I found your article on Deputy President Jacob Zuma’s views of oral sex (“Does oral sex really suck?” June 21), quoting so-called sex experts and Hillbrow prostitutes, misleading.
The experts claim oral sex is a subculture with reverent worshippers. Hence Zuma was wrong in expressing his honest view that it is wrong and unnatural. They went on to add that he is ignorant of the subject.
I would like to suggest that even if a subculture develops in our midst and garners a huge following, it does not make the actions espoused by it natural or correct. A natural act means an “act aligned with the intentions of nature”. Oral sex is not aligned with the intentions of nature even if it has a dedicated following. The mouth is made for the tasting and consumption of food, not for sexual intercourse.
The experts claim that “the African approach to matters sexual does not work”. They even say that “the African approach has contributed immensely to breakdowns in relations”. It seems the writer has something against Africans and their way of approaching sexual matters.
Africans have always treated sexual matters with the intimacy and respect they deserve. They have always recognised sexual norms that were aligned to natural moral law. The result has been the existence of stable families and strong relations.
The outright decline of family stability in the West cannot even begin to be compared to the situation in African culture. The decline in African cultures took place after the wholesale importation of a Western culture advocating individual rights over community norms. This has translated to the individual pursuit of pleasure at all costs.
It is clear that the practice of sexual deviancy outside conventional norms is related to a rise in individualism, selfishness and the relentless pursuit of pleasure counterproductive to any loving relationship.
The writers suggest that oral sex is natural because it has been endorsed by the American Psychiatric Association. This suggests that whatever is endorsed by the Americans needs to be accepted in Africa.
These sentiments show the extent of our mental colonisation — the view that anything African is old-fashioned and hence the subject of ridicule, while anything American is good.
Africa had civilisations with functional norms long before the American nation came to exist. We refuse to be taken back to the dark colonial age through the back door of mental colonisation.
I feel the writer of this article should apologise to the deputy president and the millions of South Africans who remain true to the ordinances of nature and the natural moral law, irrespective of what self-styled experts and Western professional associations decree as being fashionable, natural or correct. –JC Muriithi Mwangi, Auckland Park, Johannesburg
Mediocrity should not be celebrated
It is intriguing to this lover of the beautiful game that the performance of Bafana Bafana in the World Cup has received such widespread acclaim. The fact is that we progressed no further than we did in 1998, despite being in one of the tournament’s weaker groups. Our performance demonstrates that our soccer has not progressed in the past four years compared to countries such as Japan, South Korea, Turkey, the United States and Senegal.
At the World Cup we were outplayed by Spain, scraped a draw against Paraguay and scored a timid victory against Slovenia. The latter two countries certainly do not feature in the upper half of the global league table. Of the five goals we scored one was an own goal, one a penalty and the one against Slovenia, a complete fluke. I am really trying hard to figure out what there is to celebrate.
Admittedly, our performance in this tournament was a significant improvement on our performances in the past two years, but that would be like celebrating the building of a shack on Ground Zero.
When Jomo Sono, our celebrated coach, describes our performance, prominent are words such as courage, heart, character and commitment; lacking are the qualities that precede these, such as vision, skill, discipline and tactical superiority. If we look at Senegal, our African compatriots, all of the above adjectives describe their play. In fact, one could add passion, excitement and menace.
Can you imagine our cricket or rugby team being knocked out in the first round of a competition and coming home to a heroes’ welcome? Of course we need to comfort, support and inspire our teams, but let’s not create false perceptions about our performance. Rather than critically assessing our failures, we mask this failure by spinning a mask of success. Rather than dissecting Sono’s incompetence we lap up his spin on the success of the campaign. This is cleverly done to retain his current position.
Should this delusion continue, it will do soccer in this country untold harm. More importantly, however, is the message it sends out to our aspiring soccer stars: mediocrity is to be celebrated and being the minnows of world soccer a comfortable position. We do violence to them by failing to create aspirations for world leadership through world-class standards. Is this not the message of the African renaissance?
Let’s not hide behind the mask of patriotism, which as Samuel Johnson said is the last refuge of a scoundrel. I have my thoughts on who that scoundrel is!–Dr Rasimeni Manjezi, Newlands
The opposition must stand its ground
The article “NNP vulnerable to musical chairs in Parliament” (June 21) is little more than a thumb-suck.
Reports such as these — suggesting that we might consider remaining with the Democratic Party instead of merging with the Democratic Alliance — show a disregard for the individuals concerned. A simple query to the DA Chief Whip, Douglas Gibson, MP, would have verified that we had declared our intention to support the merger between the DP and DA — a decision mandated by party structures when the DA was born.
The literature on the consolidation of democracy in Africa shows conclusively that opposition must not fracture when confronted with the threat of a one-party state. At a time when the defection legislation can be misused to undermine the cause of opposition, any suggestion of division in the official opposition is disingenuous at best and irresponsible at worst.
We support the DA as the only strong, nationwide opposition with a prospect of becoming an alternative government. –Colin Eglin, MP; Mike Ellis, MP; Mark Lowe, MP; Mike Waters, MP; Raenette Taljaard, MP
I take serious umbrage at Donwald Pressly’s wild and unfounded speculation regarding my showing “some interest in the African National Congress”.
I regard myself as a senior member of the Inkatha Freedom Party and nothing I have said or done shows any estrangement from my party or inclination to go anywhere.
I act from conviction, and if I need to do something, will do it only after raising the matter with my party’s leader. I have voluntarily indicated to Dr Mangosuthu Buthelezi that he has my full and loyal support. –Farouk Cassim, MP
Join the free market or remain poor
Call me naive, but I can’t quite follow the logic of Zakes Hlatshwayo’s article arguing that land invasions are inevitable if the state’s right to expropriate land is restricted (Comment & Analysis, June 21).
What he calls “South Africa’s tiny propertied elite” actually includes millions of ordinary people of all races, with more millions aspiring to acquire property or have their insecure title converted to property. They all want their property to be properly protected by the state — against both random expropriation and land invasion. So, I’m sure, does Hlatshwayo himself, wherever he hangs his hat and calls home.
He talks of the need to expropriate alternative land if the exact land that was stolen from a community is no longer available. Isn’t that like arresting a bystander if the actual criminal isn’t available? I’m afraid it sounds as if he just wants the government to expropriate whatever it feels like taking, under the threat of land invasions otherwise. This is not the way to uphold property rights of old and new owners!
I cannot understand his dislike of the “willing-buyer-willing-seller” principle, which is just another name for the free market. As a buyer of goods and services himself, he knows he can buy absolutely anythinghe wants and can afford. So what’s the problem with land, of which we have plenty?
The government gets all our tax money and can bid to buy as much land as it wants. But there’s no need for that! Let’s not forget that the government already owns over a third of all South African land, and has plenty to hand out at no further cost to taxpayers. And that’s a great thing to do, because the government doesn’t need it and lots of people do. Giving it away free to whoever wants it is a real “win-win” for us all.
But perhaps Hlatshwayo wants to punish existing landowners in general, by expropriating their land without full market compensation, or even with no compensation? That would be mean-spirited of him, especially as he seems to want the state to discriminate on racial grounds, too. More to the point, it ought to be unconstitutional, and it would certainly hurt the economy as a whole and the poor and unemployed in particular.
We really have to make up our minds whether to join the free world and respect property rights, or remain poor. –Jim Harris, Honeydew, Johannesburg