Condoms vs. abortions

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Funny, the effect in Botswana is just the opposite. That nation now has 40% AIDS/HIV.

Just to clarify, the actual HIV rate in Botswana is around 17% thanks to education and prevention programs which include condom advocacy. The 40% figure refers to a study of pregnant women who sought prenatal care. The figure was erroneously extrapolated to the entire populace. See afrol.com/articles/15067

Let’s also remember that condom advocacy does not always translate into condom use, and condom use does not always translate into correct condom use. Nonetheless, short of abstinence, condom use is the best way to prevent HIV infection. And knowing that demanding abstinence of others often amounts to little more than articulation of an ideal to someone who may not share one’s own particular values and ideals, it seems like conditional advocacy of condom use while making the case for abstinence would be the most compassionate response to the global AIDS crisis.

The CDC has an interesting article on HIV prevention here cdc.gov/mmwr/Preview/mmwrhtml/rr5212a1.htm . Condom use is addressed. One of the tables lists risk factors for various sexual activities–by way of comparison, the risk factor for contracting HIV while practicing insertive fellatio with a condom is 1, without is 20; that for practicing receptive vaginal sex with a condom is 20, without is 400; that for practicing receptive anal sex with a condom is 100, while without is 2000. Condoms do make a difference.

Do condoms sometimes fail? Yes. Notwithstanding, can they still make a difference in the fight against HIV? Yes. Definitely.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[jmcrae]

If he had not upheld it, he would have, effectively, undermined the ruling that papal teaching was infallible. To suggest that the ruling on contraception was wrong, would imply that Papal infallibility was also wrong therefore there was not and will never be the opportunity to change the contraception rules.

Pope Paul VI was the first Pope to declare it infallibly, though (remember that the North American Bishops thought he was going to rule that birth control was okay, because no Pope previous to him had ever ruled on it infallibly) - up to that point it was just the common opinion of the laity and clergy (sensus fidelium), based on historical precedent, so I don’t see how that argument holds water.

 

[mark_a]

The CDC has an interesting article on HIV prevention here cdc.gov/mmwr/Preview/mmwrhtml/rr5212a1.htm . Condom use is addressed. One of the tables lists risk factors for various sexual activities–by way of comparison, the risk factor for contracting HIV while practicing insertive fellatio with a condom is 1, without is 20; that for practicing receptive vaginal sex with a condom is 20, without is 400; that for practicing receptive anal sex with a condom is 100, while without is 2000. Condoms do make a difference.

This is excellent information for folks who are determined to sin.

Teaching people how to sin is not the Church’s business.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Grace & Peace!

Just to clarify, the actual HIV rate in Botswana is around 17% thanks to education and prevention programs which include condom advocacy. The 40% figure refers to a study of pregnant women who sought prenatal care. The figure was erroneously extrapolated to the entire populace. See afrol.com/articles/15067

Do you consider 17% to be low?

Let’s also remember that condom advocacy does not always translate into condom use, and condom use does not always translate into correct condom use.

Wow! Whoda thunkit!

Condom advocacy often translates into a belief that using a condom is “safe sex” and the users are encouraged to have **more **sex. And illicit sex – which condom advocacy encourages – is often teamed with drug and alcohol use. Which often results in “incorrect” condom use.

Whoda thunkit!

Nonetheless, short of abstinence, condom use is the best way to prevent HIV infection.

Straight up – do you claim that condom use prevents HIV infection? Yes, or no?

Do condoms sometimes fail? Yes. Notwithstanding, can they still make a difference in the fight against HIV? Yes. Definitely.

As we have seen in places like Botswana, they do make a difference – they allow people to continue with dangerous behavior thinking they are safe.

 

[mlchance]

If he had not upheld it, he would have, effectively, undermined the ruling that papal teaching was infallible. To suggest that the ruling on contraception was wrong, would imply that Papal infallibility was also wrong therefore there was not and will never be the opportunity to change the contraception rules.

Nothing like begging the question to make a point.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[brandymmiller]

brandymmiller;3543227:

BTW, only the Pope ha ever said that contraception is banned. God didn’t actually say that…Using contraception (not abortificant ones) does not harm another living person unlike abortion that kills so, obviously, abortion is far worse than the use of a condom.

