Over 70 000 Swazi virgins recently took part in the annual traditional reed dance for Swaziland's King Mswati III. Rebekah Kendal and Ebrahim Moolla go head-to-head on whether this cultural practice has a place in modern society.

Rebekah thinks Culture can sometimes get things wrong, especially in these modern times... And this is one of those occasions.

The topic of 'Culture' (with a capital C to signify its importance) is a minefield of potential offence and righteous indignation. The perception is that Culture has intrinsic merit and that to question the values enshrined in someone else's Culture (or your own for that matter), you are insulting them, their history and their ancestors. This is, of course, a complete fallacy.

Culture is neither inherently correct, nor static. Every culture around the world is constantly evolving, constantly being reshaped according to the impact of history and the 'keeper' (i.e. those in power) of the culture. Furthermore, the reverence to Culture has legitimised what should be regarded as atrocious practices — among them female genital mutilation, Chinese foot binding and honour killings.

Considering that the 'keepers' of most Cultures are male, it is hardly surprising that many of the practices enshrined in the sacred annals of Culture promote patriarchy.

The Swazi and Zulu Reed Dance traditions are no different. The recent pre-occupation with whether or not the virginal dancers should 'cover up' their buttocks and 'private parts' (but not breasts) is an obfuscation of the real issues.

The real issues are that (a) female virginity is 'celebrated' as a moral choice and (b) the dance is essentially a glorified cattle auction.

There are no celebrations (clothed or otherwise) of male virginity. The reason for this is that men, unlike women, are not regarded as possessions. In the transaction between males, female virginity (the 'unused' commodity) is a kind of currency. The reed dance is essentially an auction for the king — the women perform and the king chooses the latest addition to his harem.

There is nothing wrong with promoting abstinence (especially in the face of the rampant spread of HIV), but promoting it exclusively amongst females and as a moral choice (those who do not conform are 'impure') simply entrenches a patriarchal system of control.

What is the point of promoting gender equality in South Africa if Culture still dictates that a woman's value is inextricably connected to her sexuality and that men are ultimately the keepers of this value?

South Africans are, at times, plagued by the syndrome of wanting to have it all. You cannot simultaneously embrace a western legal system and way of life, our progressive Constitution and a sexist Cultural practice, because the three endorse conflicting values.

Sometimes, just sometimes, Culture gets it wrong. There is no shame in admitting this and moving on.

Ebrahim, meanwhile, does not see a problem with the Reed Dance...

Cultural relativism is the principle that an individual human's beliefs and activities should be understood in terms of his or her own culture.

Last time I checked, Rebekah wasn't Swazi, or Zulu, or Indonesian, and so has no cultural experience of the Reed Dance. But that's too easy an argument, right?

I would have every virgin in KZN celebrate their maidenhood at Nongoma, every Eastern Cape boy enter the ritual rite of passage that ends with spear circumcision in the interests of unity, Africanism and silencing those tiresome ivory towers.

This is a ritual that has its history centuries before Emily Pankhurst and her bra-burning predecessor's mothers were barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, long before the government had a "gender mainstreaming" unit, before Oom Jan set foot on the continent. This tourist attraction and centerpiece of Nguni culture is not, as many jaundiced, Gary Glitter eyes assume, a hedonistic parade of barbaric debauchery but rather a tradition to encourage tribal cohesion and pride, a sort of finishing school for young women and a commitment to premarital celibacy. Contrary to popular belief, the King does not choose his bride at the dance and wait, there's even a male version there too...

Let us look at the purpose of the dance, free from Mswati's dalliances with high-powered Mercedes and nubile teenagers. I am in no way endorsing his flights of fancy. Yes, Swaziland has astoundingly high AIDS infection rates, and grinding poverty endemic and this wrongly attracts opprobrium, but I fail to see how an innocuous ritual that celebrates virginity contributes to this. Although there are exceptions, there is little compulsion and the maidens consider it a privilege rather than a chore.

Of course, culture is dynamic, a living thing, and King Goodwill Zwelithini has used the occasion to educate and inform his people, focusing on such vital social issues as practicing sexual morals and behaviours which prevent teenage pregnancy and lower the risk of contracting HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases. The merits of polygamy belong in another debate, but to equate it with promiscuity and infidelity must surely be ignorance. And arrogance. What gives the West the moral authority to castigate the cultures of others?

Does it stem from the 'austerity' of the women, chewing on birth control, like it was nicorette and pursuing the sex life of an amateur porn stars? Or rather benevolent pax Americana foreign policies that have maimed billions?

No. The forces of neo-colonialism would have the continent stripped of all identity, with a McDonalds on every corner of Nongoma and Mbabane, and the greenback our only god. This so-called African renaissance is just another Blood River. Be wary of pissing on the loins that bore you: Let Africa be.

Who do you agree with? What is your take on this? Leave a comment below!