Abstinence is a crock

[Dr_LHA 3]

Oh and BTW, that 85% figure you quote is bogus. Here is a real source:

The most convincing evidence of condom effectiveness comes from studies of HIV-discordant couples—couples in which one partner is infected with HIV and the other is not (166, 557). Studies of such couples have found low risks of HIV infection among consistent condom users (22, 166, 167, 177, 311, 378, 416, 557). In three recent studies infection rates were less than 1% per year among consistent condom users (134, 141, 473). A multicountry European study of 256 HIV-discordant couples followed for an average of 20 months found that not one infection occurred among such couples using condoms during every sex act (134).

http://www.infoforhealth.org/pr/h9/h9chap4_2.shtml

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Your glass is full of holes, and you know it. Im not talking about abstinence. Im talking about common sense. Everybody around you is dyin of this disease and your inclination is to go poke someone. Condoms arent gonna do alot, whats your answer for oral sex?

Good point. I'd like to know the answer as well.

Assuming of course that some of communities have the same level of knowledge as we do about HIV and other STDs.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Your glass is full of holes, and you know it. Im not talking about abstinence. Im talking about common sense. Everybody around you is dyin of this disease and your inclination is to go poke someone. Condoms arent gonna do alot, whats your answer for oral sex?

Good point. I'd like to know the answer as well.

Assuming of course that some of communities have the same level of knowledge as we do about HIV and other STDs.

You mean as opposed to those that still believe that raping a virgin will cure you of HIV/AIDS?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Oh and BTW, that 85% figure you quote is bogus. Here is a real source:

The most convincing evidence of condom effectiveness comes from studies of HIV-discordant couples—couples in which one partner is infected with HIV and the other is not (166, 557). Studies of such couples have found low risks of HIV infection among consistent condom users (22, 166, 167, 177, 311, 378, 416, 557). In three recent studies infection rates were less than 1% per year among consistent condom users (134, 141, 473). A multicountry European study of 256 HIV-discordant couples followed for an average of 20 months found that not one infection occurred among such couples using condoms during every sex act (134).

http://www.infoforhealth.org/pr/h9/h9chap4_2.shtml

Did anyone catch this Panorama programme from 2003? Tells you a lot about how the Vatican misrepresents the science.

Condoms - The Science

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Your glass is full of holes, and you know it. Im not talking about abstinence. Im talking about common sense. Everybody around you is dyin of this disease and your inclination is to go poke someone. Condoms arent gonna do alot, whats your answer for oral sex?

Good point. I'd like to know the answer as well.

Assuming of course that some of communities have the same level of knowledge as we do about HIV and other STDs.

You mean as opposed to those that still believe that raping a virgin will cure you of HIV/AIDS?

Some of those communities still have Witch Doctors - who are the ones who put that sort of information out there.

[MaRob 0]

me too.. 23 years old, and a virgin until I am married... it is possible.. teach how to use condoms, but the morals not to have to...

This is the problem with teaching abstinence, it stems from religion. I personally don't believe that having sex before marriage is immoral, and neither does the majority of the population I'm guessing. In fact the only way having sex before marriage is immoral is if a religion tells you it is. We have this thing called the separation of church and state, which means our kids should not be taught things purely on the basis of religion at school, which includes not teaching sex education based on religious values. So I don't think you can in all good conciousness teach that sex is immoral to students without bringing the bible into it (or the Koran or whatever).

What is the problem with gaining morals from religion? Where else would we have gotten "thou shalt not kill" from? And if there is a separation of church and state, who decides what morals to incorporate into law? If kids should not be taught things purely on the basis of religion, then there is cheating, killing, stealing, hmm... where do you draw the line... sex is moral now because you think so?

Oh and BTW, that 85% figure you quote is bogus. Here is a real source:

The most convincing evidence of condom effectiveness comes from studies of HIV-discordant couples—couples in which one partner is infected with HIV and the other is not (166, 557). Studies of such couples have found low risks of HIV infection among consistent condom users (22, 166, 167, 177, 311, 378, 416, 557). In three recent studies infection rates were less than 1% per year among consistent condom users (134, 141, 473). A multicountry European study of 256 HIV-discordant couples followed for an average of 20 months found that not one infection occurred among such couples using condoms during every sex act (134).

http://www.infoforhealth.org/pr/h9/h9chap4_2.shtml

maybe that is the case, but that is in a study of couples in which one partner is infected with HIV.. I think if I knew I was going to have sex with a person infected with HIV, Of course I would have researched and known everything that goes with condom storage, use, application... etc..etc.. they are going to be more careful to do it right, to make sure there isn't a defect with their condom (that it was stored in a wallet or purse, in heat or cold).. i don't know.. all i think is that if i ever have kids, i am not going to tell him or her that a condom is going to keep them safe(physically or emotionally) against anything...

