Something I have always found mysterious about UNAIDS' view (it's something of a received view) of the course of the HIV epidemic is that they estimate that the number of new infections peaked in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) some time in the mid 1990s. And they reckon that the reason new infections began to drop from then on can be put down to the success of HIV prevention and education programmes in changing the sexual behaviour of people, especially men who have sex with men (MSM), commercial sex workers (CSW), intravenous drug users (IDU) and young women.
With few exceptions, most SSA countries were doing very little to treat people with HIV or to prevent the transmission of HIV in the 1990s. Treatment was in its infancy and was inaccessible to the majority of Africans. And where prevention programmes had been implemented, they consisted of little more than mass education campaigns. They had very little influence on people's behaviour in the 1990s. And why would they have much influence? They had only started and only in a few countries, Uganda being one of the countries that started HIV prevention early. But even the nature and effectiveness of Uganda's HIV prevention campaign is still being hotly debated. Prevalence there has changed little in years and sexual behaviour indicators have long been sliding in the wrong direction.
What bothers me is that even if widespread prevention activities started in the mid 1990s, it would take many years for them to have much effect. That's if they actually had any effect at all. Ok, I can't research every country in SSA, but in the case of Kenya, very little was being done in the 1990s. It was only in the early 2000s that some serious work started, say 2002 or 2003. And the Kenya Aids Indicator Survey (KAIS) makes it quite clear that HIV prevalence, which had been dropping before 2003, actually increased and is now higher, after half a decade of HIV prevention work.
What I'm getting at is this: if rates of HIV transmission peaked in the mid nineties, then it did so for some reason other than the fact that every country had implemented widespread prevention programmes. The reason I suggest this is because prevention just wasn't a big thing then, at least, not big enough to explain why the epidemic started to 'decline'. I'm not saying that rates of transmission didn't drop, just that they didn't drop because of prevention programmes.
Another reason for thinking that prevention programmes didn't have much influence on rates of HIV transmission is because even after they did start, there is little evidence that they could have been the cause of the drop. There is plenty of evidence that most current HIV prevention programmes have little or no effect. In Kenya's case, scaling up HIV prevention programmes seem to have resulted in an increase in prevalence, the total number of people living with HIV. This doesn't tell us if transmission rates have decreased, so what about transmission? Are there still lots of people becoming newly infected?
According to the KAIS, transmission patterns are changing. Numbers infected in urban areas have dropped but numbers infected in rural areas have increased, especially among men. The majority of Kenyans, 75% or more, live in rural areas. Poorer and less well educated people are now being infected in greater numbers. The majority of poor and less well educated people live in rural areas and most Kenyans are poor and badly educated. These trends all follow what KAIS refer to as a 'rapid scale up of HIV prevention, care and treatment services'.
A recent article in AllAfrica.com quotes UNAIDS as claiming that their successful prevention and education programmes have *finally* begun to change the behaviour of those who are most at risk. If this is only happening in recent times, how can they claim that it had anything to do with a decline in incidence that began in the mid 1990s. But Kenya, along with many other SSA countries, have explicitly not targeted some of the groups who are thought to be most at risk, MSM, CSWs, IDUs and young women. The well presented 'Modes of Transmission Survey' for Kenya makes it quite clear that these groups are still being ignored.
There may be isolated signs of people's behaviour changing in some ways. All sorts of movements may have achieved great things, especially relating to HIV treatment and increasing access to treatment. I certainly wouldn't claim that all the billions that have been poured into HIV for over two decades has been wasted. But I have yet to see clear evidence that HIV transmission has declined as a result of prevention efforts. I think the epidemic has its own dynamics, like any epidemic, but I am not convinced that the enormous Aids industry has had much influence on its course. I just hope I'm wrong.
Showing posts with label inequality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label inequality. Show all posts
Friday, February 19, 2010
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Why HIV Is Not Just About Sex
I am not denying that HIV is a sexually transmitted infection and that most infections in developing countries such as Kenya occur through heterosexual sex. I am denying that abstinence or even abstinence, faithfulness and condom use programmes (ABC) on their own will reduce HIV transmission to the extent that the virus will one day cease to be endemic.
ABC programmes on their own are not enough. They are not enough because some people do not get to choose whether to have sex or not, when, how often, with whom and under what circumstances. Even if they have some choices, they probably don’t have any say in the sexual behaviour of their sexual partner or partners.
As for using condoms, they are probably the most important factor in reducing HIV transmission. But people who don’t have a choice about the abstinence or faithfulness options are unlikely to have a choice about the use of condoms either.
