1. A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF SEXUAL BEHAVIOUR
BETWEEN MARRIED OR COHABITING MEN AND SINGLE
MEN IN MALAWI
Bachelors degree in social science dissertation
By
THOKOZANI MAXIN SAULOSI
BSoc. Sc. (University of Malawi)
Dissertation submitted to the Department of Population Studies, Faculty of Social Science, in
partial fulfilment of the requirements for a degree in Social Science
UNIVERSITY OF MALAWI
CHANCELLOR COLLEGE
SEPTEMBER 2014

2. ii
DECLARATION
I, the undersigned, hereby declare that this dissertation is my original work and has not been
submitted to any other institution for similar purposes. Where other people’s work has been used
acknowledgements have been made.
THOKOZANI MAXIN SAULOSI
_______________________________
Signature
______________________________
Date

3. iii
CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL
The undersigned certify that this dissertation represents the student’s own work and effort
and has been submitted with my approval.
Signature: _________________________Date:_________________________
Monica Jamali Phiri (Lecture)

4. iv
DEDICATION
To my family

5. v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I thank God for the things He does in my life.
I would like to acknowledge and thank Mrs Monica Jamali Phiri for her patience and
insightful comments, constructive criticism and encouragement during the development and
writing up of this dissertation.
Special thanks are due to Maxin and Rose Saulosi for all the support. Words alone cannot
express how grateful I am to you guys. I also acknowledge the assistance rendered by Madalo
Saulosi, you the best sister I got.
All my cheerful friends: Faith Tsoka, Pilirani Mbedza, Lozindaba Mbvundula, Victor
Custom, Hannah Supply, Brian Numero, Rachel Mjathu, my mesho (Preston Matanda),
Lumbiwe Zimba, etc. I would like to thank you guys for your presence in my life. I
appreciate what you have done.

6. vi
ABSTRACT
This dissertation analyses and compares the sexual behaviours of single men and married or
cohabiting men in Malawi. The objective of the study is to find out if sexual behaviours of
single men differ from the sexual behaviours of married or cohabiting men. This study uses
data from the Malawi Demographic and Health Survey (MDHS) report of 2010. Two forms
of sexual behaviours were studied which are condom use and multiple sexual partners. The
variable of multiple sexual partners is made into a dummy variable to analyse the probability
of men having multiple sexual partners. The study uses logistic regression to analyse the
effects of the independent variables on condom use and multiple sexual partners. The study
found out that sexual behaviours of single men differ from the sexual behaviours of married
or cohabiting men. Single men are more likely to use a condom than married men and single
men are more likely to have multiple sexual partners. Age was the variable significant to
influence multiple sexual partners. Age of married men was significant to influence condom
use while age of single men was insignificant. Education had an influence in condom use
while wealth quintile, rich and richest wealth quintiles were significant in influencing
condom use.

7. vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT........................................................................................................................... VI
TABLE OF CONTENTS.................................................................................................... VII
LIST OF FIGURES.............................................................................................................. IX
LIST OF TABLES.................................................................................................................. X
CHAPTER ONE...................................................................................................................... 1
INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... 1
1.0 background........................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 statement of the problem..................................................................................................... 3
1.2 Justification of the study..................................................................................................... 3
1.3 Research Questions............................................................................................................. 4
1.4 Research Hypothesis........................................................................................................... 4
1.5 Research objectives............................................................................................................. 4
CHAPTER TWO..................................................................................................................... 6
LITERATURE REVIEW....................................................................................................... 6
2.0 Introduction......................................................................................................................... 6
2.1 Empirical literature.............................................................................................................. 7
2.1.1 Condom use...................................................................................................................... 7
2.1.2 Multiple sexual partners................................................................................................... 9
2.3 Conclusion......................................................................................................................... 10
CHAPTER THREE................................................................................................................. 11
METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................................. 11
3.0 Introduction...................................................................................................................... 11

8. viii
3.1 Data sources and Sample size........................................................................................... 11
3.2 Description of the data...................................................................................................... 11
3.3 Data Analysis.................................................................................................................... 12
3.4 Conclusion......................................................................................................................... 13
CHAPTER FOUR................................................................................................................... 14
PRESENTATION AND INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS.............................................. 14
4.0 Introduction....................................................................................................................... 14
4.1 Descriptive analysis of the data......................................................................................... 14
4.2 Bivariate analysis of the data............................................................................................. 16
4.3 Multivariate analysis of the data....................................................................................... 20
4.4 Conclusion......................................................................................................................... 23
CHAPTER FIVE..................................................................................................................... 25
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION........................................................................................ 25
5.0 Introduction....................................................................................................................... 25
5.1 Summary of results............................................................................................................ 25
5.2 Policy implications............................................................................................................ 26
5.3 Study limitations............................................................................................................... 26
REFERENCES........................................................................................................................ 27

9. ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Condom use by age group.......................................................................................17
Figure 2: Condom use by wealth quintile...............................................................................18
Figure 3: Multiple sexual partners and education..................................................................19
Figure 4: Multiple sexual partners and wealth quintile..........................................................20

10. x
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Percentages of married or cohabiting men and single men by age, education, wealth
and residence.........................................................................................................................14
Table 2: Condom use and multiple sexual partners of married or cohabiting men and single
men aged 15-49......................................................................................................................16
Table 3: Multivariate analysis of condom use among cohabiting or married men and single
men aged 15-49.......................................................................................................................20
Table 4: Multivariate analysis of multiple sexual partners among married or cohabiting men
and single men aged 15-49.....................................................................................................22

