Bruce
Wainwright
Olden wonder
BANISH MENTAL CONDOMS FOR THE MIND
Ignorance is rarely an endearing quality, except in the
very young. Youthful naïvety can undoubtedly have an appeal, as some
of those on the Sex Offenders’ Register can probably testify. It suggests
a blank canvas upon which others can, for better or for worse, make their
mark; it also suggests areas of human experience which have yet to be explored
and which, in due course, necessarily involve the loss of innocence. Like
knicker elastic stretched beyond endurance, parents are understandably concerned
to extend their offspring’s innocence for as long as possible. The result,
however, is all too often some form of disappointment, embarrassment or disaster.
Ignorance among the grown-ups, on the other hand, is always best avoided.
As far as I can see, it has very little to recommend it. Nevertheless, there
are those who persist in the belief that ignorance provides some form of protection
from life’s less appealing aspects: a mental condom for the mind, one
might say. Only slowly and with great reluctance do we, for instance, approach
sex education in schools these days with anything like intelligence. ‘Teach
them about sex and they’ll be wanting to do it. Show them a condom and
they’ll be wanting to test one out at the first opportunity. Best keep
them ignorant and innocent; and it’s far too embarrassing anyway.’
The result? One of the highest rates of teenage pregnancy in Europe and rampant
sexually transmitted disease. Nevertheless, 84 per cent of respondents in
a recent Observer survey said they wanted more sex education in schools which
went beyond the current basic biology lessons.
The same attitude can be seen in the American approach to the Aids epidemic
in Africa: ‘Don’t hand out condoms, it’ll only given them
ideas. Give them God, hellfire and damnation instead; that’ll keep their
minds occupied.’ God and the White House so loves a sinner come to repentance.
This
‘ignorance as condom’ approach is also evident when we look at
the PEP debate. Post-exposure prophylaxis, if administered within 24 hours
of exposure to HIV, has been shown to prevent transmission. A course of treatment
isn’t cheap at around £600 a pop, but it’s a good
deal cheaper than a lifetime’s treatment with antiretrovirals.
According to the Department for Health, PEP should be widely available in
GUM clinics and A&E departments; only it isn’t. In fact, despite
a rather half-hearted attempt by the government to make the treatment more
widely known through a publicity campaign, people are still being told to
wait three months before taking an HIV test. No mention of PEP. Meanwhile,
more publicity for PEP will, according to Dr Trevor Stammers, of the Christian
Medical Fellowship, “open the floodgates.”
“If there is,” he believes, “something that somebody could
take that might alter the consequences of what they do, they may be, as a
result of that, more likely to engage in at-risk behaviour.”
In other words, “they” must suffer the consequences of their own
bad behaviour, so don’t go telling them about PEP. It will only encourage
them to do it more. Ignore for the moment the lying, abusive partner who’s
been having a bit on the side and chooses not to mention the fact; ignore
the possibility of a split condom; pass over in silence the possibility that
someone may have been infected through rape. Ignorance will ensure a higher
standard of good behaviour, and that’s what really matters, isn’t
it?
• brucefirst@googlemail.com
