I saw this study a few week ago, and at the time I didn’t have much time to write about it. The study has important ramifications for women’s rights and the prevention of sexually transmitted infections.
The general findings indicate that at the national level (not the individual level) westerners have more sex partners and fewer sexually transmitted infections (STIs). This challenges some common myths about HIV in Africa, and it seems to me that this study furthers the case for condom distribution and comprehensive health care. Here is a quote:
“We did have some of our preconceptions dashed,” she said, explaining that they had expected to find the most promiscuous behaviour in regions like Africa, with the highest rates of sexually transmitted diseases.
That was not the case, as multiple partners were more commonly reported in industrialised countries where the incidence of such diseases were relatively low.
“There’s a misperception that there’s a great deal of promiscuity in Africa, which is one of the potential reasons for HIV/AIDS spreading so rapidly,” said Dr Paul van Look, director of Reproductive Health and Research at the World Health Organisation, who was unconnected to the study. “But that view is not supported by the evidence.”
Professor Wellings said that implied promiscuity may be less important than factors such as poverty and education – especially in the encouragement of condom use – in the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases.
The study’s findings don’t bode well for people who advocate marriage as a way to lower STI transmission, and they show a connection between the status of women and the spread of STIs. Specifically they found that gender equality seems to be correlated with fewer STIs.
Researchers also found that married people have the most sex, and that there has been a gradual shift to delay marriage. While that has meant a predictable rise in the rates of premarital sex, experts believe this doesn’t necessarily translate into more dangerous behaviour.
In some instances, married women may be at more risk than single women.
“A single woman is more able to negotiate safe sex in certain circumstances than a married woman,” said Dr van Look, who pointed out that married women in Africa and Asia are often threatened by unfaithful husbands who frequent prostitutes.
There is much greater equality between women and men with regard to the number of sexual partners in rich countries than in poor countries, the study found.
For example, men and women in Australia, Britain, France and the US tend to have an almost equal number of sexual partners.
By contrast, in Cameroon, Haiti and Kenya, men tend to have multiple partners while women tend only to have one.
So my sense is the more sexual freedom for women, the better the economic and education opportunities for everyone, and the better the health education system, the fewer STIs are spread.
Pingback: jennhi
I agree, but…
No, actually I just agree.
Damn it! ;)
For example, men and women in Australia, Britain, France and the US tend to have an almost equal number of sexual partners.
By contrast, in Cameroon, Haiti and Kenya, men tend to have multiple partners while women tend only to have one.
We’ll wait quietly for Rachel to read this again, spot the problem, and realize why a sexual behavior study based on self-reporting is worth slightly less than the paper it’s printed on. :P
Chalking it all up to reporting bias is overly simplistic – as is your quick dismissal of the study. From the study report:
Ampersand, it could be that Robert is referring to the problem of men having many partners vs. women having only one is that it makes only sense if men are having sex with each other. Therefore (heteronormatively thinking) men and women should have the exact same amount of partners on the average.
Of course, it could be explained by the word “tend” referring to median — presumably then a small class of women (prostitutes) have tons of partners, and most men have sex with prostitutes and their wife.
However, this isn’t very promising:
(my emphasis)
This does not prove lack of reporting bias, it requires a reporting bias.
The possibilies are that most of these men aren’t “getting any” and the younger monogamous women are capitalized by a select few of men, with the rest chalking up their numbers, or the women not being monogamous.
Robert, One thing that I have seen before is that there are a select number of women, such as prostitutes who have very high numbers of partners. This would affect a mean number of partners, but it would not affect a median. This could be an additional factor beyond the age structure issue that Amp cites. Although I trust that the age structure issue is a bigger factor.
Hey Amp, can you give the link for that quote?
…….they show a connection between the status of women and the spread of STIs. Specifically they found that gender equality seems to be correlated with fewer STIs.
Since you have a Ph.D I know that you know “correlated” and “show a connection” does not mean “caused”. For instance, you mentioned lack of health care and poverty and both of these could be more influential factors than gender equity.
So my sense is the more sexual freedom for women, the better the economic and education opportunities for everyone, and the better the health education system, the fewer STIs are spread.
You fail to mention that many of the STI’s-think of HIV- that are currently so widespread were non-existant or almost unheard of during the 19th century. The advent of the widespread use of the pill and abortion in the 60’s and 70’s precipitated the explosion of infection with STDs.
I’d very much like to see the evidence that the advent of widespread birth control and the availability of abortion in the 60s and 70s precipitated the spread of infection with STDs such as HIV. I interpret the word “precipitated” as “caused” – surely this isn’t what you’re implying? Especially given that HIV is rampant in parts of the world where, as Rachel has just pointed out, abortion and birth control are not so widely available, but is generally decreasing in places where they are.
