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

[edwest2]

You need to be careful with those “seems.” Actually finding out is a far superior method of acquiring knowledge.

Whitacre_Girl: Again with the “seems” from people who have no practical knowledge in the subject whatsoever.

As another poster noted, the high percentage of condom failures is due to improper use. When used correctly, condoms reduce the risk of pregnancy and transmission of diseases to somewhere around 1%.

How can you not use them correctly? Well, this may surprise you, but a lot of people who don’t know anything at all about condoms – you, for example – don’t know basic things like having to pinch the tip to drive the air out of the condom before you put it on (so as not to create a vacuum that can cause it to burst), holding the tip as you unroll it, pulling out as soon as possible after you finish (when still partially erect), holding the base when you pull out to avoid spills, not accidentally putting it on inside-out, not inadvertently contaminating the outside of it, etc, etc, etc.

It’s all pretty simple stuff, but it’s not the kind of thing that someone would necessarily think about, especially some kid who’s busy worrying about other things, especially if it’s his first time – and let’s face it, it’s not like the majority of people are rocket-scientists to begin with…

Like anything else, putting on a condom is a skill, and it’s one that should be taught openly and clearly. It’s not difficult once you get the hang of it, but you have to actually get the hang of it first – preferably before you’re in a situation where it counts.

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.

I understand what you mean, but my parents were not scared of sex and were Catholics. I think when one considers that in the mid-1950s, the average number of children conceived in my neighborhood was two, it helps to put things in perspective. There was no birth control pill.

I have noticed a steady build-up of an anti-chastity message by the media. In the 1960s, I was taught that there is no sexual intercourse before marriage. I knew my future girlfriends understood that as well. In the United States, two false messages are being sent: most people cannot control themselves sexually and we should expect sexual activity among teenagers.

Raising children with expectations and in an environment that reinforces those expectations, improves the chances of them not experimenting with sexual activity. Today, the quickest route to poverty for a young woman is to be an unwed mother. Young people do not need to hear the ‘you cannot control yourselves’ message. They need to be taught self control, not just with sex but in other areas of their lives as well. This will result in responsible adults in most cases. I think it’s the better way to go, especially today.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Marie682]

I understand what you mean, but my parents were not scared of sex and were Catholics. I think when one considers that in the mid-1950s, the average number of children conceived in my neighborhood was two, it helps to put things in perspective. There was no birth control pill.

I have noticed a steady build-up of an anti-chastity message by the media. In the 1960s, I was taught that there is no sexual intercourse before marriage. I knew my future girlfriends understood that as well. In the United States, two false messages are being sent: most people cannot control themselves sexually and we should expect sexual activity among teenagers.

Raising children with expectations and in an environment that reinforces those expectations, improves the chances of them not experimenting with sexual activity. Today, the quickest route to poverty for a young woman is to be an unwed mother. Young people do not need to hear the ‘you cannot control yourselves’ message. They need to be taught self control, not just with sex but in other areas of their lives as well. This will result in responsible adults in most cases. I think it’s the better way to go, especially today.

I totally agree, very well said.

 

[Jerusalem]

Christ lays the prescriptions for moral behavior and attitude. He teaches these
as the perfect way into the kingdom of heaven. Since the Enlightenment, there
exists this idea that a person may determine their own morality and God accepts
this kind of attitude. Actually, this is not being faithful to God or his Church.
It is the same sin Adam committed in that he wanted to be his own God. And
determine his own truth.

Christ mercifully understands the struggle between sin and grace. For this reason
he provides the sacraments which instill and perfect us. And God knows the difference
between someone struggling with their sin and someone who justifies it. Justifying it
is a dangerous attitude and will lead you away from God.

HUMAN BEINGS DONT DETERMINE TRUTH. Truth is always a revelation and attribute of God. God knows the truth of humanity more than we know it. So determining your own moral code outside of the Church or against Christ is a denial of Jesus Christ.

Hence St. John states:
“Everyone who says they love God but don’t obey his commandments is a liar and
the truth does not live within them” (1 Jo 2:4)

And there are several verses in the new testament against living a ssa lifestyle.
(Jude 1:7, Romans 1:26, 1 Cor 6:9 are just a few)

But scripture also states:
“If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” (1 Jo 1:9)

He sets up the sacrament of confession to help us sinners get into heaven and is merciful. But Christ and the Church judge certain actions that will cause a person to lose their soul. Basically you have to make a choice: your sin or heaven. You can’t have both.
I have read many accounts of different saints who have seen souls tormented in hell for all kinds of sins: theft, living with girlfriend, drugs, promiscuity, murder, abortion, duplicity, living homosexual lifestyles, etc.

