It looks like they're just lying out their asses. Or do people actually believe this wholeheartedly?
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
The information about holes is likely correct. That doesn't necessarily mean the rest is. At such small scales fluid dynamics function differently; I would guess that (assuming they really are wrong) it is simple and understandable ignorance.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
I feel they are lying and it sickens me. Is there any clinical data to support their claims? I doubt it. Saying "holes">>"virus transmission" is arguing from ignorance without studies to back it up. Where is that barfing smilie when you need it??? Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
I always thought that condoms' primary function was as a birth control, not an STD preventative; because HIV and AIDS is spread through those types of bodily fluids, sexual intercourse isn't necessarily a prerequisite for catching one.
If I'm wrong, someone please correct me. I'm going with stuff from my high school health class, so it might be dated/completely false.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Morbo, it is a perfectly reasonable assumption if you don't know about the differences in fluid dynamics. Viruses are _very_ small compared to sperm.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
That's exacrly why priests should not be giving obviously biased medical information; they should leave it to medical professionals.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
sm, there are many better methods of birth control (see this table), but few are particularly effective at preventing STD transmission.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Someone explain to me why I'm still Catholic.
Posted by MaureenJanay (Member # 2935) on :
Maybe they actually did research involving one of the condoms that doesn't protect against AIDS well, such as lamb's skin. I was under the impression that those kind were permeable to HIV but not sperm. But even if that's true, someone there had to know that it's only true for certain kinds of condoms. Seems like they did a half-baked test (or did half-baked research) and used it to support the abstinence standpoint.
But statistically, using condoms does spread HIV, if you stack that against abstinence. All it has to do is break. . . . Actually, the article is irritating, but I'm more annoyed with the pitiful way they tried to refute it.
quote: "There is so much evidence to show that condoms don't let sexually transmitted infections like HIV through.
"Anyone who says otherwise is just wrong."
Well, I'm convinced. It's like saying, "It's true 'cause I say so, and if you don't believe me, you're just a stupid-head!"
How about some stats?
[ October 09, 2003, 07:06 PM: Message edited by: MaureenJanay ]
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
True, abstinence is the ultimate in safe sex. But they are stacking unprotected sex vs sex with condom use. And concluding that condoms do nothing to prevent STDs. Also, I saw no mention of any studies in the BBC story to support the Church's views. I doubt any exist.
[ October 09, 2003, 07:12 PM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
quote: Gordon Wambi, director of an Aids testing programme in Lwak, near Lake Victoria, told the programme that he could not distribute condoms because of opposition from the Catholic Church.
"Some priests have even been saying that condoms are laced with HIV/Aids," he said.
Wow, so much for the sanctity of life. Do the priests make the distinction between murder and death caused directly by their lies?
Posted by MaureenJanay (Member # 2935) on :
quote: Also, I saw no mention of any studies in the BBC story to support the Church's views. I doubt any exist.
No, I'm sure they don't. It's obvious the whole thing is half-baked. (There's that word again, but it's the best way to describe the guys that came up with this idea.) But I'd love to see the dissenters of the priests' view just bombard them with studies and research to prove they are wrong, to put an end to the whole thing. A thin accusation shouldn't just be refuted by a thin argument. Lay it on 'em.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Well, folks - back in '92 when I was out on the streets teaching safe condom usage and needle cleaning techniques (per county health dpt job), it was an accepted fact that condoms were not completely effective. In fact, we recommended the "double bagging" technique with a layer of spermicide in between.
And we also highly recommended that folks abstain (if at all possible) until they and their partner/potential partner pass two HIV/AIDs blood tests . . . (that 6-month window) and even then . . . no guarantees.
As you all know, it's no laughing matter, and no joke and unfortunately, the only safe bet to not contracting the disease is to not have penetration-style sex of any sort (unless you are absolutely/completely 100% positive that your partner does not have the virus), to not share needles and to make sure donated blood has been tested and found clean.
(Edited for silly spelling mistake)
[ October 09, 2003, 08:17 PM: Message edited by: Shan ]
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote: "The Aids virus is roughly 450 times smaller than the spermatozoon," Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, president of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for the Family, told the programme.
I always hate it when people say something like "450 times smaller than something" or "half as slow as the other runner" Compared to what?
Shan, I heard one time that "double bagging" wasn't recommended because the friction between the layers would be more likely to cause it to break.
quote:http://members.aol.com/revising/history.html 1963-1966. Meetings of the Birth Control Commission established by Pope John XXIII. ... They met to consider issues of marriage and sexuality, with special emphasis on the birth control question. After numerous meetings, prayer, and consultation with professionals on all sides of the issue, the commission agreed that the current teaching of the Church was not infallible, that artificial contraception was not intrinsically evil, and that Catholic couples ought to be given the liberty to decide for themselves concerning methods of family planning.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
If people who would otherwise abstain from sex decide to have sex because of the availability of condoms, then the Catholic church is right: condoms kill. However, if the people who use condoms are mostly people who would have sex anyway, then condoms save lives. It all depends on which group is using them. I think the second scenario is more likely, so it's probably a bad idea to insist that condoms are useless or dangerous. On the other hand, it's also irresponsible to claim they're infallible.
