Pope allows condom use?

[rpp]

I am curious, if you are married to someone with AIDS, do you just become chaste?

You both should be chaste to begin with. But I presume you mean celibate. The answer to that would be based on your willingness to expose the spouse to the disease and the spouse’s willingness to be be exposed.

Sorry, you will not be able to come up with a scenario in which the use of condoms is legitimate.

Celibacy is not bad. Millions of nuns and priests are celibate.

Now if you have a disordered desire for sex at any cost…

 

[Seatuck]

I am curious, if you are married to someone with AIDS, do you just become chaste?

All people are required to be chaste. You mean continent. Some might call it celibate but that would be incorrect as celibacy is reserved for a single person living a life without sexual activity for religious reasons. Yes if that is what a spouse feels called to do to prevent transmitting this disease. Others will not feel called to do so and would risk the transmission of the disease.

 

[CuriousInIL]

In the case of the hysterectomy, the principle of ‘double effect’ applies. That the intent of saving the life of the woman may be justified by even if it includes the removal of her reproductive faculties.

But ‘double efffect’ only applies if there are no other means that do not have the undesired effect. If there was a way of curing the woman WITHOUT removing her uterus, and a hyterectomy was chosen away, that would be immoral.

There does exist a means of preventing the trasmission of STD’s without the use of condoms. That is called abstinece. Because there exists another means without the evil effect, it must be used.

Playing devil’s advocate here (is that a sin on CAF??) how do we know that the “act” to be looked at is the prevention of STDs? Clearly, that can be achieved by the alternate act of abstinence. But, if we say the act is engaging in the marital act while preventing–or actually minimizing–the transmission of STDs, then clearly abstinence is not an alternative.

How do we know what “act” to look at?

Just like, we don’t really know if killing is proper act unless we go beyond the issue of killing and add who/what is killed and why.

 

[seekerz]

No, you are wrong. One of the problems with the use of condoms is it has an affect on the unitive aspect of the marital act. That is an important reason why condoms are not allowed. This part of why it is evil not just because of the effect on the procreative aspect of the marital act. Condoms negate the one flesh union because they are in between the husband and wife.

Now we’re getting somewhere. One of my original questions was why the exception for the pill and not for the condom and your answer addresses that. This was also being discussed on another thread but it was becoming so theoretical and sidetracked with other issues, I lost interest. Thanks for not ducking the question.

The other part was, in the case of a couple where one partner may be in a subjugated position (e.g. rural Africa or India) or where there is spiritual mismatch between partners (i.e. one agrees to abstinence but not the other) what are the alternatives? Is the risk to the partner’s life ever felt to outweigh the interference with the unitive aspect of marriage.

I have repeatedly returned to this theme on about this because of personal experience with women in such positions. A God-fearing woman committed suicide during the grip of an excruciatingly painful attack of pelvic disease caused by her husband’s STD episodes (she was bound to him by social norms stronger than the bonds of death itself). Is these women’s only choice to submit regardless of the harm to themselves and their children’s future?

If we say that condoms are considered immoral even in those cases, then massive efforts to bring healthcare everywhere on par with the West need to be undertaken (and I don’t just mean providing basic medications, but for example, the kind of care and close monitoring that presently makes HIV more of a chronic disease than a death sentence). The status quo where the ‘haves’ live and the ‘have nots’ may or may not get by, is just not acceptable.

 

[seekerz]

To each his own.

If I was infected with HIV, I would never trust one thin piece of latex to protect him from the devastating disease, nor do I see it as protecting him from the various other bodily secretions that can transmit the disease.

Per the CDC, these are normal and possible methods of transmission, and not all methods of transmission require a cut in the skin. Furthermore, the center for disease control is generally considered an authoritative source on these situations. Although in this thread it has been repeatedly dismissed, it is still a formidable cite.

Still, I understand that sexual intercourse is by many considered an unalienable right that is to be obtained no matter what the risks or consequences.

In your case, do you believe your position is due to a faith in condoms, or an atittude that HIV and AIDs are manageable diseases?

I see that you have moved from the 3rd world plight to consentual married sex and back to the 3rd world plight. Should we just go ahead and debate both, or should we focus on the 3rd world plight again?

