God Says Have Unprotected Sex
dr_d
Join Date: 2003-03-28 Member: 14979Members
Join Date: 2003-03-28 Member: 14979Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Moral ideals eat cardinals brain</div> <a href='http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20031015/hl_nm/pope_aids_dc_1' target='_blank'>News link</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->He said governments should force condom makers to put warnings similar to those on cigarette packages, announcing "not totally safe" and warned that the only foolproof way to prevent the spread of the virus was monogamy within marriage. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What do you think about preaching abstonence and then encouraging unsafe sex if that fails?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->He said governments should force condom makers to put warnings similar to those on cigarette packages, announcing "not totally safe" and warned that the only foolproof way to prevent the spread of the virus was monogamy within marriage. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What do you think about preaching abstonence and then encouraging unsafe sex if that fails?
Comments
From the Catholic Church's standpoint - condoms are wrong because it stops the whole purpose of the sexual act, to reproduce. They say that sex should not be for pleasure but to create babies, which is why they are opposed to condoms.
...
I've never heard of an abstainer getting preggers or contracting an STD. Where'd you hear this?
:-)
Abstinence is the only 100% effective method of STD prevention and birth control. Abstinence doesn't fail; PEOPLE fail.
Church is saying "Well, condoms aren't 100% effective" which is true. They're also offering a suggesting. "If you really want to stay safe, save sex for marriage." They are NOT saying "Well, if you can't control yourself, don't use a condom either."
Probably why many other Cardinals are distancing themselves from what this guy is saying. The Catholic church needs to acknowledge that sex will happen outside of marriage whether they like it or not. The responsible thing to do would be to encourage people to be as safe as possible. That can't happen since they aren't going to condone birth control.
...
I've never heard of an abstainer getting preggers or contracting an STD. Where'd you hear this?
:-)
Abstinence is the only 100% effective method of STD prevention and birth control. Abstinence doesn't fail; PEOPLE fail.
Church is saying "Well, condoms aren't 100% effective" which is true. They're also offering a suggesting. "If you really want to stay safe, save sex for marriage." They are NOT saying "Well, if you can't control yourself, don't use a condom either." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What I meant was, that upwards of 75% of STDs are contracted by people under the age of 25 and almost all new yearly cases are found among teenagers, so obviously the idea of abstinence, not the fact that it can prevent diseases, fails. You can't just say people fail, when enough people fail there is something inherintly wrong with what they are failing at. Abstinence is an archaic way of dealing with human sexuality, and not only is it proven to be innefective it can be damaging based on how heavily it was pounded into a person's head.
Church is saying "Well, condoms aren't 100% effective" which is true. They're also offering a suggesting. "If you really want to stay safe, save sex for marriage." They are NOT saying "Well, if you can't control yourself, don't use a condom either." <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
What D is saying is that people are incapable of controlling themselves... preaching abstinence doesn't work since people just can't seem to abstain. Which makes sense, since we tend to act on some of our most primal instincts without pausing to think about the consequences. Look at the obesity in this country is and you'll see what little willpower the average person has. Sex and food are pretty much the most primal and basic of instincts, and we can't seem to get enough of either. Given that environment, preaching that condoms = death simply cannot be good.
That is because he assumes none of the partners sleep around, either during or before the marriage. If two people do not have hiv or aids, and only share bodily fluids with one another, they will not get aids. That is his point
That makes sense. By the way, I just stole your car. I'm really sorry, but I just couldn't resist. You see, I needed to get somewhere real fast, and it's obviously part of my primal instincts to satisfy every urge immediately. Besides, statistics say car theft is on the rise. If so many people have weak willpower, why should I bother to excel?
That makes sense. By the way, I just stole your car. I'm really sorry, but I just couldn't resist. You see, I needed to get somewhere real fast, and it's obviously part of my primal instincts to satisfy every urge immediately. Besides, statistics say car theft is on the rise. If so many people have weak willpower, why should I bother to excel? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yah yah, that comparision has been made a million times, cleptomania is considered a disease because most people aren't born with a natural urge to steal. On the other hand most people are born with natural urges towards sex and instead of forcing people to repress these urges you could very easily educate them as how to go about having sex responsibly. The ones who save themselves for marriage are likely to not have these urges overly present in the first place. Like Evis said eating and having sex are the two most primal and presistant urges in humans, try eating just enough to keep yourself alive for a couple of months and see how you fair.