I think that the ABC system used in some parts of Africa makes sense (Abstinence, Be faithful, use a Condom). It says that abstinence is the best way of preventing HIV, while also acknowledging the reality that many people are going to have sex anyway.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
If you drive, you may get into an accident. Wearing a seatbelt can help save lives in a large percentage of the accidents, but not all.
So you have three choices. Don't drive at all, and avoid any risk of accidents. Drive carefully with a seat belt on and minimize your risk of accidents. Drive without a seatbelt and take your chances.
It is obvious that only by not driving at all can one be completely safe. Some people will drive anyway, because they want to, because they have to. Should we tell them not to wear a selt belt, because it won't save them 100% of the time? If they drive anyway and don't use the seatbelt because we told them seatbelts were useless, do we share any of the blame for subsequent injuries that could have been prevented with the seatbelt?
By all means, teach abstinence. Teach monogamy and safe practices. Teach condom use. Give honest information, based on observable evidence. Anything else is dishonest and ultimately more harmful.
Go to google and type in "condom disease prevention". Pick the site that appeals to you; CDC, FDA, Sexuality.org, International Woman's Health Coalition. All of them come up on the first page of google results. All of them state the same thing: quality latex condoms, used properly, are effective against HIV. Studies have been made in the most easily testable manner available: observing couples where one partner is infected and one is not. They are not 100% effective, but they are far, far more effective than using nothing.
You may feel that urging condom use is contributing to promiscuity and immorality. Fine. Teach them that as well, and I sincerely hope that people at risk listen to you and take your words to heart. But do not bend your statements to make science fit your rules of morality. If you must lie to teach your message, what good is your message?
[ October 09, 2003, 10:49 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Well the latest article on HIV in Africa from the BBC indicates that the most at-risk group are young women entering marriage.
So abstinence is practically an impossible choice for them.
AIDS in Africa is a very frightening, very large problem. Any backwards step the Vatican makes with regards to AIDS education is truly sickening.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Double bagging? Wow, do you even know you are having sex? I think I would almost prefer masterbation.
Posted by MaureenJanay (Member # 2935) on :
That's true. It's not like sex is any more EMOTIONALLY stimulating or fulfilling.
Oh...Xavier's a guy? Nevermind. Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Well I obviously have no clue what the difference be having done niether of the two options, Xavier does have a point. "Double baging" doesn't sound that extreme to me but at some point safety does become more than it's worth. To take Chris's example what if you choose to only drive at 5mph and fill your car full of very stiff pillows? Kind of more of a pain than it's worth. Though I would personally only have sex in a situation where I felt the possibility of a child if something didn't work (birth control, condom, whatever) was something I could accept (i.e. married).
Hobbes Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote: It's not like sex is any more EMOTIONALLY stimulating or fulfilling.
Sure it is, but without being able to feel anything physically, isn't it just making out with push-ups?
And theres better things to do if the goal is just to give the girl pleasure...
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:Sure it is, but without being able to feel anything physically, isn't it just making out with push-ups?
OK, I realize this is a serious thread but I'm going to have step back and laugh very hard. That was great Xavier!
Hobbes Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
A friend of mine works in Africa in the Peace Corps. She has seem quite a few people suffering from AIDS left and right. I don't think that the church's outdated ideas should be allowed to influence policy. Especially when so many lives are at stack. What you need are the facts, undilutted and honest facts.
Posted by MaureenJanay (Member # 2935) on :
quote: Though I would personally only have sex in a situation where I felt the possibility of a child if something didn't work (birth control, condom, whatever) was something I could accept (i.e. married).
I'm glad to hear that, Hobbes. I like you.
quote: And theres better things to do if the goal is just to give the girl pleasure...
Sigh. This should ALWAYS be the goal.
[ October 10, 2003, 12:04 AM: Message edited by: MaureenJanay ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I like you too.
Hobbes Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:And theres better things to do if the goal is just to give the girl pleasure...
Like getting the ones ribbed for her pleasure?
Hobbes Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Hobbes
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I'll tell you when you are older Hobbes.
Or your wife will let you know someday...
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
OK Xavier, so long as someone knows...
Hobbes
[ October 10, 2003, 12:14 AM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
"Like getting the ones ribbed for her pleasure?"
And then turning them inside out. Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
"Ribbed . . . for her pleasure . . . ewwwwwww."
Thanks - now I'll have to go and watch Wayne's World, again.
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
That was great Xavier!![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
Hobbes
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)