Mail & Guardian (Johannesburg) - December 10, 2003

My last column predicted that Aids would henceforth get less play given that the politics of anti-retroviral provision are over.

Little did I know then that front-page coverage of the Durex global sex survey would push the latest figures of the United Nations Joint Programme on HIV/Aids (UNAids) to the inside pages. Both sets of stats were timed for release around World Aids Day, and the contrast in their treatment was stark.

But Durex coming out on top is not what really annoys me. It's the way their data got presented that got my jocks tortuously twisted. Here's a sample of some headlines:

"SA riding high on the sex charts" -- Eastern Province Herald

"SA sex secrets revealed" -- Business Day

"S Africans just love sex" -- Sowetan

"SA a no-show in world's sexiest survey" -- Daily Dispatch

"South Africans do it digitally" -- IOL.co.za

"South African sex lives in the spotlight" -- Iafrica.co.za

"South Africans score high in one-night-stand stakes" -- The Star

There were a few serious side takes on the survey as well:

"SA unconcerned about sexually transmitted infections" -- both on SABCnews.com and IOL.co.za.

"South Africans take risks despite Aids concerns" -- Allafrica.com

What irks me in all this is not the news bias towards favouring frivolity. We all want some light stories. But just who are these "South Africans" claiming to have all the fun? The headlines suggest, even when jesting, that it's a tale about the sex lives of us as a nation. There's a story behind that message, however, and it originates with the spin -- perhaps oily lubricant -- put on things by Durex.

As may be expected from a company selling condoms, Durex's press release has, at the top of its key findings, the statistic that "30% of South Africans have had unprotected sex with a new partner". The company goes on to intone: "Despite rising rates of HIV and Aids, many South Africans are still taking chances with their sexual behaviour."

Yep, 30% certainly is a high number, but, again, 30% of whom exactly? Who are these careless folk who really ought to be doing it with Durex?

Naturally, the press release also includes sexier information than that about unsafe intercourse. Take the factoid "South Africans have sex on average 123 times a year". This is the kind of tidbit that gets plucked out and given priority in much of the media coverage of the story.

Not that Durex should mind too much about this changing of emphasis -- its corporate brand name is still featured. Think sex, think Durex. Whether the angle is risk or risqu , the rubber firm still gets credit for doing the "world's biggest online sex survey".

What was that? Ah, an "online" survey. Okay, the meaning of the findings becomes a wee bit clearer.

Some credit to Durex: at least their press release's headline -- unlike those in the general media -- doesn't speak for the entire South African body politic. It clearly states: "More than 4 000 South Africans reveal all".

No matter that the same document concludes saying "nearly 4 000", at least the headline does not generalise to all South Africans. So, let's set aside the "more than" mistake -- perhaps a little liberty/ine that slipped into the headline. Over-sexed desire at work. The correct figure, it emerges, is indeed "nearly" 4 000 responses, even if some observers might pointedly say "under 4 000".

What's important, though, is that whether "nearly", "under" or even "over" 4000, this is one case where size of sample definitely does not count -- for both Durex and the media. They have no problem in making sweeping extrapolations from the data.

Thus, beyond its headline the company's press release nationalistically declares: "To South Africa's credit, we are more likely than the rest of the world to reveal if we have had an STI [sexually transmitted infection]".

And, the press statement lets on, "we are also one of the most open nations when it comes to revealing our sexual fantasies".

So, get out of here, Thabo Mbeki and your two-nations thinking. Durex and its media chums are telling us that when it comes to our naai-ing habits, we are one deeply simunye-ed people.

Size of sample is one thing; quality another. Getting unconsciously closer to who these "4 000 South Africans" are, the Durex press stuff teases: "As to who is South Africa's sexiest female, 5fm deejay Nicole Fox leads the way, while Bobby Skinstad narrowly beats Neil McKenzie on the sexiest male personality stakes."

Alerts a PowerPoint slide accompanying the Durex press release: "Nicole Fox outfoxes Bianca le Grange, fellow DJ Zuraida Jardine and Metro FM deejay Aza Mosaka."

I think you are getting the picture about whose purported sex habits the survey actually represents. Another clue from the Powerpoint slides: "We are up there with the best of them, with 41% having had phone, text or e-mail sex in the past year."

When I tracked down Durex's PR person for info beyond the press pack, she forwarded me a couple of figures. From these, it appears that 2 713 of the South African respondents claimed to be male, 1 169 female. Most ticked the age groups between 21 and 35 years.

Not very useful dope, because I got nothing about any differences between the men and women or the age groups. Maybe the 30% risk takers are unevenly spread along specific axes, but who knows? I also had to do without info on the language, race, class or region of these 3 882 respondents; that isn't even part of the survey questionnaire.

In fact, the spin on the story also suggested I set aside the latest Amps figures showing that fewer than 3% of South African adults use the internet on a daily basis. That statistic rises to 5% if you focus on use over a four-week period.

At most then, according to Amps, fewer than 1,5-million South Africans are online. Now, what was our total national population again and would even 1,5-million responses give us the real South African sizzle?

Anyhow, I need to say that the absence of any of this kind of information or consideration did not deter Durex or our media scribes. Foregoing any pretence at foreplay, they rushed into generalising across gender and everything else to come up with their representations in the name of the "South African" sexual psyche.

