Trading Sex For Favours Is Not Axiomatic!

In a postmodern world, where morality has been relativised and where moral absolutism is abhorred, it is almost impossible to find a canon against which one can measure moral or ethical issues. The popular dictum, ‘one man’s meat is another man’s poison’, is emblematic of how impractical it has become for standardisation of ethical and moral issues.

One risks being labeled archaic, outdated, and ‘colo’, if one invokes God to enforce a moral standard. The particularisation of morality has meant that multiple truths of morality are provided at the market, where one is free to purchase which version of truths suits one’s interest. It is, therefore, no wonder that while majority of Ghanaians are ‘justifiably’ outraged by the unfettered generalisation of Moesha Boduong in the interview she granted CNN’s Christiane Amanpour, there are equally some Ghanaians who think that what she said was simply a reflection of a normative practice among some young women.

The issue for me is not so much about the truism or otherwise of what she said, but whether she could have devised different ways of ensuring subsistence. In other words, there is no gainsaying about the economic morass of Ghana. There is also no equivocation about the troubling joblessness in the country. It is also true that all this has culminated in some of the youth resorting to extra legal means to survive. Indeed, life is about survival and for most pragmatists, it is about what works. Most of us are so leaned to the notion of pragmatism that we least care about what society thinks of our choices. Indeed, Charles Darwin’s theory of the ‘survival of the fittest’ is a quintessential allusion to the self-centeredness of wo/man. Richard Dawkins’ notion of ‘selfish gene’ is framed around a complex web of the rational logic of survival of the fittest.

We all want to survive and to do so; we hardly pay attention to the means through which we actualise our ambition. Our generation has upheld the philosophical assumption of ancient Greeks that, ‘The end justifies the means.’ We are not troubled about how we get what we want. We are largely interested in getting it. Certainly, in a world where we are respected for what we have and not who we are, there is an implicit but forceful and compelling push from society for us to use all manner of ways, however questionable these ways may be, to get what we want. We are so hedonistic and have a strong bent for materialism that we are intolerant with the poor or those we have impoverished. It also means that there is always pressure on young men and women to get as much as they could get from their society.

Our society is the society of, ‘use what you have to get what you do not have’. Obviously, this cascades into David Ricardo’s theory of comparative advantage. Women must use their bodies to get what they want. The smart ones must use their brains to get what they want. And for those in high offices, they must eat from where they work. This is captured succinctly by the Cameroonian proverb, ‘The goat eats at where it is tethered.’ In the end, we do not have an approved and acceptable way of acquiring what we want. Even if we have an idea of how to acquire what we want, that notion gets complexified and overshadowed by our pragmatic proclivities.

At the University of Cape Coast, where I studied for my first degree, there were lots of expressions that captured this concept I am developing: ‘use what you have to get what you don’t have.’ This misogynistic idea is directed at women, who must use their ‘butt’ and ‘boobs’ to get grades from lecturers. Ladies who refuse to lower the moral bar and insist on their dignity and integrity are punished for it. A colleague of mine had Third Class because she was consistently unyielding to the pestering and sexual harassment of lecturers. This lady in question was very ‘beautiful’ and brilliant, and as a devout Catholic; she was willing to pay the heaviest price for keeping her chastity from being contaminated by sex-crazed lecturers. These lecturers failed her unnecessarily and she kept rewriting papers. A cadre of morally corrupt professors blocked all channels this lady could have used to report her plight!

Many have blamed some female students for dressing provocatively and seductively. Well, this argument may have some truth, at face value, but critical thinking will betray the complexity of the situation. When I was a teaching assistant at the University of Cape Coast, there were many instances where some female students offered to provide me sexual access in exchange for grades. Earlier in my teaching career just when I had finished secondary education in 2001, I looked very young, while teaching pupils in upper primary. There was a female pupil who was old and mature in my class, and for whatever reasons, she taught she could lure me into amorous relationship with her. She fought her way through to sit in front of the class, and would open her legs wide while I was teaching. Though I was young and not pseudo-Christian, I definitely knew I could not trade my integrity for a less than few minutes of sexual pleasure.

In both instances, I graciously passed the moral test and had the students becoming my counselees. My scaling over that sexual temptation was not because of religion, but because of how I categorised my relationship with my students. I understood my relationship with my female students, and of course other students, as a relationship of power: A relationship of a ‘master’ and ‘apprentice’ and a relationship of a teacher and a pupil/student. I had other colleagues who were comfortably enjoying the sexual scholarships offered them by female students. Even so, as I have indicated, I saw/see my relationship with my students as asymmetric power relations. I often asked myself some questions: If I were not a teacher/lecturer, will a female student, for no reason, offer me sexual scholarship? If a female student is sure of a free and fair grading system and is sure of passing, will she offer me sexual scholarship?