11. 1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.0 Background
Implementation of effective HIV prevention interventions to reduce new infections still poses
a challenge in the national response to HIV and AIDS in Malawi. Although the national HIV
prevalence is declining, on average there are nearly 90, 000 new HIV infections each year
with at least half occurring among young people aged 15-24 (NAC 2009). The majority of
people being infected are those who were previously considered to be at low risk, for
example, couples and partners in stable sexual relationships.
Individual’s sexual behaviour matters in as far as susceptibility to HIV is concerned (Baird et
al., 2010), and background factors determine the speed of transmission. These background
factors include sexual behaviour, poverty, education, migration and urbanization among
others (Ochieng, 2007). However, the main driving force of susceptibility is sexual
behaviour. Sexual behaviour can be of various forms including condom use, multiple sexual
partners and paid sex among others. The outcome of sexual behaviour includes HIV and
AIDS infections, syphilis, gonorrhoea and unwanted pregnancies among others. Of these
different sexual behaviour outcomes, HIV and AIDS has been the focus of public discussion
as well as policy initiative in the country due to its socio and economic impact. The country’s
efforts are apparent inadequate to cope with the rapid increase in the infection rates. HIV and
AIDS is a socio-cultural, economic, political, development and health issue which has
brought havoc to all sectors of the economy in Malawi and other developing countries (GoM,
2006).
Heterosexual sex is the primary mode of HIV transmission in Africa (UNAIDS 2006). For
instance, an analysis of survey and clinical data in Zambia and Rwanda showed that 55
percent or more of new HIV cases are attributed to heterosexual transmission within marriage
or cohabitating relationships (Dunkle, Stephenson 2008).
Being married or in a cohabitating relationship is significantly associated with less condom
use for both women and men. A study based on the Kenya 2003 Demographic and Health
Survey and the Malawi 2004-05 Demographic and Health Survey had a similar finding
(Anand, Shiraishi 2009). In the same study, researchers also found that half of the married or
cohabiting HIV-infected people in Kenya and more than 40 percent in Malawi had HIV-

12. 2
negative spouses. The lack of condom use within marriage is not unique to People living with
HIV (PLHIV). Several studies in different cultural settings have found that people are less
likely to use condoms with their spousal partners than with non spousal partners (Macaluso,
Demand 2000).
For married couples, condom use is more likely to serve as protection from pregnancy instead
of protection from HIV/STI infections. If they are already using other contraceptive methods,
married couples tend not to use condoms. Research has shown that women view non-use of
condoms as a symbol of trust in sex partners, faith in their partner’s monogamy, and
commitment to the relationship (Sobo 1995; Sherman and Latkin 2001).
On the contrary single men are more likely to use condoms because of the dual advantage of
serving as a temporally contraceptive device and protecting against sexually transmitted
diseases (STD’S) including HIV (IFPP 2000)
It is a well established fact that having multiple sexual partners increases the risk of getting
infected with HIV and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs) (Shelton 2004; Wilson
2004). A growing body of evidence in Uganda indicates that reduction of the number of
sexual partners and limitation of casual sexual activity had played a major role in reduction of
HIV prevalence in the early 1990’s (Green 2006; Okware 2005; Singh 2004), and more
recently in Zambia, Zimbabwe, Kenya, and in urban areas of Burkina Faso (Gregson 2006;
Stoneburner and Low-Beer 2004b; Agha 2002; Bessinger 2003).
The number of single adults has increases since 1950 (Waite, 1995). An estimated three
quarters of single men and about two thirds of unmarried women engage in some form of
partnered sexual activity during the course of a year (Laumann, Gagnon, Michael &
Michaels, 1994). Adolescents all over the world are sexually active but the age at first sexual
intercourse varies among regions and within the country. Young men do report beginning
sexual activity earlier than young women because premarital sex is accepted for males,
whereas for women they are expected to postpone their initiations of intercourse until they
are married (WHO 1995).
Most HIV prevention programs have focused on the general population or people at high risk
of HIV which are the youth, paying little attention to those who are married and living
together as couples and their sexual behaviours. However, to limit the spread of the epidemic,
it is necessary also to focus on people currently living together as couples. UNAIDS has

13. 3
recommended that comprehensive HIV prevention should include prevention programs
focusing on couples living together (UNAIDS 2006). In order to design effective prevention
strategies, it is essential to understand and compare HIV-related knowledge and behaviours
between married or cohabiting men and non married men and to assess their risk of HIV
transmission.
1.1 Statement of the problem
Despite a decrease in the incidence of new HIV infections, the numbers are still quite high
among co-habiting or married men compared to single men. This is due to “trust” which is
assumed to exist in a married and cohabiting relationship as such condom use is neglected. In
other forms of relationships where couples are not cohabiting and married condom use is
used as a contraceptive method while in most cohabiting other methods of contraception are
used and rarely is the condom used.
Most HIV and AIDS prevention efforts focus on premarital and extramarital sexual
behaviours. The protective needs of the married and cohabiting couples are just as great and
often go unnoticed. By comparison the needs of the married and cohabiting have been
neglected despite that in generalized HIV epidemic many infections occur within married and
cohabiting unions because of either prior infection or infidelity.
1.2 Justification of the study
Study of married and cohabiting compared to single men’s sexual behaviour is necessary
because patterns of sexual behaviour formed in this relationship have an impact in the fight
against HIV and AIDS. In a country with different prevalence rates of HIV infection,
primarily determined by sexual behaviour, understanding of motivations behind risky sexual
behaviour is an important step towards dealing with the HIV pandemic.
The objective is to help planners and policymakers in government agencies and NGOs
develop substantive, alternative policy interventions to address the spread of HIV/AIDS and
its consequences. Since the main focus of most HIV and AIDS interventions has been on
premarital and extramarital sexual behaviours neglecting the fact that most HIV infections
happen in cohabiting or married relationship, this study will shed light on the sexual
behaviours of the married and cohabiting men which will help planners and policy makers
develop effective and efficient ways to help fight against the epidemic.