What about sharing needles? Blood/tissue transfusions?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->...only share bodily fluids with one another...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Blood/tissue transfusions? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think you'll find that blood and tissue transfusions are free from HIV and AIDS, because they are taken from people who are free from HIV and AIDS
We all have urges, obvious and non-obvious. But that doesnt mean we should just go with them whenever we feel them (or I'd have known some person who would have been dead today <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> )
Further more I believe human <i>mating</i>(such a crude word) has developed far more than other animals, and isnt just about satisfy one of the most fundamental urges anymore
We all have urges, obvious and non-obvious. But that doesnt mean we should just go with them whenever we feel them (or I'd have known some person who would have been dead today <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> )
Further more I believe human <i>mating</i>(such a crude word) has developed far more than other animals, and isnt just about satisfy one of the most fundamental urges anymore <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually Dolphins and Humans are the only animals that have sex for pleasure, so to be accurate you'd have to say mating evolved to the point of where it isn't just for reproduction anymore.
I think there is another primate species that has sex for pleasure... Bonobos maybe. Bonobos are as close to humans as any other primate.
Yes because we are the only species that have a cost of living, if chimps happened to have to make 30 thousand dollars a year to support offspring they might invent contraception as well.
I think there is another primate species that has sex for pleasure... Bonobos maybe. Bonobos are as close to humans as any other primate. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, actually lots of primates rpeform sexual activities (not just intercourse, but oral and anal sex as well) for pleasure. I'm sure that a little reasearch on my part could turn up a bunch of non-primate examples as well.
Sex is okay with and without a condom, without a condom it carries more risk than with one and much higher chance of getting a female partner pregnant. There's is nothing inherintly wrong with having sex.
What about pre-marital sex, if it's both you and your partners first partner (being each other) and you plan on getting hitched later?
bad Clergy, discouraging use of condoms for sex.
What about pre-marital sex, if it's both you and your partners first partner (being each other) and you plan on getting hitched later?
bad Clergy, discouraging use of condoms for sex. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you love her enough to marry her, you're going to wait to have sex with her, is the Church's take on it. Both protestant and Catholic.
Now this I have a problem with. Sex is an extreamly pleasureable act that can, and often does, represent a very potent way to express one's love for another. Is the only purpose of sex to reproduce? I believe that isn't the case. Sex is also part of expressing our emotions, like kissing or hugging. Couples will have sex for reasons other than reproduction, and what exactly is wrong with that?
Sex certainly isn't harmful (in fact it's beneficial) and it gives people a great high. If god did create humans, why would he not want us to enjoy sexual pleasures? I mean, according to creationists he's the one that gave us this pleasurable experiance.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If you love her enough to marry her, you're going to wait to have sex with her, <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now that's utter BS. If two people love one another, and are responsable adults, why the heck shouldn't they be allowed to have sex. My fiancee and I love each other deeply; we have pledged a lifelong committment to one another. We can't get married yet because we don't have the money to do so. Yet we clearly love each other and want to spend our entire lives together. We decided that we wanted to have sex. So we do. If the church has a problem with that they can go to hell.
Now this I have a problem with. Sex is an extreamly pleasureable act that can, and often does, represent a very potent way to express one's love for another. Is the only purpose of sex to reproduce? I believe that isn't the case. Sex is also part of expressing our emotions, like kissing or hugging. Couples will have sex for reasons other than reproduction, and what exactly is wrong with that?
Sex certainly isn't harmful (in fact it's beneficial) and it gives people a great high. If god did create humans, why would he not want us to enjoy sexual pleasures? I mean, according to creationists he's the one that gave us this pleasurable experiance.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If you love her enough to marry her, you're going to wait to have sex with her, <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now that's utter BS. If two people love one another, and are responsable adults, why the heck shouldn't they be allowed to have sex. My fiancee and I love each other deeply; we have pledged a lifelong committment to one another. We can't get married yet because we don't have the money to do so. Yet we clearly love each other and want to spend our entire lives together. We decided that we wanted to have sex. So we do. If the church has a problem with that they can go to hell. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Once again, it comes down to a case of "God said not too, so dont". How do we know he said that - the Bible tells us. But the Bible is wrong and here's why etc etc etc and we are back at the accuracy and consistency of the Bible.
