Secular arguments against condoms

[alice24]

Modern ovulation predictors are extremely accurate. Most people using NFP just don’t use them.

They’re not cheap, for one. They’re not expensive, but they’re not $2 a pop either.

Is it possible that there are more accurate tests availible in the US/in the medical environment? The tests you get here, usually ranging from 15-30 euro for 5 tests, are sometimes difficult to interprete. The sensibility for the concentration of LH they use for the result is often too high, so false positive results occur often and dependent on the exact time a the day you use them. I would be interested if more advanced tracking systems like the fertility monitors are more easy to use…

 

[Pup7]

They’re available over the counter here in the US and they’re by Clearblue. They’re actually quite accurate and really, really easy to use.

 

[ratio1]

If we want ZERO teen pregnancies and STD transmissions, then the abstinence-based programs would actually be the most effective if the teens were 100% compliant vs. 100% compliance with correct contraceptive usage.

That’s correct.
Pregnancy is not a medical illness.

 

[QwertyGirl]

Have you ever known teens, in general, to be 100 percent compliant with anything? 80 percent? How about 50 percent?

They are teenagers. Compliant teenagers is an oxymoron. It is part of being at that stage in life. Wonderful kids, but not compliant.

 

[ratio1]

But are you saying that in a population there will be zero teens who will be compliant?

 

[QwertyGirl]

Of course not. I am saying there will be enough non-compliant teens that “abstience only” educaton will be a bust if you are using only that to attempt to erradicate the problem of teen pregnancies.

 

[ratio1]

Good.
No one here is advocating for abstinence only.
It just needs to be mentioned as a valid and the most efficacious option.

 

[ratio1]

Shall we estimate how compliant teens are?
What do you think?
0.1% or 0.01%?

 

[ratio1]

At 0.1% there will be about 40000 teens in USA who would benefit from a 100% efficacy with 0% toxicities and the cost? 1 second just to mention abstinence and its benefit. No one here is advocating preaching abstinence that takes minutes or hours.

 

[QwertyGirl]

Plenty of people here preach abstinence-only.

 

[Dan123]

I appreciate you taking the time to write all that out. I think your modesty at not being formally trained is misplaced and suspect you could hold your own with many who study these things more officially.

There’s likewise a lot worth responding to but going to take some time and process it first, just wanted to acknowledge your efforts first.

 

[Dan123]

If we want ZERO teen pregnancies and STD transmissions, then the abstinence-based programs would actually be the most effective if the teens were 100% compliant vs. 100% compliance with correct contraceptive usage.

This may be nitpicking but you would still not achieve 0% transmission rates with ‘perfect abstinence’ as many diseases classified as STDs do have other transmission vectors. @Pup7 being a nurse can probably speak more accurately to this but at a minimum herpes can be spread during birthing from mother to child, through breast feeding, or if you’ve ever seen a well-intentioned aunt or other relative feel the need to kiss a baby all over it’s face that’s apparently a not-uncommon transmission vector as well. While sexual contact may be one of the more common transmission methods, especially in children who, lets be honest from a transmission vector standpoint are quite gross, it’s not difficult to spread around with shared toys, cups, etc.

You also hit on one of the key themes of this thread, theoretical maximum efficacy vs realized efficacy. So to claim 0% STD transmission you either need to add ‘through purely sexual means’ or amend abstinence to include perfectly compliant hand washing, sterilization of shared items, caesarean birthing, formula instead of breast milk, etc. All of those making compliance that much less likely.

 

[Pup7]

It just needs to be mentioned as a valid and the most efficacious option.

I’m always amazed at the number of people who seem to think that the state is advocating sex to teenagers and who seem to believe that abstinence is never taught to anyone.

 

[Pup7]

Herpes during birth is actually quite dangerous, and I believe there was a recent case of a baby contracting oral herpes (herpes is herpes, folks - you can get both types in both places and transmit them both ways) by just the vector you mention. Women with an outbreak during labor are generally sectioned as a matter of safety for the infant.

It’s harder to transmit without direct contact with an open lesion, but a person with an outbreak of either variety can transmit it before the lesion erupts (at least, there is some evidence to show that that is the case - I’m not massively into virology).

I’ve never heard of not nursing during an outbreak, though, although if there are lesions on that part of the body (you can get them anywhere) it would certainly not be advised.

Yes, kiddos are massive vectors of germs. There’s a reason a kid going through his or her first year of day care gets every runny nose and respiratory infection that comes up. But in all honesty a bit of dirt isn’t harmful and is actually very helpful.

 

[Pup7]

Of course not. I am saying there will be enough non-compliant teens that “abstience only” educaton will be a bust if you are using only that to attempt to erradicate the problem of teen pregnancies.

I’m way too lazy to look up the numbers, but I do remember reading that the abstinence only campaign pushed during the Bush administration wasn’t as effective as they’d hoped. Was there evidence to support that?

 

[Dan123]

Looked into it more, I had seen the breastfeeding warning but apparently that was an oversimplification. The CDC suggests what you did, as long as there’s no active lesion on the breast it’s fine. If there is then it’s recommended to cease breastfeeding and giving expressed milk until the lesion has gone away. As you said it’s very dangerous and not worth the risk.

Edit: That’s (cease breastfeeding and giving expressed milk) until the lesion has gone away. As written it could also be interpreted as meaning to give expressed milk instead of direct feeding.

 

[Pup7]

Sometimes we make it simpler for folks because to be honest it’s sometimes easier that way. I don’t always agree with that stance because a dumbing down - if you’ll allow the phrase - of anything, especially medicine, is rarely if ever a good idea to me.

 

[ratio1]

Plenty of people here preach abstinence-only.

So in terms of real world effectiveness abstinence only is probably the least effective. Condom only is in between. And Condom plus abstinence is the most effective. Mathematically and logically this must be true. (Ignoring other contraceptive methods to simplify this into a simple situation)

 

[QwertyGirl]

I assume you mean teaching condom use and teaching abstinence , yes? Simultaneous teaching, right?Otherwise, I would have to assume you mean teaching people to be abstient while walking around with condoms on. I have to admit, that made me giggle a bit. Thanks for that!

 

[ratio1]

Good to have made you laugh!
Yes I do mean teaching that try abstinence if you can but always have a condom in the pocket and know how to use it properly.