God does not forgive the unrepentant which is the unforgivable sin and rationalizing and justifying your sin is denying the truth that Jesus Christ reveals in scripture. And no, you are not being faithful to God by saying you can live this lifestyle and go to Mass.

I am saying this because it is the truth. If you want to go to heaven you have to renounce all sins determined by the Church and scripture. Otherwise, there is a good chance you will lose your soul.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I am in rare agreement with Adam here. And here’s my reasoning:

Depending on how a campaign is worded, where the emphasis is, and how much public education is disseminated (so to speak ), it can be a great message that there is no such thing as “safe” sex, ultimately. I’m too lazy to look up my own post about this at the moment, but during the height of the AIDS crisis in the States, The Message that was delivered was:

The best practice was complete abstinence.
Second best practice was dual-testing of both partners, and only after clearance of both partners, condom use.

So The Message was, It’s not a good idea, period. But if you must, you will partly (not completely) protect yourself with laboratory testing and then condoms.

Yes, you could say that it provided some enabling of contraceptive use, some “encouragement” of sex, but not really. People were much more concerned with the possibility of HIV-infection than with the disappointment of having to abstain with a partner whose history they did not know. The larger point is that a surprising number of previously sexually active people started becoming interested in controlling their own sexual activity as a matter of routine, as opposed to the opposite (casual) sexual behavior they were used to. So the campaign had a suprisingly positive effect on the concept of abstinence. (Who knew? )

I’m afraid the general public (as opposed to Catholics) really does not understand the “Open to Life” bit. This is not preaching to the choir, but targeting a completely different population with a different set of assmptions.

That said, I share Corki’s dismay at targeting of teens, unless there is (as with the AIDS campaign) a very heavy message about failure rate with contraception, combined with extremely high fertility rate of this age group.

 

[edwest2]

Here is a message from Africa about waiting till marriage for sexual activity and the impact of this message on cases of HIV/AIDS in that country.

newsdzezimbabwe.wordpress.com/2011/01/20/for-african-youths-true-love-really-waits/

Peace,
Ed

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

I think the thing that kills me most in all of this is the assumption that teens are somehow mindless hormone-crazed people incapable of self control. I was a teenager once, and I remember it well. Yes, abstinance can really suck at times but we all had self control. Some people just chose to ignore it.

I suppose that is what frustrates me about the proponents for condoms/birth control/abortion. They assume that people have no self control, that temptation is too strong for anyone and so people shouldn’t face the concequences of their choices. I happen to have a more positive belief about youth, and humankind in general. I believe that we are all creatues totally capable of restraint, self control, and temperance. I believe that we all have the ability not to make the “better choice” but the BEST choice. And I believe that concequences exist to reveal the BEST path to all of us.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

When used correctly, condoms reduce the risk of pregnancy and transmission of diseases to somewhere around 1%.

That’s not true. Categorically not true. Latex is porous on a microscopic scale, and the pores in it are bigger than the HIV virus. Thus, HIV can pass through an intact latex condom. HPV and genital herpes can be easily transmitted by direct skin contact of the genital areas not covered by a condom. Hepatitis can be transmitted by microscopic amounts of blood and bodily fluid, which can escape even with the most careful use of a condom.

How can you not use them correctly? Well, this may surprise you, but a lot of people who don’t know anything at all about condoms – you, for example – don’t know basic things like having to pinch the tip to drive the air out of the condom before you put it on (so as not to create a vacuum that can cause it to burst), holding the tip as you unroll it, pulling out as soon as possible after you finish (when still partially erect), holding the base when you pull out to avoid spills, not accidentally putting it on inside-out, not inadvertently contaminating the outside of it, etc, etc, etc.

Now, that’s extremely romantic. Someone should enact an educational video of a sex scene to properly train viewers:

"My love, I’m so in love with you… Wait, let me pinch the tip of the condom! I need to drive the air out!!! …Oh yes, I love you too… Can’t create a vacuum, that will burst it! I love you, too, but don’t punish me with a baby! (at this point, the actual bedroom scene fades for a second and we see President Obama talking, and saying “but if [my daughters] they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby!”, after which the camera fades back to the bedroom scene) …can you hold me, my dear?.. NO, I need to pull out! NOW! While it’s still partially erect!!! Hold the base! HOLD THE BASE!!!