Wow. Lots of fallacy here. First, and again, the commandment didn’t come from the Pope but from God. Look at Genesis 38 9-10 “Onan, however, knew that the descendants would not be counted as his; so whenever he had relations with his brother’s widow, he wasted his seed on the ground to avoid contributing offspring for his brother. What he did greatly offended the Lord, and the Lord took his life too.”

It offended God for several reasons. First, because it was a waste of the gift of fertility which He had given to Onan. Second, it was an abuse of the gift of sexuality which He had given to Onan. Third, because it was a deliberate attempt by Onan to thwart God’s plan for humanity by attempting to prevent God from creating new life. That’s what contraception is: 1) A waste of the gift of fertility 2) an abuse of the gift of sexuality and 3) a deliberate attempt on the part of human beings to prevent God from creating new life. There is not any good fruit that comes from contraception. In fact, contraception is designed to prevent fruitfulness from happening. The only acceptable contraception that God has given us is abstinence. If we don’t want the responsibilities that come with our gift of sexuality, we are to abstain from using it, not use it but try to sidestep the consequences as condoms do. Contraception hurts God because it is a rejection of the gifts He has given you. It hurts you, because your rejection creates a division between you and God. It also hurts your husband because it creates a division between you and him, and between him and God. Furthermore, it hurts other people who will never have the chance to be affected by the child you might have had if you had not rejected God’s gifts in the first place. Contraception hurts the entire Body of Christ by reducing the numbers of those who are Christian in the generation after yours. So, yes, contraception hurts other living people. Furthermore, couples who contracept often are the same couples who end up in abortion clinics when the condom fails.

Natural Family Planning is acceptable when it is done under the advisement of a priest and physician, to be sure that you are abstaining for the right reasons (such as a medical or mental condition which would prevent you from being able to properly carry out your parental duties in the event of pregnancy) and not for selfish reasons (such as wanting to save up for an extravagant new car, a bigger house than what you really need). Your marriage vows, as a Catholic, included the promise to welcome into your family all children that God might send your way. In fact, that’s why God created marriage - that we might have Godly children who would learn to love Him and whom He would love in return. Natural Family Planning also is done with the understanding that should an unplanned pregnancy occur, we accept that as being the will of the Father and love the baby as an unexpected blessing.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Do you consider 17% to be low?

Of course not, Vern. But at least the figure has the virtue of being accurate.

Condom advocacy often translates into a belief that using a condom is “safe sex” and the users are encouraged to have **more **sex. And illicit sex – which condom advocacy encourages – is often teamed with drug and alcohol use. Which often results in “incorrect” condom use.

This is why education and condom advocacy go hand in hand. Ideally, condom use is advocated within the context of safer sex, and abstinence is presented as the safest option and the goal. Condom advocacy, particularly in the context of HIV/AIDS prevention is a response to the difficulties of “illicit sex” not the other way 'round. Though I suppose the view of the crisis from atop the moral high horse is pleasant enough to allow one to believe that providing a defense against the disease is just as nice as letting people die from it.

The official Roman position of condom use and the HIV/AIDS crisis has always seemed to me like trying to teach a mass of drowning people how to synchronize swim instead of throwing them a life preserver. Once they’re no longer in danger of drowning, then you can teach them to swim.

Straight up – do you claim that condom use prevents HIV infection? Yes, or no?

You’ll notice how I phrase my advocacy of condom use, both in my previous post and this one: within the context of safer sex education aimed at abstinence. Are condoms 100% effective against HIV infection? No. I never claimed they were. But, as I stated earlier, short of abstinence, they are our best weapon in the fight against HIV. Your all or nothing approach to HIV/AIDS prevention is a deadly one: among sexually active people, not using a condom during sex is a surefire way to ensure no protection whatsoever against HIV infection.

As we have seen in places like Botswana, they do make a difference – they allow people to continue with dangerous behavior thinking they are safe.

Vern, what’s your practical alternative? You don’t have to like condom advocacy to see that it’s definitely effective in measurable and positive ways. You don’t have to resort to sophistry in an attempt not to engage with the issue. Considering that abstinence-only education programs seem to have little or no effect on the incidence of teen sexual congress, how can you guarantee they will have more effect in Botswana? Shall we prevent access to condoms in Botswana and other areas hard-hit by HIV and see what happens to the rate of HIV infection? Or is it your plan to just let these people die, to speed the progress of the disease and thus reduce the population of sexually active people? Is that your plan: stop the disease by letting the victims die?