My scepticism about the effectiveness of ABC programmes does not mean that I think nothing can be done to reduce HIV transmission. On the contrary, many things can be done and many things can improve the effectiveness of ABC programmes, too.
In no particular order, here are some things that are involved in the transmission of HIV that have little to do with sex:
A number of people I talked to in Nairobi said that they have applied for jobs but when it comes to the selection process, they either need to give money to the prospective employer or they need to have sex with them. Those already in jobs are sometimes expected to have sex with their boss in order to get promotion or even to get paid. The rights of the employed and the unemployed are being compromised here.
Marriage is often seen as a protection against HIV but many women don’t have much say in who they marry, nor do they have much influence over their husband’s sexual behaviour. In many instances in Kenya, the man is significantly older than the woman. Therefore he probably has more sexual experience, more power in the relationship and is more likely to be employed than the woman and consequently have more control over finances.
Where women are forced to have sex for some benefit, whether it is for money, gifts, security or anything else, they risk being treated as a criminal by the police. Men who expect sex in return for some benefit are not usually treated as criminals. Therefore, women are often unable to report cases of forced or coerced sex. Victims of sexual abuse are being treated as criminals.
HIV rates are often high in certain contexts, such as in border towns, around big industries and in slums. Border areas and industrial areas often have demographic imbalances, with huge numbers of single men. Slums grow (partly) as a result of people coming to urban areas to work but only finding very low paid jobs. Transactional sex also grows in such areas and, as a result of poverty and lack of social services, people are extremely vulnerable.
HIV prevention programmes that aim to influence sexual behaviour have not been very successful in reducing HIV transmission. But that’s because these programmes have not always addressed the contexts in which sexual behaviour occurs, the contexts that so often result in sex being unchosen and/or unsafe.
Kenyan law can’t guarantee everyone a job but it should be able to guarantee that people will not have to bribe someone with money or sex to get a job, to keep a job or to get promotion or better conditions. Women need better educational opportunities, their rights need to be protected, their dependents need support, they need to be able to inherit their husband’s property, they need to be able to refuse sex with a partner who has been having sex with other women; and the list goes on.
If the country can’t provide people, especially women, with adequate employment or social benefits, it has no right to criminalise what is for so many people a last resort; commercial sex work. Women and girls are forced into some kind of commercial sex work because of extreme poverty and desperation. This exposes them to numerous dangers, HIV being just one of them.
In order to protect people from HIV, other sexually transmitted infections, unplanned pregnancies, violence and exploitation, commercial sex work needs to be decriminalised. This is one of the most urgent steps that needs to be taken in Kenya and other countries with high HIV prevalence.
So reducing HIV transmission depends on changing laws, improving education, health and other social services, reducing inequalities, especially those relating to the law, education, employment and many other measures. Once these issues have been addressed the question of influencing people’s sexual behaviour seems relatively unimportant. When people are empowered and, where necessary, protected, they will take care of their own sexual behaviour.
So far, little has been achieved in the field of HIV prevention. A relatively small percentage of money spent on HIV goes towards prevention (as opposed to treatment and support for those infected and affected) but most of that has been wasted on programmes that don’t have any effect. And they will never have any effect until these several far more important issues are addressed.
In order to reduce sexual transmission of HIV it is not necessary to influence people’s sexual behaviour; they need to be empowered to the extent that they can choose the conditions under which they have sex, how often and with whom; they need adequate laws, education, health, infrastructure and social services. In other words, people need their basic human rights to be assured. If basic rights are assured, people will be better able to look after their own less basic rights.
ABC programmes on their own are not enough. They are not enough because some people do not get to choose whether to have sex or not, when, how often, with whom and under what circumstances. Even if they have some choices, they probably don’t have any say in the sexual behaviour of their sexual partner or partners.
As for using condoms, they are probably the most important factor in reducing HIV transmission. But people who don’t have a choice about the abstinence or faithfulness options are unlikely to have a choice about the use of condoms either.
My scepticism about the effectiveness of ABC programmes does not mean that I think nothing can be done to reduce HIV transmission. On the contrary, many things can be done and many things can improve the effectiveness of ABC programmes, too.
In no particular order, here are some things that are involved in the transmission of HIV that have little to do with sex:
A number of people I talked to in Nairobi said that they have applied for jobs but when it comes to the selection process, they either need to give money to the prospective employer or they need to have sex with them. Those already in jobs are sometimes expected to have sex with their boss in order to get promotion or even to get paid. The rights of the employed and the unemployed are being compromised here.
