Tuesday, 2nd December 2008
To have or not to have - again
The “to have or not to have” a condom machine installed on campus has recently been revisited, or regurgitated for that matter- all it took was for one student organisation to think it witty to include one in every fresher’s welcome pack and another organisation to inquire whether they were actually reliable. Before you knew it, the student government meeting was thwarted with the very heated debate yet again.
One thing that has been voiced over this past month (and indeed, all last year) is why it should even be an issue, why condoms, which have been around since the time of the Egyptians, should be treated as such a taboo. It is very simple to understand the necessity of condoms- the lack of which could easily be seen as responsible for the increasing STI rates and the fact that 20% of all births are to unwed mothers, many of whom are teenagers. But it’s not right; we must not have a condom machine on campus.
A lot of attention has been given to what it will mean for the university to provide condoms, it seems that the provision of condoms is screaming “FREE SEX”, making many people scowl at, or better yet, shun the entire notion of providing anything of the sort for students. Students should come to university for the love of knowledge, not for the love of their genitalia. What I hear condoms saying, however, is “safe sex”, “responsible sex” “respectful sex”; we cannot deny that students are sexually active in their free time, so why not promote a healthy and responsible way to go about this?
While some may argue that the provision of condoms on campus may connote student priorities other than that of education, one must make way for some more practical considerations. The average student has between 15- 30 lecture hours a week on campus, and spends many more in between lectures; often till times when shops (including pharmacies) may no longer be open. While students may purchase condoms from other dispensaries aside from those (hypothetically) available on campus, one must also question the issue of convenience.
If a student should need to buy condoms or any other product really, it would be a lot easier if it were in the general university area. We currently can easily buy food, books, stationery, gifts and even electronics and clothes on campus- as these are seen as “appropriate” products to endorse as part of student life, yet condoms are not. With sexuality being such a primary part of young adulthood, I find the questioning of student priorities for desiring easily-accessible condoms to be somewhat ridiculous.
Yet condoms appear to be speaking, even if the word cannot be published in government documents or if they cannot be used in educational promotions in schools- they have a voice and are primarily speaking of issues regarding health. What is the issue at present, however, is whether we’re going to listen to them. At the end of 2008, I believe the question is- why not?
Glorianne Spiteri is president of BetaPsi
RSS
Comments
My post was written with my tongue firmly plastered into my cheek...
REgarding the Pharmacy comment... Sure, condoms are available everywhere now, so why not on campus... or anywhere for that matter. I fondly remember walking into a pharmacy a couple of years ago and because condoms were behind the pharmacists and not easily accessible I had to loudly ask for a box, while all the older clientele looked on shocked and full of horror.
Thankfully I was a mature adult who was not ashamed of purchasing such items openly. However, if I were 18, maybe i would have hesitated... At 18 you are not always as assertive to brush off social stigma, which ultimately shows how badly we think of sex as a culture, that it is something that must not be discussed openly and should be disapproved... I'm sorry but i still feel we are this way as a nation...
The cases you cited only speak of correlation, any causation implied is strictly the perception of those who have made use of the clinic's services. There was also no mention of the frequency or manner in which the contraceptive devices were used- the pill's efficicacy, for example, greatly diminishes is not taken according to the very specific instructions and condoms' efficacy may also be compromised if not used properly.
Mentioning how people are using abortion as a form of contraception in other countries also has no relevance to this article, as condoms are by no means abortive.
The last quote you cited "Ulhmann, 1994" is almost 15 years old. If you are familiar with research protocol, data which is over 10 years old decreases in validity. In the last 15 years condoms have become more effective and more education is being provided, if not in Malta than in other countries.
The other data I cited in my earlier comment also gives my standing on encouraging abstinence only.
I would also like to know the source of your "trust worthy" research regarding contraception promotion.
In the first situation, yes, definitely, it is personally the type of sexual activity I would feel most comfortable with.
Regarding the second situation, I don't think that having multiple partners is particularly responsible, even with using a condom- however, compared doing so without using a condom I definitely consider it to be the better option.
Your last comment, however, I cannot agree with fully. Unplanned pregnancies can occur with even the most devoted couple having sex for the sake of love, and not lust. The risk of STIs are greatly eliminated in (previously clean) monogamous couples, however, I know of many couples who have been forced into parenthood as a result of not using appropriate (or any protection). Some of this does evolve around education too, and not simply providing condoms at University.
It is true that condoms are available elsewhere, however, the nearest pharmacy to campus is a good walk away. There are times when I struggle to find time to go to my local stationer to get a stamp, the same restrictions may apply finding a pharmacy open. Hence, my speaking of convenience.
Now, following up from your previous comment where we're being told to wake up once again (I must be having this sleeping disorder where somehow I'm falling asleep to many times, don't I?), I'd like to ask a question:
Is a person that abstains from sex until he/she is in a stable and very good relationship "living life, but doing so responsibly" as you put it?
Now is a person that has sex anytime he/she wants but then uses a condom, does that make him/her responsible or any more responsible?
If the first situation is the better one, than do you think that introducing condoms in University (when they're already available at any pharmacy) will help achieve the better situation?
Also, a part of having a "healthy" sexual life is to have a faithful partner and someone you love. No amount of condoms will make it healthy.
I am proud that there is a generation in Malta that has the wisdom to accept STD's as part of a very big global issue and are wanting to take precautions to prevent them. After all this is Malta's future you are looking at here.. i.f there ever will be one. It is looking grim.
This article is not about sex. Stop and open your minds.
Rather, condoms provide people (adults, students, older adults, the works) with the choice to prevent unplanned pregnancies and STIs. They are not about to corrode the moral values of today's society.
This is the reason I wrote this blog. It was to illustrate how something so pertinent to healthy sexual practices can spark such controversy, when reality clearly shows how this shouldn't be the case.
The average age of losing one's viriginity in Malta is 16 years of age. That meaning that by the time students reach university, many will be sexually active. They will not be coming to university to get laid if a condom machine is there. Rather, having a condom machine at students' disposal would merely be saying 'go, live your lives, but do so responsibly'
Allow me now to cite the cases in 4 countries: France, the Netherlands, Germany and the USA. The first 3 countries do not promote abstinence-only education programmes, encourage sex in the context of rights, responsibility and respect, teaching to behave responsibly when they do have sex. The US, however, has only in this last month started to rethink their abstinence only programmes.
The results?
The US has the highest birth rates of all industrialised nations- 13 times higher than in the netherlands. It also has an abortion rate 9 times higher than that in Germany and an AIDS case rate 4 times higher than in France.
For those of you who think sex is something wrong and immoral-
how little do you believe in the young generation to think that they cannot hold onto their urges until they are in a reasonably stable realtionship...or at least out of the campus? I am well aware that some people would rather give in to those urges immedietly but that is not who the condom machine is catering for....they will not get to it in time. Their is much more to youth and the beauty of discovering the self and others then coupling around aimlessly. Sex is a complicated issue even within marraige or a serious relationship...why start on the wrong foot? The arguement here is not to turn students into asexual robots but simply that the promotion of contraception (and that is what we call the provision of condoms on campus) promotes aimless coupling - casual sex.
So, you, like me, are against casual sex.
You've said it yourself: the problem with sex is that if it isn't done "safely, with consent and in a mature way" it has repercussions. I highly doubt that University-level students are capable of fulfilling all those (especially the "mature" part) and providing condoms would encourage sex:
Sex which is (supposedly) safe but then immaturely. Otherwise known as casual sex.
"where ppl who want condoms can buy them"
I'm pretty sure that people who want condoms can already buy them.
Sex is something dirty, immoral and only for procreation. Otherwise, your heads should be stuck in the books and you should not have any social life or interest in exploring an important part of yourself because it will only lead to you going blind, and of course, the greatest danger... visiting our lovely friend the devil in the afterlife... Oh yes, and having sex leads to abortion, so dont even think of going there... your murderous fools.
The study authors from Flinders University, Wendy Abigail, Charmaine Power and Ingrid Belan, said the findings “dispel the myth” that women use abortion as a method of contraception and blamed failing contraception as the cause. They also called for more urgent recent into why contraception methods fails so commonly.
This flawed approach of reliance on contraception had already been recognized by Family Planning Australia in an article published years previously, which reported on the inherent unreliability of contraception.
"Until a method of contraception which was 100-per-cent effective was developed, abortion would always be part of the contraceptive continuum, executive director of Family Planning Australia, Dianne Proctor said." (Uhlmann, 1994).
@Francis Saliba- think you're wrong in associating being able to buy condoms with instant gratification. If the area you work or study in has a clothing store, do you buy clothes to wear that instant? I doubt it, yet you might use it as it's conveniently nearby. Students are not "agitating", the desire for a condom machine has merely been expressed, many students I know have maintained that they don't see the point of the fuss about a condom machine, with or without it they'll get by. My point was why it's such an issue to some people, why every mention of condoms must be met with such resistance and prudish mentalities (such as jumping to prostitution and casual sex)
Condoms in a University will encourage sex. As I've already asked, if you gave a guy a condom, what do you think he'll do with it?
And so, a condom machine at University is an obvious thing to do and has nothing to do with promoting casual sex, giving away free stuff, or having sex in bathrooms or between lectures.
As a taxpayer forking out my hard-earned savings to provide my fellow citizens with a free sound tertiary education, and a generous stipend on top of it, it is only reasonable to express concern that the beneficiaries of my tax money would be spending precious time looking for condom vending machines for the instant gratification of their libido instead of furthering their studies. I am gratified that "many students are capable of delaying their gratification". But many students evidently don't practice this capability otherwise they would not be agitating for on-campus condom vending machines!
Francis, a condom machine is installed so that condoms may be sold- your argument on student allowances and the like are somewhat superfluous to the argument presented in this article.
Condoms, at present, although not always 100% effective, are the best available contraceptive device against STI transmission, and the most commonly used contraceptive by students, a Betapsi/Insiter report recently revealed.
I disagree that the provision of condoms on campus will lead to random bathroom-stall sex either, many students are capable of delaying gratification.
Mentalities seem to need changing, some students may be lazy, but that's not the issue, this article was basically communicating the fact that providing condoms is an issue at present, when it really would be a lot better if it weren't.
Not just to provide a free University education locally.
Not just to provide a stipend on top of that - a luxury which much richer country do not provide.
It is also to provide facilities for extracurricular sex instead of study opportunities to fill idle time with the relative safety that condoms provide.
Next we will be asked to provide male, female and ambisexual prostitutes, medically certified by the Department of Health to be free from STD in case condoms fail.
All for free, I suppose!
So, why not?
Re: Glorianne.
If you do not support or promote casual sex, why would you support or promote a condom machine at university? If you are sexually active with someone you carry condoms with you to begin with. Its only when its casual you say " il haq.. i have to walk to Cafe X "
The "lack of education" issue is a fabrication, every university student knows about condoms. I.e unless they are allowing 11 year olds into university.
This like when people blame sex, violence & social decadence on television and video games, they are trying to push the blame onto other people, when in reality its their fault.
Teenage pregnancies occur not because condom awareness is lacking, but mostly because of laziness and "dawn iddejquni" [for those who saw Montesin's piece on youtube].
If you could install condom dispensers on jeans, there'd still be teenage pregnancies & STD's and if you won't walk to cafeX to buy them, what will make you walk to the toilets ?
Plus If students are doing it in the toilets, you'd be more likely to catch an infection from somebody other than your partner.
Condoms are easily accessible & I just thought it was really lame to get condoms from student associations. Condoms aren't taboo in my books, if I need them, there's always a pharmacy nearby or a bar that dispenses them.
Also if you are so concerned about condoms, what makes you think that they will turn your's or your partners "thingy" into some magic wand, its not like they've never torn before and they are not 100% safe, some use birth control pills with them.
Concerned about STD's? Remember to skip 2nd base.
Also wouldn't it be extremely awkward to find 2 students going at it in the toilets?
Do it at home lads or get a hotel room (hence the term get a room).
This, I believe, particularly in response to your comment Channelle, may help those students who choose to be responsible; along with better education on how to use condoms and how protected you are.
Students can get condoms almost everywhere, but whether or not they use them was not my argument, I merely wanted to make clear that the availability of condoms somewhere students actually are at is something that could be beneficial.
To K.Pullicino: I think treating condoms as something shamefull is something unheard of- here we have something, that if used properly, can most of the time prevent STIs (they haven't been referred to as diseases for a while now).
I fully agree with Vanni who maintained that sexual activity during adulthood is normal, and nothing to frown upon; I for one definitely will not push people into abstinence as it is unrealistic, I will, however, promote responsibility.
Using a condom doesn't mean you're having sex responsibly, and it's a mentality (responsible sex = using a condom) we'd do well to eliminate quickly before it becomes widespread.
I truly understand your arguement which makes logical sense and the question 'why not?' is almost a direct consequence of your arguement. However in my opinion whether young people are having casual sex or not, it is important in an institution like university, to send a message which is reponsible. If you believe what the condom manufacturers say, using condoms are nearly 100% effective at preventing a pregnancy. Studies show that condoms can be as much as 97% effective at preventing pregnancy when they are used properly. However, these studies do not account for the improper use of a condom, or for the failure of the condom itself. When these things are factored in, the effectiveness of condoms drops to around 86%. That actually means that your chances of HIV, pregnancy and STD are 14% - ALARMINGLY HIGH when you are under the false notion that you protected. I personally feel that promoting condoms as the solution is being unfair to those responsible students who believe they are doing all that it takes to protect themselves and others and if they are let down....they are let down very hard.
"Do you honestly think the rampant amount of casual sex is not the problem?"
I'm not going to draw lines and say it's not a problem... especially since you didn't specify who's having all that casual sex. However, isn't rampant casual PROTECTED sex at least slightly preferable to the sans-condom variety?
"Condoms shouldn't be a taboo, no. But they certainly shouldn't be something for us to be proud of, neither."
This message goes out to all students having sex responsibly!
"You're not denying that "students are sexually active in their free time". And you think that's all nice and dandy?"
No, I don't think it's either 'nice' or 'dandy'. I'd use the terms 'normal', 'unremarkable' or 'morally neutral' ... if I'm feeling saucy.
Having said all that... whether or not to have a condom MACHINE on CAMPUS is really a non-issue. The question isn't 'why not?' ... it's 'who cares?".
Let's not disillusion ourselves... you can have all the condoms you want but in the end, it won't solve the problem.
The fact that you cannot find an answer to the question "Why not?" means that you aren't seeing the whole picture. You're taking shortcuts in your arguments like:
"With a condom, you can't get an STD (supposedly, but anyway). Therefore, the lack of condoms is the problem."
Do you honestly think the rampant amount of casual sex is not the problem? Or that by providing condoms without encouraging abstinence is going to reduce it?
Condoms shouldn't be a taboo, no. But they certainly shouldn't be something for us to be proud of, neither.
You're not denying that "students are sexually active in their free time". And you think that's all nice and dandy?