It’s fine to believe that people would be better off believing and behaving as we would like them to believe and behave. But to believe that they will believe and behave the way we would like them to just by ordering them to do so is ridiculous and a blatantly irresponsible denial of reality–and in the context of HIV/AIDS prevention, it’s not merely ridiculous, but psychotic. It says you’d rather people die than fail to believe and behave as you would like.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

This is excellent information for folks who are determined to sin.

Teaching people how to sin is not the Church’s business.

Nor, apparently, is trying to save their lives so they can be taught not to sin. Rome, it seems, would rather people die in sin than live and repent.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[vern_humphrey]

This is why education and condom advocacy go hand in hand. Ideally, condom use is advocated within the context of safer sex, and abstinence is presented as the safest option and the goal. Condom advocacy, particularly in the context of HIV/AIDS prevention is a response to the difficulties of “illicit sex” not the other way 'round. Though I suppose the view of the crisis from atop the moral high horse is pleasant enough to allow one to believe that providing a defense against the disease is just as nice as letting people die from it.

Except that doesn’t work. Advocating condoms sends the messasge that “if you use a condom, you are protected and can do whatever you want.”

If it did work, why do we still have new cases of AIDS?

The official Roman position of condom use and the HIV/AIDS crisis has always seemed to me like trying to teach a mass of drowning people how to synchronize swim instead of throwing them a life preserver. Once they’re no longer in danger of drowning, then you can teach them to swim.

And condom advocacy is handing them an anchor.

You’ll notice how I phrase my advocacy of condom use, both in my previous post and this one: within the context of safer sex education aimed at abstinence. Are condoms 100% effective against HIV infection? No. I never claimed they were.

They are, however, highly effective at convincing people who want to believe there is such a things as “safe sex” that they can continue the behavior that spreads AIDS.

But, as I stated earlier, short of abstinence, they are our best weapon in the fight against HIV. Your all or nothing approach to HIV/AIDS prevention is a deadly one: among sexually active people, not using a condom during sex is a surefire way to ensure no protection whatsoever against HIV infection.

Again, if your way works, how come we still have new cases of AIDS appearing daily?

Vern, what’s your practical alternative? You don’t have to like condom advocacy to see that it’s definitely effective in measurable and positive ways.

How is it measurable and positive? New AIDS cases appear daily.

You don’t have to resort to sophistry in an attempt not to engage with the issue. Considering that abstinence-only education programs seem to have little or no effect on the incidence of teen sexual congress, how can you guarantee they will have more effect in Botswana? Shall we prevent access to condoms in Botswana and other areas hard-hit by HIV and see what happens to the rate of HIV infection? Or is it your plan to just let these people die, to speed the progress of the disease and thus reduce the population of sexually active people? Is that your plan: stop the disease by letting the victims die?

Actually, that’s impossible now – by convincing so many people they can continue with the behavior that spreads the diseas, it will never be stopped.

It’s fine to believe that people would be better off believing and behaving as we would like them to believe and behave. But to believe that they will believe and behave the way we would like them to just by ordering them to do so is ridiculous and a blatantly irresponsible denial of reality–and in the context of HIV/AIDS prevention, it’s not merely ridiculous, but psychotic. It says you’d rather people die than fail to believe and behave as you would like.
!

No, it says you’d rather people die than admit that the condom program has made things worse, not better.

 

[mark_a]

Nor, apparently, is trying to save their lives so they can be taught not to sin. Rome, it seems, would rather people die in sin than live and repent.

One can’t teach “yes” and “no” at the same time.

As always, everyone is free to reject a correct teaching for a self-indulgent one at any time.

 

[vern_humphrey]

One can’t teach “yes” and “no” at the same time.

As always, everyone is free to reject a correct teaching for a self-indulgent one at any time.

Yep. Offering condoms as “safe sex” is like telling an alcoholic that it’s okay to drink burbon and it doesn’t count as alcohol.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Except that doesn’t work. Advocating condoms sends the messasge that “if you use a condom, you are protected and can do whatever you want.”

Some people may believe that. Which is why condom advocacy and education aimed towards abstinence need to go hand in hand.

If it did work, why do we still have new cases of AIDS?

For any number of reasons, Vern (people making mistakes, people being self-destructive, people preventing condom advocacy and education). Do you think we’ve had a policy of 100% condom advocacy with education geared toward abstinence throughout the world for the last 25 or so years? Your question assumes you believe as much.

