a network spokesman said.

That’s a step in the right direction, but still not enough.

The public service spots are such a terrific idea that the networks should be the ones making them. They should let their own promotions departments do the work, the same ones that grind out those self-serving promos that punctuate each evening. If these whizzes can sell some of their banal programs, they surely can sell methods to help prevent AIDS.

No need for the network to worry about outsiders meeting network standards of taste. No need for networks to dirty their hands with those awful paid condom commercials.

Let those high-minded networks do the job themselves.

Moreover, these public service spots should not be run haphazardly or only after 11 p.m. (as Channel 2 plans to do with paid condom ads).

It’s critical that they be run at commercial breaks within programs having sexual themes. Show sex, and then explain the possible consequences of sex.

Two lovers hit the sack? Fine. The next commercial break should include a public service announcement either advising the use of condoms during sex or, at the very least, stating that sex without contraception can be dangerous to your health.

A gentle reminder, that’s all. One untainted by the profit motive of contraceptive manufacturers, one that doesn’t promote sex any more than the adjoining program promotes sex.

Sunday would be an ideal place to start.

That’s the premiere date for “I’ll Take Manhattan,” CBS’ eight-hour miniseries version of the Judith Krantz novel. It should be retitled “You Take Manhattan, I’ll Take Lust.”

There are at least half a dozen sexual encounters in the first two hours alone, including one couple doing it in a phone booth and later in a theater prop room, during intermission.

All right, we can take those sex scenes. We may even like those sex scenes. Just throw in public service announcement at the appropriate station breaks.

A brief message, produced by the always tasteful CBS, noting that casual sex in a phone booth--with someone whose sexual history is unknown to you--may be fatal. At the very least, you could throw out your back.

Is CBS listening? Apparently not. It’s like dialing a wrong number.