14. 4
1.3 Research Questions
The main question the study will look at is
 Are there differences in the sexual behaviour between married or cohabiting men and
single men?
Specific question of the study include
 Are there differences in the use of the condom between married or cohabiting men
from single men?
 Do married or cohabiting men differ in the number of sexual partners with singlemen?
1.4 Research hypothesis
The main hypothesis of this study is
 There are no differences in sexual behaviour of married or cohabiting men with those
of single men
Specific hypothesis include
 There are no differences between single men and married or cohabiting men in the use
of a condom.
 Married or cohabiting men do not differ in the multiple sexual partners they have with
single men.
1.5 Research Objectives
The main objective of this study is
 To access the differences in sexual behaviour of the married or cohabiting men with
single men.
Specific objectives include
 Determine the differences in the use of condom among cohabiting or married men and
non married men.
 To compare the prevalence of multiple sexual partners among cohabiting or married
men from single men

15. 5
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.0 Introduction
The chapter presents a summary and discussion of what other researchers have done in the
area of sexual behaviours of married or cohabiting couples. The chapter has two sections.
Section 2.1 presents some empirical evidence on risky sexual behaviour, and section 2.2
concludes the chapter.
2.1 Empirical literature
2.1.1 Condom use
Much focus is drawn on the effect on sexual health of the growing prevalence of sex outside
marriage neglecting the fact that marriage does not safeguard sexual health status. In Uganda,
married women constitute the population group in whom HIV transmission is increasing most
rapidly. A study in Kenya and Zambia showed that the sexual-health benefits of marriage for
women were offset by higher frequency of intercourse, lower rates of condom use, and their
husband's risk behaviour. Married women find negotiation of safer sex more difficult than do
single women and few married women use condoms for family planning. Nor can marriage
be relied on to ensure safer early sexual experience (Halperin DT, 2004).
A 2001 study of condom use within marital and cohabiting partnership in South Africa
reported that some men associate male condoms with discomfort, distrust in relationships,
undesired interruption of sexual intercourse, and death of female sexual partners. Only 14
percent of men and 17 percent of women reported consistent or occasional condom use.
Resistance to condom use within marital and cohabiting partnership is not immutable.
Nevertheless, condom use among these couples is higher among urban, more educated
individuals than rural, less educated individuals. Apart from education, perceived risk of HIV
infection from the partner is the most powerful determinant of use within marital and
cohabiting partnerships (Maharaj P et al, 2004).
A study of risky sexual behaviour and condom use in Malawi (Madise and Chanon, 2004),
established that more than half of the people in the sample were seen to have had risky sexual
intercourse. Most were classified as risky due to the presence of STI in the last 12 months
indicating large levels of passive exposure. Condom use with a marital partner, a girlfriend or

16. 6
fiancée or a casual partner showed no variation at the cluster or district level. Matrilineal
ethnicities were, in general, seen to be more likely to engage in risky sexual intercourse and
less likely to use a condom.
A number of studies have highlighted married adolescent women’s risk of HIV infection in
sub- Saharan Africa. Findings from cities in Cameroon, Kenya, and Zambia show that
married teenage women are more likely to be HIV-positive than unmarried women (Clark,
2004; Glynn et al., 2001; Lydie et al., 2001). It is suggested that married adolescent women
in sub-Saharan Africa are more vulnerable to HIV infection than unmarried women because
there is greater frequency of sexual intercourse with their husband, who is more likely to be
older and HIV positive. Also, these young married women may use condoms more rarely
because of a lack of bargaining power in their marriage (Bruce and Clark, 2003; Clark, 2004;
Clark et al., 2006).
In another study results showed that the largest percentage of the population had knowledge
of HIV prevention methods particularly “abstinence” and “being faithful”. A greater
percentage of men were reporting to having multiple sexual partners than women. Also, a
large percentage of men than women reported higher risk sex in the past 12 months and
condom use at last sex .The results showed that being married or in a cohabiting relationship
is significantly associated with lower levels of condom use for both women and men. The
study used data from the Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) and AIDS Indicator
Surveys (AIS) in eight high HIV prevalence African countries (Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi,
Swaziland, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe). The multivariate analysis was,
however, restricted to women and men age 15-49 at the time of the survey who were
successfully interviewed, tested HIV-positive, and have ever had sex (Wang, Wenjuan,
Soumya Alva, and Shanxiao Wang 2012).
Using multivariate analysis on data on ever married women from rural areas of Malawi
obtained from Malawi Diffusion and Ideational Change project (MDICP) of 2006, a study
conducted by Nuula AS found that there is no difference in acceptability of condoms within
marriages between religions. But only 13.8 percent reported ever having used condoms
within current or most recent marriage (Nuula A S, 2007)
Qualitative research has demonstrated that men are more likely to practice safer sex with
casual sexual partners than they are with their regular partners. This is supported by findings