My own response to these questions is a categorical no. I, therefore, see sexual encounters between a lecturer and a student as abuse of power on the part of the former. This is, certainly, irrespective of how ‘provocative’ ‘inviting’ or ‘seductive’ a female student presents herself. From my point of view, I am totally not in support of a lecturer who marries her female student while the latter is still his student! Apart from it being a case of conflict of interest, such relationships are based on false premise.

Now returning to Moesha’s case, she had a choice. Like my female colleague at the University of Cape Coast, who had Third Class, because she remained unyielding to sexual pressures from her professors, Moesha had a choice to persist in purity. She had a choice in determining how her moral compass worked. While it is true that some youth may be compelled by existential challenges to make recourse to extra legal means to survive, there are equally a good number of youth who have resisted the temptation to trade their dignity for a temporary benefit. In fact, it is not axiomatic that poverty leads to moral degradation. I am a Zongo boy and have gone through most of the difficulties in life, but there was never a time I taught about joining friends to use drugs to commit crimes. This is far from saying that I am a saint or puritan. In fact, I have many cobwebs in my cupboard. The scars of sin in my life always constrain me from discussing moral issues. The many times I have sinned and continue to sin, and fail the heavenly call humble me!

Even so, I do not blame any externalities for my so-called moral failures. I always go to the Lord, pleading for grace and mercy. I am convinced that in this world, we always have choices when we fall short of the moral order. And these choices are framed around two cultures: penitential culture and blame culture. If you go the way of blame culture, you never accept your responsibility. You never also change. There is also the penitential culture in which you admit that you are responsible for your moral failure. In that sense, you do your best possible to avoid repeating the chances of walking on the tracks that led to your moral failure.

In the case of Moesha, she had chosen the path of blame culture. She is trading sex and her dignity because of Ghana’s bad economy. In other words, but for the alleged economic quagmire of Ghana, she would have lived her life differently. I find this argument unconvincing and deeply problematic. First, many people who trade sex for wealth are not necessarily poor. In fact, there are many wealthy people who are into prostitution (now called commercial sex workers). And in some cases, you need to be wealthy to a successful commercial sex worker. Second, whether you trade sex or not is dependent on what you value in life. If you think your chastity and purity is more important than material wealth you will avoid sex scandals. On the other hand, if you value material wealth more than your chastity, you will trade sex for material wealth.

Poverty superficially may suffice to rationalise trading sex for wealth. But that is also a challenge, since poverty practically never ends. We will always have a need to satisfy, and it is possible we may not have what it takes to satisfy our needs every time. It is on the basis of this that economics as a discipline is relevant. Economics informs us to prioritise, since we cannot have all we want simultaneously. In the case of morality, you prioritise your dignity or you trade it. I started selling as early as ten years (perhaps others start earlier). I have worked to survive throughout my life. In senior secondary school, I was selling confessionary items on the street. At the university, I was roasting groundnut for my mother. At the postgraduate level (MPhil), I had to do ‘odd’ jobs to survive. I could have avoided this struggle for survival, by peddling drugs, which were readily within my reach in my community, and which promised quick money. But in all this, I prioritised my dignity. Sadly, the Weberian notion of protestant ethics is lost on many of us! In the struggle against poverty, no amount is enough. We therefore need to be content and discipline.

I watched the news that Moesha has offered apologies. This is good. It shows that the path she took to subvert the order in life is that of shame and destruction. I know many graduates, who have been jobless for years, and yet have chosen not to trade their dignity. My own lovely wife was jobless for about four years (too short, compared to others) after completing her Mphil in Food Radiation Processing at the University of Ghana (School of Nuclear and Allied Sciences). Later in 2016, shortly after we were married, she had a job as a volunteer with an NGO and her monthly salary was GH400: after paying lots of money to study. Was she happy? No. Was she depressed sometimes? Yes. But why did she not go the way of harm or moral depravation to make money? She was guided by her Christian principles. She also took individual contracts to preparing shito. There are many such females who have protected their dignity against male predators, who prey on vulnerable females. Muslims have a concept of subr: the highest patience. We all need patience, as we keep pushing! When I started teaching immediately after SSS in 2001, my salary was GH12: I commuted from Maamobi to East Legon to teach. Was I happy? No. Did I have a reason to engage in extra legal or morally questionable practice of making wealth? Yes. What kept me going? I had hope of a better future!

In all this, our choices have consequences! It will not be easy to pursue the path of morality uprightness. But regardless of how we exercise our volition, we should remember that we reap what we sow. We never get around what we plant. Our actions and inactions will produce results. Epicureanism will push us on the track of moral degeneration.

Satyagraha
Charles Prempeh ([email protected]), African University College of Communications, Accra