You allude to a medical profession. Going back to my original argument that condoms represent a poor resolution and completely miss the actual problem, what are your thoughts on their water sanitation?

Have you considered that in the principalities, countries or areas where they actually have running water, they use chlorine whereas we use chloride? As one person interested in science to another, do you have a comment on the cellular damage and altered composition that might make these people more susceptible to AIDs? And if these studies conclude that the difference in chemical cleaning is a strong factor in HIV infection, would you still clamor to give them condoms?

I guess condoms are much cheaper and easier for us to give, then to go through all the hard work of making sure they have running water that gets cleaned.

Whatever can be done (including water purification) to reduce transmission should be. My position is that, if there is an acceptable way in which condoms can be used they should also be, principally because that is an intervention which the affected partners can easily institute themselves without waiting for large-scale outside (name removed by moderator)ut. Also, HIV is not the only STD to be considered as my post above illustrates - even non-fatal infections can destroy lives.

 

[hasikelee]

Whatever can be done (including water purification) to reduce transmission should be. My position is that, if there is an acceptable way in which condoms can be used they should also be, principally because that is an intervention which the affected partners can easily institute themselves without waiting for large-scale outside (name removed by moderator)ut. Also, HIV is not the only STD to be considered as my post above illustrates - even non-fatal infections can destroy lives.

Seekerz, it appears that the information I presented showing that condoms are not an effective way of preventing disease during sexual activity is not one that you accept. Do you have any particular reasons for disagreeing with the information from the CDC website…for example where the CDC states HPV is transmissable even when areas are covered by a latex condom?

I am baffled as to why the plight of oppressed women is continually being brought up here. Basically, your argument is that since these women are going to be abused and raped due to their cultural norms, we might as well make sure they have a condom, despite science showing no definitive prevention of most diseases, including the most devastating and permanent ones.

Small-scale is definitely a key word here. It would be much too hard to provide aid and guidance for third world, impoverished, oppressed countries. Things such as running water, sanitary conditions…even a concrete floor over a mud floor would be a big improvement. We could even institute toilet paper!

But, those are long-term, large-scale projects requiring true commitment and charity…oh yeah and the big elephant: money.

 

[seekerz]

I’m not sure where on the site you are finding your info, but what I’m finding is what has been asserted in most of my posts: condoms are not 100% effective but do reduce transmission of HIV; which to me makes sense because as I’ve said before infected people are operated on everyday, the world over, by medical personnel using latex gloves. Again, there are many STD’s, not just HIV (gonorrhea, herpes, syphilis, trichomonas infection, to name a few).

Most infections are transmissible in more than one way but loved ones find the courage to care for many thousands of HIV patients (handling stool, vomit, blood, saliva) without major outbreaks resulting, so obviously casual skin contact is not a major route of infection.

With regards to HPV, I don’t really see any need to abstain or use condoms for the average affected couple because HPV infection is easily detectable and treatable and is not in itself fatal though it may give rise to cancer if left untreated.

Here’s a link to the site you suggested: cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/latex.htm

I’m no fan of the quick fix attitude, but I’m all for *self-help *especially when most of the developed world is content to dole out charity rather than offering real, sustainable measures that would eliminate the need for handouts.

 

[hasikelee]

I’m not sure where on the site you are finding your info, but what I’m finding is what has been asserted in most of my posts: condoms are not 100% effective but do reduce transmission of HIV; which to me makes sense because as I’ve said before infected people are operated on everyday, the world over, by medical personnel using latex gloves. Again, there are many STD’s, not just HIV (gonorrhea, herpes, syphilis, trichomonas infection, to name a few).

Most infections are transmissible in more than one way but loved ones find the courage to care for many thousands of HIV patients (handling stool, vomit, blood, saliva) without major outbreaks resulting, so obviously casual skin contact is not a major route of infection.

With regards to HPV, I don’t really see any need to abstain or use condoms for the average affected couple because HPV infection is easily detectable and treatable and is not in itself fatal though it may give rise to cancer if left untreated.

Here’s a link to the site you suggested: cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/latex.htm

I’m no fan of the quick fix attitude, but I’m all for *self-help *especially when most of the developed world is content to dole out charity rather than offering real, sustainable measures that would eliminate the need for handouts.