17. 7
showing that the longer partnerships progress the less condom use will be sustained and
consistent over time (parker et al, 2007).
2.1.2 Multiple sexual partners
Having more than one sexual partner at the same time is a strong predictor of HIV infection.
Multiple partnering is closely tied to constructions of masculinity, which define them as the
norm for men. Ideas and beliefs about male sexuality create expectations among men that
having ‘main’ and ‘other’ sexual partners is both natural and central to their gender identity
(Kincaid, DL, Parker, W, 2008).
However, men are more likely to hold these views than women; in community surveys in
Swaziland and Botswana, 12 per cent of men and just 3 per cent of women agreed that, “it is
OK to have more than one partner at the same time.” In Swaziland, 36 per cent of men and 17
per cent of women thought it acceptable for a man to find another wife if his current wife
does not bear children. Sexual behaviour studies globally indicate that heterosexual men,
married and single, as well as homosexual and bisexual men, have higher reported rates of
partner change than women (Physicians for Human Rights, 2007).
In Ghana, Anarfi and Awusabo (1993) reported that 18% of males had multiple partners and
sexual networking was not frowned upon. In Ghana's traditional system, sexual activity of
married couples is disturbed by menstruation, period of lactation and postpartum abstinence
as such married men have multiple sexual partners. In Freetown, West Africa, extra marital
relationships seems to be highly undiscriminated and respondents, in a survey by Adegbola et
al (1993) were unperturbed by the threat of AIDS. At least 73.8 per cent of married males
were involved in extra marital relationships. In Kenya East Africa, 16% of husbands reported
extra-marital relations (Caldwell et al 1989). In Calabar, south east Nigeria, widespread
networking has been reported and about 50% of men interviewed were involved in such
activity.
A quantitative and qualitative study of young people’s sexual behaviour, undertaken by
CADRE in South Africa, concluded that cultural beliefs and ideas about masculinity and
femininity interacted with underlying socio-economic contexts and individual psychological
factors related to self-esteem and fatalism, to produce patterns of sexual relationships that can
facilitate the spread of HIV. A South African study found that 13.5 per cent of men who had
had sex within the past twelve months and 3.9 per cent of women had had more than one

18. 8
sexual partner. Younger people were more likely to have more than one partner (Parker et al,
2007).
2.3 Conclusion
The chapter has reviewed different studies on risky sexual behaviour of married or cohabiting
couples. However, household demographic and economic characteristics have showed mixed
results in as far as their impact on risky sexual behaviour is concerned. This has been due to
the various definitions of what constitute risky sexual behaviour.

19. 9
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
3.0 Introduction
This chapter presents the methodology of the study. It has been organized in three sections.
Section 3.1 presents the data sources and sample size. Description of the variables is
presented in section 3.2 and methods of data analysis are done in section 3.3. Conclusion is
done in section 3.4
3.1 Data sources and sample size
The study will use the 2010 Malawi Demographic and Health Survey, with a national
stratified probability sample of over 7000 men. Analysis will be based on respondents aged
15-54. Data was collected by the National Statistical Office in collaboration with ICF Macro.
3.2 Description of the data
Sexual behaviour
This is the dependent variable. The proxies used for risky sexual behaviour in the study are
condom use and multiple sexual partners (NSO, 2005; Warren, 2010).
In this study, condom use is a dummy variable which takes the value of 1 if they used a
condom and 0 otherwise. Multiple sexual partners is generated into a dummy variable in
order to capture the odds of married or cohabiting men and single men to have multiple
sexual partners. ‘Multiple sexual partners’ takes the value of 1 if men have more than one
sexual partner and 0 otherwise.
Age
Refers to number of years lived since birth and ranges from 15–54 in this study. This has a
biological effect since it determines the stage with which one enters into the sexual market
(Hallman, 2004).
Education
This refers to the gradual process of acquiring knowledge in an institutional environment
usually divided into stages such as nursery, primary, secondary and tertiary. In this study,

20. 10
formal education is in terms of levels of education: no- education, primary, secondary and
higher (NSO 2010), will be used.
Wealth
In this study wealth quintiles are used as a proxy for wealth of an individual. Wealth quintiles
in this study are in five levels which includes; poorest, poor, middle, richer and richest.
Residence
This variable captures the two types of residential areas which are rural and urban areas. This
will be used to assess the differentials in the sexual behaviours in the different types of
residential areas.
3.3 Data Analysis
The analysis will investigate the differences in sexual behaviours among cohabiting or
married men and single men in Malawi using the MDHS 2010 data.
Univariate analysis
This is done to determine the frequencies of men who are married or cohabiting and single
men according to their demographic characteristics (age, education levels, wealth and
residence).
Bivariate analysis
Bivariate analysis is done between each dependent and independent variable. In this study,
this will be done to measure the relationship between the dependent variables (condom use
and multiple sexual partners) with the independent variables age, education, wealth index and
residence. This analysis will measure the strength and significance of the relationships
between the stated independent variables and the dependent variables.
Multivariate analysis
All the dependent variables are dummy variables. Multivariate logistic regressions analysis is
used to determine which of the socioeconomic status/poverty characteristics are
independently associated with condom use or the odds that single men or married or
cohabiting men will have multiple sexual partners.