Sex - its not just for the production of children. It wasnt made fun just to present a challenge to over hormonal teenagers. It was something God gave to humans - specifically married ones. And it was intended to give them something special to share between one another, an extra glue to their relationship if you will.
The idea that promoting abstinence has failed is itself flawed. To say "Well all we have been telling these kids for hundreds of years is to save sex for marriage and they obviously are not listening" is rubbish - tripe. Things have changed recently, and children are now saturated in a "If it feels good, do it" attitude pounded home to them by Hollywood etc. We have sown the wind and we are reapin in the whirlwind baby yeah. (note that last little reference?). It is impossible to promote abstinance in that environment. Promoting abstinence isnt what has failed our children, WE have failed our children.
And I hate the defeatist attitude of "Well the right thing hasn't worked, so lets teach them to just cope with the bad" - just like legalising drugs.
The original statement is a good one - condoms are not 100% safe, so why not give a warning and perhaps a suggestion? And anyway, there is no condom to deal with the emotional damage you can suffer from broken sexual relationships. Average teenage relationship lifespan after sex - four weeks.
As far as the idea of not having sex before marriage some people are inclined to do it and some are not. People have a lot of hormonal activity when they are younger, and being forced into a relationship early (20-24 range) has been shown not to work for people who aren't ready for a commited relationship. Not everyone is the same, and the majority of people aren't ready for serious relationships when they are that young. So the question becomes if you really love someone why can't you say let's get together when we are 28, or 30, because if what you have is true love having other partners before you get married wouldn't be able to shake it, and if it does you have to wonder if you were right in the first place.
So explain to me how unmarried couples have excellent and pleasureable sex? If it's just for married people, surely the pleasure part of sex would only be activated once marriage had taken place.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Things have changed recently, and children are now saturated in a "If it feels good, do it" attitude pounded home to them by Hollywood etc. We have sown the wind and we are reapin in the whirlwind baby yeah. (note that last little reference?). It is impossible to promote abstinance in that environment. Promoting abstinence isnt what has failed our children, WE have failed our children.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What the hell are you on about? Reaping the wirlwind? What, people actually being comfortable with their sexuality? Teenagers not afraid of going to hell because they masterbate? (And yeah, realise that virtually every teenage male WILL do this). Responable people having sex will use contraception; what's the wirlwind here exactly? Preventing STDs? Preventing unwanted children being born to people unable or unready to care for them?
Failed our children?! If I ever have children (which I don't want to but anyway), I will do what my parents did for me: make me comfortable with my sexuality and sexual nature. Not treat sex like some dirty thing that mustn't be spoken of which is exactly what the Church tried to cram down my throat. You know what 12 years of Christian schooling did for me? A sense of profound guilt every time I had an orgasm. I had to bloody well go through councilling before I could feel comfortable with my fiancee! If that is the kind of screwed up teachings that you want to preserve then go ahead! I pity your children, I really do.
Ok, I got a little steamed up there. But as you can see, I feel very strongly about this.
It is our society (In the good ol' U S of A) that is so over-bearing about sex. Because we have let religion shape a great deal of the public policies, Sex Ed (a basic standard that should be required in every school) wasn't taught until recently. And the teacher looked half-embarassed to be teaching it. Our society has made sex a "taboo" subject, where people feel ashamed to be doing it (married or unmarried) and where we don't know the basics. Heck, a Surgeon-General (under Clinton) suggested that "Public schools teach masturbation so that teens are more likely to abstain from sex". She was promptly let go.
but...I know how you feel Ryo. When i'm with my GF...I feel like I shouldn't be enjoying it so much, because of the society I live in.
Personally, I think abstinence is a great thing to teach kids. However, as previously stated in this thread, the natural urge for human beings (like any other organism) is to attempt to reproduce - to have sex (and as early and often as possible, especially in the case of males who have very little physical investment in the creation of a child).