Which platform are we using now? I thought a moment ago we were talking about oppressed women who had to engage in sexual intercourse.

Are we back to talking about two consenting, married adults now? And if we are back to that subject, again, what is the value of sexual intercourse versus the value of a spouse free from a devastating disease?

How long must the situation be prolonged by offering inadequate resolution, such as free latex condoms, rather than improving things such as oppression, poverty, starvation, rampant disease, poor or no sanitation or running water, war, genocide, and the like? Did you have a comment on the differences in our sanitation systems, e.g. chloride vs. chlorine?

From the link you gave me:

The surest way to avoid transmission of sexually transmitted diseases is to abstain from sexual intercourse, or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with a partner who has been tested and you know is uninfected.

**For persons whose sexual behaviors place them at risk for STDs, correct and consistent use of the male latex condom can reduce the risk of STD transmission. However, no protective method is 100 percent effective, and condom use cannot guarantee absolute protection against any STD. Furthermore, condoms lubricated with spermicides are no more effective than other lubricated condoms in protecting against the transmission of HIV and other STDs. In order to achieve the protective effect of condoms, they must be used correctly and consistently. Incorrect use can lead to condom slippage or breakage, thus diminishing their protective effect. Inconsistent use, e.g., failure to use condoms with every act of intercourse, can lead to STD transmission because transmission can occur with a single act of intercourse.
**

 

[seekerz]

Seekerz, it appears that the information I presented showing that condoms are not an effective way of preventing disease during sexual activity is not one that you accept.

*correct and consistent use of the male latex condom can reduce the risk of STD transmission. However, no protective method is 100 percent effective, and condom use cannot guarantee absolute protection against any STD. (from cdc.gov)
*

I think that to have any meaningful discussion we have to agree on the definition of effective. Does effective to you mean 100% absolute guarantee of protection? If so, we are on different wavelengths because very few things in this world are 100% effective (that, incidentally does not make them ineffective, a term which means having no effect at all).

Strictly speaking, even abstinence cannot be said to be 100% effective in preventing HIV, because a virgin can receive a transfusion or needlestick injury (a not uncommon occurrence) and be placed at risk of acquiring the infection.

With regards to the chlorination of water, I have not done research on the topic, so I’m not in a position to discuss it - though I will be enlightening myself in that regard.

Incidentally, does it bother you that I refer both to oppressed wives and equal partners? They are just put forward as practical scenarios where the principles we are discussing are being applied on a daily basis. The marital state spans a wide spectrum of relationship types and living arrangements, so it’s pertinent that discussion of marital issues look at some real life situations.

 

[Seatuck]

Now we’re getting somewhere. One of my original questions was why the exception for the pill and not for the condom and your answer addresses that. This was also being discussed on another thread but it was becoming so theoretical and sidetracked with other issues, I lost interest. Thanks for not ducking the question.

The other part was, in the case of a couple where one partner may be in a subjugated position (e.g. rural Africa or India) or where there is spiritual mismatch between partners (i.e. one agrees to abstinence but not the other) what are the alternatives? Is the risk to the partner’s life ever felt to outweigh the interference with the unitive aspect of marriage.

I have repeatedly returned to this theme on about this because of personal experience with women in such positions. A God-fearing woman committed suicide during the grip of an excruciatingly painful attack of pelvic disease caused by her husband’s STD episodes (she was bound to him by social norms stronger than the bonds of death itself). Is these women’s only choice to submit regardless of the harm to themselves and their children’s future?

If we say that condoms are considered immoral even in those cases, then massive efforts to bring healthcare everywhere on par with the West need to be undertaken (and I don’t just mean providing basic medications, but for example, the kind of care and close monitoring that presently makes HIV more of a chronic disease than a death sentence). The status quo where the ‘haves’ live and the ‘have nots’ may or may not get by, is just not acceptable.

I know you have seen the repeated recommendations in these threads for reading Theology of the Body or Christopher Wests treatments of the subject. It will give you the complete picture better than a few blurbs on a message board on the profound theological and moral meaning of the marital act within marriage. I did answer this in that thread and gave some references.

