Is Multiple and
Concurrent Sexual Partnerships really a Cultural and or a Traditional Practice
among Basotho?
One fact that we cannot deny is that Multiple and Concurrent
Sexual Partnerships is one of the biggest drivers of HIV spread in
Lesotho. What I have a problem with is
when it is called a traditional or a cultural practice. Those of you who have been with me in fora
where this kind of topics are discussed will bare me witness that I oppose it
in the strongest terms.
Traditionally, there were contexts where a man could have
sexual relations with a woman or women other than his wife, but this were
sanctioned or regulated. Look at the
following contexts.
Traditional Contexts:
Ho nyalloa lebota –
This is where a family which does not have a boy marry a girl so that
the children she fathers will be children of that family. Lobola is paid, a girl is married, and a man
(married or unmarried where the unmarried has been initiated) has relations
with that girl for the purpose of fathering a child or children. I am not sure in the case of the married man
if his wife knew, but I want to believe it was made with the utmost discretion
for her not to know.
Ho nyalloa lebitla – The same context as above but the
difference here is that the family did have a boy and the boy dies before he
could marry. The girls who is married is
called the wife of the deceased man and the children fathered are that of a
deceased man.
Ho senya ngoana – Basotho believed in proper spacing of children
and if a woman was still breastfeeding, her husband was not allowed to have
relations with her or even sleep in the same room with her. Such a man would be allowed to have relation
with a woman in the village or nearby village under strict sanctions of the
elders (remember that he was not sleeping around with whomever he pleased but a
woman sanctioned by those who had authority to do so). Also remember that a child could be breastfed
up to 3 or 4 years.
Ho ephola monna ea hlokang bana – If a man was impotent and
could not give his wife children, a man of good standing and good genes, was
selected by those who had authority to do so and he would biologically father a
child or children for that family. He
did not have any ties to the child or woman and could never claim it as his
own. (Remember when there are no children
in a household, it is still solely blamed on to a woman? It is because a man could traditionally be
covered in this manner if it was him with the challenge of fathering babies.)
Ho kenela – When an elder brother died before he could have
children or if the wife was vulnerable and needed to be taken care of, the
younger brother was expected to father children for his late brother. If the younger brother was married, the same
discreet methods to sneak him in to his brother’s household were used but if he
was not married, he was expected to marry his late brother’s wife.
Ho nyala sethepu – Though this is not traditionally a
Basotho practice if you look at the literature far back, it became a norm among
Basotho (have you noticed that Bathepu are Nguni and not Sotho and this kind of
polygamous marriage is called Sethepu?)
Well even so, a man could not just go propose to a woman and
marry her as his second wife. Sethepu
was sanctioned by the elder wife and she is the one who used to choose the
second wife for her husband. The first
wife gained matriarchal powers by controlling the chores of the household,
raising the babies from the second wife if she chose and drawing a time table
about when the man of the house could be with which wife. Sometimes it happened because the matriarch
needed more children for the household and was not in a position to provide
them herself. It could be that she is
barren or is too old to have children herself.
(do you remember Sarah and Hagar in the Old Testament?)
Ringing similarities about all the contexts above are:
·
Such relations were sanctioned by the elders or
people who were authorised to do so and not the man engaging in them.
·
The man who is involved in these relations did
not have his own discretion about who, to have those relations with.
·
It was always for a purpose other than the
personal pleasures of such a man.
·
“Mosali ke oa likhomo” which means that all
children born to a married woman are the children of the husband and of the
family no matter if he biologically fathered them or not.
I must acknowledge that there has always been a practice
(that has always and still is frowned upon) of Ho boka. Since it was and still is frowned upon, can
we honestly call it a culture or traditional practice? I think not. Ho boka is a practice where a man acts on the
affectionate feelings he has for a woman that he has not married. You can simply call it adultery because the
English meaning that is closest is just that.
Ho boka is not sanctioned by elders, it is at the discretion
of the people doing it alone and the purpose is always for enriching one
individual and pleasure of another (or both people).
In essence what is happening now that we have a tendency to
wrongly defend as culture or tradition is Ho boka and that is wrong?
When the missionaries came to Lesotho with their new
traditions, cultures and religion, a lot of the traditional norms highlighted
above were gotten rid of and this created a socio-cultural vacuum.
Ho boka then became more prominent as the authorities that
used to regulated social norms were gotten rid of. Ho boka became even worse when men went to
work for long periods in the mines in South Africa in order to pay hut tax and
to provide the new western creature comforts that they never had or knew in the
past.
By: Teboho C MOHLABI
