The Trouble With Condoms: Norms and Meanings of Sexuality and Condom Use Among School-Going Youth in Kenya
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACTDespite knowledge of the effectiveness of condoms in preventing HIV transmission, condoms continue to be reported in only a minority of sexual encounters even with nonpermanent partners. This study used focus-group discussions with youth and interviews with community leaders from 22 communities in the Nyanza and Rift Valley provinces, Kenya, to examine the sociocultural influences on condom use among school-going youth. Three overarching themes emerged from a thematic analysis of the data. Condoms did not fit with the purposes, meanings, and understandings of sexuality; in fact, condom use violated most of these. Condoms were also thought to be dangerous for girls and women, to contribute to the spread of HIV, and to be unnecessary for protection against HIV. Finally, given the hardships of life and multiple diseases and circumstances that threatened life, HIV was seen as just another trouble of living. Sex without a condom, within this context, was described as one of the pleasures of a short life. The complexities of sexuality evidenced in the discussions of these youth and adults challenge the viability of the ABC (abstain, be faithful, use a condom) message as a preventive measure against HIV transmission.KEYWORDS: CondomKenyayoung mencultureHIV/AIDS AcknowledgementsResearch for this article was supported with funds from the Department for International Development in the United Kingdom as part of the larger project, Primary School Action for Better Health, Kenya. We thank the staff at Steadman Research Services, Inc., Kenya, for their careful attention to the requirements of data collection and the teachers, principals, and district staff of the Ministry of Education for giving us access to their schools. In particular, we thank the students and community members who gave their time and knowledge to this project. All views expressed here are solely those of the authors.Notes1Some schools had too few students for two focus groups. In these cases, a single focus group was held with the gender that had the largest number.2Information in this section is drawn from discussions between the first author and colleagues in anthropology, Kenyan researchers, and research staff on the larger project. For those interested in a brief overview related to each of these ethnic groups, visit http://www.everyculture.com.3Words in italics in the text are taken directly from focus-group or interview transcripts.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".