• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Pope was Right About AIDS

Abstinence is 100% effective in preventing sexually transmitted HIV right up until one no longer practices abstinence. Then one had better goddam well use a condom.
 
In certain areas of Africa (according to a story on NPR's The World) mere posession of a condom by a woman, or the discovery of wrappers or packaging in trash, is "proof" of unfaithfullness and can lead to violent abuse or even murder.
The men often work far from the home village, in agriculture or mining, and having a "second woman" near the work-site is very common.
So, the men get infected, and generally refuse to use condoms, and the women cannot urge the men to use condoms..... All deeply enculturated.
Until the Vatican gets it's collective head out of it's medieval rectum and enters the 21st century....
 
Fishstick said:
The solution isn't perfect, therefore nobody should use it.
Click to expand...

If it were that, I'd see your point, as that's the Nirvana Fallacy. But the actual argument is more like "people engage in riskier behaviour with that solution, and as a result they get a higher risk of AIDS contamination."

Now granted, there are a few assumptions in there that can be attacked anyway, but I'd like to see someone actually address those instead of reducing everything to a ridiculous strawman.
 
HansMustermann said:
But less than 100% protection can be a problem, if it's compensated by people engaging in riskier behaviour. If without condom you wouldn't go screw the first prostitute in sight, but with condoms you do, then effectively condoms have increased the risk of contamination.

This is already well documented in other domains.

E.g., people who bought cars with ABS actually end up having more accidents on the average, because they believe it to be better than it actually is, and drive riskier. E.g., closer to the car in front than someone who knows he doesn't have ABS.

E.g., wearing bicycle helmets actually caused people to have more and worse accidents, partially for their own increased recklessness and partially because drivers seem to come on the average a whole 3 inches closer to someone wearing a helmet. You know, oh, he has a helmet, it's not as bad if you accidentally bump your car into him.

There is even a hypothesized Peltzman Effect where each safety measure or regulation is compensated, or sometimes more than compensated, by people acting riskier than without it.

Which is really the core of the Pope's argument.
Click to expand...

I doubt you can expand that easily the Peltzman effect to such behavior done by EVERYBODY such as sex. Sure it might be part of it, but Human *LIKE* sex. That is what i meant that a condom might not protect as 100% as abstinence but is better than NEVER EVER using condom, and is much easier than abstinence. Abstinence is requiring a lot of willpower. Condom usage much less.

Heck there was a time where condom were not as widespread (think sheep skin) and DID not stop people getting illness, that did not stop them screwing around and getting , say, syphilis.

The core of the pope argument fall on its face, because he would have to demonstrate that people would go into abstinence in the absence of condom. and historically it is obviously wrong, we have always been screwing around !
 
Hey, I didn't say that the Pope's idea was a _good_ one. I'm just saying it's worth addressing for what it actually says, as opposed to some convenient mis-representation.
 
And another argument is the following : if condom were making people engaging in riskier behavior, then in the western country we would see as much contamination as , say, in South Africa. It is obviously not so, and still people screw around going to prostitute, one night stand, mistress, or whatever. But the contamination rate is much lower here. So what's the difference ? Condom usage is much , much higher than in African countries. And that can be led directly to a combo of cultural and religious reason. Peltzman effect cannot represent the huge difference between contamination rate in Africa , or wherever, with say, contamination rate of Germany.
 
Except for the fact that you're not seeing an apples to apples comparison. The culture is not quite the same, for a start, and prostitution is a much more regulated affair too.
 
Roboramma said:
According to the OP he's saying more than that: he's saying that abstinence education leads to fewer cases of AIDS than does promoting the use of condoms, at least in Africa.

That, to me at least, is surprising, and I had thought the opposite was true.
Click to expand...


And if it does that is good and I certainly would support funding such programs but not at the exclusion of other ways that also help keep people safe.


The problem with the RCC position is not that they have a preference for a certain method but that they want to entirely stop other methods being used. They actively and aggressively campaign (mainly by lying) to prevent programs offering condoms based on their religious beliefs not health reasons, that abstinence appears to have some success is nothing but a fortunate happenstance in regards to the RCC position.
 
Rapes (per capita) (most recent) by country
# 1 South Africa: 1.19538 per 1,000 people
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita
:rolleyes:

wiki said:
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Main article: Sexual violence in the Democratic Republic of the Congo
In eastern Congo, the prevalence and intensity of rape and other sexual violence is described as the worst in the world.[79] It is estimated that there are as many as 200,000 surviving rape victims living in the Democratic Republic of the Congo today.[40][41] War rape in the Democratic Republic of Congo has frequently been described as a "weapon of war" by commentators. Louise Nzigire, a local social worker, states that “this violence was designed to exterminate the population.” Nzigire observes that rape has been a "cheap, simple weapon for all parties in the war, more easily obtainable than bullets or bombs."