[jundp 191]

oh.. and heres some more information about condoms and HIV for those interested

http://www.independentngonline.com/?c=72&a=16683

I found this article interesting, thanks for posting it.

I'm not saying that abstinence in and of itself is bad, but I do think that relying soley on teaching abstinence whether for teenagers or for those at risk of HIV/AIDS in Africa, is wrong. There's nothing wrong with bringing morals into the equation, but we also must realize that just saying "don't do it" isn't going to do the trick for everyone.

I'd rather also offer whatever available protection there might be from condoms, especially to a people stricken with a pandemic such as AIDS/HIV, than just push abstinence.

I also was under the impression that the prevention rate for condoms was higher than 85%....

[Dan J 277]

me too.. 23 years old, and a virgin until I am married... it is possible.. teach how to use condoms, but the morals not to have to...

This is the problem with teaching abstinence, it stems from religion. I personally don't believe that having sex before marriage is immoral, and neither does the majority of the population I'm guessing. In fact the only way having sex before marriage is immoral is if a religion tells you it is. We have this thing called the separation of church and state, which means our kids should not be taught things purely on the basis of religion at school, which includes not teaching sex education based on religious values. So I don't think you can in all good conciousness teach that sex is immoral to students without bringing the bible into it (or the Koran or whatever).

What is the problem with gaining morals from religion? Where else would we have gotten "thou shalt not kill" from? And if there is a separation of church and state, who decides what morals to incorporate into law? If kids should not be taught things purely on the basis of religion, then there is cheating, killing, stealing, hmm... where do you draw the line... sex is moral now because you think so?

This is why we have so many damn problems with separation of church and state. People see as morals defined by religion. But you can have morals and laws without religion. See Natural Law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law And Natural Rights: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights

There are too many problems basing laws on religion. It makes the assumption that morals are the same across all religions (Some religions have no problem with sex before marriage), which they are not. How can you have true freedom of religion when the laws the country are specifically based on the concepts of one particular religion or interpretation?

[jundp 191]

How can you have true freedom of religion when the laws the country are specifically based on the concepts of one particular religion or interpretation?

Very good point.

[GeordieWife 1]

I am a high school nurse in a district that allows us to only advocate abstinence....well...let me tell you..last school year we had more pregnancies than I care to count! ..and the year before that...and the year before that as well. I think abstinence needs to be promoted....BUT...these kids need to know the consequences. In an anonymous q & a session with a class, the kids wrote down questions that one would think absurd and so far fetched that you'd think anyone would know the answer to. BUT THEY DONT KNOW!!!! It does start at home with parents I believe..but there is a trickle down affect that happens there I think. Our parents weren't taught sex by their parents...or in school....so we advocate it in school....parents think they don't have to worry because they'll learn in school....school's ban certain subjects.....so important aspects get missed.....etc etc. How many girls got pregnant because I told them abstinence was safest because that's all the district will let me teach? hm.......

[Dr_LHA 3]

What is the problem with gaining morals from religion?

Morals do not stem only from religion. I don't share your religion but am still a moral person. I had sex before I was married, it was safe, fun and both parties enjoyed it. Nobody was hurt. No babies resulted. Nobody got an STD. 99% of the sex I have had has been while I'm in a long term relationship. 100% has been safe.

Where else would we have gotten "thou shalt not kill" from?

Killing people hurts others. Therefore it is bad. I don't need the bible to tell me that.

And if there is a separation of church and state, who decides what morals to incorporate into law?

Lawmakers?

If kids should not be taught things purely on the basis of religion, then there is cheating, killing, stealing, hmm... where do you draw the line... sex is moral now because you think so?

The classic mistake you're making here is assuming that all morals stem from religion. I'm afraid it simply is not true, I have never been a member of any religion or had a religous education, and yet I understand the difference between right and wrong. BTW, no those morals don't come from the law because there are things that are illegal that I don't think are morally wrong.

maybe that is the case, but that is in a study of couples in which one partner is infected with HIV.. I think if I knew I was going to have sex with a person infected with HIV, Of course I would have researched and known everything that goes with condom storage, use, application... etc..etc.. they are going to be more careful to do it right, to make sure there isn't a defect with their condom (that it was stored in a wallet or purse, in heat or cold).. i don't know.. all i think is that if i ever have kids, i am not going to tell him or her that a condom is going to keep them safe(physically or emotionally) against anything...

I gave you a real scientific source, why don't you read it? Your hand waving doesn't impress me I'm afraid.

[MaRob 0]

I did read it.. It was very interesting... I find it funny that two sources quote two totally different statistics... In the article where I got the 85% stats, the author states that is from the CDCs publishings...

