Chayhofilena's Random Thoughts

Did you know that arguments for the distribution of condoms can be based on results of a scientific experiment that sought to show the influence of arousal on behavior?

In the heated debates over the Reproductive Health (RH) bill, proponents have used the poverty card often enough, if not resorted to criticizing advocates who rely solely on religious beliefs and Vatican pronouncements. Others have also used women’s rights and women’s health, even freedom of choice as counter-arguments to the weighty appeal to religious authority.

Opponents of safe sex advocates assert that distributing condoms for free would promote promiscuity, irresponsible sexual behavior on the part of the youth, and even unwanted pregnancies. To counter this, proponents of the RH bill cite recent survey results from Pulse Asia indicating that 69 percent of Filipinos favor the passage of the bill.

Surely, there has got to be a fresh perspective in all these exchanges. Looking at the debate over the distribution of condoms, for example, one could search for something empirically convincing. I found it in one of the amusing chapters of Dan Ariely’s “Predictably Irrational” published in 2008.

Ariely and his collaborator carried out an experiment, tapping bright Berkeley students in 2001 to “understand the degree to which rational, intelligent people can predict how their attitudes will change when they are in an impassioned state.” They chose sexual arousal, so common and predictable among college students, because “understanding the impact of arousal on behavior might help society grapple with some of its most difficult problems, such as teen pregnancy and the spread of HIV-AIDS.”

Berkeley students, according to Ariely, are neither wild, rebellious nor risk-taking teenagers. 25 males were chosen for the experiment and were given a 12-key multicolored keypad to respond to questions answerable by yes or no. In their rational cold state, they were asked to imagine being sexually aroused and to reply to the questions as they would if they were aroused. Among the questions asked were, “Would you encourage your date to drink to increase the chance that she would have sex with you? and “Would you always use a condom if you didn’t know the sexual history of a new sexual partner?”

The conditions in a second session were slightly altered as the same subjects were instructed to get themselves aroused by viewing erotic pictures on a computer and masturbating. “What we want you to do is to arouse yourself to a high level, but not to ejaculate. In case you do, though, the computer will be protected.” An Apple iBook whose keyboard and screen were covered with Saran wrap were given to the subjects who were asked the same set of questions.

What did Ariely discover? Among others, he found that despite repeated warnings about the importance of condoms, subjects were 25 percent more likely to forego their use when in an aroused state. The propensity to engage in immoral activities when aroused also increased by more than double. “Prevention, protection, conservatism, and morality disappeared completely from the radar screen.”

“Sexual arousal is familiar, personal, very human, and utterly commonplace. Even so, we all systematically underpredict the degree to which arousal completely negates our superego, and the way emotions can take control of our behavior,” Ariely asserts.

Those who believe that abstinence is adequate protection against sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies may be wrong. According to Ariely, “in the heat of passion, we are all in danger of switching from ‘Just say no’ to ‘Yes!’ in a heartbeat; and if no condom is available, we are likely to say yes, regardless of the dangers.” Just think of priests who themselves have sired children, or of religious who have engaged in consensual though prohibited sex.

What do the findings of his experiment suggest? For teenagers, it is important to teach them how to say no “before a situation becomes impossible to resist.” Likewise, precisely because this may not be easy since passion cannot be switched off at will, widespread availability of condoms is essential—just in case.

“One thing is sure: if we don’t teach our young people how to deal with sex when they are half out of their minds, we are not only fooling them; we’re fooling ourselves as well.” If only there were less hypocrisy around, we would perhaps be closer to formulating more sound policies and strategies relating to reproductive health and safe sex.

Is WikiLeaks good or bad news for journalism? Any quick or easy verdict would be an oversimplification.

The big news is that founder Julian Assange, an Australian, is being hunted by the Interpol for sexual charges relating to two Swedish women sometime in August. The arrest warrant is obviously a form of harassment intended to shut him up or close down his operations. This type of harassment doesn’t always work, however, as the closure of one site can mean the opening of another—pretty much like terrorist cells that mutate because they are anchored on an ideology. In the case of WikiLeaks, a strong argument for its existence is really the quest for transparency and the right to freedom of expression.

At the core of the debate over WikiLeaks, I think, is the question of whether there are absolute rights. Should governments have absolute rights to secrecy, in the same way that individuals should have absolute rights to privacy? On what occasions can the abrogation of those rights be justified? Quick but tricky answers are when there are threats to life or threats to national security.

If employees of private banks or investment houses uploaded vital personal information about their Top 100 depositors or investors (name, address, amount of deposits or investments) on the Web, this will be most beneficial to journalists who will have a lode from which to extract wonderful, rich information. It will also benefit tax collectors and other government personnel tasked with lifestyle checks.

Individuals on the Top 100 list could stake a claim on the absolute right to secrecy because without it, their lives could be put in danger. They know that the information disclosed will make them easy targets of kidnappers and other criminal syndicates. Using the same argument, governments could also make a case for secrecy on grounds that publication of details about a person on the list who could hypothetically be an agent on a mission, might jeopardize his and his family members’ lives and in turn, endanger national security. And yet, the upside of disclosure is greater transparency and the exercise of the right to freedom of expression.

Some journalists have argued that WikiLeaks is great for journalism because it can provide context and perspective to decisions made by governments. Locally, think of Philippine National Police “confidential” documents relating to the Dacer-Corbito case landing in a local version of WikiLeaks. Or of “highly confidential” exchanges between Manila and Washington over the Lance Corporal Daniel Smith Subic rape case being exposed.

Defense, police, diplomatic and Palace reporters would surely have a field day. Defense and police reporters would understand the roles, if any, that Sen. Ping Lacson and former President Joseph Estrada played in this case. And if diplomatic and Palace reporters had their hands on vital documents before Smith was acquitted, who knows if the acquittal wouldn’t have happened? Or if his being spirited away would have been prevented?

Then there are still other journalists who have countered that WikiLeaks is a bane to journalism because governments would become even more secretive than they already are. As it is, even in democratic environments where a free press supposedly exists, obtaining official and harmless documents from government offices can already be such a challenge. Here, the degree of paranoia will certainly rise to a preponderant level—to the detriment of those pushing for the passage of the Freedom of Information Act, for instance.

In both situations, arguments are valid. One could even contend that WikiLeaks could make journalists lazy and less enterprising or resourceful. True. But it would also make their jobs a whole lot easier. Also true. Then again, in our country, we naturally leak. Our lively gossip mill is our institutional version of WikiLeaks, minus the documents and the vetting.

What is undoubtedly revolutionary about this whole issue is that WikiLeaks wrests power from those who feel that absolute secrecy is their ultimate protection. It rocks the status quo as it creates an unsettling degree of insecurity on the part of those who have become too comfortable not having to account for decisions they have made. It is an equalizer of sorts. At the same time, there might come a point when documents and cables will contain information that is no longer useful or revealing. This could spell irrelevance for WikiLeaks and inordinately raise the value and importance of insiders and whistle-blowers. Thankfully, we still have a number of those brave souls.