Barrier methods - the debate

Thursday, 28 August 2008 15:40

Abstinence is mainly practised by religious groups, but for others it is simply a matter of choice of when or with whom to conduct oneself sexually. Some people are not given that choice, particularly women. For decades, women have been seeking ways in which to free themselves from the shackles of patriarchy. This not only extends to the “glass ceiling” phenomenon, but also to the threat of contracting HIV/Aids if women do not protect themselves against rape. August is National Women’s Month – a time for South African women to be acknowledged and celebrated. In addition, from a more sober perspective, this is a time where women who are physically abused most need the assistance and protection from those who abuse the rights of women. On 24 October 2007, a site called “Eye on Crime” stated that four women are raped every hour in South Africa. That is 96 women a day. Imagine what that amounts to per year! Those are just the ones who are brave enough to report the crime. The darker shades of such realities can be found behind the closed doors of intimacy, where women often have to negotiate safer intercourse with their partners. Enter the female condom, otherwise known as the femidom. While it does allow for a modicum of freedom, just the idea of one suggests discomfort, impracticality and the necessity of an embarrassing “how-to-insert” manual. Much like the condom – although a fair bit larger than its male counterpart – the femidom is a thin, lubricated polyurethane sac with two soft rings at both ends, with the one side entirely – yet “loosely” – covering the cervix and preventing sperm from entering. The term “loosely” is disturbing. One would think that severe restriction to the above-mentioned area would be paramount. It seems as though the efficacy of the femidom is reliant on the wearer knowing exactly how to insert and utilise the device. While the cervix is apparently protected, the larger of the two openings remains outside the vagina, covering part of the perineum and labia during intercourse. There are many disadvantages of femidoms The entire notion of the femidom is laden with impracticality. While allowing for a certain level of control of pregnancy and disease prevention, it is required of the user to apply spermicide for added protection. Not to mention the immediate removal of the femidom, which apparently is a necessity. In addition, the insertion of the device eight hours before intercourse is tantamount to walking around with a “jiffy bag”. Overall, it would appear as though the femidom is not as reliable as the male condom, as it doesn’t prevent the user from contracting some sexually transmitted infections or – more importantly – from contracting HIV/Aids. The only two advantages one can see is that it has less chance of rupturing and is far more resistant to chemicals than its male counterpart. It appears, however, the disadvantages far outweigh the advantages in this case. It should be remembered that the femidom is available to women who have the ability to make decisions as to whether or not to use it. What happens in the case of rape situations? The victim is not given a chance to defend herself by inserting a femidom or even requesting that the perpetrator put on a condom. The oral contraceptive and the injection prevents pregnancies, but not the transmission of sexual diseases. Spermicides work in conjunction with other barrier methods and microbicides, which are still in the research phase and seem to be volatile with no legislation deeming them effective in any way, as of yet. Vagina Dentata Designed in 2005, literally “a vagina with teeth”, the Rape-aXe – a brand name associated with an anti-rape, device-like latex condom – and invented by Sonnet Ehlers, a Kleinmond resident, is a controversial method of protection against rape which has had wide international interest and much media attention for the pros and cons of such an invention locally. Ehlers, who was a blood technician, had dealt with many rape victims and after having heard a victim wish that she had “had teeth down there”, came up with the idea for this patent. The obvious con bellowed loudly from groups protecting the rights of women, is the fact that such an invention does not assist in alleviating the social problem of rape, rather it perpetuates the problem of violence against women. The product has been awaiting patent verification and is nearly ready to be put on the shelves. The device, which has razor-like teeth that attach to the head and shaft of the penis, can be used if a woman feels threatened by a potential rapist, without any physical internal harm to herself. While there are still legal issues surrounding the invention and use of such a device, the bottom line for women is that it allows them a few vital seconds to escape. It also requires surgery for the perpetrator to remove it, which will alert medical staff to report the situation to the authorities, thereby catching the rapist and giving power back to the woman who was raped. Now into the new millennium, women are standing up for themselves to the point of using physical defence. While domestic violence from a female perspective is something to be concerned about; in lieu of the anti-rape device, would not a woman prefer to take her chances, perhaps getting beaten (but fighting back) and knowing that there was a means to an end to ensure she was safe and that the perpetrator got his just deserts. The debate rages on. Each situation is different and one is not brushing off the obvious issues, but perhaps the Rape-aXe needs to be given a chance. Kira Cochrane from The Guardian did, however, make a valid point: “The biggest problem, though, is that it places the onus for stopping rape not on the perpetrators, but on women – entirely the wrong way around. It implies that rape is an inevitable part of human culture and that women need to adapt accordingly.” This is something to think about, but one can’t help thinking that taking a chance is better than letting the perpetrators get away with such an act of violence. One of the questions asked on a Q&A panel on Rape-aXe’s website was whether the chances of contracting HIV in a situation where the penis will be pierced 25 times (there are five rows of five tiny barb-like teeth running down the length of the device) are high. The answer to that is no. The device is designed in such a way that it is like a condom: it is completely insulated so there is no way she can be infected by the perpetrator if he is HIV positive. Some critics have even called it a medieval contraption, to which Ehlers has responded that for a medieval act, a medieval device is necessary. As for research on the effects of the device, none has been reported: there are no reports stating that sales have increased, or if indeed there are any in the first place. The worst part of rape and the transmission of HIV/Aids, is that women are often blamed for their partner’s contracting the virus, and if they are raped, they are said to have done something to deserve such treatment. While the tides may be turning, they are not turning fast enough. Rapists have to be held accountable for their actions, and it seems that women have taken it upon themselves to take control back for themselves. If only there were stricter laws and more chance of the perpetrator being put behind bars without the woman’s sexual history being put into question – as it often is! The bottom line is that, bar proper legislature, there is no particular answer to preventing rape or the transmission of HIV to a victim. Both sides of the debate, when it comes to the anti-rape device, show misuse of human rights and, clichéd as it is, two wrongs don’t make a right. So where is the line drawn? When are women and children afforded the chance to defend themselves against discrimination, subordination, violation and disease, if not by taking action themselves? Reporting rape is only one area where control can be regained, but more is needed to prevent rape from occurring in the first place. If this device is passed through legislature – which seems highly unlikely – will it prove the preventative measure it is designed to be, or will it perpetuate an already dangerous problem? Only time will tell. Tracee Harvard

Last Updated on Wednesday, 01 October 2008 15:54