BTW, this is kind of off topic.. from the info you posted i saw this..

"Despite the AIDS epidemic, many people practice risky sexual behavior—even when they know that condoms prevent infections. It is unlikely that all sexually active people will always use condoms when needed. Powerful social norms encourage men to take sexual risks, such as visiting commercial sex workers, and at the same time discourage condom use."

Is that suppose to mean prostitutes? is that politically incorrect to say now?

I don't really know what you mean by waving hands? even outside religion, I think that abstinence is a good thing to teach.. i was taught how to use a condom and all the statistics in school of STDs and birth control and HIV, and it was good for me I'm sure, but I also learned that I didn't HAVE to have sex either. I learned that I could control myself.. that it was ok if i didn't.. and that helped me also...

[Dan J 277]

I did read it.. It was very interesting... I find it funny that two sources quote two totally different statistics... In the article where I got the 85% stats, the author states that is from the CDCs publishings...

BTW, this is kind of off topic.. from the info you posted i saw this..

"Despite the AIDS epidemic, many people practice risky sexual behavior—even when they know that condoms prevent infections. It is unlikely that all sexually active people will always use condoms when needed. Powerful social norms encourage men to take sexual risks, such as visiting commercial sex workers, and at the same time discourage condom use."

Is that suppose to mean prostitutes? is that politically incorrect to say now?

I don't really know what you mean by waving hands? even outside religion, I think that abstinence is a good thing to teach.. i was taught how to use a condom and all the statistics in school of STDs and birth control and HIV, and it was good for me I'm sure, but I also learned that I didn't HAVE to have sex either. I learned that I could control myself.. that it was ok if i didn't.. and that helped me also...

No one here is upset that abstinence is being taught. Just when its the only thing being taught.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I did read it.. It was very interesting... I find it funny that two sources quote two totally different statistics... In the article where I got the 85% stats, the author states that is from the CDCs publishings...

BTW, this is kind of off topic.. from the info you posted i saw this..

"Despite the AIDS epidemic, many people practice risky sexual behavior—even when they know that condoms prevent infections. It is unlikely that all sexually active people will always use condoms when needed. Powerful social norms encourage men to take sexual risks, such as visiting commercial sex workers, and at the same time discourage condom use."

Is that suppose to mean prostitutes? is that politically incorrect to say now?

I don't really know what you mean by waving hands? even outside religion, I think that abstinence is a good thing to teach.. i was taught how to use a condom and all the statistics in school of STDs and birth control and HIV, and it was good for me I'm sure, but I also learned that I didn't HAVE to have sex either. I learned that I could control myself.. that it was ok if i didn't.. and that helped me also...

No one here is upset that abstinence is being taught. Just when its the only thing being taught.

Moreover, why is it that 'abstinence-only' is promoted almost exclusively in the US. I read somewhere that Federal funding of sex education includes a specific percentage that MUST be spent on sexual-abstinence programmes. Those programmes, of course, being tied to the church.

[Dr_LHA 3]

I did read it.. It was very interesting... I find it funny that two sources quote two totally different statistics... In the article where I got the 85% stats, the author states that is from the CDCs publishings...

States, but doesn't reference. Always be sceptical of unattributed facts.

BTW, this is kind of off topic.. from the info you posted i saw this..

"Despite the AIDS epidemic, many people practice risky sexual behavior—even when they know that condoms prevent infections. It is unlikely that all sexually active people will always use condoms when needed. Powerful social norms encourage men to take sexual risks, such as visiting commercial sex workers, and at the same time discourage condom use."

Is that suppose to mean prostitutes? is that politically incorrect to say now?

No, it is an odd choice of words.

I don't really know what you mean by waving hands? even outside religion, I think that abstinence is a good thing to teach..

Hand waving means trying to describe something scientifically with only vague facts, rather than actual studies. I don't disagree that abstinence should be taught. However most proponents of abstience believe that abstinence should only be taught, or simply lie about the effectiveness of contraceptives to scare kids into being chaste. As many people have pointed out, this simply doesn't work. If kids think condoms are ineffective or high risk, they will simply have sex without them. Honestly give anyone an excuse to not have sex with a condom and they will, condoms are not that great*!

i was taught how to use a condom and all the statistics in school of STDs and birth control and HIV, and it was good for me I'm sure, but I also learned that I didn't HAVE to have sex either. I learned that I could control myself.. that it was ok if i didn't.. and that helped me also...

I'm very glad that it works for you, and that you were taught about all your options. This is all I want to see, people taught about sex using all the facts.

*I mean in terms of making sex more enjoyable, they're a great contraceptive, no doubt.

Edited August 8, 2007 by Dr_LHA