Take The Star (page one): "South Africans like it on top and from behind while, globally, sex standing up is the least popular sexual position."

It goes on to opine: "South Africans should be worried about letting their best friends near their partners -- 15% of respondents admitted to having slept with their best friends' partners."

We're expected to take this seriously? Oh, oh! Panic stations. It's been bad enough with spy-vs-spy Vanessa Brereton and Mo Shaik's dirty database of 69 -- er, I mean 888 (a threesome?) -- secrets. Fellow sexual citizens, we need to get into intelligence gathering business, fast! Our bosom buddies are among those with ulterior designs on our sexual partner/s.

One report taking Durex's drivel seriously and also generalising without inhibition was done by national press agency Sapa. Its particular item states, in the same tone as reportage on any statistics, "the survey found 67% of South Africans were happy with their sex lives". It continues authoritatively: "South Africans may not be having as much sex as East Europeans ...".

We are further educated that "South Africans were also quite willing to combine sex and technology ... [and that] South Africans fake orgasms more than the global average."

In other words, it's not just Hansie and Darryl who fabricated for fame and fortune. Mark this with shame: we're exposed as a nation that commits fraud while fornicating. (More intelligence-gathering called for next time we're at it?).

The Sapa report mentions that knowledge of these national habits hails from "an online survey of nearly 4 000", but the Eastern Province Herald, Daily Dispatch and the Sowetan left out that bit of info when republishing the piece. A case of your mythical average South African being left then to think that the survey must surely reflect the mythical average South African.

The result? "Oh gats, I only had sex 122 times this year, so I'm one lay below the national average!" (Don't worry, pal, you could still be normal in terms of the median and the mode. But Durex doesn't give out those statistics...)

Another Sapa story, slightly paraphrasing Durex's press release (ah, what value our journalists add), tells us: "South Africans were at least more honest than the rest of the world, as 63% would tell their partner if they previously had an STI."

Well, we may fake it, but rest assured we're still honest in some respects. The assumption, of course, is that those 4 000 "South Africans" who filed for the survey are also honest in their responses.

They're certainly not folk who would fear 'fessing up their true feelings on fooling about. And God forbid the thought that they might ever, ever, be found to be taking the piss or sexing up their answers when answering online sex questions. No, no, Durex has produced hard statistics. So of course its facts must truly reflect the reality of this big band of our online representatives.

Let's go back in time a moment (unlike the coverage of the survey). According to a May press report, the 2002 Durex survey had 700 responses from this country, which "revealed" (sic) that "South Africans had sex an average of 146 times a year, with 70% of South Africans having had a one-night stand". Wow.

Now, compare these past figures with Durex 2003: 123 bonks a year, 79% for the one-nighters. You can only deduce one thing: that "we" [yep, you and me] are now having sex 23 times less per annum. Even if, perhaps, we may be up to 9%.... that "we" are also down 9% when it comes to a fling.

If itÆs true, what could account for our diminishing sex drives? Poor role models on the rugby field? Too much Hefer commission watching? Or are today's 4 000 respondents intrinsically and mysteriously possessed of less pro-rata libido between them than the randy 700-member class of yesteryear?

And what disappointments can we expect if even greater numbers of compatriots complete the quiz next year? Could we hope that Kessie Naidu or Big Brother's next contestants will revive our flagging lust in the new year?

If the Durex figures deem our 2003 sexual performance to be in deep recession, our competitive ranking is even worse.

"Sadly," says The Star, "this country's lovers don't even feature on the list of the world's sexiest nationalities."

I don't want to be alarmist here, but things might be even worse than Durex's survey tells us.

This is because "we're" compared with a mere 39 other countries being put up for polling in the online questionnaire. You, dear reader, may be specially hot for Swazi men and/or women, but, sorry, you can't vote for them in this survey even if you wanted to.

There are indeed Serbians, Montenegrins and Icelanders whom you can rank -- but no Africans other than our online sexy southern selves. I guess those other Africans just don't have it. Durex would know, wouldn't it?

It gets worse still. Suppose you're one of those weirdos who thinks that being naughty/nasty has naught to do with nationality? Well, then you're really in the dwang with the Durex survey -- there's simply no option that you can tick/le.

I could go on, but I'll end with a sex appeal.

Dear Durex and your media acolytes: spare us your fantasies next year. Just report the survey for what it is. There's no need to hype it as the people's proclivities.

Here's my desire: give us a little honest laughter about how a small sector of our society wants its sexuality to be seen.In short, let me be titillated, not irritated.

031210
MG031203

Always watch for outdated information. This article first appeared in 2003. This material is designed to support, not replace, the relationship that exists between you and your doctor.

AEGiS presents published material, reprinted with permission and neither endorses nor opposes any material. All information contained on this website, including information relating to health conditions, products, and treatments, is for informational purposes only. It is often presented in summary or aggregate form. It is not meant to be a substitute for the advice provided by your own physician or other medical professionals. Always discuss treatment options with a doctor who specializes in treating HIV.

Copyright ©1980, 2003. AEGiS. All materials appearing on AEGiS are protected by copyright as a collective work or compilation under U.S. copyright and other laws and are the property of AEGiS, or the party credited as the provider of the content. .