21. 11
The regression equation is as follows;
𝐼𝑛(𝑜𝑑𝑑𝑠) =∝ +𝛽1 𝑋1 + 𝛽2 𝑋2 + 𝛽3 𝑋3 + ⋯………… . +𝛽 𝑍 𝑋𝑍.
Where α is Model constant, β is parameter estimate for the predictors and X’s represent each
independent variable.
Since we are comparing married or cohabiting men with non married men, two regressions
will be run to capture their differences.
3.4 Conclusion
The chapter has provided a detailed description of the methodology used in the estimation of
various relationships in the study. The chapter has also explained the variables and data used
in the study. In addition to these data sources have been explained.

22. 12
CHAPTER FOUR
PRESENTATION AND INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS
4.0 Introduction
This chapter presents and interprets the results of the study. The chapter is presented in four
sections. Section 4.1 presents descriptive statistics of the variables used, section 4.2 presents
the bivariate analysis of the dependent variable with some selected variable. Lastly, section
4.3 concludes the chapter.
4.1 Descriptive Analysis of the data
Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics of the variables used in the study. It outlines the
percentages of married or cohabiting and single men according to their background
characteristics. The summary is of the whole sample of men.
Table 1 percentages of Married or Cohabiting and Single men by age, education, wealth
and Residence
Background
Characteristics
Percentages and number of men
who are Married and cohabiting
Percentages and number of men
who are single
Percent Number of men Percent Number of men
Age Group
15-19 0.76 32 58.22 1725
20-24 10.30 434 26.43 783
25-29 20.23 852 7.15 212
30-34 20.35 857 2.87 85
35-39 16.98 715 2.09 62
40-44 12.32 519 1.11 30
45-49 11.02 464 1.08 32
50-54 8.05 339 1.05 31
Education
No education 8.62 363 2.87 85
Primary 64.72 2726 62.23 1903
Secondary 23.72 999 30.21 895
Higher 2.94 124 2.70 80

23. 13
Wealth quintiles
Poorest 16.36 689 15.15 449
Poor 21.75 916 18.29 542
Middle 22.44 945 17.89 530
Richer 21.27 896 21.97 651
Richest 18.19 766 26.70 791
Residence
Urban 11.70 493 17.58 521
Rural 88.30 3719 82.4 2442
Total 100 4212 100 2963
0.76 percent of the married or cohabiting men are aged 15-19, while 58.22 percent of single
men are aged 15-19. This means that out of the 4212 married or cohabiting men, 32 men are
aged 15-19 and 1725 men are aged 15-19 out of the 2963 men that are not married. The
highest percentage of married or cohabiting men is in the age group 25-29 to 30-34 years
while the highest percentage of men that are not married is aged 15-19 years. The percentages
of men who are not married decreases as the age increase which means there are few older
men who are not married.
In terms of education, the highest percentage of married or cohabiting men has primary
education as their highest education level. This is the same with the men that are not married.
2.70 percent of single men have attained higher education while 2.94 percent of married or
cohabiting men have attained higher education. The percent of married or cohabiting men
that have no education background is higher than the percentage of single men with no
education.
High percentages of married or cohabiting men are in the poor, middle and rich wealth
quintiles while the highest percentage of non married men is in the highest wealth quintile.
15.5 percent of single men are in the poorest wealth quintile and 16.36 percent of married or
cohabiting men are in richest wealth quintile.
4.2 Bivariate analysis of the data
Having presented the descriptive statistics, it is worthwhile to observe bivariate relationship
between some selected variables and the dependent variables.

24. 14
Table 2 summarizes the relationship between dependent variables (condom use and multiple
sexual partners) by both married or cohabiting and non married men with the age, education
and residence.
Table 2 Condom use and multiple sexual partners of married or cohabiting men and
single men
Background
characteristics
Married or Cohabiting
men
Single men
Condom use Multiple sexual
partners
Condom use Multiple sexual
partners
Age group % N % N % N % N
15-19 0.4 2 0.7 2 39.3 238 47.5 522
20-24 14.0 66 14.7 45 38.7 234 33.5 368
25-29 23.2 109 26.7 82 13.19 84 10.7 118
30-34 20.6 97 23.5 72 3.8 23 3.2 35
35-39 17.0 80 13.0 40 1.7 10 2.0 22
40-44 11.5 54 8.1 25 1.0 6 0.8 9
45-49 8.6 39 9.1 28 0.7 4 1.3 14
50-54 4.9 23 4.2 13 1.0 6 1.0 11
Education
No education 4.9 23 7.4 22 2.1 13 3.0 33
Primary 59.8 280 63.2 189 50.6 306 58.8 646
Secondary 32.5 152 27.1 81 42.8 259 34.9 384
Higher 2.8 13 2.3 7 4.5 27 3.3 36
Wealth quintile
Poorest 12.8 60 16.1 48 11.6 70 13.6 149
Poor 20.3 95 20.4 61 15.0 91 17.5 192
Middle 19.7 92 22.7 68 17.5 106 18.3 201
Richer 26.7 125 19.7 59 22.1 134 22.2 244
Richest 20.5 96 21.1 63 33.7 204 28.5 313
Residence

25. 15
Urban 12.4 58 10.0 30 21.2 128 18.6 204
Rural 87.6 410 90.0 269 78.8 477 81.4 895
Total 100 468 100 299 100 605 100 1099
Condom use among non married and married or cohabiting men
Married or cohabiting men aged 15-19 are less likely to have used a condom at their last
sexual intercourse. The percentage of married men who used a condom increases from age
group 15-19 to age 25-29 and then decreases as the age increases. The percentage of single
me who used a condom decreases as age increases from age 15 to 54. Figure 1 shows use of
condoms by cohabiting and married men and age distribution.
Figure 1 condom use by age group
Table 2 shows that there are variations in the use of condom by men in different education
levels. However, the highest percentage of men that used a condom at their last sexual
intercourse married or cohabiting and single was those with primary education with 59.8
percent and 50.6 percent respectively. Increase in education levels has been noted with
reduction in the percentage of cohabiting and married men who used a condom at their last
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54
Married or cohabiting men
single men

