[voodoo]

This should be in the pol lounge.

[Cipher13]

undotwa:

Your display of ignorance in this thread is stunning.

Really. It's quite incredible. Your apologistic attitude towards every move the church makes also really makes it clear why the church is so hated among certain groups of people.

You're the epitome of everything that is wrong with our world. I think I've told you that before - though it may have been someone else.

[tintub]

Originally posted by undotwa:
What Africa needs is a complete social overhaul. The problem is the fact that Africa hasn't been properly 'Christianized'.

you are a f*ckhead.

[Meneldil]

Originally posted by undotwa:
Africa needs an overhaul in their society, which is what the Catholic Church is trying to give them, not a band aid solution that doesn't address the core issues. If you don't try to address these issues such as the promiscuous sexual relations of African men and women, the appalling state of health of the Africans etc, you effectively are not trying to build a sustainable Africa.

When is the time to start rebuilding Africa? Now.

Another problem is the fact that there is a lot of genitalia infection in Africa (Most Africans are in an appalling state of health) which when HIV infected fluids are in contact, have quite a high rate of HIV infection.

Okay, so I'll give you that the Catholic Church is against promiscuity and premarital sex, and by acting as an advocate against these practices will help the problem if people listen. However, don't you consider it at all irresponsible to say that condoms don't work? What if they cause some people who's minds they have failed to change on the sex issue to not bother with condoms (since they often cost money) when they next have sex? The fact is, it's a LIE. There are years of research and innumerable studies on this. You could argue that the number most scientists cite is high, but even a 1% reduction in your chances of contracting HIV will save some people.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by undotwa:
The Catholic Church is one of the most active organisations in Africa providing aid.

Christian organizations are. But not the Catholic Church... not by a long shot.

Originally posted by undotwa:
Africa needs an overhaul in their society, which is what the Catholic Church is trying to give them, not a band aid solution that doesn't address the core issues. If you don't try to address these issues such as the promiscuous sexual relations of African men and women, the appalling state of health of the Africans etc, you effectively are not trying to build a sustainable Africa.

When is the time to start rebuilding Africa? Now.

Another problem is the fact that there is a lot of genitalia infection in Africa (Most Africans are in an appalling state of health) which when HIV infected fluids are in contact, have quite a high rate of HIV infection.

It's western intervention that's caused ALL OF THE PROBLEMS:

Famine/Drought/Poverty
Africa has very extreme weather. Unlike most of the western world. To survive, animals travel with the food. For people to survive, they follow the animals. African tribes are naturally nomadic. They tend to orient towards particular places, there are places where they return again and again... but tend to be nomadic.

Western culture KILLED MILLIONS by creating "countries". Effectively putting entire populations of people into areas that are inhabitable only during certain times.


These tribes often are rivals. They tend to avoid each other. Western culture thought it would be better if some tribes were broken up (based on the country borders), and others were put with rivals.

Yep. Putting two groups that for 1000 years butted heads in the same country, and force them to remain in their "country" (which was really under a western countries rule), or claim it's an "act of war" on another country..

Western culture screwed Africa up.

The best thing that could happen for Africa is to return it to the way it was. Allow it to become nomadic again. Until that happens, people will suffer and die.

Humans can't live in poor conditions, in the most extreme environments on earth.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by undotwa:
Africa needs an overhaul in their society, which is what the Catholic Church is trying to give them, not a band aid solution that doesn't address the core issues. If you don't try to address these issues such as the promiscuous sexual relations of African men and women, the appalling state of health of the Africans etc, you effectively are not trying to build a sustainable Africa.

While I don't agree with the Catholic stance that condoms don't help prevent AIDS, this above IS true.

[Spliffdaddy]

How many times have you had sex?

Let's say a hundred.

It's real easy to have sex a hundred times.

Let's say that condoms are 98% effective in stopping the transmission of AIDS.

If your partner is infected - what are your chances of NOT becoming infected after 100 sexual encounters?

Seems to me that condoms aren't the answer to preventing AIDS.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
How many times have you had sex?

