A public debate on how to develop practical ways to eradicate poverty and injustice should be the focus of Ghanaians at the moment rather than channeling anger and resentment at Actress Moesha Boduong over her ‘sex for comfort’ comments, Former Deputy Minister of Communication, Victoria Hammah has said.
Moesha told CNN’s Amanpour on an episode of her show, “S£x & Love Around the World” that economic necessity is what drives some women to date men who can support them, even if they’re married.
The actress, in less than 24 hours after her interview, has been subjected to severe criticisms for saying she sleeps with married men for money because of the economic difficulties confronting the country.
Commenting on the issue, Miss Hammah subtly agrees that, to a large extent, poverty results in asymmetrical sexual power relations.
According to her, the marginalization of women in society and the discrimination against women, coupled with the situation of “sex for financial security” has become the case because of abject poverty that exists in society and the inability of governments to tackle the core of such issues.
She adds that the “hypocritical moral narratives being thrown at actress and socialite Moesha Boduong for her candid and brutish honesty on Christine Amanpour’s “Sex and Love’ across the world only reflects the ignorant reactionary elements of our society”.
Read her full statement below:
The hypocritical moral narratives being thrown at actress and socialite Moesha Boduong for her candid and brutish honesty on Christine Amanpour’s “Sex and Love’ across the world only reflect the ignorant reactionary elements of our society.
Did I see Christine Amanpour express surprise at Moesha Boduong’s position? This is even more hypocritical?
The US society is rooted in inequalities of not just gender but racial and even economic. The US has the largest pornography industry in the world contributing more than half to the global porn industry.
It is undeniable that the porn industry does not only commodify and commercialize the woman’s body but reinforces historical stereotypes of women as sex objects.
Sex for financial security is the result of an uneven distribution of resources. Sex for money is the consequence of poverty and nothing else.
The above raises the realities of inequalities in our societies steeped in the social divisions of labour underscored by “capitalist economic governance”.
This issue should be looked at from a purely historical and materialist positon.
Being a woman in itself is a historical challenge and especially being a woman in a society such as Ghana with staggering poverty will obviously perpetuate an asymmetrical sexual power relations.
The debate should be about how governments should create enabling environment and opportunities to eradicate poverty!
We should broaden the debate to include even more devastating social inequitable issues such as child prostitution, rising teenage pregnancies, rising youth unemployment, maternal mortality, lack of access to adequate health care etc.
Even more importantly, we must eliminate social and cultural discriminatory practices and institutions that mitigate against women and other marginalized groups.
As well as implement affirmative policies across all socioeconomic structures of our society as an effective way to address inequalities.
In this case our collective enemy is Poverty not bold Moesha Boduong and the many ordinary Ghanaian women and men who have to subject themselves to indignity just to survive.