The pill exception is allowed because of the affect the drug has on the individual taking it. It causes a change in the function and structure of the living tissue in the woman and has an affect on the symptoms she is experiencing. This is quite different than than the condom usage we have been discussing. Which is geared toward prevention of transmission of an illness. Condoms do not have an affect on treating the individual or causing a relief of symptoms of a medical illness of the person wearing it. The pill can be said to have an affect on the unitive aspect but under the principal of double effect is allowed. Heroic Virtue and abstaining is the answer in these cases. As difficult a concept as that may seem to our sex driven society.

The political climate of many of these countriesboth from within and from outside influences is what is causing the difficulty of raising up the level of medical care there.The church has always been a leader in this area.

 

[mikew262]

mikew262;3340962:

No, I’m not incorrect. You should prove that you are. When the church teaches something always and everywhere it is infallible. This is the case with contraception.

catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp

Vademecum For Confessors-

I stand corrected, after some research, the Church’s teachings on faith and morals are considered infallible (for Catholics). However, I still disagree (to a certain degree) with this particular teaching, and hope someday the Church will take another serious look at it.

 

[mikew262]

The thought of condoms makes me cry and want to be a baby.

Oh boy!

 

[seekerz]

I know you have seen the repeated recommendations in these threads for reading Theology of the Body or Christopher Wests treatments of the subject. It will give you the complete picture better than a few blurbs on a message board on the profound theological and moral meaning of the marital act within marriage. I did answer this in that thread and gave some references.

The pill exception is allowed because of the affect the drug has on the individual taking it. It causes a change in the function and structure of the living tissue in the woman and has an affect on the symptoms she is experiencing. This is quite different than than the condom usage we have been discussing. Which is geared toward prevention of transmission of an illness. Condoms do not have an affect on treating the individual or causing a relief of symptoms of a medical illness of the person wearing it. The pill can be said to have an affect on the unitive aspect but under the principal of double effect is allowed. Heroic Virtue and abstaining is the answer in these cases. As difficult a concept as that may seem to our sex driven society.

The political climate of many of these countriesboth from within and from outside influences is what is causing the difficulty of raising up the level of medical care there.The church has always been a leader in this area.

Thanks again for your response and I have read, in part, the theology of the body. More than most teachings of the Church, I simply have had a problem apply these particular ones to everyday life situations.

Personally I just find we seem not concerned enough (like it’s not an urgent matter) about the suffering and loss of life that its going on, like it’s somehow not real or not quite as important as other issues (e.g. abortion , gay rights), yet remain dogmatic about what is or is not allowed. Kind of like preaching Christ to a hungry man whom we have failed to feed.

 

[Seatuck]

Thanks again for your response and I have read, in part, the theology of the body. More than most teachings of the Church, I simply have had a problem apply these particular ones to everyday life situations.

Personally I just find we seem not concerned enough (like it’s not an urgent matter) about the suffering and loss of life that its going on, like it’s somehow not real or not quite as important as other issues (e.g. abortion , gay rights), yet remain dogmatic about what is or is not allowed. Kind of like preaching Christ to a hungry man whom we have failed to feed.

You’re welcome. I have enjoyed the conversation . We need to do both serve man by taking care of his physical needs if necessary but not abandon the moral in doing so. From some of my readings of the early church writers there is an emphasis on the spiritual rather than the physical care though. Which is going to get someone an an eternity in heaven? So we really need to keep struggling to provide both. The majority of the voices in our secular world scream the opposite of what the church teaches and we grow up not knowing truth and that makes it harder to stick to when faced with suffering or hardship. We all have that struggle. Keep your eyes on Christ and the church he gave you .
I’m praying for us all.

 

[hasikelee]

I think that to have any meaningful discussion we have to agree on the definition of effective. Does effective to you mean 100% absolute guarantee of protection? If so, we are on different wavelengths because very few things in this world are 100% effective (that, incidentally does not make them ineffective, a term which means having no effect at all).

Strictly speaking, even abstinence cannot be said to be 100% effective in preventing HIV, because a virgin can receive a transfusion or needlestick injury (a not uncommon occurrence) and be placed at risk of acquiring the infection.

With regards to the chlorination of water, I have not done research on the topic, so I’m not in a position to discuss it - though I will be enlightening myself in that regard.