Now, THAT’S pure romance!

Frankly, it’s regressive, puritanical, scared-of-sex attitudes like those in this thread

But what do I know about romance, I’m just a regressive, puritanical… WHAT??? Who said that Catholics are scared-of-sex? Thank you, we Catholics are just fine with sex, sex with our spouses! No need to hold the tip… …no need to pull it out while it’s still partially erect… Not even scared of babies! We welcome them, not as a punishment, but as a blessing!

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

But what do I know about romance, I’m just a regressive, puritanical… WHAT??? Who said that Catholics are scared-of-sex? Thank you, we Catholics are just fine with sex, sex with our spouses! No need to hold the tip… …no need to pull it out while it’s still partially erect…Not even scared of babies! We welcome them, not as a punishment, but as a blessing!

to EVERYTHING you posted, especially the romantic scene XD

I’d actually like to interject to you that it’s actually because of my catholic views and morality I have never once had to be afraid of sex. I waited until I was married. I never had to worry that he’d lose repsect for me, not call me back, break up with me…sex isn’t a “risk” or in any way associated with fear…just full love, joy, and lots of fun nights XD (sorry, was that too much?)

I guess that’s the difference between the world and us. In the “world,” sex needs to be “made safe” by interrupting the natural process of it as much as possible. For catholic/christians, it’s the most joyous and risk-free thing we have, because it’s only known in the marital context. What joy! What bliss! Almost as if God intended it that way. hmmm.

And since I am still floored by the assumption of antitheists post designed to belittle me, I’d like to add that one doesn’t need to degrade sex by using condoms to know those things. It’s common sense, and basic understanding of how things work. But if you assumption makes you feel better…

 

[Petergee]

This analogy only works if one is being raped and sex is FORCED on them, in which case I believe the church says you can take measures to protect yourself in this case. (If I am wrong, someone correct me!) The analogy of lifeboats just doesn’t work here.

Exactly. Saying that using condoms for deliberate sexual intercourse equals “safe sex” is like saying. “Deliberately drive your ship onto those rocks - it’ll be perfectly safe, because you have a lifeboat!”

 

[AntiTheist]

I think the thing that kills me most in all of this is the assumption that teens are somehow mindless hormone-crazed people incapable of self control.

You – and several other people here – seem to not understand what an assumption is, so I suppose I’ll have to explain it.

An assumption is a conclusion reached not on the basis of evidence – instead, you reach it on the basis of things you imagine. An example would be earlier in this thread, when you assumed that it should be unproblematic to use a condom correctly, revealing your total ignorance in the matter. [And no, I’m not trying to “belittle” you: I’m pointing out that you’re making assumptions about a subject of which you are completely ignorant. The proper reaction would be to humbly thank me for pointing out a way that you can improve your thinking and argumentation]

What I’m doing when I say that “most kids are going to have sex no matter what you tell them” is not making an assumption – I’m basing that conclusion on evidence. And when I say “evidence,” I’m not just talking about anecdotes from my neighborhood that don’t add up to anything at all. I’m talking about the vast numbers of teens who freely admit that they have sex, numbers that research has shown are not affected by abstinence-only education (in fact, studies show that abstinence-only education can actually increase the numbers of unwanted pregnancies, as illustrated nicely by the story told by that poor woman earlier in the thread who taught her daughter not to have sex and not to use a condom and whose daughter proceeded to get pregnant almost immediately when left to her own devices).

So no, I’m not “assuming” that teenagers are going to have sex – I’m drawing that conclusion from looking at the evidence. That means that I’m not creating some kind of self-fulfilling prophecy and dooming them to a life of sexual intimacy merely by uttering that conclusion – as if they would be living contently in doe-eyed innocence if only the big, bad mainstream media would stop broadcasting pictures of sexy young ladies in various states of undress.

Seriously, some of you act as if teen pregnancies would decline to the point where it would cease to be a problem if only you could get rid of MTV, get rid of HBO, get women back in the kitchen making cookies, and put mandatory prayer back in school. It’s a completely wackaloo fantasy land you’re living in between your ears. As I said to another poster, you really ought to read up on the number of babies born out of wedlock to young mothers in the 1920s.

People are people are people, and people are going to do what people have been doing since the dawn of the species. You can try to bury your head in the sand and pretend that that’s not the case – and some of you are trying pretty valiantly – but you can never escape fully from reality: and one day, you’re probably going to regret your retreat into fantasy land.