And condom advocacy is handing them an anchor.

In terms of HIV/AIDS prevention, studies show otherwise. Explain your metaphor. Back it up with credible evidence. Show me in what way condom advocacy dramatically increases HIV infection. Show me a study which shows that in sexually active people generally, not using a condom is safer or more efficacious in preventing HIV infection than using a condom.

Again, because you don’t like it doesn’t mean it isn’t efficacious. You may wish to dismiss it out of hand. But show me in what way condom use, as a means of preventing HIV, is like throwing an anchor to a drowning man.

They are, however, highly effective at convincing people who want to believe there is such a things as “safe sex” that they can continue the behavior that spreads AIDS.

Give me hard evidence that this is the case. Just because you believe something is so does not make it so.

I’ve explained earlier that the discussion is ideally, within the context of “saf*er *sex”. I was a volunteer in a vaccine trial. And to be honest, I’ve had no experience with a health care professional in any context who would not discuss safe sex without placing it in the context of the safer sex discussion. Like you, though, people can believe whatever they want to believe. So education and condom advocacy will only go so far when coming up against insurmountable human willfulness or ignorance. But they do help. And demonstrably so (see the CDC study I linked to).

How is it measurable and positive? New AIDS cases appear daily.

See above where you asked this question earlier.

Actually, that’s impossible now – by convincing so many people they can continue with the behavior that spreads the diseas, it will never be stopped.

You didn’t answer the question, Vern–you just lamented that this is not your ideal world and that people don’t behave they way you would like them to. So I’ll just ask again:

Vern, what’s your practical alternative? You don’t have to like condom advocacy to see that it’s definitely effective in measurable and positive ways. You don’t have to resort to sophistry in an attempt not to engage with the issue. Considering that abstinence-only education programs seem to have little or no effect on the incidence of teen sexual congress, how can you guarantee they will have more effect in Botswana?

No, it says you’d rather people die than admit that the condom program has made things worse, not better.

Where is this global condom program for the prevention of HIV infection, Vern? And where is your hard evidence that condom advocacy significantly increases HIV/AIDS infection or exacerbates the crisis?

Please note that a strong desire for condoms to have significantly contributed to the crisis does not equate to hard evidence that they have.

Arguing, “No you do” without evidence is a bit childish. Prove me wrong. Show me how believing that others will believe and behave the way we would like them to just by ordering them to do so is not ridiculous and a blatantly irresponsible denial of reality. Show me how, particularly in the context of HIV/AIDS prevention, it’s not psychotic.

Convince me.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Yep. Offering condoms as “safe sex” is like telling an alcoholic that it’s okay to drink burbon and it doesn’t count as alcohol.

Then offer condoms as part of a program of safer sex and direct them towards abstinence as a goal.

A more apt analogy would be to say, “if you feel a craving coming on for a Cape Codder and you can’t control yourself, pour yourself a glass of cranberry juice. Or if you really feel like you want a beer and can’t conquer the temptation, go for Odouls or something similarly non-alcoholic.”

Vern, what we’re discussing is HIV prevention within the context of sexually active people generally. While not having sex would be great, the reality of the situation is that people are having sex. Using alcoholics as the analogy, my position is: avoid alochol (see the above paragraph). Your position is: don’t drink any liquids ever.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[vern_humphrey]

Then offer condoms as part of a program of safer sex and direct them towards abstinence as a goal.

A more apt analogy would be to say, “if you feel a craving coming on for a Cape Codder and you can’t control yourself, pour yourself a glass of cranberry juice. Or if you really feel like you want a beer and can’t conquer the temptation, go for Odouls or something similarly non-alcoholic.”[/aquote]
When you offer condoms as a solution, you are not telling your target audience, “When you can’t conquer the temptation, go for Odouls or something similarly non-alcoholic.” You’re telling them they can drink 180 proof alcohol with no effects.

Remember, cranberry sauce or Odouls are substitutes for the real thing. Condoms are used for the real thing – real sex.
Deo Volente;3549325:

Vern, what we’re discussing is HIV prevention within the context of sexually active people generally. While not having sex would be great, the reality of the situation is that people are having sex.

Yes – and believing it’s okay and safe to have sex, because “experts” told them it is.

Using alcoholics as the analogy, my position is: avoid alochol (see the above paragraph). Your position is: don’t drink any liquids ever.
!

Ah, you claim the right to make my argument for me?

