Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > FDA "discovers" that condoms prevent pregnancy and STDs

FDA "discovers" that condoms prevent pregnancy and STDs (Page 2)
Thread Tools
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2005, 04:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by Railroader
Here's where I got the 1 in 20:
That means that people got pregnant more than 1 in 20 times over a period of 6 months of condom use. It's actually between 1 in 13 and 1 in 20.
I think its a tough figure you believe in, because people some times forget to put one on, some don’t put it on right, I cant see it being a 100% controlled study. I know its not 100% but I find it hard to believe its that high.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Railroader
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2005, 04:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by Athens
I think its a tough figure you believe in, because people some times forget to put one on, some don’t put it on right, I cant see it being a 100% controlled study. I know its not 100% but I find it hard to believe its that high.
I am not going by what I "believe in". I am going by the FDA study the original poster quoted.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2005, 05:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by Athens
I think its a tough figure you believe in, because people some times forget to put one on, some don’t put it on right, I cant see it being a 100% controlled study. I know its not 100% but I find it hard to believe its that high.
Actually, these rates are lower than I've seen. There's a different FDA document that puts the failure rate at 14% for "typical use", which takes into account not being able to put the damn thing on right.

This same study says the pill had a 5% "typical use" failure rate, so between 6 and 8% with the more current study doesn't seem too shabby.

In the old study, the failure rate for people who aren't as mentally challenged is 3% for condoms, 0.5% for the pill.

These last two are the figures I've been hearing for as long as I can remember.
     
Face Ache
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2005, 05:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by Athens
Arr I didn’t mean at the same time I got distracted and didn’t write that clearly. HIV as a example for u then, its a diseases spread via the penis either injecting it with seamen or accepting it though small cuts in the skin or through the urethra track. In the case of heterosexual sex a infected male seamen can infect the woman. You come along and never ever being in contact with another penis, you find yourself having sex with a woman who has come into contact with other penis's and now infected with something, this case aids. You risk getting infected too. But funny thing is you never came into direct contact with a Penis. Clearer for you?
ARE YOU SUGGESTING THERE ARE HETEROSEXUAL SEAMEN?

No such thing. I'm perfectly safe.
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2005, 07:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by Face Ache
ARE YOU SUGGESTING THERE ARE HETEROSEXUAL SEAMEN?

No such thing. I'm perfectly safe.
So u think you can't catch anything from a Woman?
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Face Ache
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2005, 07:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by Athens
So u think you can't catch anything from a Woman?
PENILE CONTACT. I have never met a woman with a penis, although I understand there are such women out there. Nevertheless PENILE CONTACT with such a woman would be more than careless IMHO. PENISES ARE NOT FOR DUELING!
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2005, 07:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by Face Ache
PENILE CONTACT. I have never met a woman with a penis, although I understand there are such women out there. Nevertheless PENILE CONTACT with such a woman would be more than careless IMHO. PENISES ARE NOT FOR DUELING!
Sigh
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Face Ache
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2005, 07:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by Athens
Sigh
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2005, 07:23 AM
 
The federal drug regulators found that latex condoms are "highly effective" at preventing infection by H.I.V., gonorrhea, chlamydia, trichomoniasis and hepatitis B, largely because all of these diseases are spread through penile contact.
That means your Penis contacting either another penis or ass or vagina not Penis to Penis shesh
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Face Ache
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2005, 07:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by Athens
That means your Penis contacting either another penis...
I'M WITH YOU BROTHER ATHENS! Just keep your penis to yourself...
Originally Posted by Athens
... or ass or vagina not Penis to Penis shesh
Now YOU ARE CONTRADICTING YourSElF. ALSO WHAT IS A PENIS SHESH? AN Uncircumstanced Penis? BECAUSE I'M NOT TOUCHING THAT EITHER!

I suspect you have a gay agenda.
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2005, 07:45 AM
 
Haha ok your just joking around, your not serious, your funny. And if your serious God help you.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Face Ache
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2005, 07:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by Athens
Haha ok your just joking around, your not serious, your funny. And if your serious God help you.
Actually I had a HIV+ flatmate for five years*.

Took yer time catching on though!







* AND I NEVER TOUCHED HIS PENIS!
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2005, 07:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by Face Ache
Actually I had a HIV+ flatmate for five years*.

Took yer time catching on though!