Marriage is often seen as a protection against HIV but many women don’t have much say in who they marry, nor do they have much influence over their husband’s sexual behaviour. In many instances in Kenya, the man is significantly older than the woman. Therefore he probably has more sexual experience, more power in the relationship and is more likely to be employed than the woman and consequently have more control over finances.
Where women are forced to have sex for some benefit, whether it is for money, gifts, security or anything else, they risk being treated as a criminal by the police. Men who expect sex in return for some benefit are not usually treated as criminals. Therefore, women are often unable to report cases of forced or coerced sex. Victims of sexual abuse are being treated as criminals.
HIV rates are often high in certain contexts, such as in border towns, around big industries and in slums. Border areas and industrial areas often have demographic imbalances, with huge numbers of single men. Slums grow (partly) as a result of people coming to urban areas to work but only finding very low paid jobs. Transactional sex also grows in such areas and, as a result of poverty and lack of social services, people are extremely vulnerable.
HIV prevention programmes that aim to influence sexual behaviour have not been very successful in reducing HIV transmission. But that’s because these programmes have not always addressed the contexts in which sexual behaviour occurs, the contexts that so often result in sex being unchosen and/or unsafe.
Kenyan law can’t guarantee everyone a job but it should be able to guarantee that people will not have to bribe someone with money or sex to get a job, to keep a job or to get promotion or better conditions. Women need better educational opportunities, their rights need to be protected, their dependents need support, they need to be able to inherit their husband’s property, they need to be able to refuse sex with a partner who has been having sex with other women; and the list goes on.
If the country can’t provide people, especially women, with adequate employment or social benefits, it has no right to criminalise what is for so many people a last resort; commercial sex work. Women and girls are forced into some kind of commercial sex work because of extreme poverty and desperation. This exposes them to numerous dangers, HIV being just one of them.
In order to protect people from HIV, other sexually transmitted infections, unplanned pregnancies, violence and exploitation, commercial sex work needs to be decriminalised. This is one of the most urgent steps that needs to be taken in Kenya and other countries with high HIV prevalence.
So reducing HIV transmission depends on changing laws, improving education, health and other social services, reducing inequalities, especially those relating to the law, education, employment and many other measures. Once these issues have been addressed the question of influencing people’s sexual behaviour seems relatively unimportant. When people are empowered and, where necessary, protected, they will take care of their own sexual behaviour.
So far, little has been achieved in the field of HIV prevention. A relatively small percentage of money spent on HIV goes towards prevention (as opposed to treatment and support for those infected and affected) but most of that has been wasted on programmes that don’t have any effect. And they will never have any effect until these several far more important issues are addressed.
In order to reduce sexual transmission of HIV it is not necessary to influence people’s sexual behaviour; they need to be empowered to the extent that they can choose the conditions under which they have sex, how often and with whom; they need adequate laws, education, health, infrastructure and social services. In other words, people need their basic human rights to be assured. If basic rights are assured, people will be better able to look after their own less basic rights.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
The Excesses of Globalization
The top three revenue earners in Kenya are tea, horticultural products and tourism. There is little interest in tourism after the 2008 post election violence, which has still to be resolved. Sales of horticultural products are depressed due to the global economic climate. And tea is a turbulent commodity; most plantations are owned by multinationals. It's not difficult to work out who benefits from the tea industry in Kenya.
In addition, most of the big players in Kenya in these sectors are foreign. They pay little or no tax; they employ as few people as possible; they pay them as little as possible. The country will never get rich from their top revenue earners because they are in the hands of people and organisations who are allowed to exploit the country for everything they can get, and are happy to do so.
The majority of people in these sectors are not permanently employed, are often part time and have little or no protection from their employers. You might expect the International Labour Organization's (ILO) 'World of Work Report, 2008' to give considerable coverage to Kenya and other African countries. But you'd be disappointed. There are mentions of African regions but there seems to be little data about most African countries. In the light of this lack of data, one may conclude that conditions in Africa are far worse than in other continents.
The report as a whole shows that income inequalities are increasing in most countries and have been doing so for nearly two decades. The conclusion is that the economic model that led to the current financial crisis is not sustainable and that balancing economic with social and environmental goals is vital to recovery, as well as to a reverse in the trend towards higher levels of inequality.