Joseph L Varga:

That’s not true. Categorically not true. Latex is porous on a microscopic scale, and the pores in it are bigger than the HIV virus. Thus, HIV can pass through an intact latex condom. HPV and genital herpes can be easily transmitted by direct skin contact of the genital areas not covered by a condom. Hepatitis can be transmitted by microscopic amounts of blood and bodily fluid, which can escape even with the most careful use of a condom.

Let me give you an important argumentation lesson. When one person points out that condom usage reduces pregnancies and transmission of diseases to an incredibly low amount, you cannot sensibly refute the point by saying, “Well, uh, it doesn’t work perfectly on all of the diseases! So there! No one should use them!”

There is, by the way, plenty of good reason to think that condoms significantly reduce the rate of transmission of diseases, but even if your premise were correct (and condoms didn’t stop the spread of diseases at all), the evidence still suggests that a person would be better off using a condom for protection against unwanted pregnancies.

can you hold me, my dear?.. NO, I need to pull out! NOW! While it’s still partially erect!!! Hold the base! HOLD THE BASE!!!

All your base are belong to us.

 

[melekali]

My Mentor told us that it is great to have perfect pitch, but to remember that the piano is tempered. So part of your question is what is right for you, and another is what is better for someone who isn’t of the Faith, as you were, and what is needful from their situation. So if you are reacting for you, well and good. But it might be someone else’s job, like your Lord’s, to decide what’s right for someone else in their context. So while you can say for yourself what’s right according to your lights, someone else may not have those and is in a different sort of struggle whose shoes you haven’t put on. That is between them and God, unless they ask you why you are so wonderful.

You can still hold for them what you have for yourself as an absolute, but your “perfect pitch” could just irritate them and maybe not enjoy the piano so much. So we usually try to meet someone on their level and move from there. Essentially they, just as you and I, are made in God’s image and likeness. First we honor that, then see clearly what the problem actually is in their terms, and then apply the remedy if there is receptivity. Otherwise we are in James Mitchner’s Hawaii, or in the Poisonwood Bible.

If your reaction upsets you, remember that you took a long time to acquire it. So unless you use some psychological short cut, what would you expect but contextual reactions? You trained yourself well. So stop being so self critical and making it worse. Just say “There goes my mind again…” and go on with your business. You are only driving it deeper if you give it attention.

It’s all relative and everyone has a relative, right? I don’t think so.

 

[Ranklyfrank]

It’s all relative and everyone has a relative, right? I don’t think so.

I’m sorry–is your comment aimed at what I said??

 

[Petergee]

Now, that’s extremely romantic. Someone should enact an educational video of a sex scene to properly train viewers:

"My love, I’m so in love with you… Wait, let me pinch the tip of the condom! I need to drive the air out!!! …Oh yes, I love you too… Can’t create a vacuum, that will burst it! I love you, too, but don’t punish me with a baby! (at this point, the actual bedroom scene fades for a second and we see President Obama talking, and saying “but if [my daughters] they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby!”, after which the camera fades back to the bedroom scene) …can you hold me, my dear?.. NO, I need to pull out! NOW! While it’s still partially erect!!! Hold the base! HOLD THE BASE!!!

Now, THAT’S pure romance!

But what do I know about romance, I’m just a regressive, puritanical… WHAT??? Who said that Catholics are scared-of-sex? Thank you, we Catholics are just fine with sex, sex with our spouses! No need to hold the tip… …no need to pull it out while it’s still partially erect… Not even scared of babies! We welcome them, not as a punishment, but as a blessing!

Your post is the funniest I’ve ever read here. So funny because it’s so true.

 

[Petergee]

You – and several other people here – seem to not understand what an assumption is, so I suppose I’ll have to explain it.

No need to explain what an assumption is, because your posts here have repeatedly illustrated your making of assumptions, most of them false.

What I’m doing when I say that “most kids are going to have sex no matter what you tell them” is not making an assumption – I’m basing that conclusion on evidence. And when I say “evidence,” I’m not just talking about anecdotes from my neighborhood that don’t add up to anything at all. I’m talking about the vast numbers of teens who freely admit that they have sex,

Yeah, because every time a kid claims to have had sex he is telling the honest Gospel truth. You crack me up.

numbers that research has shown are not affected by abstinence-only education (in fact, studies show that abstinence-only education can actually increase the numbers of unwanted pregnancies,

“studies” which have been debunked and which wwre not studies at all, but mrerely twisting facts to make them appear to fit the assertion.

as illustrated nicely by the story told by that poor woman earlier in the thread who taught her daughter not to have sex and not to use a condom and whose daughter proceeded to get pregnant almost immediately when left to her own devices).