Let's say a hundred.

It's real easy to have sex a hundred times.

Let's say that condoms are 98% effective in stopping the transmission of AIDS.

If your partner is infected - what are your chances of NOT becoming infected after 100 sexual encounters?

Seems to me that condoms aren't the answer to preventing AIDS.

That's an extremely flawed assumption.

1. Not every single person has AIDS. The *best confirmed estimates show aprox 40% with AIDS*, that's "confirmed". That's the highest (really a sickening amount), and are in remote villages (which rarely go outside the village).

You assume every single person has AIDS.

2. You assume each time, your 100% certain to get AIDS without the condom. Research has shown your not guaranteed to get AIDS after coming in contact with an AIDS infected body fluid. People have had sex with an AIDS victim, and not become HIV+. Children have been born to HIV+ parents without getting it. Breastfeeding as well. In fact, there was a 60 minutes (or one of those shows) with some woman charged with child endangerment for breastfeeding with AIDS. She had unprotected sex with her uninfected husband as well... both child and father didn't contract the virus. After repeated tests (takes 6 months after contraction before accurate tests could be done)

There is no known statistic on your odds (I would guess because there's no ethical way to accurately conduct that).


So you actually have much better chances than the condom's success rate. There's that chance that the breakage happens with a non-infected person. Or that it happens with someone infected, and you luck out.

Also keep in mind a condom doesn't have to break 100%. A small tear could allow a small quantity of fluid, less than the exposure during completely unprotected sex... hence altering the odds yet again.

There is no way to calculate the odds percisely. It's much better than 98%, because you have other things going for you. The odds work in your favor if you use a condom.

The only perfect way to prevent AIDS, is to live in a latex bubble and not touch anything. Second best would be to abstain from sex.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by tintub:
you are a f*ckhead.

Why is that so? Because I said something politically incorrect?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by undotwa:
Why is that so? Because I said something politically incorrect?

More than likely. It's politically uncorrected to make any comments about how sexual monogamy should be practiced.

People don't want to hear that if everyone was monogamous that we'd probably not have the STDs that we do have.

There would be no real way for them to spread.

Which makes one question where they came from in the first place.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Christian organizations are. But not the Catholic Church... not by a long shot.


It's western intervention that's caused ALL OF THE PROBLEMS:

Famine/Drought/Poverty
Africa has very extreme weather. Unlike most of the western world. To survive, animals travel with the food. For people to survive, they follow the animals. African tribes are naturally nomadic. They tend to orient towards particular places, there are places where they return again and again... but tend to be nomadic.

Western culture KILLED MILLIONS by creating "countries". Effectively putting entire populations of people into areas that are inhabitable only during certain times.


These tribes often are rivals. They tend to avoid each other. Western culture thought it would be better if some tribes were broken up (based on the country borders), and others were put with rivals.

Yep. Putting two groups that for 1000 years butted heads in the same country, and force them to remain in their "country" (which was really under a western countries rule), or claim it's an "act of war" on another country..

Western culture screwed Africa up.

The best thing that could happen for Africa is to return it to the way it was. Allow it to become nomadic again. Until that happens, people will suffer and die.

Humans can't live in poor conditions, in the most extreme environments on earth.

You have a flawed perception. Granted some areas of Africa are poor soil (for example Ethiopia), but many nations, have the mineral resources (diamond and gold mines and even fertile soil) however government corruption is getting in the way of any economic progress whatsoever. And because of this you disasterous social problems which are products of this.

You say western influence did this to the African people, maybe it did, or maybe it didn't, but I haven't actually ever heard any real hard evidence to show that it actually did. The Gold Coast colonies of West Africa performed better economically and socially under British protection (not saying there wasn't any corruption, but the British leaders were far less corrupt than the African leaders who followed).

1000 years? Where did you get that figure from? The west didn't start to even go into the depths of Africa until say the 16th century.