* AND I NEVER TOUCHED HIS PENIS!
How often did he get sick? Did he live a mostly normal life, is he still kicking around. Do u know how long he had it? Was he on Meds?
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Face Ache
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2005, 08:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by Athens
How often did he get sick? Did he live a mostly normal life, is he still kicking around. Do u know how long he had it? Was he on Meds?
This was over 15 years ago. We had a fridge full of meds, but he never took them seriously and got ill quite a bit. I don't imagine he's still around today. In fact I was just searching for him on the web last week, without luck.
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2005, 08:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by Face Ache
This was over 15 years ago. We had a fridge full of meds, but he never took them seriously and got ill quite a bit. I don't imagine he's still around today. In fact I was just searching for him on the web last week, without luck.
I thought it was more recently, sorry. If it was that long ago I doubt it too.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Face Ache
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2005, 08:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by Athens
I thought it was more recently, sorry. If it was that long ago I doubt it too.
1988 wasn't exactly the dark ages when it comes to AIDS. He was having unprotected anonymous gay sex and got what was coming to him. He was a bloody idiot in that regard.
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2005, 08:20 AM
 
Most of them are still bloody idiots in that regard, they know what it is but are still stupid ****s. And pun intended
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Oisín
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Copenhagen
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2005, 09:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by Athens
Haha ok your just joking around, your not serious, your funny.
At last! Rarely have I seen anyone need to work so hard to be recognised as comical talent. Kudos to you, FA, for sticking with it [no, I said sticking with it, not sticking it to him!].
     
tooki  (op)
Admin Emeritus
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2005, 01:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by Railroader
You knew this part? :

[quote about condom deficiencies]

I was always told by the previous administrations and educators that condoms "prevent STDs and pregnancies". I am glad this study was released. Hopefully people will learn that condoms are not the perfect items planned parenthood and other organizations claim them to be.
Yep, I knew that. I knew that Nonoxynol-9 is an irritant, and thus can increase susceptibility to STDs (gay guys: use condoms without it!), and I know that they're not 100%.

One thing to emphasize: most condom failure is due not to a defective condom but rather from incorrect use.

I went to middle and high school in Europe, their sex ed is a bit more enlightened than the one here in the U.S.... :sigh:

tooki
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2005, 01:19 PM
 
[QUOTE=tooki]
Originally Posted by Railroader
You knew this part? :



Yep, I knew that. I knew that Nonoxynol-9 is an irritant, and thus can increase susceptibility to STDs (gay guys: use condoms without it!), and I know that they're not 100%.

One thing to emphasize: most condom failure is due not to a defective condom but rather from incorrect use.

I went to middle and high school in Europe, their sex ed is a bit more enlightened than the one here in the U.S.... :sigh:

tooki
seems better in education overall... "The Encyclopedic Admin"
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Oisín
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Copenhagen
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2005, 01:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by tooki
I went to middle and high school in Europe, their sex ed is a bit more enlightened than the one here in the U.S.... :sigh:
Depends a lot on where you go. I never had more than one or two lessons of (very bad) sex ed altogether. I suppose you could say sex and sexuality in general are treated less as tabus within our school system than is the case many places in the US, and that there is thus more 'sex ed' spread throughout normal classes here and there, but still: very little to no sex ed for me.
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2005, 10:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by Railroader
No. He. Is. Not.

Show me a single quote where he says condoms are evil, or even the fact that he is against their use.


I question your data. Please supply a link.
Yes he is, period. This administration has consistently stated that abstinence is the preferred method, and has denounced many countries where condom use is mentioned or funded by governments. This administration has also consistently provided funding for abstinence "education," and withheld U. S. funds to countries where abstinence is not the primary focus of sex "education."

The data comes from a book I'm reading, The Way We Really Are (Coming To Grips with America's Changing Families), by Stephanie Coontz, who's a well-known family historian. The figures come from a number of family and youth pregnancy studies, and contain actual numbers, not the same repetitive "We've got to go back to Leave it to Beaver Familys that are under seige" statements made by "family values" people, who are simply reacting to inevitable change. Leave It to Beaver was an etertainment program, and not based on any reality at all, and the simplistic answers provided by these "family values" people don't take into account any of the changes that have occured in society in the last fifty to sixty years.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2005, 10:16 PM
 
Karl, AGAIN, saying abstinence is the best method, is NOT being anti-condom. After all abstinence is the MOST SAFE METHOD, and one that is guaranteed.