26. 16
sexual intercourse with 2.8 percent and 4.5 percent of married or cohabiting and non married
men respectively with highest education that used a condom.
Figure 2 condom use by wealth quintile
Figure 2 shows the percentage of cohabiting and married who used a condom at their last
sexual intercourse by their wealth quintile. The percentage of cohabiting or married and
single men who used a condom at their last sexual intercourse increases as we move from the
poorest to the richest. However, the percentage of married or cohabiting men who used a
condom is higher than the percentage of cohabiting men who used a condom in the poorest
wealth quintile to the richer wealth quintile. The percentage of single men who used a
condom in the richest wealth quintile is greater than that of married or cohabiting men. It
should be noted that the percentage of married men who used a condom increases from the
poorest but decreases in the richest wealth quintile.
Condom use varies in the different types of residence of the cohabiting and married men. The
highest percentage of both single and married or cohabiting men lives in the rural areas. A
few percentages of men married or cohabiting and single that used a condom live in the rural
areas of the country. This could be so because the number of married or cohabiting and non
married men living in the urban areas is lower than those living in the rural areas.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
poorest poor middle richer richest
married or cohabiting men
single men

27. 17
Multiple sexual partners among married or cohabiting men and single men
Out of all men who had multiple sexual partners, 0.7 percent of married or cohabiting men
had multiple sexual partners while those who were single 47.5 percent had multiple sexual
partners and these men were aged 15-19. This means that men who are single aged 15-19
have the highest probability of having more than one sexual partner. The highest percentages
of married or cohabiting men that have multiple sexual partners are aged 25-29. As age
increases the percentage of men who have multiple sexual partners decreases for both
married or cohabiting and single men.
There exist similarities in the distribution of multiple sexual partners among single men and
cohabiting or married men by education level. Those married or cohabiting and single men
with the highest percentage of men who have multiple sexual partners have primary
education. The percentage of men who have multiple sexual partners is lowest for the
cohabiting or married and single men who have higher education levels. As education
increases from primary to the highest education level the percentage of single men with
multiple sexual partners is higher than that of married men. Figure 3 below shows the
percentage of single men and cohabiting or married men with multiple sexual partners
distributed on their education levels.
Figure 3 multiple sexual partners and education
Figure 4 shows the comparison of non married and cohabiting or married men with multiple
sexual partners and wealth. As wealth increases the percentage of men with multiple sexual
partners increases for both non married and married or cohabiting men. However, the
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
no education primary secondary higher
married or cohabiting
men
single men

28. 18
percentage of non married men in the highest wealth quintile with multiple sexual partners is
higher than the percentage of married or cohabiting men with multiple sexual partners.
Figure 4 multiple sexual partners and wealth
4.3 Multivariate Analysis results
As indicated earlier, we used multilevel logistic regression models to estimate the effects of
the dependent variables on involvement in high-risk sexual behaviour (condom use and
multiple sexual) and the effects of individual characteristics. Analysis was run separately for
married and unmarried survey respondents. This is in recognition of the fact that the
associations are likely to vary by marital status. The results for condom use and multiple
sexual partners are presented in Tables 3.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
poorest poor middle richer richest
married or cohabiting
men
non married men

29. 19
Table 3 Multivariate analysis of condom use and multiple sexual partners
Marginal effects for condom use and multiple sexual partners
Parameters Condom use Multiple sexual partners
Age groups (50-54)
15-19 0.009 (0.2178) -0.001 (0.4498)
20-24 0.106 (0.2126)** 0.010 (0.4450)
25-29 0.093 (0.2117)** 0.006 (0.4537)
30-34 0.047 (0.2193) -0.014 (0.5089)
35-39 0.043 (0.2262) -0.025 (0.5857)
40-44 0.042 (0.2382) -0.044 (0.8261)
45-49 0.010 (0.2529) -0.001 (0.5505)
Marital status(single)
Married -0.0076 (0.0850)** -0.042 (0.2131)**
Education (No education)
Primary 0.041 (0.1845)*** 0.017 (0.5173)
Secondary 0.090 (0.1930)** 0.026 (0.5282)***
Higher 0.070 (0.2639)*** 0.041 (0.6180)***
Wealth (poorest)
Poor 0.010 (0.1241) -0.010 (0.2711)
Middle 0.017 (0.1225) 0.006 (0.2434)
Richer 0.042 (0.1196)** 0.0002(0.2445)
Richest 0.043 (0.1305)*** 0.003 (0.2711)
Residence (urban)
Rural 0.014 (0.1064) 0.003 (0.2266)
Note: **,*** denotes significance at 5 percent and 10 percent respectively. Figures in parenthesis are robust
standard errors.
Interpretation of results
In the interpretation of the logistic models, marginal effects, which are more meaningful, are
used instead of the actual coefficients. Marginal effects captures the probability and are
obtained by taking the derivative of the dependent variable with respect to a specific
regressor, holding other regressors constant (Gujarat, 2003; Cameron and Trivedi, 2005).