My position is, if you’re an alcoholic, there is no form of alcohol that is safe for you to drink.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

When you offer condoms as a solution, you are not telling your target audience, “When you can’t conquer the temptation, go for Odouls or something similarly non-alcoholic.” You’re telling them they can drink 180 proof alcohol with no effects.

Again, Vern. Believing something is so does not make it so. No one offers condoms as a 100% solution–they’re offered as protection to reduce the chance of contracting the virus. It is not like telling an alcoholic they can drink anything with alcohol. I think you may be confusing people who have sex with sex addicts. The alcoholic analogy would work better in that context as addiction is part of both scenarios.I apologize for expanding on your analogy and using it as if it were exactly applicable. We’re not talking about sex addicts, though.

Ah, you claim the right to make my argument for me?

My position is, if you’re an alcoholic, there is no form of alcohol that is safe for you to drink.

I argue about strategies to lower incidences of HIV infection, you argue about the analogy I use. Like I said, I’m sorry for using it.

But whatever. Fine.

Vern, if you’ll notice, I made an analogy and a comparison within the context of that analogy, I did not dictate what your argument should be, nor did I claim a right to do so. Stick to what’s there, Vern.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to believe that it is possible to stop people (who do not believe as you do) from having sex and thus eliminate the problem of HIV infection. But sex is part of the equation, and wishful thinking will not stop it from being part of the equation.

The situation is: people are having sex, and people are getting infected with HIV. The question is: how do you prevent people from contracting HIV? The further question is: do you give people access to protection against HIV, or do you hope they’ll just stop having sex?

Perhaps our difficulty in this discussion (and again, correct me if I’m wrong) is that sex outside wedlock, for you, is the primary problem. For me, whether or not sex outside wedlock is a problem is secondary because sex is the given, HIV infection is the primary problem.

You’ve yet to answer the question I posed at the end of post 132.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[vern_humphrey]

Again, Vern. Believing something is so does not make it so.

Again, Deo. Believing something is so does not make it so.

No one offers condoms as a 100% solution–they’re offered as protection to reduce the chance of contracting the virus.

Your tongue is going to turn black and fall out of your mouth. I have seen government-sponsored commercials touting condom use as “safe sex.” No qualifiers, no cautions – just a flat claim that condoms are “safe.”

It is not like telling an alcoholic they can drink anything with alcohol. I think you may be confusing people who have sex with sex addicts. The alcoholic analogy would work better in that context as addiction is part of both scenarios.I apologize for expanding on your analogy and using it as if it were exactly applicable. We’re not talking about sex addicts, though.

We’re talking about behavior.

AIDS is spread by behavior. It can be stopped only by stopping the behavior. There is no such thing as “safe sex” and those who touted condoms as the solution – and whatever excuses caviats you may now offer, they were touted as the solution – bear a heavy burden for the outcome of their irresponsible actions.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to believe that it is possible to stop people (who do not believe as you do) from having sex and thus eliminate the problem of HIV infection. But sex is part of the equation, and wishful thinking will not stop it from being part of the equation.

No. I believe that if there was a chance to do that, it was destroyed by those who went down the wrong path, falsely telling those at risk they didn’t have to modify their behavior – just use a condom.

The situation is: people are having sex, and people are getting infected with HIV. The question is: how do you prevent people from contracting HIV? The further question is: do you give people access to protection against HIV, or do you hope they’ll just stop having sex?

The situation is, the genie is out of the bottle. And it was let get out by people who did all sorts of politically correct things – from objecting to AIDS tests for those at risk, to touting condoms as “safe sex.”

Perhaps our difficulty in this discussion (and again, correct me if I’m wrong) is that sex outside wedlock, for you, is the primary problem. For me, whether or not sex outside wedlock is a problem is secondary because sex is the given, HIV infection is the primary problem.

No. My problem is those who were supposed to have responsibility for controlling epidemics instead chose to exacerbate them – and the “safe sex” charade is only part of what they did.

You’ve yet to answer the question I posed at the end of post 132.

Which question is that? I count half a dozen questions in that post.

 

[mark_a]

I’m not Vern, but… . . .

Vern, what we’re discussing is HIV prevention within the context of sexually active people generally. While not having sex would be great, the reality of the situation is that people are having sex.

Again, it is no more the Church’s job to teach about condoms than it is for condom manufacturers to teach about abstinence.