He isn't against using condoms like say the Pope is. He isn't fighting AGAINST the use of condoms, but fighting FOR abstinence because it a more effective method. He isn't telling people that are using condoms to stop using condoms. That would be anti-condom.

Just because I tell someone to say, buy a G5 tower over a Mac mini, doesn't suddenly mean I am against Mac minis.
     
Railroader
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2005, 10:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin
Karl, AGAIN, saying abstinence is the best method, is NOT being anti-condom. After all abstinence is the MOST SAFE METHOD, and one that is guaranteed.

He isn't against using condoms like say the Pope is. He isn't fighting AGAINST the use of condoms, but fighting FOR abstinence because it a more effective method. He isn't telling people that are using condoms to stop using condoms. That would be anti-condom.

Just because I tell someone to say, buy a G5 tower over a Mac mini, doesn't suddenly mean I am against Mac minis.
Exactly. My point exactly. But Karl reads into it whatever fits his beliefs. Not the actual truth.
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2005, 10:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin
Karl, AGAIN, saying abstinence is the best method, is NOT being anti-condom. After all abstinence is the MOST SAFE METHOD, and one that is guaranteed.

He isn't against using condoms like say the Pope is. He isn't fighting AGAINST the use of condoms, but fighting FOR abstinence because it a more effective method. He isn't telling people that are using condoms to stop using condoms. That would be anti-condom.

Just because I tell someone to say, buy a G5 tower over a Mac mini, doesn't suddenly mean I am against Mac minis.
Yes, he is fighting against the use of condoms. He consistently sees to it that countries that dispense condoms, even with abstinence education, do not get U. S. funds for their sex education and family planning programs. He wants programs that are abstinence based only, period. His position is that people using condoms need to stop having sex if they are unmarried. He is anti-pre marital sex, period, and if you're engaging in that activity and are using a condom, which you hopefully are, he's saying that you shouldn't be engaging in sex, so his views are that condoms allow people to engage in pre-marital sex. He's against condom use. He has the same simplistic views that Nancy Reagan did twenty years ago; just say no.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2005, 10:46 PM
 
lol. um, OK.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2005, 10:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by KarlG
Yes, he is fighting against the use of condoms. He consistently sees to it that countries that dispense condoms, even with abstinence education, do not get U. S. funds for their sex education and family planning programs. He wants programs that are abstinence based only, period. His position is that people using condoms need to stop having sex if they are unmarried. He is anti-pre marital sex, period, and if you're engaging in that activity and are using a condom, which you hopefully are, he's saying that you shouldn't be engaging in sex, so his views are that condoms allow people to engage in pre-marital sex. He's against condom use. He has the same simplistic views that Nancy Reagan did twenty years ago; just say no.
KarlG did you not read my post at all?

He is anti-premarital sex. That isn't anti-Condom. And he isn't saying you shouldn't engage in sex.

And Tons of married people use condoms.

Your off your rocker.

So you can SAY he is anti-condom all you want.

There just wont be any truth to it.

Just because you are PRO one thing, doesn't mean you are automatically AGAINST another.

It just means you think the thing you approve of has a lower ability to get disease from.

He isn't campaigning to stop people from using condoms like the Catholic church is.

THEY are anti-condom.

There is a difference. I don't expect you to admit it though.

Esp not after you've been trying so hard to spin it that way.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2005, 10:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin
After all abstinence is the MOST SAFE METHOD,
Impossible to dispute.

Originally Posted by Kevin
and one that is guaranteed.
If practiced, the unlikeliness of which is exacerbated by:

Originally Posted by Railroader
...most kids aren't thinking when it comes to sex. They are obsessing and are poorly led.
Which is the rub when it comes to abstinence.

It's qualities as a birth-control method need to be weighed against its unlikeliness of practice.
( Last edited by subego; Nov 12, 2005 at 11:14 PM. )
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2005, 11:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by Railroader
Exactly. My point exactly. But Karl reads into it whatever fits his beliefs. Not the actual truth.
You should know by now, especially with the anti-Bush zealots.

It's not the truth that is important, but how important the accusations are instead.
     
Railroader
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2005, 11:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego
Which is the rub when it comes to abstinence.