I also think you’re ignoring the fact that syphilis, for example, was common well before the 60s and 70s, but I’m still trying to figure out the rest of your comment.
That is exactly what I was implying. The countries that Rachel was referring to in the studies were non-western nations. There are so many variables that can be confounding when you compare western nations to non-western nations that it is very hard to definitively determine causality.
“Unwanted pregnancy represents a major cost of sexual activity. When abortion was legalized in a number of states in 1969 and 1970 (and nationally in 1973), this cost was reduced. We predict that abortion legalization generated incentives leading to an increase in sexual activity, accompanied by an increase in sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). Using Centers for Disease Control data on the incidence of gonorrhea and syphilis by state, we test the hypothesis that abortion legalization led to an increase in sexually transmitted diseases. We find that gonorrhea and syphilis incidences are significantly and positively correlated with abortion legalization. Further, we find a divergence in STD rates among early legalizing states and late legalizing states starting in 1970 and a subsequent convergence after the Roe v. Wade decision, indicating that the relation between STDs and abortion is causal. Abortion legalization accounts for about one-fourth of the average disease incidence.”
Link
I didn’t say STDs were invented in the 1900’s but that there was a definite increase in the rates of infection and the variety of them in the 20th century.
*This is a correction of comment #8*
Because STI’s and other STD’s were called venereal diseases? (sorry)
Actually, I would say that they kind of were invented (especially virus-based), not in the tin foil hat sense, but in the discovery sense. Advances of medicine, more common availability to it (thus more people were treated), growth of population density (more partners), “globalization in sex” (amounting to increased variety) It wasn’t really time of advanced medicine or open discussion of such shameful issues.
If you want to make a case for pill and abortion increasing prevalence of STD’s, by all means, but I’m not sure what the 19th century has to do with it. A more valid comparison would be 1940s and 1950s.
The sexual revolution was a complex matter — the combination of the pill, antibiotics (leading to lessened fear of some traditional STDs), hippies, and later on, abortion did the trick.
Of course, people are becoming bit more responsible now.
Then there’s also the thing about HIV, it might be that the sexual revolution of women with (pill and abortion) led to sexual revolution of homosexuals, but HIV didn’t explode among heterosexuals directly following abortion rights.
Hmm, there’s a point in that.
(I should clarify that I didn’t think of American implications here, the sexual freedom is (widely) lacking in the most basic and vital sense in many third world countries — the freedom to not have sex. )
Don’t different states have bit different social norms regarding sex etc. ?
Is it possible that in the states that were early legalizers, the sexual revolution had already progressed further creating “a demand” for abortion legalization, which then, in turn, further increased promiscuity?
SmartBlkWoman, your link doesn’t work. Can you give me the references so I can try to look it up at my university library?
I think it’s almost impossible to compare developed/western sexual practices with those in most African countries. The status of women in Africa isn’t simply “lesser” than that of European or American women, it just isn’t comparable. Virginity is still prized (loss thereof outside of marriage or virtual marriage is shaming), women marry earlier, they are more likely to be married at the behest of their families and not of their own free will, they have little say over their sexuality, and spousal abuse is often an accepted practice in many places with little recourse. Both women and men face obstacles to education, but women are relatively disadvantaged to men in this regard.
But none of this is extraordinary and is usual even in many places where HIV hasn’t penetrated in the same manner as it has in Africa. The major vector for STDs and HIV in Africa, as it is in Thailand and India, is the widescale practice of prostitution among women simply and purely as a result of economic desperation and lack of alternative economic opportunities. It makes prostitution an entrenched institution in that many women (and their dependents) would simply starve or become beggars if they couldn’t resort to it. Telling men not to visit prostitutes and to use condoms when they do so would stem the tide of STDs and HIV, but it wouldn’t do much for the status of women, at least not directly.
Fo’ real??? j/k Yes, I do know that STI’s and STD’s were at one point in time referred to as venereal diseases.
I thought that comparing the 1800’s and the the period from the 60’s on would provide a starker contrast. I was trying to keep in mind that women’s demand for suffrage and feminism didn’t really pick up steam in America until the period between the late 1800’s and the 1920’s with the First Wave Feminists.
That’s true. You have some states like SD with only one abortion provider and then you have states like California and New York where abortion providers are much more common and emergency contraception is easier to get ahold of.
I think that is definitely possible also.
mangala Writes: SmartBlkWoman, your link doesn’t work. Can you give me the references so I can try to look it up at my university library?
I found my original link at University of Chicago Press, Journals Division.
Here is another link to the information at a different web address. Link It’s a pdf.
Africa is a big place