While a few, rich people, gained from the economic expansion preceding the current crisis, the majority did not get richer. Indeed, many became poorer. But it's that poor majority that must pay for the current financial rescue package. Those on high incomes have seen huge increases in their incomes. Those on low incomes have seen small increases or even decreases. Women in all countries, especially developing countries, are less likely to be employed and more likely to be employed on an informal basis. They also receive lower wages than men.
The ILO's report shows that financial globalization has played a major part in these increases in inequality. Unemployment has increased while productivity has decreased. Globalization has resulted in a significant increase in banking crises. The report argues that there is a need for regulation to limit the excesses of financial players and protect the vulnerable, who usually suffer the most when things go wrong.
The ILO also notes the issue of 'performance pay systems' for senior employees. This has resulted in large increases in executive pay that is not reflected in company performance. In 2007 in the US, executive pay in the top 15 firms was 500 times that of the average employee, compared to 360 times higher in 2003. Other countries experienced similar patters. The report suggests that executives are in a dominant bargaining position and the result is both an increase in inequality and a decrease in economic efficiency.
In contrast, the bargaining position of employees, trade unions and other labour institutions has weakened. There have been increases in part time and non permanent employment, which means lower pay. In addition, taxation has become less progressive, shifting the burden of tax from the richer sectors of the population towards the poorer. Redistribution and social protection are thus compromised.
The 'Decent Work Agenda' proposed by the ILO includes "well-designed labour regulations and social protection, and respect for basic workers’ rights" to achieve higher levels of employment and greater equality. They argue that, along with a reform of the financial architecture, this will contribute to a more balanced and sustainable economy. At the same time, it will help to address the social consequences of the current financial crisis.
The above suggests an opportunity for 'development by omission'. It is not acceptable for tax systems to move away from progressive forms of tax, ones that shift the burden from the poor to the rich. Nor is it acceptable for the highest paid individuals in a firm to have the power to award themselves ever increasing salaries and bonuses while the lowest paid get only small increases. The move towards less formal employment with the resulting drop in income only increases vulnerability. Big, private sector, employers have seen their profits swell for many years. The increase in profits has often been a result of cutting wage costs and this cannot continue indefinitely.
It's easy for employers to blame the economic slowdown, the rising cost of fuel, the food crisis and various other trends, but these labour trends have been worsening for a long time. They are inimical to both development and equality. The dogmatic claims for the benefits of globalization have not materialised. Employment has not increased as a result, it has decreased. Conditions have disimproved and there are rising levels of inequality.
Governments need to take into account the social consequences of globalisation, in addition to the economic consequences. This is especially true for governments of developing countries, such as Kenya. The government needs to keep an eye on employers who are increasing their executive pay, cutting employee pay and increasing their levels of temporary and part time employment. So far, they seem more interested in promoting the interests of employers, regardless of the costs to employees and the country as a whole.
The government need also to rebuild the health, education, social services, infrastructure and other public goods that have been allowed to decline for so long. Many Kenyans will not benefit directly from labour reform as most do not work in the formal sector. Any efforts at redistribution and redress needs to take this into account.
In addition, most of the big players in Kenya in these sectors are foreign. They pay little or no tax; they employ as few people as possible; they pay them as little as possible. The country will never get rich from their top revenue earners because they are in the hands of people and organisations who are allowed to exploit the country for everything they can get, and are happy to do so.
The majority of people in these sectors are not permanently employed, are often part time and have little or no protection from their employers. You might expect the International Labour Organization's (ILO) 'World of Work Report, 2008' to give considerable coverage to Kenya and other African countries. But you'd be disappointed. There are mentions of African regions but there seems to be little data about most African countries. In the light of this lack of data, one may conclude that conditions in Africa are far worse than in other continents.
The report as a whole shows that income inequalities are increasing in most countries and have been doing so for nearly two decades. The conclusion is that the economic model that led to the current financial crisis is not sustainable and that balancing economic with social and environmental goals is vital to recovery, as well as to a reverse in the trend towards higher levels of inequality.
While a few, rich people, gained from the economic expansion preceding the current crisis, the majority did not get richer. Indeed, many became poorer. But it's that poor majority that must pay for the current financial rescue package. Those on high incomes have seen huge increases in their incomes. Those on low incomes have seen small increases or even decreases. Women in all countries, especially developing countries, are less likely to be employed and more likely to be employed on an informal basis. They also receive lower wages than men.