It's qualities as a birth-control method need to be weighed against its unlikeliness of practice.
You attributed a quote incorrectly. I was the one who said:
Originally Posted by Railroader
...most kids aren't thinking when it comes to sex. They are obsessing and are poorly led.
And I meant the emphasis on:
Originally Posted by Railroader
...and are poorly led.
That's why the study is important. They need to hear about how the failure rate being so high can affect them. They need to bewell led.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2005, 11:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego
Which is the rub when it comes to abstinence. It's qualities as a birth-control method need to be weighed against its unlikeliness of practice.
Back when they did teach abstinence, when waiting was actually looked up upon, they didn't have such problems. Not saying teens didn't have sex. Some indeed did. But it wasn't the norm. So if they can get the majority to practice it, it will be worth it no?

So it IS possible.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2005, 11:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by Railroader
That's why the study is important. They need to hear about how the failure rate being so high can affect them. They need to bewell led.
INDEED! And promoting sexual behavior by telling teens it's ok to have sex, everyone is doing it... is not leading them well.

And then they wonder why we have so many teen pregnancies.

Being responsible for ones actions also needs to be taught.

But hey, why use a condom when you can just use abortion as a form of birth control?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2005, 11:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by Railroader
You attributed a quote incorrectly.
Oops. Honest mistake. I'll fix it
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2005, 11:31 PM
 
Kevin, did you even read my reply. You are off your rocker. And I would feel the same way if Clinton or a Democrat said the same things Bush does, but you automatically make assumptions that aren't based in fact, just because Bush's name is involved.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 12, 2005, 11:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by KarlG
Kevin, did you even read my reply.
Yes I did. You totally ignored what I said, and basically repeated what you said earlier, with added stuff that was irrelevant to the discussion.
You are off your rocker. And I would feel the same way if Clinton or a Democrat said the same things Bush does,
Yeah, it's easy to say that. But regardless, facts are facts. Bush isn't anti-condom use. He just prefers a better alternative. He isn't telling people to STOP using condoms. He is saying he doesn't think condoms is the answer for the problem they are trying to use it for. He isn't saying condom usage should be stopped. Or that it's against his beliefs to use condoms.
but you automatically make assumptions that aren't based in fact, just because Bush's name is involved.
Huh? What assumptions am I making? I am stating FACTS. You are the one that is assuming just because he prefers ONE way of dealing with something over ANOTHER, that that automatically means he is AGAINST that thing.

Which is absurd.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2005, 12:20 AM
 
Whatever the case, this is the President's current take WRT foreign policy:

"Abstain, Be faithful, and, as appropriate, correct and consistent use of Condoms"

To receive money, a country must promote these things in this order.

Interpret as you like.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2005, 10:28 AM
 
"Oaths of abstinence fail far more often than condoms do." Dr. S. Oswalt, my Human Sexuality prof this past summer. Right on target!

One problem with a lot of "abstinence-based" teaching is that it skirts around some subjects that NEED discussion. For example, is oral sex "sex"? A lot of kids don't think so, since "you can't get pregnant that way." But even though you CAN get all sorts of nasty diseases that way, most abstinence-based curricula don't ever even mention it. What about mutual masturbation? Dangerous if practiced with someone whose HIV status is unknown, but is it "sex"?

Abstinence IS the only 100% sure way to avoid both pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, but it's awfully hard for hormone-driven young people to stick to without a lot of support. And parents who depend on abstinence-only (and other people to teach their kids about sex) are the least likely to provide that support.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
tooki  (op)
Admin Emeritus
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2005, 01:06 PM
 
Here's something else to consider: in Europe, they say that one of the reasons for condom failure is incorrect usage. This shows that it's that much more important to teach correct usage, rather than avoid the subject. If you don't, you end up with kids trying to protect themselves, but then screwing it up because nobody told them how to do it right. (I think it's fair to assume they won't read the fine-print instruction leaflet in the condom box when it comes time.)

But my point with this thread was not to discuss the merits of sex ed. The point was that the study discovered NOTHING new. They could have just asked the Germans (who are very "out" about sex ed) and gotten all the information they needed. We spent money to discover that the wheel is round.

tooki
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2005, 03:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego
Whatever the case, this is the President's current take WRT foreign policy:

"Abstain, Be faithful, and, as appropriate, correct and consistent use of Condoms"

To receive money, a country must promote these things in this order.

