Anyone else have problems with this concept of "Safe Sex"?

[Adam1986]

We are surrounded by messages that tell us to have sex and to practice safe sex. No artificial birth control method is 100% effective, so the message is not accurate. The only guaranteed way to avoid disease and unwanted pregnancy is abstinance.

You’re 100% right.

Sayign safe sex is so 1990’s.

The correct term is safer sex and I think that’s what this thread should be titled. Maybe OP can change it to get some more accurate answers?

 

[AntiTheist]

So are you saying that the so called educated Secularized parts of it should be a New Age Religion unto itself.

No. Since “secular” means “non-religious,” it would be impossible for secularized parts of a country to be “a New Age Religion unto itself” – leaving aside the point that parts of a country can’t be considered a religion anyway.

I can only assume that you missed my point and/or were responding to some imaginary point that exists only in your head.

 

[centurionguard]

No. Since “secular” means “non-religious,” it would be impossible for secularized parts of a country to be “a New Age Religion unto itself” – leaving aside the point that parts of a country can’t be considered a religion anyway.

I can only assume that you missed my point and/or were responding to some imaginary point that exists only in your head.

If you think there was imagination in my mind then Thank You.
You did however; deliberately choose not to answer my second question about your labeling.

Let me refresh your memory:

**It’s no wonder that your religion – and, more generally, most of the big Western religions – is so out of touch with the modern world (at least the educated, industrialized, secularized parts of it). **

 

[AntiTheist]

You did however; deliberately choose not to answer my second question about your labeling.

I did. The reason for this choice is that your second question makes no sense. Feel free to rephrase if you really want an answer.

 

[OpenSource]

I find the ‘concept’ of safe sex laughable. It’s exactly like JimG has put it:

“Why not tell them: If you’re going to drink and drive, use seat belts and back roads. If you use guns, wear a bullet-proof vest. If you want to use drugs, find a safe venue.”

And it’s like Anti-Theist’s troll posts have summed up this last weekend’s readings so accurately: The wisdom of this world is foolishness.

 

[white_sheep]

So it’s better for someone to not use a condom during premarital sex and get HIV/AIDS? Or not be safer and get pregnant and then choose to murder their child?

Those are the things that make me sick. Not a condom.

If those things make you sick then don’t have premarital sex.

It is always better to not sin at all, or sin once, than to sin twice. Using a condom is an additional sin to itself.

 

[white_sheep]

You are correct on how effective condoms are in regards to pregnancy.

However you are wrong in how effective they are against HIV. If condoms were only 31% effective then the gay community would still be getting infected almost as much as we were back in the 80’s. That’s not the case, at all.

Almost all new cases of HIV/AIDs in the gay community are from the idiot barebackers.

The reduction is probably due to awareness and medication more than anything. Condoms are much less effective during anal intercourse.

 

[crazzeto]

So it’s better for someone to not use a condom during premarital sex and get HIV/AIDS? Or not be safer and get pregnant and then choose to murder their child?

Those are the things that make me sick. Not a condom.

It is proper for someone to keep sexuality in a sacramental context only, period. This means no sex before marriage, for any reason at all, ever. For us, as has been stated the usage of a condom is an additional sin. As the Holy Father (contravertially) pointed out, for some usage of a condom might be viewed as that individuals first step towards greater morality. The case in point was that of a male sex worker, who is already so in deep with sin it isn’t even funny.

Keep sex purely in a sacramental context, reject the world and it’s views on sexuality. Sex is a gift from God indeed, as such it is not our place to barter with it, or modify the parameters.

 

[limabeanerson]

I’ll close with an interesting thought: it’s a common charge that Western religions are misogynistic. Now, I’m not saying that all members of these religions are misogynists…very far from it, but it’s certainly true to say that the doctrines of these religions can at least be interpreted in ways that are misogynistic.

As funny as it sounds, I’ve never – until just now – made the appropriate connection: secular people with misogynistic attitudes who are draw toward religion will, obviously, be drawn toward religions that can be interpreted in misogynistic ways. How did I overlook that for so long?

I’ll reply with a not so interesting thought. It’s a common charge that Atheists (or AntiTheists) are self centered and don’t want to have consequences for their actions. Now, I’m not saying that all atheists are self centered and don’t want to have consequences for their actions…very far from it, but it’s certainly true to say that the idea of no higher being can at least be attractive to self centered people who don’t want consequences.

People (secular or otherwise) with self centered attitudes who do not want to be judge or have consequences will, obviously, be drawn towards atheism.

 

[vsedriver]

Frankly, it’s regressive, puritanical, scared-of-sex attitudes like those in this thread that stand in the way of giving this kind of important knowledge to young people. Only religion could lead people to look at a serious societal problem – i.e. unwanted teen pregnancies and the spread of diseases – and actually condemn a mechanism for reducing the problem.

Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that telling kids “Just don’t do it until you’re married” is not going to work on the vast, vast majority of them. To further tell them that condoms are bad and to discourage them from learning about how to practice sex in a safe way is absolute lunacy.

with all the available birth control methods available today, it is interesting that teen pregnancy is on the rise. Sex education has been in schools for over 50 years.

When society said it was shameful to get pregnant outside of marriage more women and girls waited to have sex. Remove the shame and keep telling kids that everyone is doing it and nothing is wrong just be ‘safe’ is a huge disservice to kids.

This has nothing to do with regressive, puritanical, scared-of-sex attitudes and everything to do with the lives of children. When someone proves to me that condoms reduce teen pregnancy rather than increase it I’ll change my opinion. Compare the out of wedlock births, teen pregnancies, and abortions of today to 100 years ago and see if condoms reduced those unwanted pregnancies more than old fashioned religion induced shame.

 

[crazzeto]

I’ll close with an interesting thought: it’s a common charge that Western religions are misogynistic. Now, I’m not saying that all members of these religions are misogynists…very far from it, but it’s certainly true to say that the doctrines of these religions can at least be interpreted in ways that are misogynistic.

As funny as it sounds, I’ve never – until just now – made the appropriate connection: secular people with misogynistic attitudes who are draw toward religion will, obviously, be drawn toward religions that can be interpreted in misogynistic ways. How did I overlook that for so long?

Quite simply not a possibility… The only perfect Christian was the Blessed Virgin Mary, we all aspire to be like her, perfectly formed to the Christ Child. She is our Mother, she is a guide and with her Fiate, she enabled the salvation of man kind. She is the second eve, with her faith and obedience at the news she received from the lips of an angel, she undid the fall man kind which was promted by the lack of faith and obedience of the first eve, when she heard doubt on the lips of a serpent (fallen angel).

We rever the Holy Mother of God, the Ark of the New Covenenant. It is not possible for a good honest Christian to be a misogynist. It is quite simply incompatible with the faith, because we must be obedient to the Sacrade Heart of the Christ Jesus, who him self was ever obedient in life to the Immaculate heart of the Blessed Virgin Mary as the commandments dictated.

 

[AntiTheist]

I’ll reply with a not so interesting thought. It’s a common charge that Atheists (or AntiTheists) are self centered and don’t want to have consequences for their actions. Now, I’m not saying that all atheists are self centered and don’t want to have consequences for their actions…very far from it, but it’s certainly true to say that the idea of no higher being can at least be attractive to self centered people who don’t want consequences.

People (secular or otherwise) with self centered attitudes who do not want to be judge or have consequences will, obviously, be drawn towards atheism.

Well, certainly a self-centered person who resents the idea of authority might reject any system of belief merely on the basis that it contains authority.

But such a person would be an atheist for bad reasons. The reason to be an atheist is that there is zero evidence for the existence of any gods. Someone who becomes an atheist out of some juvenile emotional rebellion against authority is being stupid.

Actually, if you check out the philosophy section, there’s an interesting thread called “Is Religion Egocentric?” in which I’m arguing that self-interest drives all human behavior, including religious behavior. So even if the criticism here were valid, it would carry no weight since self-interest underlies all human action.

But at any rate, these are all tangential points. Even the point you originally quoted was just an interesting side observation – that for some people, their underlying warped attitudes about sex (involving the objectification of women) feed into their acceptance of attitudes about sex that are warped in the opposite way (objectifying an imagined “purity” at all costs, including the cost of teenage pregnancies, abortions, diseases, and ruined lives).

My comment was interesting, relevant, and derived from the discussion. Yours – as you freely admitted – was not.

 

[AntiTheist]

with all the available birth control methods available today, it is interesting that teen pregnancy is on the rise. Sex education has been in schools for over 50 years.

And you think that this rise is due to people using condoms consistently and correctly?

The fact is that abstinence-only education does not work – not only does it not succeed in changing behavior or reducing teen pregnancies or diseases, it’s been found in some studies to increase instances of teen pregnancy.

It’s all well and good to cry about the children and lament the passing of the good old days – though really, you ought to read up a little on roaring twenties and the number of children born out of wedlock in that decade; you people act as if casual sex were something new – but if you really want to help the children, you should make sure that the ones who do have sex know how to do it properly.

 

[AntiTheist]

We rever the Holy Mother of God

Yep, and she was a Virgin, wasn’t she?

There’s this old idea that the Christian tradition – and I’m not claiming that all Christians subscribe to this idea, so hold on to your outrage for a second – promotes binary thinking with regard to women: that a woman is either a virgin or a whore and that there’s nothing in between.