Obviously, as humans we are able to consciously control this urge, and in most cases that's a very good idea. If the Catholic Church believes that sex should only occur for reproductive purposes, that's ok by me - you can choose to agree with and follow that doctrine or not.
But because of that choice, many people do *not* choose to abstain. For these people, it is still a very good idea to prevent unwanted pregnancies, which is why the creation of birth control methods is such a huge industry.
The following is excerpted from an article by Steve Bradshaw in the <i>Guardian</i>, dated October 9th. I don't have a link to the original article. Any emphasis is my own addition; my comments are included in brackets.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The Catholic Church is telling people in countries stricken by Aids not to use condoms because they have <i>tiny holes </i>in them through which the HIV virus can pass - potentially exposing thousands of people to risk.
The church is making the claims across four continents despite a <i>widespread scientific consensus that condoms are impermeable to the HIV virus</i>.
A senior Vatican spokesman backs the claims about permeable condoms, despite assurances by the World Health Organisation that they are untrue.
The church's claims are revealed in a BBC1 Panorama programme, Sex and the Holy City, to be broadcast on Sunday. The president of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for the Family, Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, told the programme: "The Aids virus is roughly 450 times smaller than the spermatozoon. The spermatozoon can easily pass through the 'net' that is formed by the condom.
"These margins of uncertainty... should represent an obligation on the part of the health ministries and all these campaigns to act in the same way as they do with regard to cigarettes, which they state to be a danger."
The WHO has condemned the Vatican's views, saying: "These incorrect statements about condoms and HIV are dangerous when we are facing a global pandemic which has already killed more than 20 million people, and currently affects at least 42 million."
The organisation says "consistent and correct" condom use reduces the risk of HIV infection by 90%. There may be breakage or slippage of condoms - but not, the WHO says, holes through which the virus can pass. [Abstinence is 100% effective, condoms 90% -- but that 10% error is a result a flaw in their usage, NOT in their design.]
Scientific research by a group including the US National Institutes of Health and the WHO found "<i>intact condoms... are essentially impermeable to particles the size of STD pathogens including the smallest sexually transmitted virus</i>... condoms provide a highly effective barrier to transmission of particles of similar size to those of the smallest STD viruses".
The Vatican's Cardinal Trujillo said: "They are wrong about that... this is an easily recognisable fact." [...yet he provides not a particle of evidence in support of this fact.]
The church opposes any kind of contraception because it claims it breaks the link between sex and procreation - a position Pope John Paul II has fought to defend. [A noble goal, but in my opinion the Church does not have the right to destroy the reputation of a product its followers do not - in theory - even use.]
In Kenya - where an estimated 20% of people have the HIV virus - the church condemns condoms for promoting promiscuity and repeats the claim about permeability. The archbishop of Nairobi, Raphael Ndingi Nzeki, said: "Aids... has grown so fast because of the availability of condoms."
Sex and the Holy City includes a Catholic nun advising her HIV-infected choirmaster against using condoms with his wife because "the virus can pass through".
In Lwak, near Lake Victoria, the director of an Aids testing centre says he cannot distribute condoms because of church opposition. Gordon Wambi told the programme: "Some <i>priests have even been saying that condoms are laced with HIV/Aids</i>." [This crosses all kinds of lines; these priests are now blatantly slandering condom companies.]
Panorama found the claims about permeable condoms repeated by Catholics as far apart as Asia and Latin America. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Church is right when it says that condoms don't provide 100% protection. Of course you can always blame incorrect usage when a condom breaks or slips; but mistakes are bound to happen in such stressful situations. If you live in an area where STDs are widespread, such as Africa, it would simply be foolish to entrust your life to a thin latex membrane, even if you're a master of condom usage.
Unfortunately though, the Cardinal didn't get his facts straight, and that makes his otherwise reasonable piece of advice attackable. He probably only heard that a HIV is about ten times smaller than a condom pore and drew hasty conclusions, forgetting that stuff like surface tension can still prevent the virus from passing through the membrane.
Nonetheless, it cannot be denied that abstinence provides better protection against STDs than promiscuous sexual behaviour with condoms.