Speeding HIV’s deadly spread

  • Thread starter Thread starter vern_humphrey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
V

vern_humphrey

Guest
From today’s MSNBC site msnbc.msn.com/id/17407726

Excerpt:
Researchers increasingly agree that curbing such behavior is key to slowing the spread of AIDS in Africa. In a July report, southern African AIDS experts and officials listed “reducing multiple and concurrent partnerships” as their first priority for preventing the spread of HIV in a region where nearly 15 million people are estimated to carry the virus – 38 percent of the world’s total.
But for many Batswana, as citizens of this landlocked desert country of 1.6 million call themselves, it is a strategy that has rarely been taught.
"There has never been equal emphasis on ‘Don’t have many partners,’ " said Serara Selelo-Mogwe, a public health expert and retired nursing professor at the University of Botswana, who recalled stepping past broken bottles and used condoms as she arrived on campus each Monday morning. “If you just say, ‘Use the condom’ . . . we will never see the daylight of the virus leaving us.”
Saying “use the condom” has apparently been a spur to multiple-partner sex, with disasterous results.
 
From today’s MSNBC site msnbc.msn.com/id/17407726

Excerpt:

Saying “use the condom” has apparently been a spur to multiple-partner sex, with disasterous results.
That’s not what is being said it’s If you just say “use the condom” which is not the same implication. The article is clear that the multiple-partner sex was already there, not only that it says:
But the number of sexual partners is not the only factor that increases the risk of AIDS. The most potentially dangerous relationships, researchers say, involve men and women who maintain more than one regular partner for months or years. In these relationships, more intimate, trusting and long-lasting than casual sex, most couples eventually stop using condoms, studies show, allowing easy infiltration by HIV.
Researchers increasingly agree that curbing such behavior is key to slowing the spread of AIDS in Africa.
In other words, it’s failure to use condoms because of the nature of the relationships that spreads the disease.

So, the argument is for abstinence but it’s not saying what you want it to say about condoms.
 
Actually, it DOES say that in the quote you mention, if you look closer.

Human nature inevitably doesn’t fear the regular routine. You can throw all the ‘education’ you want at people, but they are eventually going to believe that they are ‘safe’ with the partner they have been with for months. Let’s face it: sex with a condom is not like driving with a seatbelt. Driving loses NOTHING with the belt on! (and the belt is there any time the car is!) People in a long term sexually active relationship are never going to be 100% reliable about using condoms.

When the condom education makes them feel safe living their ‘normal’ lifestyle they will continue living that way. After a while, they feel safe in their routine and get sloppy with the condom use. Human nature.

If on the other hand, they learn to alter their lifestyle to an inherently safer one (i.e. abstinance, then monogamy), then they never get the false comfort zone.
 
Actually, it DOES say that in the quote you mention, if you look closer. . .
Actually, that’s you reading into the article rather than what the article itself says. I’m not arguing about morality, abstinence, or, even, condom use, much less “human nature”, I’m arguing about what has been said and that’s “If you just say …”

The context (within the article) isn’t casual sex with condoms as being the problem but those specific ‘more intimate’ kinds of relationships (“more at the same time”) as being the major problem because of the eventual failure to use condoms - one could just as easily deduce that people should be less intimate and more casual but use condoms!

Meanwhile, you think sex with consistent condom is problematic because of “human nature” but abstinence isn’t problematic because of “human nature”?
 
Towards the end of article, it says:
The focus on condoms endured even after the arrival of internationally heralded “ABC” programs, named for their prescription of “Abstain, Be Faithful and Condomize.” The middle concept – fidelity – often got lost.
I do think that one of the points of the article is that the simultaneous multiple partner relationships (which apparently are common in Southern Africa, not just Botswana) has played an important role in Botswana’s HIV rate.