Incidentally, does it bother you that I refer both to oppressed wives and equal partners? They are just put forward as practical scenarios where the principles we are discussing are being applied on a daily basis. The marital state spans a wide spectrum of relationship types and living arrangements, so it’s pertinent that discussion of marital issues look at some real life situations.

Yes, I do find it bothersome that you present a scenario of rape, or at least oppressive cultures.

I find that ofering assistance for the conclusion of the problem tends to feed the problem. Of course, what might be our difference on this thread is our idea of “the problem.”

For example, in India, HIV is rampant to such a point that many scientists worry the country will hit a point of no return. What is the actual problem? Men are culturally allowed to use prostitutes and their wives are not to ask who it was or for the men to be tested. This is particularly easy to see in the field of trucking, where a man will engage in sexual intercourse at several different stops along the way before going home to be with his wife. Now, his wife is not allowed to refuse him nor ask him to use a condom.

When I watched this documented study and then did some independent research, I came to the conclusion that India had a major problem. The wives are required to be sex slaves and are not allowed to ask their husbands anything. The men are allowed to use women at every sexual opportunity. To me, obviously this was a problem of legal and social inequality.

Of course, everyone else I have heard from who has seen this documentary decided the problem was this: India needs lots of condoms. I think Bill Gate agrees, too.

It really is beyond me why anyone would seek to completely ignore the plight of humans being subjected, abused and raped for the satisfaction of a stronger human being, and I had hoped to learn more from you about why such a position is popular, but I still have not found any answers.

Oh, the examples are so numerous, why stop at one impoverished country? The abortion example is quite interesting as well. Again, you have a disagreement over what the problem really is. I would say the problem is a proven income gap, poor education, poor support system and inequality. And yet, apparently the problem is the conceived child. Like they say, a poor, abused woman after an abortion is just a poor, abused mother of a dead baby.

It doesn’t make much sense to me. If a woman does manage to successfully convince her partner to wear a condom and it successfully deters the spread of disease for that sexual encounter, she was still raped, used against her will or made to be subjected to a man’s desire above her own value and health.

Furthermore, I would go on to argue that those who provide oppressive countries or governments with condoms are enabling the abuse of women in that country. In fact, with the marketing strategies employed that make even you believe an 85% chance against HIV is **effective, **men will see the added benefit and engage in more and riskier behavior.

Planned Parenthood will hide cases of incest and rape and kill the big shred of evidence: the child. This does, of course, greatly support the perpetrator and not the victim. So, too, will condoms generate a sense of false security and safety for the perpetrator in cases of oppression and rape.

Short sighted ideals typically want to focus on the results, but 70-85% effective when used 100% correctly means 15-30% of the time it fails. When you are talking about permanent, expensive diseases, calling condoms effective is quite an astonishing position to hold.

 

[seekerz]

Yes, I do find it bothersome that you present a scenario of rape, or at least oppressive cultures.

You are looking at this problem through the eyes of someone raised in western culture. I know much about the culture and mentality in the Third World and if you think a social solution can be found which will speedily work to save these women’s lives, you are mistaken.

First of all, many of these women do not see themselves as oppressed/raped because their values and ideals are so different from our own. To a certain extent, exposure to western ideas or culture do have an impact, but even among the educated it’s simply seen as a difference of perspective rather than a question of our values being better or worse than theirs.

For example, most Indian women are raised to regard marriage as the main purpose of their lives and the most important thing that will ever happen to them on this earth. They are brought up to believe that the man must be superior in all things and most will actually not marry a man whose social status or level of education is not regarded as superior to theirs (assuming of course that they are given a say). Arranged marriage occurs in all religious groups and by and large is accepted by all concerned. A favorite comparison posed to westerners is that most of their marriages last lifetimes while large numbers of ours end in divorce.

Some of the attitudes to sex and marriage seem to be as old as the Old Testament themselves (for example, there is a law I believe in the Pentateuch, that states if a man violates a virgin, he is bound to marry her). Rape in some eastern societies seen more as a loss of honor than as an aggressive act on the part of the male. Restitution of that honor by marrying the victim is actually seen as justice and sometimes portrayed as such in stories/movies.

So the question of rape occurring within marriage is regarded as downright ridiculous. Marital sex is seen as a spouse’s inalienable right (even with regard to the woman) and the question of asking her husband to abstain would not even occur to the average wife.