South Africa
Main article: Sexual violence in South Africa
It is estimated that a woman born in South Africa has a greater chance of being raped than learning how to read.[80] One in three of the 4,000 women questioned by the Community of Information, Empowerment and Transparency said they had been raped in the past year.[81] A survey conducted among 1,500 schoolchildren in the Soweto township, a quarter of all the boys interviewed said that 'jackrolling', a term for gang rape, was fun.[81] More than 25% of South African men questioned in a survey admitted to raping someone; of those, nearly half said they had raped more than one person, according to a new study conducted by the Medical Research Council (MRC).[82][83] It is estimated that 500,000 rapes are committed annually in South Africa.[84]
Click to expand...

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/444213
Rape, including child rape, is increasing at shocking rates in South Africa. Sexual violence against children, including the raping of infants, has increased 400% over the past decade (Dempster, 2002). According to a report by BBC news, a female born in South Africa has a greater chance of being raped in her lifetime than learning how to read (Dempster, 2002). When South Africa became a democracy in 1994, there were already 18,801 cases of rape per year, but by 2001 there were 24,892 (Dempster, 2002). Numbers vary by different institutions, but are nevertheless extremely troubling. The Institute of Race Relations found that more than 52,000 rapes were reported in 2000, and 40% of the victims were under age 18 (du Venage, 2002). The University of South Africa reports that 1 million women and children are raped there each year (South Africa: Focus on the Virgin Myth, 2002).

High Profile Baby Rapes
A number of high profile baby rapes since 2001 (including the fact that they required extensive reconstructive surgery to rebuild urinary, genital, abdominal, or tracheal systems) increased the need to address the problem socially and legally. In 2001, a 9-month-old baby was raped by six men, aged between 24 and 66, after the infant had been left unattended by her teenage mother. A 4-year-old girl died after being raped by her father. A 14-month-old girl was raped by her two uncles. In February 2002, an 8-month-old infant was reportedly gang raped by four men. One has been charged (McGreal, 2001). The infant has required extensive reconstructive surgery. The 8-month-old infant's injuries were so extensive, increased attention on prosecution has occurred.
Click to expand...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1703595.stm
It is also trying to dispel a widespread rumour - that having sex with a virgin cures Aids.

Traditional healers, or witchdoctors, are blamed for spreading this idea, and encouraging child rape.

A sociologist, Lisa Vetton, draws a parallel with Europe, when child prostitution was rampant

"At that time venereal disease like Aids today was incurable. If you had gonorrhea or syphilis you were going to die. And exactly the same myth emerged, that sex with a virgin is going to cure you - so it seems like a very old response whenever sex and death are combined. Suddenly women - girls - get attributed with magical healing powers".
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
One thing is for certain, unless attitudes towards women in Africa change, the AIDS problem will persist, whatever kind of sex education is being taught.

I just don't understand how things are the way they are over there. Rape statistics in African countries are apalling. And I've seen so many documentaries and articles about women who WANT to use condoms but the men just refuse, even if the men know they are unfaithful or even frequenting prostitutes. Which of course isn't to say all women are responsible and all men aren't.

I just don't get cultures which treat women so badly, whether we're talking about South Africa or Russia or Saudi Arabia. And obviously, these kinds of attitudes were a lot more prevalent world wide in different time periods. I mean, don't these men have mothers?

Not that it's only men who promote abuse against women. Some of the biggest supporters of female genital mutilation, even the most extreme forms of it, are the mothers who wish to do this to their daughters. It's often the mothers and grandmothers who perform the circumcisions.

I understand think you're better than a woman, thinking that men are superior. I get that. But the HATRED of women, the mass rape in South Africa or the virtual enslavement by the Taliban...I just don't understand where it comes from. I don't agree with it of course, but I *get* it. Hatred of different religions, get that too, though I obviously don't agree. You're doing things to piss off our God, you need to pay. But what have women done as a group which visits such vileness and hatred upon them by their own people, their own families even? Where does this anger against women come from?
 
Last edited:
Schrodinger's Cat said:
I just don't get cultures which treat women so badly, whether we're talking about South Africa or Russia or Saudi Arabia. And obviously, these kinds of attitudes were a lot more prevalent world wide in different time periods. I mean, don't these men have mothers?
Click to expand...

They do. Who do you think teaches them to put the wife in her place?

And who do you think is the most concerned about what would Mrs Abdul think of her if her girl, god forbid, should turn a prostitute for lack of dick. Yep, the girl's mother.

Schrodinger's Cat said:
Not that it's only men who promote abuse against women. Some of the biggest supporters of female genital mutilation, even the most extreme forms of it, are the mothers who wish to do this to their daughters. It's often the mothers and grandmothers who perform the circumcisions.
Click to expand...

Well, then you already know that part.
 
The "effectiveness" of any course of prevention or treatment has a completely different meaning to the doctor (or other authority giving advice), than to the patient.

If you maintain a healthy weight, that is highly effective (around 80%) for avoiding heat disease, even more so for avoiding type 2 diabetes. Pills such as statins for staving off heart disease are somewhat less effective (around 40%). So for you, diet and exercise are far more effective than statins.