30. 20
Age: An analysis of the results indicates that the probability of men having multiple sexual
partners is not influenced by the age of men. However, the probability that men aged 20-24
and 25-29 will use a condom is 10.6 percent and 9.3 percent respectively as compared to men
aged 50-54.
Marital status: Marital status was defined as being married or single. From the results, the
likelihood of married men using a condom reduces by 0.7 percentage points as compared to
single men. The variable is significant at the 5 percent level. This is also consistent with what
Anand, Shiraishi (2009) found in a study done in Kenya that been married or cohabiting is
associated with less condom use.
The probability of married men having multiple sexual partners reduces by 4.2 percentage
points as compared to single men. This means that single men are more likely than married
men to have multiple sexual partners.
Education: The no education variable was set as a benchmark for the education variable.
Education increases the likelihood of men using a condom. The likelihood of men with
primary education using condoms increases by 4.1 percentage points as compared to men
with no education. This may be linked to the introduction of Life Skills Education in primary
schools in which safe sex is part of the curriculum. This result proves that some minimum
level education is important in as far as reducing risky sexual behaviour is concerned.
Secondary and higher education increases the probability of men using condoms by 9.0
percent and 7.0 percent respectively. The implication of these education variables is that
education status has a positive relationship with sexual behaviour. Education increases
exposure to new things related to sexual behaviour. In as far as these education variables are
concerned, exposure to academic subjects such as Biology, Social Studies, Life Skills
Education, among others, are factors which enlighten young people on safe sex methods. The
positive association between sexual behaviour and education was also established by NSO
(2005), Madise (2007), where education was positively associated with condom use.
In analysing multiple sexual partners, secondary education and higher education increases the
likelihood of having multiple sexual partners by 2.6 percentage points and 4.1 percentage
points respectively.
Wealth: The benchmark for wealth quintiles was the poorest wealth quintile. Richer wealth
quintile and richest wealth quintiles increase the probability of condom use by 4.2 percent

31. 21
and 4.3 percent as compared to the poorest wealth quintile. This is consistent with Lagarde et
al. (2001), who found out that people with higher socioeconomic status may initially engage
in higher-risk sex, but once they become informed about the risk of contracting HIV/AIDS,
they start to practice safer sex, including condom use. However, wealth is insignificant in
explaining multiple sexual partners.
In analysing multiple sexual partners it was found that wealth is insignificant in explaining
multiple sexual partners. This means that wealth does not influence multiple sexual partners
of men.
Residence: The analysis of the results shows that residence has no significant influence on
condom use and multiple sexual partners.
4.3 Conclusion
The results show that there are differences in the sexual behaviours of single men and
married or cohabiting men. Married men are less likely to use a condom as compared to
single men and married men are less likely to have multiple sexual partners. The next chapter
gives a summary of the results and policy implication of the results.

32. 22
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
5.1 Summary of Results
This study aimed at comparing the sexual behaviours of single men and married or cohabiting
men. Single men consist of those men who have never married and men who had been
married before but are no longer married because of either death or divorce.
From the analysis it was seen that the number of married men was higher than the number of
single men. There exists a similar trend in education between married or cohabiting men and
single men with a higher percentage of men with primary education as their highest education
level. A similar trend is observed in the residential areas. There is a high percent of men in
the rural areas for both married or cohabiting and single men.
Single men used a condom more than married or cohabiting men. It was also discovered that
single men are more likely to have multiple sexual partners than married or cohabiting men.
Despite the differences in the use of the condom there exists a similar pattern in the use of a
condom by education, with those having primary education using the condom more than
those in the other education levels.
There are differences in sexual behaviour of married or cohabiting men and single men.
Married men are less likely to use a condom and have multiple sexual partners as compared
to single men. This means we reject our hypothesis that there are no differences in sexual
behaviours of married or cohabiting men and single men.
However, further look at the factors affecting condom use it was found that education and
wealth have an influence in the use of a condom. Wealth does not influence multiple sexual
partners and only secondary and higher education positively influences multiple sexual
partners.
5.2 Policy Implications
In this regard, it becomes necessary to specifically address the reproductive health needs of the
married and single men. In as far as the impact of education is concerned; the programmes
which improve the education must be scaled up. Programmes which will not only improve the

33. 23
literacy levels, but have the out-curriculum effect of reducing sexual behaviour, must be put in
place in addition to the existing ones. Programmes which aim at changing the attitudes or
perceptions on condoms must continue. Positive attitudes towards condom use will in turn affect
the rate at which safe sex is practised.
Increasing individual awareness of own HIV status as well as partner’s status could potentially
lead to increased condom use within marriage or cohabitation. In a study based on the Malawi
2010 DHS it was shown that awareness of HIV-positive status can increase the likelihood of
condom use.
Men need to be counselled on the need to remain faithful to their partners, a behaviour, which is
necessary, before any significant improvements in infection rates are expected. It is not just
desirable but becomes imperative that men be empowered to play a more active and responsible
role in promoting the health and welfare of family members and in preventing disease.
5.3 Study limitations
Firstly, DHS surveys do not collect data on household income or expenditure, which would be
used to assess wealth status. The asset-based wealth index used in the study is the only proxy
indicator of household economic status. This index is not preferable in terms of comparability of
wealth status due to differences in the level and distribution of wealth across the country.
Secondly, analysis is based on individual responses to survey questions. There are cases of
misreporting, especially when dealing with issues related to sexual behaviour. For instance,
women tend to under-report involvement in sexual activity, and men tend to over-report and
exaggerate their involvement. Therefore, the findings may be biased due to the fact that men
included in the sample misreport their number of sexual partners, condom use, and so forth.
However, despite these limitations there is reasonable confidence that the data used in this study
are valid, since the information on the variables in the analysis is credible and reflects
expectations.