It’s this same kind of stupid thinking that you find in secular culture as well: you’ll often encounter the double-standard that a woman who freely exercises her sexuality is a “slut,” to be looked down upon, while a man who engages in similar behavior is a “playa,” to be admired.

Fetishizing virginity in the way that Christians and even a lot of secularists do is just another form of objectifying women. Women have value only insofar as they are “pure” – otherwise, they instantly become labeled a whore.

I know, I know. You’ll say that valuing a woman’s purity is the ultimate form of respect, etc. Sure, I understand what you believe. But I’m telling you that we have a fundamental difference in values: respect, to me, means acknowledging what another person is, and that includes being a sexual being who desires to express that sexuality in a myriad of different ways. To me, choosing to “wait for the right person” is just as honorable a choice as “giving it up,” as another poster crassly put it. My respect for others consists in my acknowledgment that not all people are the same and that different people are going to express their sexuality in different ways. I’m ok with that.

In fact, I think the real disrespect is in thinking that everyone else has to think like you.

EDIT: And no, before anyone says it, I don’t think all of you should think like me. We’re having a discussion about the nature of reality, and I’m telling you how things are. I can’t make you accept the way things are. Feel free to disregard it, for all I care.

 

[crazzeto]

Yep, and she was a Virgin, wasn’t she?

There’s this old idea that the Christian tradition – and I’m not claiming that all Christians subscribe to this idea, so hold on to your outrage for a second – promotes binary thinking with regard to women: that a woman is either a virgin or a whore and that there’s nothing in between.

It’s this same kind of stupid thinking that you find in secular culture as well: you’ll often encounter the double-standard that a woman who freely exercises her sexuality is a “slut,” to be looked down upon, while a man who engages in similar behavior is a “playa,” to be admired.

Fetishizing virginity in the way that Christians and even a lot of secularists do is just another form of objectifying women. Women have value only insofar as they are “pure” – otherwise, they instantly become labeled a whore.

I know, I know. You’ll say that valuing a woman’s purity is the ultimate form of respect, etc. Sure, I understand what you believe. But I’m telling you that we have a fundamental difference in values: respect, to me, means acknowledging what another person is, and that includes being a sexual being who desires to express that sexuality in a myriad of different ways. To me, choosing to “wait for the right person” is just as honorable a choice as “giving it up,” as another poster crassly put it. My respect for others consists in my acknowledgment that not all people are the same and that different people are going to express their sexuality in different ways. I’m ok with that.

In fact, I think the real disrespect is in thinking that everyone else has to think like you.

EDIT: And no, before anyone says it, I don’t think all of you should think like me. We’re having a discussion about the nature of reality, and I’m telling you how things are. I can’t make you accept the way things are. Feel free to disregard it, for all I care.

Here do you get this completely bizzar notion from? Where is this teaching to be found? Outside if your incorrect and horrible view of the faith. No, there is no such conotation to be found in the faith. We were told to go forth and multiply, it was the first commandment of God. This is our gift of sexuality, to model trinitarian love here on earth.

Individuals, male or refamle, of any race or sexual preference who profain this do great damange and historically have been given names such as “whoremonger” which can be found in the bible (in this case refering to the male). And the scriptures are clear, people who hold on to and revel in such sin can not be saved, those who turn towards Christ, like Mary Magdalen who was a prostitue can be saved, not only be saved but become the greatest of Christian Hero’s.

For we rever Mary Magdolen as well as a great Saint, not as much as the Blessed Virigin because no one is on her level. So if there is a common thread it is this, those who turn to Christ, whether whore (St. Mary Magdolin), or whoremonger (St. Augustine), murder (St. Paul) or theif (The good Thief) can be saved and can become a model for us all.

The rest, we pray for. There’s nothing msogynistic about this, to the contrary the faith is the only thing which can truely, geniuenly empower women (as well as men). It teaches women to be proud of who they are, and the gifts they have been given. Like men, it teaches them to use these gifts for the betterment of the community of saints. It teaches men to be humble, and obedient. It teaches us to listen, and to love women as we love our own bodies (this comes directly from scriptures incidently).

So no, the honest Christian can not be a misogynist. It is completely incompatible with the faith. We can, however, reach out to the poor, the lonely and the destitute and try to show them the love of Christ.

 

[Adam1986]

If those things make you sick then don’t have premarital sex.

It is always better to not sin at all, or sin once, than to sin twice. Using a condom is an additional sin to itself.

Well I’m gay so that whole “premarital sex” kinda doesn’t apply to me since the Church won’t recognize my marriage when I get married.