The ILO's report shows that financial globalization has played a major part in these increases in inequality. Unemployment has increased while productivity has decreased. Globalization has resulted in a significant increase in banking crises. The report argues that there is a need for regulation to limit the excesses of financial players and protect the vulnerable, who usually suffer the most when things go wrong.
The ILO also notes the issue of 'performance pay systems' for senior employees. This has resulted in large increases in executive pay that is not reflected in company performance. In 2007 in the US, executive pay in the top 15 firms was 500 times that of the average employee, compared to 360 times higher in 2003. Other countries experienced similar patters. The report suggests that executives are in a dominant bargaining position and the result is both an increase in inequality and a decrease in economic efficiency.
In contrast, the bargaining position of employees, trade unions and other labour institutions has weakened. There have been increases in part time and non permanent employment, which means lower pay. In addition, taxation has become less progressive, shifting the burden of tax from the richer sectors of the population towards the poorer. Redistribution and social protection are thus compromised.
The 'Decent Work Agenda' proposed by the ILO includes "well-designed labour regulations and social protection, and respect for basic workers’ rights" to achieve higher levels of employment and greater equality. They argue that, along with a reform of the financial architecture, this will contribute to a more balanced and sustainable economy. At the same time, it will help to address the social consequences of the current financial crisis.
The above suggests an opportunity for 'development by omission'. It is not acceptable for tax systems to move away from progressive forms of tax, ones that shift the burden from the poor to the rich. Nor is it acceptable for the highest paid individuals in a firm to have the power to award themselves ever increasing salaries and bonuses while the lowest paid get only small increases. The move towards less formal employment with the resulting drop in income only increases vulnerability. Big, private sector, employers have seen their profits swell for many years. The increase in profits has often been a result of cutting wage costs and this cannot continue indefinitely.
It's easy for employers to blame the economic slowdown, the rising cost of fuel, the food crisis and various other trends, but these labour trends have been worsening for a long time. They are inimical to both development and equality. The dogmatic claims for the benefits of globalization have not materialised. Employment has not increased as a result, it has decreased. Conditions have disimproved and there are rising levels of inequality.
Governments need to take into account the social consequences of globalisation, in addition to the economic consequences. This is especially true for governments of developing countries, such as Kenya. The government needs to keep an eye on employers who are increasing their executive pay, cutting employee pay and increasing their levels of temporary and part time employment. So far, they seem more interested in promoting the interests of employers, regardless of the costs to employees and the country as a whole.
The government need also to rebuild the health, education, social services, infrastructure and other public goods that have been allowed to decline for so long. Many Kenyans will not benefit directly from labour reform as most do not work in the formal sector. Any efforts at redistribution and redress needs to take this into account.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Hate the Sinner, Love the Sin
Recently, a Kenyan friend of mine posted a question on Facebook the jist of which was 'if a promiscuous woman is called a whore, what is a promiscuous man called'? She got some facetious replies but it is a very important question. Why do we vilify women who sleep with men? There are many words for women seen as promiscuous but I can't think of any for men. There must be a lot of men who love sex but there must also be a lot who hate women. Could it really be common for men who love sex to also hate women? It seems likely.
A workshop in South Africa recently argued that "society's expectations and presentation of women makes them more vulnerable to catching sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and HIV". There appears to be a deficit of respect built into societies, languages and behaviours and it seems so self defeating. The workshop pointed to "the need for woman and girls to be empowered for them to make informed decisions when negotiating safe sex".
We (humanity) are facing a dangerous situation and it seems that several decades of HIV/AIDS has done little to change attitudes. Men are very often in a position to do things and talk about things that women are not able to do and talk about without censure. Men often say that there are things they find it difficult to talk about and they would never talk about them in front of women. Women, too, are expected to remain silent about certain things and to only discuss others with other women.
I have talked to people who run HIV prevention programmes and they often mention how the content needs to be different when the audience is young or female. It's true that the content needs to be produced with a particular audience in mind. But maybe there is also a place for discussion between males and females. Perhaps it would be enlightening if men were to get to know what women think and if women were to get to know what men think, especially what men think about women and sex, for example.
Why is it more shocking to hear a woman swear or to see a woman drinking or spending time in a bar or, god forbid, time in a bar with men? Men go to bars to hang out with their friends, to drink and to meet women. If they think the women they meet in bars are 'whores', why don't they stop going to the bars and go to church halls instead? Or perhaps they could persuade their 'nice' female friends to go to the bar with them. But that would take us back to square one because women who go to bars are just not nice, apparently.
