BEHAVIOUR CURRENCIES: WHO AFFORDS NON-RISKY BEHAVIOURS? Whenever we deal with hard social issues; we have a tendency to reduce them to simple physical and even mathematical equations.
In the AIDS fraternity, we have a tendency to say;
Risk behaviour equals HIV infection
HIV causes AIDS
HIV prevention is as easy as ABC
We feel at ease doing our equations and our causalities don’t we?
Is ABC that easy? If it was would we be number three per capita in the world with our prevalence rate? How do we expect a 40-year-old single man with a disability to Abstain simply because they are finding it hard to have a partner? Is HIV a social phenomenon or a moral issue? What would be the best approach to deal with HIV? Moral approach or Social Approach?
How many people confess to being faithful and yet infect their partners, what is the measure of faithfulness? Can you really come back to your partner and say, “Partner, I have been unfaithful tonight, so can we use a condom until I have tested and until we have passed the window period to confirm that I am still negative?”
Is a Condom used for trust or is it about prevention and safety? In other words, are we using a condom because we do not trust each other or because we are taking precautions for safety? How many married people take this precaution of safety? Can a woman really teach her partner how to use a condom? Can a woman ensure that a condom has been inserted --- properly even --- in the steam of the moment in the darkroom under blankets? (I do not even want to talk about the accessibility and affordability of condoms here!!!)
A lot of research has shown that HIV has thrived more in poor settings than rich settings. It has also shown that in places where there is already social chaos like wars, unfair distribution of resources, poverty and migration, HIV seems to thrive more.
It is because poor people engage more in sex than other people? There have been such arguments that when poor people have nothing to do and do not have recreational facilities, they engage in sex and alcohol instead? Is that so? Can we really say rich people engage in sex less and drink less than poor people?
There have been talks about the vulnerabilities of poor factory workers who have multiple boyfriends so that they can assist them with rent, cooking gas, transport etc. They are then thought to engage in sex as payment for all these services. Haeboo??
Why do people engage in risky sexual behaviours, why do people continue to engage in these behaviours that we have been talking about since 1986? Is it because of a lack of information? Is it because knowledge does not result in behaviour change? Is it because the brochures are printed in English and most can not read them? I know I am speaking to a lot of my colleagues in this paragraph because these are the conclusions we often hear being uttered at workshops. “If you want to hide something from Basotho, put it in a book.” – With one of the highest literacy rates in
According to one Economic Philosopher (let me tell you before I continue that I did not do very well in Economics myself), behaviour is not just a physical phenomenon, but a social and indeed an economic phenomenon. I want to focus on the economic aspect for now for the sake of this article.
This wise old man said everything that we do or not do depends on whether we can afford to do it or not. Afford here is not just in terms of physical currency or Money but, time, self, space, behaviour, morals, information, survival etc.
Let me make an example: when people enter into a hole called a mine every morning, they know they might die that day, but they still enter the hole because they cannot afford NOT to enter the hole (it may be their only means of survival). The money currency entering the hole at this point is more valuable than the survival currency. It is why one researcher at the mines said, “Mineworkers refuse to use condoms because they say, that they battle real death every day in the mines and they are not scared of something that will kill them 10-20 years later?”
When a sex worker goes to work every night and stands in the cold dark night, she knows she may be raped or even killed. But often a time, she cannot afford NOT to stand elsewhere or stay at home. The money currency here is less than the moral currency of being judged and the survival currency of her dependants is also higher than the risk she is taking.
Even you… When you wake up on Monday after a long party you wish you could stay at home and not go to the office sometimes, but you still go to work because you cannot afford to stay at home as you will either lose your job or fail to meet deadlines.
Now let’s come back to HIV transmission: When people engage in sexual behaviour whether in marriage or not they may engage in behaviours that put them at risk because they do NOT afford those behaviours which do not put them to risk. Whether because they are culturally broke, economically broke or socially broke to do what they know they should. They are broke and cannot afford to make a decision that is good and healthy for them.
I know a case of a man who was totally abusive to his wife. The woman went to the relevant offices and the man was brought to book. When the judge gave a conviction, he sentenced the man to three years in jail. At hearing this, the woman pleaded for him to be released and said that the family will handle the situation. Let's look at why this woman made such a drastic change. Apparently, this man was the breadwinner in the family and the woman realised that if he gets jailed she will not: Economically afford rent, food, school fees etc.
Socially afford: to be single, to be mocked by neighbours and colleagues.
Culturally afford: to be blamed by the husband’s family (Mosali o ngalla mots’eeo: Mmangoana o ts’oara thipa ka bohaleng. Blah
Religiously afford: What God had joined in Matrimony, let no man put asunder.
It was not just a simple case of, “He abused me and justice must be done”. Do you think this woman weight her currency properly by letting the man go free or should she have suffered this other currency deficit and let the man go to jail?
Have you heard a saying that some people are so broke that they cannot even afford to pay attention? It is very true that when you are very broke, you cannot even concentrate and sometimes you make irrational decisions simply because you are broke.
On the interesting twist of things, we say that money makes the world go round and it is true.
So in conclusion, if people had enough money, they would afford to make all the good decisions that are expected of them because they would afford them. Is this even true?
A truck driver would take his wife along if he could afford to inform the boss without losing his job. He could also inform the boss how often he needs to go home to his family if he could afford to. A factory worker would afford to pay her own rent, transport and airtime. Once she can afford this, she would be in a position to engage is sex for love only and not for fear of being left out in the dark or without rented shelter.
And sex workers? There would probably be one kind of sex workers around (nymphomaniacs) who have sex for the love of it and get paid for it and not those desperate vulnerable ones who hate sex and just do it for survival.
Let us think about all currencies when we make behaviour decisions…