A doctor, however, can neither force you to diet and exercise, nor shove pills down your throat daily. The doctor can only tell you to take pills, and/or tell you to lose weight.

Doctors, at least in the U.S., know that if they prescribe pills, about 90% of patients will take them, but if they advise losing weight, only about 5% of patients will successfully do so. So for the doctor, prescribing pills is (90% * 40% =) 36% effective, while prescribing weight loss is (5% * 80% =) 4% effective. Many doctors have stopped bothering to even tell overweight patients to reduce, and who can blame them when giving that advice has such a poor record of effectiveness as a treatment?

Same deal with condoms and abstinence, for preventing AIDS. Obviously, actually practicing abstinence is more effective than actually using condoms. But promoting abstinence is far less effective than promoting condom use, because compliance for the former is even lower than the problematic compliance for the latter.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
HansMustermann said:
They do. Who do you think teaches them to put the wife in her place?
Click to expand...

Well I was more talking about the massive issue with rape and sexual violence aspect of it (as in Marduk's examples) when I said the "Don't these men have mothers," as opposed to treatment of women in the home, which, as you said, can be learned from one's mother as much as one's father, in some cases even more so.


In interviews and her memoirs, Ayaan Ali Hirsi talks about the fact that her father was away much of the time, and he had a less strict attitude towards women. It was her mother and grandmother who raised her, who performed FGM on her, who beat her when she didn't act like a completely submissive woman.
 
Last edited:
Cavemonster said:
Let's just make sure we understand that the Vatican ban on condoms is not based on the view that condom education is ineffective at creating optimal use, but on very bad science and outright lies about condoms.
Click to expand...

I took a look at the Cardinal Trujillo. I think you're right that there was some very bad science going on. I wonder if the Vatican as a whole still supports that stance.
 
Sledge said:
Has anyone ever said that abstinence isn't the most effective method of preventing transmission of an STD?
Click to expand...

If everyone practiced abstinence we could eliminate all human problems and make the world a true Garden of Eden.
 
From what I've been reading, that scientists, including Edward Green, are unanimously pro-condom usage. What a lot of them seem to be saying is that there are good ways to promote condom usage, and bad ways, and in many cases, it's the bad ways that are getting through.

If condom usage is emphasized in areas where condoms are hard to find, or where condom quality is low, this may make things worse. If condoms are wrongly promoted as being safer or more effective than they are, this may also worsen things. If the dangers of sex are not emphasized, especially where the prevalence of AIDS is high, people may be emboldened to have sex more than is safe.

I think there is legitimate scientific controversy on how much emphasis to put on each component (Abstinence, Be Faithful, Condom usage), with people like Green simply being on one far end of the scale, saying the A and B are much more important and effective than the C. I think pretty much all scientists would disagree with the Catholic Church that we should do away with condoms all together.

I'm still looking for info as to how effective condom promotion has been in Africa though. In the least this could influence a person on how much emphasis to put on each component of ABC.
 
Schrodinger's Cat said:
Well I was more talking about the massive issue with rape and sexual violence aspect of it (as in Marduk's examples) when I said the "Don't these men have mothers," as opposed to treatment of women in the home, which, as you said, can be learned from one's mother as much as one's father, in some cases even more so.

In interviews and her memoirs, Ayaan Ali Hirsi talks about the fact that her father was away much of the time, and he had a less strict attitude towards women. It was her mother and grandmother who raised her, who performed FGM on her, who beat her when she didn't act like a completely submissive woman.
Click to expand...

Well, yes, but once someone was basically educated that women are an accessory for his dick and that a woman's whole role and aspiration in life is to provide nookie, is anyone really that surprised that rape also doesn't seem that far off the menu either?

Plus, you don't even have to look much farther than some rural areas in the Balkans to find a lot of women ranging from indifferent to outright dismissive towards another woman's being raped. I'm thinking they didn't exactly instill their offspring with a horror towards doing that either.

Opinions like Ayn Rand's basically that the bitch really wanted it or was inviting it -- ok, not exact words; the exact words are, "If it was rape, it was rape by engraved invitation." -- about a rape scene she described, are actually not particularly uncommon in the part of the world she comes from. And again, not just among men. That's a woman who did that affront to literature and good taste.

Heck, you don't even have to go too far east. Opinions that some other woman just needs a dick if she shows any ambition or complains about anything, or that if she got a promotion it was via horizontal athletics, or whatnot, are still known to pop up in the west too. Or opinions which boil down to: conjugal rape doesn't exist, because when a woman gets married, the Bible says that her husband owns her body and she loses all rights to say no. They're occasionally written by _USA_ bible belt apologists, some of those being even women.

So, yes, those guys have mothers. That's actually a part of the problem :p
 
Pope Ratty's viewpoint on condoms, and those of the church he represents have little to do with morality, relief of human suffering, or even simple family planning; no, these viewpoints have everything to do with a superstitious fear of human sexuality, and a dark-age repression of normal human desires.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom