Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9504041438.A28376-0100000@scoraz.resp-sci.arizona.edu> Date: Tue, 4 Apr 1995 15:01:39 -0700 From: Royce Robbins <mailto:royce@SCORAZ.RESP-SCI.ARIZONA.EDU> Subject: Re: speaking of sex To: Multiple recipients of list DEVEL-L
On Tue, 4 Apr 1995 mailto:JORYOKOT@CROP.UOGUELPH.CA wrote:> Is there any single society where sex with multiple partners is a
> cultural norm? I think not, this is often individual choice, and
> cannot justifiably be used to stereotype.
>
> Joseph.
>
>From the purely technical view, _any_ society where polygamy (or polyanny)
is practiced, sex with multiple partners _is_ by definition, the norm. Since much (note, not _most_) of Africa is polygamous, due to "modern" Islamic tradition or tribal traditions, a large portion of the continent routinely have a cultural norm favoring sex with multiple partnerss. Since there is also a fairly high maternal death rate, there may also be a high rate of turnover among wives, and hence even for a person who does not have sex outside their household, there is a potential for all members of the household to be infected by a new member, or by the one member who does.Thus leaving aside the question of cultural promiscuity, the very real potential exists for at least three people to be infected by just one member of the household having unprotected sex with an infected outside (or new household) member.
> > Subject: speaking of sex
> > To: Multiple recipients of list DEVEL-L
> > <mailto:DEVEL-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU>
>
> > In any place where sex with multiple partners is a cultural norm,
> > promotion of unprotected sex would be especially irresponsible. No STD
> > should reach epidemic proportions, especially not with a "hand up" from
> > the indifference of advocates of unfettered liberty. Better to accommodate
> > the norm by promoting protective measures than to use it as an excuse for
> > inaction, or to fight a losing battle to undo it.
> >
> > c.b.
>
--Royce Robbins