Within that culture however, secular health organizations have been able to convince men to use various methods of contraception via monetary incentives and by convincing them that it will be to the family’s economic advantage to have less mouths to feed. I am not expressing approval of this approach, but using it to show how such a couple could be persuaded to use protective measures during intercourse if it could be shown to be to beneficial to the family as a whole (e.g. benefit to the children, decreased healthcare costs).

A measure like abstinence on the other hand would entail not just a sacrifice of physical satisfaction but would usurp the whole marital dynamic. Culture in India for example, is preserved in large part by women, and the older women are often the ones who insist on complete conformity. A young couple’s major decisions on all aspects of life (childbearing, child spacing, contraception, employment and living arrangements) are made not only by the couple, but by the in-laws as well. So it’s not simply a question of loving your wife enough to abstain.

To please their husbands and be good wives, I have known some women actively seek to bear as many children as they could even with full knowlege of severe health complications that could mean death with further pregnancies. I also have known in-laws demand the same, sometimes with the resigned attitude that if the woman dies in fulfilling her wifely duties, the man can marry again…and so on…it is the “will of God” they believe.

Role fulfillment in some cultures is everything - more important than life itself. With such odds, it’s going to take many years (I believe I’m understating it) before things change with regard to HIV transmission to spouses.

 

[seekerz]

Discussing this subject, has of course led me to think about it more deeply. The conclusion I have come to with regard to the Church’s official stand on condoms is that preservation of physical life, though important, should not be via means that may endanger the soul.

If it should be at some point decided that condom use in those narrowly defined situations, does not endanger the soul, the approach would still have been a responsible one because in matters regarding our eternal welfare it is better to err on the side of caution.

 

[hasikelee]

You are looking at this problem through the eyes of someone raised in western culture. I know much about the culture and mentality in the Third World and if you think a social solution can be found which will speedily work to save these women’s lives, you are mistaken.

First of all, many of these women do not see themselves as oppressed/raped because their values and ideals are so different from our own. To a certain extent, exposure to western ideas or culture do have an impact, but even among the educated it’s simply seen as a difference of perspective rather than a question of our values being better or worse than theirs.

For example, most Indian women are raised to regard marriage as the main purpose of their lives and the most important thing that will ever happen to them on this earth. They are brought up to believe that the man must be superior in all things and most will actually not marry a man whose social status or level of education is not regarded as superior to theirs (assuming of course that they are given a say). Arranged marriage occurs in all religious groups and by and large is accepted by all concerned. A favorite comparison posed to westerners is that most of their marriages last lifetimes while large numbers of ours end in divorce.

Some of the attitudes to sex and marriage seem to be as old as the Old Testament themselves (for example, there is a law I believe in the Pentateuch, that states if a man violates a virgin, he is bound to marry her). Rape in some eastern societies seen more as a loss of honor than as an aggressive act on the part of the male. Restitution of that honor by marrying the victim is actually seen as justice and sometimes portrayed as such in stories/movies.

So the question of rape occurring within marriage is regarded as downright ridiculous. Marital sex is seen as a spouse’s inalienable right (even with regard to the woman) and the question of asking her husband to abstain would not even occur to the average wife.

Within that culture however, secular health organizations have been able to convince men to use various methods of contraception via monetary incentives and by convincing them that it will be to the family’s economic advantage to have less mouths to feed. I am not expressing approval of this approach, but using it to show how such a couple could be persuaded to use protective measures during intercourse if it could be shown to be to beneficial to the family as a whole (e.g. benefit to the children, decreased healthcare costs).

A measure like abstinence on the other hand would entail not just a sacrifice of physical satisfaction but would usurp the whole marital dynamic. Culture in India for example, is preserved in large part by women, and the older women are often the ones who insist on complete conformity. A young couple’s major decisions on all aspects of life (childbearing, child spacing, contraception, employment and living arrangements) are made not only by the couple, but by the in-laws as well. So it’s not simply a question of loving your wife enough to abstain.

To please their husbands and be good wives, I have known some women actively seek to bear as many children as they could even with full knowlege of severe health complications that could mean death with further pregnancies. I also have known in-laws demand the same, sometimes with the resigned attitude that if the woman dies in fulfilling her wifely duties, the man can marry again…and so on…it is the “will of God” they believe.