However, in my opinion, using a condom in my case or the case of any other person having premarital sex, gay or straight, is not a sin. It’s doing the right thing.

 

[crazzeto]

Well I’m gay so that whole “premarital sex” kinda doesn’t apply to me since the Church won’t recognize my marriage when I get married.

However, in my opinion, using a condom in my case or the case of any other person having premarital sex, gay or straight, is not a sin. It’s doing the right thing.

It applies to everyone, it just so happens that you were given the unique cross of SSA to bare. But I tell you, if you bare this cross, love Christ and make him your all you will not be dissapointed. Indeed you will be the greatest of saints, richely rewarded in the Kingdom of Heaven as well as here on earth in the form of the unsurpassed admiration you will gain from people like me, as well as the dignity you retain by treating your body as what it is, the image of the living God.

You may not realize this, but there are a number of “gay catholics” on this forum living chaste lives in order to build the Kingdome of Heaven here on earth. May I exhort you to seek these like individuals and get their (name removed by moderator)ut.

Like me many of these people didn’t always live such holy lives. Indeed many at one time most certainly believed as you do now, perhaps worse. But they were called by the Lord to be witnesses, like St. Paul, and like the great Saint they responded.

God bless,

 

[Adam1986]

The reduction is probably due to awareness and medication more than anything.
**Your statement makes no sense at all. You say it’s due to awareness. With having that awareness comes the knowledge to use a condom.

If you just know about HIV/AIDS and still don’t use a condom you will have the same chance of getting HIV/AIDS as anyone did back in the 80’s. Having the awareness does NOTHING. It’s having the awareness and knowing enough to use a condom.

And in regards to your medication point, there is still no cure for HIV/AIDS. Now it is true that while on medication you are slightly less likely to spread the disease but by no means is it impossible or hard to pass it along.**

Condoms are much less effective during anal intercourse.

While it is true that condoms are less effective, it’s not much less by a long shot. They still work extremely well. And with proper lubrication, condoms will be just as effective during anal intercourse.

I can say personally I have never experienced a broken or torn condom from anal sex.

It’s pretty hard to put a hole in one. Have you ever tried? I actually tried once to put my thumb through one, as an experiment, and couldn’t.

I also once filled another one till it was extremely full with water and tried to break it by throwing it against a wall…didn’t break. The only way it broke was when I dropped it out a second story window.

So yeah condoms are pretty durable. My guess is it took more “trauma” be thrown a against a wall then it does during anal sex.

 

[larsenl1]

I’ve heard the plea before, from some very devout Catholics in fact, that if one is to have sex, the least they could do is be responsible and put on a condom.

I wish I would have said this to my daughter. Kind of. She got the whole lesson about contraception is wrong, the church is pro-life. She completely missed the lesson that sex outside of marriage is wrong. The result, she refused to use condoms or hormone contraception but she freely planned time for intimacy and had sex frequently with her boyfriend. Now I am a grandmother.

So I had to ask her this, if you were committing sin by having sex before you were ready to be a parent, why was it so important to not sin by not using contraception? Like following one teaching would make disobeying the first teaching ok?!?

She said well I knew it was really important to you that I was not using birth control.

Ummm yah, but then it was also really important to me that you were not having sex. And believe me, we talked about abstistance chastity modesty etc over and over again. The one thing I missed telling her was that 10 days after her period started was when she was most fertile.

Anyway, that is my 2 cents

 

[Adam1986]

with all the available birth control methods available today, it is interesting that teen pregnancy is on the rise. Sex education has been in schools for over 50 years.

When society said it was shameful to get pregnant outside of marriage more women and girls waited to have sex. Remove the shame and keep telling kids that everyone is doing it and nothing is wrong just be ‘safe’ is a huge disservice to kids.

This has nothing to do with regressive, puritanical, scared-of-sex attitudes and everything to do with the lives of children. When someone proves to me that condoms reduce teen pregnancy rather than increase it I’ll change my opinion. Compare the out of wedlock births, teen pregnancies, and abortions of today to 100 years ago and see if condoms reduced those unwanted pregnancies more than old fashioned religion induced shame.

Teen pregnancy is on the rise because teens aren’t using the birth control that readily available to them.

Have you ever seen the MTV show Teen Mom? Well in it they usually have the girl’s friends ask her if she and her boy friend were using protection/ on birth control, etc. I’ve yet to see an episode where the girl says yes she was on birth control and/or he wore a condom.

Now I haven’t seen ALL the episodes so maybe there are ones where the girl got pregnant even when they tried to cover all bases. But the fact remains the vast majority of teen pregnancies come from unprotected sex.

The HORRIBLE abstinence only sex-ed has made so many of our teenagers vastly uneducated and ignorant on how effective and important birth control is when having premarital sex.