Abstract:
Premarital sex among the youth was conducted in the University of Maiduguri. One of the Goals of the MDGs is to reduce HIV/STIs among the general population in the society. In this context it is important to understand why youth still engage in risky sexual behavior and the effects it has on them. The study focused on the effects and consequence of engaging in premarital sex among the youth of University of Maiduguri. The data were collected using multi methods — Survey, Focus Group Discussion and review of University security records. The stratified random technique was used to draw respondents from a sampling frame sourced from the University Information Management Unit. The sample size is 318 (286 for the survey and 32 focus group participants) The SSPS software was used in the analysis of the data. Findings revealed that premarital sex among the youth in the University has a number of effects and consequences on the youth. Some of the consequences include HIV/STIs, Regrets, Unwanted pregnancy, loss of self respect, loss of family support, Depression and victims to rituals among others. The study recommends Sex Education courses in all institutions of learning. Government should also partner with NGOs and embark on advocacy and campaign on the need to sustain sex free life and discourage advocates of use of condom with sex. The University authority should live up to its responsibility as a custodian of youth in its care. Effective supervision of both academic and social life of youth in the University by the authorities and regular conferences and workshops by the authority, Students Union, ASUU, NASU and other associations on the Dangers of Premarital Sex, are some of the recommendations put forward.
Introduction
One of the Goals of the MDGs is combating HIV/AIDs, malaria and other diseases among the general population in the society by 2015. In this context it is important to understand why youth still engage in risky sexual behavior and examine the effects it has on them. The university, as a centre for character and learning, the society expects the university to inculcate the moral values of the larger society especially in promoting desirable sexual behavior. This is to be achieved through teaching and learning, on the one hand and through rules and regulations, on the other. Students learn new behavior in order to adjust to the demands of the new environment. Each student comes to the university with his/her own perspective of life, relative to his social background. Because of the multi ethnic and social nature of the University environment, there is thus the likelihood of finding carriers of deviant norms who possibly teach others in the process of daily association. Students, according to the Dean Students Affairs of University of Maiduguri, Ibrahirn (2003), suffer from physical and emotional pains of sexual assaults, most of which were not reported to school authorities for reasons only known to them. The attitude of not reporting the acts further exposes other students to greater danger and health risks. It equally encourages the emergence of premarital sex in institutions of learning. Premarital sex is an act of deviation. A deviant act is used here to refer to departure from societal norms that attract social disapproval which is likely to elicit negative sanctions. When students of different ages, nationalities, ethnic and religious backgrounds and status are brought together in a higher institutions environment, opportunities exist for sexual relationship. Premarital sex is a violation of sexual norms and values of a society. Abdullahi (2004) explained that values are conceptions of what is right (good, desirable and proper) and wrong (bad, undesirable and improper). The Hausa culture, he further observed, values the institution of the family with proscriptive norms that prohibit pre-marital sex like pre-marital sex. The concepts of a University student and University education have changed over the years. Students, Ibrahim (2003) observed, seem to value free sexual life on campus. Unlike students of the 1970s and l980s, most students in present day Nigeria are likely to be of the view that life has little or no meaning without sexual interaction on campus. Fromm (1991) views the modern world as being strangulated between „„robotism and humanism‟‟ life, he observed has no meaning; there is no joy, no reality, and no faith. In a situation like this, individuals resort to the comforts of the body, particularly in a university environment.
Background to the study
Moreover, universities in modern Nigeria seem to have lost their focus in (lie area of student‟s discipline. The value system of most Nigerian societies has created a barrier between parents and their children in matters relating to sex. In most societies, it is a taboo to talk about sex. Our communities and religious leaders preach daily against what is called „bad behaviors‟ like alcoholism, corruption, hoarding, and etc but seldom talk about sex education. It is very easy to talk to the student to abstain from sex until marriage, but within the university environment it will be difficult to enforce such values because of the multiethnic and social nature of the environment. Societies have developed and shaped their value systems upon which social life is regulated. Societal norms, that is, codes of behavior which the members of the society are expected to adhere enforce most of the values. The regulation of social values is the responsibility of the family first, then the extended social networks like educational institutions. Values are fundamental to our attitudes and dispositions towards issues and things. The objective of this paper therefore is to explain the consequences of premarital sex among the youth of the University of Maiduguri. The data were collected using multi methods — Survey, Focus Group Discussion and review of University security records. The stratified random technique was used to draw respondents from a sampling frame sourced from the University Information Management Unit. The sample size is 318 (286 for the survey and 32 focus group participants)