Interpret as you like.
I Interpret that is the best plan yet, If people would actually show some self control, and or take responsibilities for their actions we probably wouldn't have this problem in the first place.
Abstinence IS the only 100% sure way to avoid both pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, but it's awfully hard for hormone-driven young people to stick to without a lot of support. And parents who depend on abstinence-only (and other people to teach their kids about sex) are the least likely to provide that support.
It wasn't that "difficult" at one time. It is now esp when we have a society PROMOTING that behavior.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2005, 06:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin
It wasn't that "difficult" at one time. It is now esp when we have a society PROMOTING that behavior.
Okay. I'll bite.

What period are you talking about when you say "at one time"?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2005, 06:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by tooki
The point was that the study discovered NOTHING new. They could have just asked the Germans (who are very "out" about sex ed) and gotten all the information they needed. We spent money to discover that the wheel is round.
Well, if I'm reading the statistics right, it looks like there's been a massive drop in the typical failure rate for condoms.

Maybe I'm jumping to conclusions, but that makes me think people are more educated about how to use them. Either way, the end result was not something I knew or expected.

I would agree though, most of it seems to be a waste.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 13, 2005, 07:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego
Okay. I'll bite.

What period are you talking about when you say "at one time"?
Before the "sexual revolution"

Everyone praised it like it is some great thing! Till AIDS came along.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2005, 02:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin
Before the "sexual revolution"

Everyone praised it like it is some great thing! Till AIDS came along.
I don't think abstinence used to be the message, more of a side note. Get married was the message. You weren't supposed to keep your turgid adolescent desires all bottled up, you were supposed to vent them within the confines of holy matrimony.

Not surprisingly, a more efficacious argument.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2005, 03:15 AM
 
Yes, if everyone just chose one person to have sex with, AIDS would not exist. VD wouldn't either.

Funny how that is.
     
Railroader
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Indy.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2005, 03:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin
Yes, if everyone just chose one person to have sex with, AIDS would not exist. VD wouldn't either.

Funny how that is.
That's crazy talk!
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2005, 03:23 AM
 
Yeah and I am not trying to sound all uppity... I am guilty too.
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2005, 05:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin
Yes, if everyone just chose one person to have sex with, AIDS would not exist. VD wouldn't either.

Funny how that is.
Not true, you still have injection drug users. HIV/Aids isn’t just a sex diseases its a blood diseases and sharing dirty needles is still a very very large problem. A few years ago Injection drug addicts where the largest single group of new HIV infections in Vancouver, second to Natives and 3rd by Gay Man. Last couple years Heterosexual woman have been the number one with Gay men being second and Injection drug users dropping to 3rd
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2005, 08:37 AM
 
Athens, that is now after it was brought in. Would have AIDS even came about if everyone was celibate to one person? Who knows. Very likely it would not have.

Atleast no spread like it has.
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2005, 09:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin
Before the "sexual revolution"

Everyone praised it like it is some great thing! Till AIDS came along.
When was this "sexual revolution?"

You, like many others, like to use these buzzwords to make it easier to focus on mythical times, when in fact there are many factors that cause changes in society, and they are constant and ongoing. Just one of those factors, is the decline in the age of puberty, which certainly affects how adolescents behave and their views of sexuality. Did you know, for instance, that the age of puberty for girls was 16 in 1820, 14 in 1900, thirteen in 1940, and that today it is 12? For boys, the pace of pubertal development and timing is the most important fact in determining the age at which they first have sex; the influence of friends, family, parent, income, and race, is secondary.

There are so many factors involved in development of all kinds, and that includes sexual development, yet it's easier to use simple phrases like "sexual revolution," because one doesn't have to think for themselves, and can use the quick answer provided by "family values" zealots.

There was/is no "sexual revolution." The development of the human condition is an ongoing event, with change coming gradually. Just as we continue to increase our lifespan over time, so it goes with our sexual knowledge.


People need to stop trying to go back to some magical time that didn't exist. The only reason they think it existed is because they were blissfully unaware of what was going on around them. We get bombarded with more information, more quickly, today than we did in the past, due to the emergence of newer, faster technologies, and what's really going on here is that we want to believe times were better in the past, because of the overflow of information today, when in fact they weren't.
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 14, 2005, 10:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin
Athens, that is now after it was brought in. Would have AIDS even came about if everyone was celibate to one person? Who knows. Very likely it would not have.

Atleast no spread like it has.
I could live with a world like this as long as it is Celibate to on Person not Hetrosexual's only club LOL
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:12 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,