Using alcoholics as the analogy, my position is: avoid alochol (see the above paragraph). Your position is: don’t drink any liquids ever.

Bull feathers.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Your tongue is going to turn black and fall out of your mouth. I have seen government-sponsored commercials touting condom use as “safe sex.” No qualifiers, no cautions – just a flat claim that condoms are “safe.”

Well, I won’t defend what appears to be an irresponsible and poor commercial. But every conversation re: “safe sex” that I’ve had with any health worker has been couched in terms of safer sex.

But Vern, the rest of your post reads like you’re not willing to get past your issues with “safe sex” and start dealing with the crisis as it is now. Someone once said that “coulda, woulda, and shoulda are the three sorriest words in the English language.” Can we get beyond, “they shoulda done something more or better years ago,” to, “this is what should be done now”?

It’s my contention that you can’t address the problem now without condom advocacy coupled with education aimed at abstinence. How do you propose the problem as it is now can be addressed without some form of condom advocacy?

No. I believe that if there was a chance to do that, it was destroyed by those who went down the wrong path, falsely telling those at risk they didn’t have to modify their behavior – just use a condom.

The situation is, the genie is out of the bottle. And it was let get out by people who did all sorts of politically correct things – from objecting to AIDS tests for those at risk, to touting condoms as “safe sex.”

I agree with you re: mismanagement of the crisis on many many levels. (Though I don’t believe you can just tell people what to do and expect them to do it.)

But what do you propose now? (That’s basically my question in post 132.)

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Again, it is no more the Church’s job to teach about condoms than it is for condom manufacturers to teach about abstinence.

Hi Mark (nice name ).

I can’t say I agree with your statement. It may not be Rome’s job to advocate condom use to help stem the tide of HIV infection, but I think it’s part of a responsible HIV prevention strategy. On the other hand, while it may be against the condom manufacturer’s bottom line, I believe it is still the responsible thing to do to teach about abstinence.

I realize that neither Rome nor the condom manufacturer will be interested in diversifying approaches to the crisis, and that the businessman could probably care less one way or another. I expect more of Rome, however, as it seems that it, too, could care less. (But my expectations of Rome are immaterial–I imagine Rome expects more of me, too.) But how do you, Mark, suggest the crisis be dealt with given that the abstinence-only programs generally seem to fail?

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[vern_humphrey]

Well, I won’t defend what appears to be an irresponsible and poor commercial. But every conversation re: “safe sex” that I’ve had with any health worker has been couched in terms of safer sex.

You don’t want to defend them, but you are. All the current comdom push is simply an extention of the false promise of the earlier program.

But Vern, the rest of your post reads like you’re not willing to get past your issues with “safe sex” and start dealing with the crisis as it is now. Someone once said that “coulda, woulda, and shoulda are the three sorriest words in the English language.” Can we get beyond, “they shoulda done something more or better years ago,” to, “this is what should be done now”?

What shold be done now is to forthrightly tell people – and broadcast it as widely and as forceably as the original “safe sex” program that there is no such thing as "safe sex.

And don’t hide behind the old, "Well, nowadays, we say ‘safer sex’ ploy. Tell the truth – millions of people have died because they were led down the garden path of “safe sex” by people who bloody well **knew **there was no such thing, outside of a faithful monogamous relationship.

It’s my contention that you can’t address the problem now without condom advocacy coupled with education aimed at abstinence. How do you propose the problem as it is now can be addressed without some form of condom advocacy?

Start by saying, “We lied. If you continue to have illicit sex – without or without a condom – you will almost certainly contract AIDS.”

I agree with you re: mismanagement of the crisis on many many levels. (Though I don’t believe you can just tell people what to do and expect them to do it.)

The problem is, they have been told the wrong thing – and it’s brought about a disaster.

But what do you propose now? (That’s basically my question in post 132.)

The Parable of the Skydivers
There were two men who went skydiving. They jumped from 12,000 feet – one of them without a parachute.

As they fell free of the plane, he shouted to his companion, “Well? Tell me what I should do now!”

And his companion replied, “I really can’t tell you what you should do now. But if you’d asked me ten seconds ago, I could have told you what you should not do.”

The meaning of this parable is, it you forge ahead with the wrong solution, it may make things so bad that they can’t be turned around.

But, as I said, start by saying, “We lied. If you continue to have illicit sex – without or without a condom – you will almost certainly contract AIDS.”