Role fulfillment in some cultures is everything - more important than life itself. With such odds, it’s going to take many years (I believe I’m understating it) before things change with regard to HIV transmission to spouses.

It is what it is, even if someone doesn’t feel that way due to cultural norms or social traditions.

We see this same thing happen in America as well…in fact, in just another thread a poster was arguing that minors should be given condom use.

His hypothetical question: if a drunk, underage daughter was about to engage in sexual intercourse with a borderline stranger, would you want the girl to have a condom on hand?

The issue started way back before the incident. That was the theme of my last post. In other words, labeling the problem as lack of condoms presents a procedure to follow for an incident caused by an issue much farther back in the whole process.

Also, even if many women follow cultural and societal norms, this in no way means they accept those practices. Many women fear to speak out, facing burning, physical abuse, family abandonment, isolation and death. Your post presents these norms of abuse as if they are widely accepted, but they are not.

Right now in India, non-profit burn centers exist for women suffering from burns. Many, if not most, will not survive. The counts go under reported as women are coerced into lying about how the burns occurred. In fact, it is not an odd sight to see their husbands banging on the door and fighting with the volunteers to make sure their wives obey.

Anyways, I appreciate the dialogue on this subject. It is certainly one of the more important issues that isn’t quite getting the best coverage by the media right now. Yet, because of the way this issue touches on so many different aspects of human rights, equality and peace, it is something that could help even our country by resolving.

 

[seekerz]

Maybe this is a little off topic, but here goes:

My description of these cultural issues surrounding marriage and family life are accurate because of my personal knowledge. Is there abuse that is recognized as such (physical violence, wife burning etc) - definitely. But the average Indian woman for example, would not consider it correct to refuse her husband’s sexual advances, so applying the term rape to this situation is a matter of our perspective - not theirs.

Widespread social and cultural norms dictate that conjugal sex not be withheld even when submitting means risking deadly infections (perhaps just as strongly as our Church holds to the view that condoms may not be used in such situations). The strength of these norms is such that breaching them may not even occur to the average woman and if it did, she might not be empowered to take any action.

It is almost impossible to explain the stranglehold of culture on every detail of these people’s lives. This is not about financial aid or education, this is about amending centuries-old attitudes and beliefs. Even if one were to personally disagree with a particular tradition, fear of loss of one’s standing in the family/society can be overpowering. Some live freely in western societies, but follow them home for vacation, see the transformation for conformity’s sake and you might understand.

Can change happen? Sure. Can it happen quickly enough to prevent large numbers of children being left orphans? Probably not.

 

[hasikelee]

Maybe this is a little off topic, but here goes:

My description of these cultural issues surrounding marriage and family life are accurate because of my personal knowledge. Is there abuse that is recognized as such (physical violence, wife burning etc) - definitely. But the average Indian woman for example, would not consider it correct to refuse her husband’s sexual advances, so applying the term rape to this situation is a matter of our perspective - not theirs.

Widespread social and cultural norms dictate that conjugal sex not be withheld even when submitting means risking deadly infections (perhaps just as strongly as our Church holds to the view that condoms may not be used in such situations). The strength of these norms is such that breaching them may not even occur to the average woman and if it did, she might not be empowered to take any action.

It is almost impossible to explain the stranglehold of culture on every detail of these people’s lives. This is not about financial aid or education, this is about amending centuries-old attitudes and beliefs. Even if one were to personally disagree with a particular tradition, fear of loss of one’s standing in the family/society can be overpowering. Some live freely in western societies, but follow them home for vacation, see the transformation for conformity’s sake and you might understand.

Can change happen? Sure. Can it happen quickly enough to prevent large numbers of children being left orphans? Probably not.

IHopefully, as more people learn about the issues occurring globally, we can discover ways to resolve things such as poverty, oppression, equality and disease.

It appears that you still hold a certain desire to force a change of the end result, without ever changing the equation. As can be seen countless times in history, this does not successfully eradicate the targeted issue, nor does it assist the victims in gaining respect, dignity and equality.

I can see that I have come to a complete circle of repeating my same argument, so I will leave you with the last word. Good luck in your studies!