Yeah because if this happens to one person it happens to everyone all the time.

I’m not creating some kind of self-fulfilling prophecy and dooming them to a life of sexual intimacy merely by uttering that conclusion – as if they would be living contently in doe-eyed innocence if only the big, bad mainstream media would stop broadcasting pictures of sexy young ladies in various states of undress.

Seriously, some of you act as if teen pregnancies would decline to the point where it would cease to be a problem if only you could get rid of MTV, get rid of HBO, get women back in the kitchen making cookies, and put mandatory prayer back in school. It’s a completely wackaloo fantasy land you’re living in between your ears.

All totally irrelevant red herrings you are introducing to try to hide the illogicallity of your claim with emotive and pejorative rhetoric. We are talking about the assumption that everybody “needs” contraceptives.

People are people are people, and people are going to do what people have been doing since the dawn of the species. You can try to bury your head in the sand and pretend that that’s not the case – and some of you are trying pretty valiantly – but you can never escape fully from reality: and one day, you’re probably going to regret your retreat into fantasy land.

Yes as the result of the Fall, people will be committing not just fornication but every other kind of sin until Kingdom come. So is it only in the case of fornication that your “solution” is simply to assume that everybody is gouing to do it and give up trying to do anything to dissuade them, and and fact do everything possible to facilitate the sin? Or do you apply this policy to every oother sin as well?

Let me give you an important argumentation lesson. When one person points out that condom usage reduces pregnancies and transmission of diseases to an incredibly low amount, you cannot sensibly refute the point by saying, “Well, uh, it doesn’t work perfectly on all of the diseases!

It’s a pretty powerful argument when one of the diseases it doesn’t prevent is common and almost invariably fatal.

So there! No one should use them!”

There is, by the way, plenty of good reason to think that condoms significantly reduce the rate of transmission of diseases, but even if your premise were correct (and condoms didn’t stop the spread of diseases at all),

Let me give you an important argumentation lesson. Don’t create straw-men (pretending that the person wyou are debating said things which he plainly did not. Mr Varga did not say that “no one should use condoms” nor did he say that “condoms don’t significantly reduce the transmission of any diseases”.

he evidence still suggests that a person would be better off using a condom for protection against unwanted pregnancies.
.

Nonsense. Every other contraceptive method (except coitus interruptus) is more effective. But the only thing which is totally effective is abstinence.

 

[prstoessel]

Seriously, some of you act as if teen pregnancies would decline to the point where it would cease to be a problem if only you could get rid of MTV, get rid of HBO, get women back in the kitchen making cookies, and put mandatory prayer back in school. It’s a completely wackaloo fantasy land you’re living in between your ears. As I said to another poster, you really ought to read up on the number of babies born out of wedlock to young mothers in the 1920s.

Granted, that wouldn’t completely solve things… but it’s a great start.

 

[AntiTheist]

No need to explain what an assumption is, because your posts here have repeatedly illustrated your making of assumptions, most of them false.

Feel free to demonstrate it.

Yeah, because every time a kid claims to have had sex he is telling the honest Gospel truth.

No, but studies conducted of teenagers – coupled with other statistics, like unwanted teen pregnancies – reveal that a lot of teenagers are having sex.

Or are you trying to tell me that you think the number of kids actually engaging in sexual intercourse is far fewer than what the evidence suggests?

“studies” which have been debunked and which wwre not studies at all, but mrerely twisting facts to make them appear to fit the assertion.

No. You are confusing your own random declarations for evidence.

Yeah because if this happens to one person it happens to everyone all the time.

No – I said that the story has illustrative value in that it illustrates the kind of thing I’m talking about, which is supported elsewhere by evidence.

Let’s take this slowly. I said that evidence suggests that abstinence-only education leads to more pregnancies rather than less. As luck would have it, there was a person who posted in this thread recounting an anecdote about abstinence-only education leading to a pregnancy. So I pointed to this anecdote as an illustration of what I’m talking about.

At no point did I claim that the one story was evidence for anything at all. The evidnece is the evidence. The story illustrates the evidence. Please read more carefully.

We are talking about the assumption that everybody “needs” contraceptives.

