Let's talk about sex -- South African style

Dear Silwane Files reader,

This post is an experiment designed to elicit information to be used in a non-scientific study. The following categories of people are strongly encouraged to sit this one out:

1. People who were last sexually active when ‘Saturday Night Fever’ was the coolest movie ever made.
2. Catholics who believe that Vatican II was an abomination from hell and that the best way of making babies is through Immaculate Conception.
3. Anyone with a polyester safari suit in their wardrobe and/or has ever stuck a comb in their socks.

I’m busy developing an idea here. Please check the rationale for me.

Most people in 2008 would agree that it is the height of rationality to use ‘protection’ with a partner whose HIV status or STI status or IQ status you do not know. Yes, IQ status. French letters were invented by English King Charles II to keep his tadpoles in check so that he could go a-plundering and pillaging in the lower classes without accidentally compromising the royal genetic pool after all. Just in case you are ignorant – ignorant of that fact. (Ignore the Chinese claims. They have claimed everything from gunpowder to football to Mitchell’s Plain.)

Purely coincidentally, the rubber also helped curb the transference of the clap, the dreaded ‘drop’ and all manner of undesirables. Off course, the mighty crabs could not be vanquished, for the record. Viva the Big Itch — http://thoughtleader.co.za/silwane/2008/01/30/the-collusion-of-bunny-huggers-and-scientists-against-animals/ But the point is; using condoms for any sex is a rational approach in the 21st century. Yes, that includes sex within the confines of nuptials. Agreed? Alright then.

Can we also agree that not knowing someone’s HIV (or SIT or IQ) status is as good as them being HIV positive? In other words, for all practical purposes, every single time protection is used, the underlying assumption is that the other person is infected with a dreaded disease or that they are not prime candidates to form a zygote with. This is precisely the rationale used by everyone who has ever used a condom. Still makes sense, right? You’re still with me?

Now then. Suppose I performed an HIV test on an individual, kept them under lock and key, repeated the test three months later to sort out window periods (or however long they are these days) until you were 100% certain that they were HIV-free and STI-free. And let’s assume that you loved them, were married to them, were comfortable with their IQ and wanted to have offspring with them? Would you still need to use a condom? Can we agree that the most rational approach would be not to use protection? After all, what would be the point of that? A latex fetish of sorts?

This is the point where I think things get interesting. Now let’s suppose that I presented to you an individual that you find extremely sexually desirable. For fun, let’s assume that you don’t have any morals. (That last sentence was meant for any Vatican I fans with combs in their socks who might have seeped though the first sieve.) Now suppose I told you that this desirable individual is infected with HIV and I showed you the lab results. The question is; would you still engage in sexual relations with this person using a latex film that is 50 microns thick as your only protection?

Before you answer, allow me to recap:

– You agree that using condoms is rational.
– You agree that you would not use a condom if you knew with certainty that you were safe.
– You agree that the lack of knowledge of a partner’s status is the same as them being infected with a dreaded disease.

Okay, now that you know with absolute certainty that the person is infected.

1. Would you still go ahead and have sex with them?
2. Do you think that your answer in question 1 is rational, given the three points above?
3. Taking your answer in question 2 into consideration, is sexual intercourse of any kind ever rational?
4. Do you think that any purely intellectual discussion about HIV/Aids is ill-advised and callous given the enormity of the pandemic in South Africa?

Give your answers some thought and either leave a comment here or email me. Yes, I’m well aware that I have asked you leading questions and even went as far as assuming what your answers will be, based on nothing but subjectivity. It is a non-scienific study, after all.

And yes, I’m aware that my inclusion of fear of procreation as a reason for the use of condoms might be irritating to people married under the Civil Union Act. The experiment is far from perfect.

Just humour me.

[email protected]