The workshops also argued that “[i]n the rural set up mostly, women who [negotiate] for safe sex are viewed as promiscuous and wayward”. It's sensible for anyone to insist on safe sex, whether they are male or female. There is something wrong already if the woman has to negotiate. The fact that she is considered promiscuous or wayward is almost laughable, especially considering the reasons why she might feel the need to negotiate; perhaps she knows that a lot of men are happy to have sex without a condom.
People here, male and female, often tell me that women are not supposed to be forward, they are not supposed to make the first move. Men see women who ignore this code of conduct as objects of suspicion and even as in some way evil. Is there something inherently about men that makes them better at making decisions that relate to friendship and sexual relationships? I don’t think so, but perhaps I’m just lacking in some way.
When it comes to negotiating about or even discussing sex, there is a need for greater levels of mutual respect and equality. People are people, gender is not a species. This needs to start in classrooms and among young people. So, if people object to teaching children about sex and safe sex, the least they could do is teach about equality and respect.
A person who has sex with other people is just a person. A person who has sex with lots of other people is also just a person, though they need to exercise a lot of care, as do the people they sleep with. But a sizeable majority of women who have sex, do so with men. It’s not as if there is a small group (or large group) of people who, in some way, are responsible for all the illicit sex in the world.
Quite frankly, if I was a woman, I would be called a whore. I go to bars, I meet women, I’ve even had the temerity to sleep with some women. But as a man, calling me a whore just doesn’t have the same import. And I don’t think the solution is to find an equivalent term for men to right the balance. I think it would be preferable to see sex as something that occurs between people, male and female.
A workshop in South Africa recently argued that "society's expectations and presentation of women makes them more vulnerable to catching sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and HIV". There appears to be a deficit of respect built into societies, languages and behaviours and it seems so self defeating. The workshop pointed to "the need for woman and girls to be empowered for them to make informed decisions when negotiating safe sex".
We (humanity) are facing a dangerous situation and it seems that several decades of HIV/AIDS has done little to change attitudes. Men are very often in a position to do things and talk about things that women are not able to do and talk about without censure. Men often say that there are things they find it difficult to talk about and they would never talk about them in front of women. Women, too, are expected to remain silent about certain things and to only discuss others with other women.
I have talked to people who run HIV prevention programmes and they often mention how the content needs to be different when the audience is young or female. It's true that the content needs to be produced with a particular audience in mind. But maybe there is also a place for discussion between males and females. Perhaps it would be enlightening if men were to get to know what women think and if women were to get to know what men think, especially what men think about women and sex, for example.
Why is it more shocking to hear a woman swear or to see a woman drinking or spending time in a bar or, god forbid, time in a bar with men? Men go to bars to hang out with their friends, to drink and to meet women. If they think the women they meet in bars are 'whores', why don't they stop going to the bars and go to church halls instead? Or perhaps they could persuade their 'nice' female friends to go to the bar with them. But that would take us back to square one because women who go to bars are just not nice, apparently.
The workshops also argued that “[i]n the rural set up mostly, women who [negotiate] for safe sex are viewed as promiscuous and wayward”. It's sensible for anyone to insist on safe sex, whether they are male or female. There is something wrong already if the woman has to negotiate. The fact that she is considered promiscuous or wayward is almost laughable, especially considering the reasons why she might feel the need to negotiate; perhaps she knows that a lot of men are happy to have sex without a condom.
People here, male and female, often tell me that women are not supposed to be forward, they are not supposed to make the first move. Men see women who ignore this code of conduct as objects of suspicion and even as in some way evil. Is there something inherently about men that makes them better at making decisions that relate to friendship and sexual relationships? I don’t think so, but perhaps I’m just lacking in some way.
When it comes to negotiating about or even discussing sex, there is a need for greater levels of mutual respect and equality. People are people, gender is not a species. This needs to start in classrooms and among young people. So, if people object to teaching children about sex and safe sex, the least they could do is teach about equality and respect.
A person who has sex with other people is just a person. A person who has sex with lots of other people is also just a person, though they need to exercise a lot of care, as do the people they sleep with. But a sizeable majority of women who have sex, do so with men. It’s not as if there is a small group (or large group) of people who, in some way, are responsible for all the illicit sex in the world.
Quite frankly, if I was a woman, I would be called a whore. I go to bars, I meet women, I’ve even had the temerity to sleep with some women. But as a man, calling me a whore just doesn’t have the same import. And I don’t think the solution is to find an equivalent term for men to right the balance. I think it would be preferable to see sex as something that occurs between people, male and female.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