Is that what we’re talking about here? If that’s the claim, then I disagree with the claim. Not everybody needs contraceptives. For example, to pick an obvious category, people who don’t want to – or cannot – have sex with others, for whatever reasons, don’t need contraceptives.

The point I made earlier is that everybody should know how to properly use contraception. After all, we had a perfect example earlier in this thread of someone completely ignorant about the proper use of condoms, coupled with an unfounded confidence that she knew how easy they must be to put on. This is an attitude that is, I’m sure, shared by the majority of kids who, in fact, fail to use condoms correctly.

It’s that kind of ignorance that leads to more unwanted pregnancies.

Yes as the result of the Fall, people will be committing not just fornication but every other kind of sin until Kingdom come. So is it only in the case of fornication that your “solution” is simply to assume that everybody is gouing to do it and give up trying to do anything to dissuade them, and and fact do everything possible to facilitate the sin? Or do you apply this policy to every oother sin as well?

Since I reject the concept of “sin” as nothing more than a fantasy, I see these questions as misguided and confused.

I see it necessary to take steps to reduce behaviors that cause negative results for society. I would like to reduce unwanted pregnancies and the spread of diseases, and since the evidence suggests that merely telling people not to have sex is going to be completely and totally ineffective, the best solution is making sure that the populace knows how to use contraception if and when they choose to engage in a completely natural human behavior that people have been engaging in – both within marriage and without – for a very long time.

Mr Varga did not say that “no one should use condoms” nor did he say that “condoms don’t significantly reduce the transmission of any diseases”.

From his posts, I concluded that he would have no problem accepting those two claims. If I was in error, I apologize.

If you are trying to tell me that you think people should use condoms and that condoms do significantly reduce the transmission of diseases, please feel free to elaborate on your position.

 

[AntiTheist]

Every other contraceptive method (except coitus interruptus) is more effective.

I’m skeptical of this claim because, as I noted, when condoms are properly used – don’t expect some people on this thread to explain how, though! – they reduce the risk of pregnancy to approximately 1%.

What methods of contraception – aside from coitus interruptus and abstinence – have a better rate of success?

 

[prstoessel]

What methods of contraception – aside from coitus interruptus and abstinence – have a better rate of success?

Since abstinence works 100% of the time, there isn’t one that’s better.

 

[KostyaJMJ]

Since abstinence works 100% of the time, there isn’t one that’s better.

People have continually shown throughout history that they are unwilling to give up such an enjoyable activity as sex. It isn’t going to happen. Never has, never will. Even when syphilis had reached epidemic levels in the 16th century and killed about half of those infected, people were still remarkably willing to take risks. The symptoms were terrible and the treatments were torture. People were slowly poisoned with mercury to alleviate the symptoms. They had their teeth fall out and bones start to disintegrate because of mercury. If you lived long enough your body was slowly destroyed as tissue started to disintegrate. Never has there been a clearer sign from God that He punishes pre-marital sex. Despite the risks, people put up with it to an amazing degree. “A night with Venus a lifetime with mercury”, was the saying.

Now the risks associated with safer sex seem almost negligible. You can look at STDs the way a professional stunt man might look at skinned knees.

Don’t get me wrong. I agree with the Church’s teaching on sex but I don’t think you will ever win anyone over talking about the risks involved with sex. You have to focus on something else.

 

[crazzeto]

People have continually shown throughout history that they are unwilling to give up such an enjoyable activity as sex. It isn’t going to happen. Never has, never will. Even when syphilis had reached epidemic levels in the 16th century and killed about half of those infected, people were still remarkably willing to take risks. The symptoms were terrible and the treatments were torture. People were slowly poisoned with mercury to alleviate the symptoms. They had their teeth fall out and bones start to disintegrate because of mercury. If you lived long enough your body was slowly destroyed as tissue started to disintegrate. Never has there been a clearer sign from God that He punishes pre-marital sex. Despite the risks, people put up with it to an amazing degree. “A night with Venus a lifetime with mercury”, was the saying.

Now the risks associated with safer sex seem almost negligible. You can look at STDs the way a professional stunt man might look at skinned knees.

Don’t get me wrong. I agree with the Church’s teaching on sex but I don’t think you will ever win anyone over talking about the risks involved with sex. You have to focus on something else.

So the ends justify the means?

Or Human beings are nothing but programed mindless sex beasts?

Sorry, I have to reject both of these. We suffer a fallen nature, that doesn’t give us an excuse to stop trying to live the gospel. At least not if you want to see heaven it doesn’t.