Botswana is one of the world’s worst hit countries, with 24 - 38% of the people infected, a negative population growth curve, and a life expectancy reduced to only 34 years.
kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?hint=1&DR_ID=40090
 
The human nature problem is quite different in the two scenarios.
  1. In the condom culture, people hear that they can do what they want as long as they use a condom. In other words, no behavioral modification is asked.
  2. In the abstinance culture, the education is quite different. The education must make clear that promiscuity leads to AIDS, i.e. death. In this model, the daily routine of life does NOT lull the participant into a false sense of security. The daily routine in abstinance. In approach #1, the routine is continued promiscuity.
It’s a subtle, but real difference. IMO human nature lends itself to a discipline of abstinance easier than it does to a routine of promiscuity, but with 100% rigorous use of a condom.

Imperfect analogy: Which is easier, skipping dessert every night, or having 1/8 of one Bon Bon?
 
They don’t need to be taught to use condoms. What they need to be taught is to practice abstinence until marriage and just plain abstinence if they are infected. They also need to be taught to not have multiple partners but to be monogamous.
 
That’s not what is being said it’s If you just say “use the condom” which is not the same implication. The article is clear that the multiple-partner sex was already there, not only that it says:
No, the article makes it clear that this kind of multiple-partner sex is new behavior – not seen in the early days of encouraging condom use.

Condoms are used for illicit sex. That’s their only use. Encouraging the use of condoms – and telling people that’s “safe” sex – encourages illicit sex.

The result here was predictable.
In other words, it’s failure to use condoms because of the nature of the relationships that spreads the disease.
AIDS is not spread by condoms. It’s spread by sexual acts. Giving people condoms and telling them that’s “safe sex” is both a lie (even defenders of condoms at the CDS use the term “safer sex”) and an encouragement to continue the behavior that spreads AIDS.
So, the argument is for abstinence but it’s not saying what you want it to say about condoms.
So you explain why this sudden rise in multiple-partner sexual behavior in a society where the government stressed condom use.
 
No, the article makes it clear that this kind of multiple-partner sex is new behavior – not seen in the early days of encouraging condom use.
A language with “no word for fidelity”, it’s only new behavior because now they use condoms (initially) where once they didn’t - as reading the entire article (page 3 for example) reveals.
Condoms are used for illicit sex. That’s their only use.
Under whose definition of “illicit”? It’s not illegal and it’s not contrary to the (traditional) mores of the society involved. It’s not a judgment that the author of the article puts forward, the article you introduced. My point remains that you can’t deduce what you wish to deduce from the article itself – you need another article. As I said in an earlier reply, one could quite easily deduce that less fidelity is safer behavior than the behavior under discussion because of the greater likelihood of condom use.
Encouraging the use of condoms – and telling people that’s “safe” sex – encourages illicit sex.
The sex may be inadvisable but it’s not “illicit”.
AIDS is not spread by condoms. It’s spread by sexual acts. Giving people condoms and telling them that’s “safe sex” is both a lie (even defenders of condoms at the CDS use the term “safer sex”) and an encouragement to continue the behavior that spreads AIDS.
But that’s not the import of the article you’ve introduced – the author is quite clear that ‘condoms only’ is not a satisfactory policy, not that condom use is the cause of the problem. The argument that it is the problem is yours, not the author’s.
So you explain why this sudden rise in multiple-partner sexual behavior in a society where the government stressed condom use.
It’s not a sudden rise in multiple-partner behavior that the article is talking about, it’s talking about a kind of multiple-partner behavior (the less promiscuous kind) being more dangerous because, after a while, people cease to use condoms.

(Rather like the author) I really don’t want (and haven’t wanted) to argue about your Church’s position on condom use.
 
A language with “no word for fidelity”, it’s only new behavior because now they use condoms (initially) where once they didn’t - as reading the entire article (page 3 for example) reveals.
Not quite – the practices of the past included polygamy, but not free-form multiple sex practices. In fact, some African practices like female circumcision are designed to prevent women from having or seeking multiple partners. The article makes it clear that free-form multiple sex with women as well as men seeking multiple partners is a new thing.