34. 24
References
Anglewicz, Philip, Simona Bignami-Van Assche and Shelley Clark. 2010. “HIV Risk Among
Currently Married Couples in Rural Malawi: What Do Spouses Know About Each Other?”
AIDS and Behavior 14: 103-112.
Booysen, F. le R. (2004). “HIV/AIDS, Poverty and Risky Sexual Behavior in South Africa.”
African Journal of AIDS Research 3(1): 57-67.
Boileau C, Clark S, Assche B, Poulin M, Reniers G, Kohler H-P (2009), “Sexually and
marital trajectories and HIV infection among ever married women in rural Malawi 2001-
2004”, Sexually transmitted infections. 85:27-33
Clarke S, Poulin M, Kohler H-P (2009), “Marital aspirations, sexual behaviors and
HIV/AIDS in rural Malawi”. Journal of Marriage and the family
Chatterjee, N., G. M. Hosain, and S. Williams. 2006. "Condom Use with Steady and Casual
Partners in Inner City African-American Communities." Sex Transm. Infect. 82(3): 238-242.
Cohen, D. 1997. Socio-Economic Causes and Consequences of the HIV Epidemic in Southern
Africa: A Case Study of Namibia. UNDP Issues Paper No. 31. HIV and Development
Programme Issues. New York, NY, USA: UNDP.
Collins, J., and B. Rau. 2000. AIDS in the Context of Development. UNRISD Programme on
Social Policy and Development, Paper No. 4. Geneva, Switzerland: UNRISD/UNAIDS.
Halperin DT, Steiner MJ, Cassell MM, Green EC, Hearst N. The time has come for common
ground on preventing sexual transmission of HIV. Lancet 2004; 364: 1913–15.
Hugonnet, S., F. Mosha, J. Todd, K. Mugeye, A. Klokke, L. Ndeki, D. Ross, H. Grosskurth,
and R. Hayes. (2002). “Incidence of HIV infection in stable sexual partnerships: A
retrospective cohort study of 1802 couples in Mwanza
International Family Planning Perspectives (IFPP). 2000, 26(4):196-200
Kaiser R, Bunnel R, Hightower A, Kim AA, Cherutich P (2011); “Factors associated with
HIV infection in married or Co-habiting couples in Kenya: Results from Nationally
Representation Study”. PLOSONE 6(3):e17842

35. 25
Kincaid, DL, Parker, W (2008): National AIDS Communication Programmes, HIV
Prevention Behaviour and HIV Infections Averted in South Africa, 2005. Pretoria, JHHESA.
Lagarde, E., B. Auvert, M. Carael, M. Laourou, B. Ferry, E. Akam, T. Sukwa, L. Morison, B.
Maury, J. Chege, I. N’Doye, A. Buve, and Study Group on Heterogeneity of HIV Epidemics
in African Cities. 2001. "Concurrent Sexual Partnerships and HIV Prevalence in Five Urban
Communities of Sub-Saharan Africa.” AIDS 15(7): 877-84.
Malawi Government, (2003). Malawi National HIV and AIDS Policy: A call for renewed
action. Lilongwe, Malawi
Maury, J. Chege, I. N’Doye, A. Buve, and Study Group on Heterogeneity of HIV Epidemics
in African Cities. (2001). "Concurrent Sexual Partnerships and HIV Prevalence in Five
Urban Communities of Sub-Saharan Africa.” AIDS 15(7): 877-84.
NAC. (2009). National HIV Prevention Strategy 2009 to 2013. Lilongwe, Malawi: NAC.
National Statistical Office (NSO). (2010), Malawi Demographic and Health Survey, Malawi
Government Print
National Statistical Office (NSO). (2004), Malawi Demographic and Health Survey, Malawi
Government Print
Parker W, Makhubele B, Ntlabati P, Connolly C. (2007) Concurrent sexual partnerships
amongst young adults in South Africa: Challenges for HIV prevention communication.
Johannesburg: CADRE
Philipson, T., and Posner, R. (1995). The Microeconomics of AIDS Epidemic in Africa.
Population and Development Review, 21(4), 835-848
Physicians for Human Rights (2007): Epidemic of Inequality: Women’s Rights and
HIV/AIDS in Botswana and Swaziland. PHR, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Reiners G, Watkins S, (2009); “Polygyny and the spread of HIV in Sub Saharan Africa: A
Case of benign concurrency”, California Center for Population Studies, University of
California
Shelton, J.D., M.M. Cassell, and A. Adetunji. (2005). “Is Poverty or Wealth at the Root of
HIV?” The Lancet 366(9491): 1057-8

36. 26
Tivory, I. and Swidler, A. (2009). Condom Semiotics: Meaning and Condom Use in Rural
Malawi. American Sociological Review, 74(2), 171-189
UNAIDS (2006). Report on the Global AIDS epidemic. Geneva: UNAIDS.
UNAIDS. 2010. Report on the Global AIDS Pandemic 2010. Geneva: UNAIDS
World Bank. (2010). World Development Indicators Data Base. Accessed August
5,2014,from: http://www.worldbank.org
Wooldridge, J.M. (2002). Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data.
Cambridge: MIT Press