No, it’s not. Saying “if you do X, do Y” is not the same thing as saying “do Y,” and it is certainly not the same thing as saying “do X,” which you keep accusing me of (saying that illicit sex is OK).
No. Saying “if you do X, do Y” is saying that X is acceptable behavior. When we both know how dangerous it is, whether you do Y or not.
You, yourself used the phrase “conditionally encouraging.” And you were absolutely right – you are encouraging (conditionally or otherwise) the
behavior that puts people at grave risk.
No, it’s not. Nerfherder has described to you the behavior that is going on in the absence of condom use. People do not need condoms to persuade them to give in to their sexual passions.
And a brass band played "Whoda Thunkit!
“Conditionally encouraging” the use of condoms is “conditionally encouraging” the
behavior associated with condoms. And guess what? People who engage in that
behavior tend to use alcohol and drugs while doing it, and become reckless.
The “condoms help” theory is based on three false assumptions:
- That people who are encouraged to use condoms will not become involved in high rates of sexual activity.
- That people involved in high rates of sexual activity will otherwise demonstrate perfect behavior (using condoms all the time, not getting drunk while engaging in sex and so on.)
- And that the failure rate of condoms is low enough to balance out the increased sexual activity.
Look at Botswana to see how those assumptions have proved out.
In cultures where women have little dignity, men do not need condoms to persuade them to treat women as mere sexual objects. On the contrary, I have argued that possibly in that context using a condom might help a man think a little more about the good of the woman and be less fixated on his own selfish pleasure.
If that were true, Botswana was the last, best chance to prove it.
In the U.S., this is less likely to be the case, because our particular problem at this point is a hedonistic egalitarianism that thinks sex has no negative consequences as long as both parties enjoy it.
Gee, I wonder why anyone would think
that?
Do I really have to explain at this point why the above is not cultural relativism? (Hint: I am not denying that the absolute good in the same in both cases–namely celibacy outside marriage and monogamy within it.)
No, what you have to explain is why the “use a condom” approach didn’t work in the country that had the best chance of making it work.
This is another example of what I’ve been complaining about–you change what I said into the exact opposite. I said using a condom might be better than illicit, disease-carrying sex without a condom. I never said that it was better than abstinence. I have said the exact opposite over and over.I say one thing–you hear the opposite. . . . it’s very frustrating.
(my added emphasis)
But it isn’t better – if it were, Botswana would be virtually AIDS-free. The rate of AIDS infections accelerated after the condom program went into effect.
No – in fact, I often use your own words.
Well, at least you finally admitted that you never use my own words!
Did you mean to say that?
See, I just did to you what you do to me. I even used some of your words: “use” and “words” were in your sentence and in mine. Does that make what I said accurate?
Same with what you say about me., I say “better than giving someone a disease through sex” and you say “better than abstinence.” Is it OK just because you used the words “better than”?
Edwin
When you say “better than giving someone a disease through sex” you ask me to assume that condoms are a sure protection – and they are not. And telling people they are is simply wrong.