And anyone familiar with sub-Saharan Africa would see that.
Under whose definition of “illicit”? It’s not illegal and it’s not contrary to the (traditional) mores of the society involved. It’s not a judgment that the author of the article puts forward, the article you introduced.
If we take the position that there is no such thing as morality, and no objective standards, you would be right. But that position is wrong. “Illicit” sex includes all sex outside of marrage. It also includes the use of condoms and other birth control devices and drugs inside marriage.

I agree the authors don’t use the term!! They are in a cleft stick – they have done what is politically correct, and it blew up in their faces!
My point remains that you can’t deduce what you wish to deduce from the article itself – you need another article. As I said in an earlier reply, one could quite easily deduce that less fidelity is safer behavior than the behavior under discussion because of the greater likelihood of condom use.
And you could deduce that turtles fly, if you tried hard enough. But here we had a nation with traditional moral controls, extended families, and so on – and that broke down. And a key element to the breakdown was telling people to use condoms (thereby sanctioning illicit sex) and telling people it was “safe sex.”
The sex may be inadvisable but it’s not “illicit”.
Just like saying murder may be inadvisable but it’s not “illicit?”
But that’s not the import of the article you’ve introduced – the author is quite clear that ‘condoms only’ is not a satisfactory policy, not that condom use is the cause of the problem. The argument that it is the problem is yours, not the author’s.
There is no question that the authors don’t want to say condoms are at the root of the problem – but that leaves them with no explanation for the disaster.
It’s not a sudden rise in multiple-partner behavior that the article is talking about, it’s talking about a kind of multiple-partner behavior (the less promiscuous kind) being more dangerous because, after a while, people cease to use condoms.
And that’s new. In traditional Africa, a man might have many wives, but wives did not have many lovers. Nor did a man seek out sex with different women night after night – think about it. A polygamous society is a patriarchial society – women are not free to circulate sexually. And there are few women available, anyway. Most are married.
(Rather like the author) I really don’t want (and haven’t wanted) to argue about your Church’s position on condom use.
Of course not. That’s why you’re here and straining every nerve to say condom use hasn’t contributed to the disaster.😉
 
And anyone familiar with sub-Saharan Africa would see that.
Well, let the reader judge the text.
If we take the position that there is no such thing as morality, and no objective standards, you would be right. But that position is wrong. “Illicit” sex includes all sex outside of marrage. It also includes the use of condoms and other birth control devices and drugs inside marriage.
It’s “illicit” in one particular moral ‘set’ but not in the moral ‘set’ of this particular part of Africa.
I agree the authors don’t use the term!! They are in a cleft stick – they have done what is politically correct, and it blew up in their faces!
No, you’ve blown up in their faces (well, here, anyway) which was not the implication of your op.
And you could deduce that turtles fly, if you tried hard enough. But here we had a nation with traditional moral controls, extended families, and so on – and that broke down. And a key element to the breakdown was telling people to use condoms (thereby sanctioning illicit sex) and telling people it was “safe sex.”
You have read this article all the way through?
Of course not. That’s why you’re here and straining every nerve to say condom use hasn’t contributed to the disaster.😉
Actually, I’ve been attempting to point out that, as far as this particular article is concerned, "you can’t get there from here, you just needed a different article - as your current attitude to the author now indicates - he didn’t do the job for you.
 
Actually, I’ve been attempting to point out that, as far as this particular article is concerned, "you can’t get there from here, you just needed a different article - as your current attitude to the author now indicates - he didn’t do the job for you.
We have an article written with much (name removed by moderator)ut from the True Believers, those with a personal committment to the Politically Correct approach – and they cannot deny that approach failed. Equally, they cannot deny that the “use a condom and have safe sex” did not amout to an official blessing.

And they do not even attempt to deny that it is behavior that has spread the disease so disasterously.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top