Criticism

Open deprecation 

Open letter to Elli Ioannidou-Kapolou and Demosthenes Agrafiotis, authors of "Sexuality(ies) in the years of uncertainty and AIDS. The new sexual relations of Greeks and Europeans. A comparative approach", published by Polytropon editions, 2005, 235 pages.

Dear Ms. Ioannidi-Kapolou and Mr. Agrafiotis,

The first thing that the reader of a research like yours would like to know, is the year the research was conducted. It is a rudimentary piece of information that, should it exist, would help provide validity to the "comparative research" which you claim to make in the book. Quite surprisingly, the date of the research is not mentioned in any of the usual places: not in the book's cover, not in the introduction, not in the epilogue not in the back cover. As much as I tried, I could not find it anywhere. The omission seems more than just plain carelessness. I am made to think that the essence of the book does not lie in sexuality but in something else, something left unsaid.

This is the general picture: The book is signed by professor of Sociology at the National School of Public Health, Demosthenes Agrafiotis and Elli N. Ioannidi-Kapolou, doctorate of sociology and researcher in the same School. A professor and his post-graduate student, in other words. So far, so good. The reader goes through chapters written in a dry, academic style - this is supposed to be a university book -  and once on page 48 finds a paragraph subtitled "Domain Research". This is when he finally reads that "the main research is panhellenic and was conducted in the period from 29/9/98 to 15/10/98". So, it seems, two people isolated just fifteen days from a disastrous year (1998 was fatal for many HIV-infected people) and conducted a research which they then decide to publish in a reheated version in 2005. If the book were an oven and the authors were the baker that wanted to sell stale bread , the story would become front cover on the next day. Nobody would buy the bread.

The situation with the book is different. The authors will not face the disastrous consequences that the "baker" would. The book has been pre-sold and the buyers have been guaranteed. This is how it works: the book is addressed to university students, and if, like all university books, it is given free of charge to them, their authors have been payed by state money, by the ministry of education, which has collected the money from the taxes payed by Greek citizens. Interestingly, the book's price is decided on the basis of its number of pages. The 1998 research is just right: with a light, general camouflage and redundant information, it does its job. It is guaranteed to reach the desks of students.

The introductory chapters are more up-to date than the outdated questionnaires that follow but do not meet the expectations that the reader has from the book's title. One does not learn about "sexuality" but finds an insistent attempt on the part of the authors to establish the background against which they conducted their research "the atmosphere (social-cultural, scientific, law status) in which the research was done and especially its limits and its idiosyncracies". The confusion which the authors came across is the confusion that they put across to the reader!

In the research, an interdisciplinary approach is set out as a prerequisite. The authors claim that science, philosophy, art, fiction, "narration", all have a stake at sexuality. All this sounds very sophisticated. But this is a book about sexuality as related to AIDS. It is a very specialized subject in which the knowledge and expertise of at least one doctor if not of an entire medical team seems necessary. For it is only doctors who are supposed to know how far medical progress in the domain of HIV has gone. They are the ones who are supposed to have the clear and objective picture and, for that reason are the only ones who could help build at least a right and non-misleading questionnaire.  

One more point: the book's authors rightly say that the years of panic are already behind. However, this is besides the main point. It seems, that the priority is to rekindle a bygone panic and to spread confusion. If the days of panic are already behind, why bring the past into the present?

The book claims to document sexual behaviour. However, sexual behaviour whether related to HIV or not, cannot easily fit into statistics. It cannot be counted easily, it is vague and unspoken. When it comes to sexuality, people often lie even to themselves. The book is filled with unnecessary cliched, commonplace and unrelated to the subject information. One reads for example that payed sex is dangerous. As if we did not know... And why is there any danger if a condom is used? Why should we care to learn that the frequency with which people alternate their sexual partners has either increased or decreased? It only takes one HIV-infected sexual partner to pass the virus to his sexual partner and spread it. Why should we care to know how many Greeks knew their sexual partners beforehand? How far into the past has an acquaintance have to go for it to be sexually safe? The reader has the constant sense that something is left unanswered, that something is left constantly in suspense.

Apparently, the research was based on a common model that was drawn by the researchers of the countries that participated in the program: Belgium, France, Germany, Great Britain, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Norway, Switzerland and Slovenia. The program was funded back in 1998 during the second decade of the AIDS epidemic. That could all be fine except that we are now exiting the third decade of the epidemic and heading towards the fourth. Has no new funding been found for a new, updated research?

The fact that the research is outdated is only part of the problem. As it has already been mentioned, the questions themselves were disorientating even back then. And, is it not rather bizarre that the research does not include even one homosexual? Out of a panhellenic sample, wasn't a single homosexual found? And why are there just a few bisexuals? Such omissions strengthens my argument of how the book is filled with aphorisms, generalities and unsubstantiated preventions. Far from illuminating, it places the reader in utter darkness.

Dear Mr. Agrafiotis and Ms. Ioannids-Kapolou, if your child were HIV-positive -which given all this misinformation is not at all improbable - wouldn't you be prompted to research the subject more in depth? Or is it that you have never thought of such a possibility?

In any case, whatever the sexual behavior of the Greeks may be, the fact remains that the release of this book has far from made things clear. If your intention is to offer new knowledge you should conduct a new research and hopefully, set out your intentions and goals in a methodical and scientifically-valid way.

Back in 1998 we were all at your disposal. Eight years down the road we are still alive to witness the results of your research. Hopefully, we will not see another of your hybrid-like researches reedited and dragged from the past into a changed present. It would be an accomplishment, if not an obligation, if you could contribute a book that would lift some of the pain and unhappiness off our society. After all, this is what your are paid for. By all us the HIV-positive, by all the students and by all our fellow-citizens.

Yours impartially,

MARIA K.