Africa will never return to being nomadic. There are now far too many people in Africa for a non-cultivated life style to even support the amount of people who live there. African society is in crisis, because of corruption, serious health problems (widespread disease, genitalia infection which is far worse than aids, AIDS etc.), under-developed infrastructure, a generally promiscuous culture amongst a sizeable portion of the population - all contribute to the current problems in Africa. What need is not more band solutions, such as condoms, which provide a false security against infection (AIDS is not the only sexually transmitted disease which is widespread in Africa!!!), not more handouts, which are simply not sustainable and do nothing to develop infrastructure in Africa, rather what we need is an overhaul, of African society, no not to destroy what is currently there, no not undermine their heritage and tribal traditions, no NOT to treat them as inferiors, but to IMPROVE their society, with the help from the Churches which are trying to this, especially the Catholic Church and DEVELOP infrastructure which is something the our governments are failing to take a leading role in.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
While I don't agree with the Catholic stance that condoms don't help prevent AIDS, this above IS true.

You also have to understand that AIDS ARE NOT THE ONLY DEADLY SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASES WHICH ARE IN AFRICA (however it is probably the only thing which affects western society because of it affects our gay commmunities - thus why it is given priority over all the other diseases present in Africa, even the ones more numerous, and maybe more dangerous).

The Catholic Church does not believe condoms on individual cases don't lesson the likelihood of getting AIDS. The article is by the Guardian, and they are a very anti-Catholic newspaper which are likely distort whatever any Catholic spokesman saids.

However what the Catholic Church DOES believe is that condoms only provide a false security and promotes promiscuity (which is why the Catholic Church believes contraception is an evil) which then increase the likelihood of contracting sexually transmitted diseases (whatever the figures say about condoms, it is well accepted that condoms ARE NOT 100% safe, and the chances of you contracting sexual diseases are exactly proportional to how much sleeping around you do).

[undotwa]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
That's an extremely flawed assumption.

1. Not every single person has AIDS. The *best confirmed estimates show aprox 40% with AIDS*, that's "confirmed". That's the highest (really a sickening amount), and are in remote villages (which rarely go outside the village).

You assume every single person has AIDS.

2. You assume each time, your 100% certain to get AIDS without the condom. Research has shown your not guaranteed to get AIDS after coming in contact with an AIDS infected body fluid. People have had sex with an AIDS victim, and not become HIV+. Children have been born to HIV+ parents without getting it. Breastfeeding as well. In fact, there was a 60 minutes (or one of those shows) with some woman charged with child endangerment for breastfeeding with AIDS. She had unprotected sex with her uninfected husband as well... both child and father didn't contract the virus. After repeated tests (takes 6 months after contraction before accurate tests could be done)

There is no known statistic on your odds (I would guess because there's no ethical way to accurately conduct that).


So you actually have much better chances than the condom's success rate. There's that chance that the breakage happens with a non-infected person. Or that it happens with someone infected, and you luck out.

Also keep in mind a condom doesn't have to break 100%. A small tear could allow a small quantity of fluid, less than the exposure during completely unprotected sex... hence altering the odds yet again.

There is no way to calculate the odds percisely. It's much better than 98%, because you have other things going for you. The odds work in your favor if you use a condom.

The only perfect way to prevent AIDS, is to live in a latex bubble and not touch anything. Second best would be to abstain from sex.

Unfortunately , I'm inclined to agree. Even with 'unprotected' sex, (I'm talking of penile-vaginal sex here, not anal sex which is quite risky since the anus isn't designed for the penis, thus skin breakages often occur providing a high risk scenario for contracting infection), the vagina - because it was designed by nature or God, whoever's story you believe, to do a darn good job of protecting the body from sexually contracted disease.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by Meneldil:
Okay, so I'll give you that the Catholic Church is against promiscuity and premarital sex, and by acting as an advocate against these practices will help the problem if people listen. However, don't you consider it at all irresponsible to say that condoms don't work? What if they cause some people who's minds they have failed to change on the sex issue to not bother with condoms (since they often cost money) when they next have sex? The fact is, it's a LIE. There are years of research and innumerable studies on this. You could argue that the number most scientists cite is high, but even a 1% reduction in your chances of contracting HIV will save some people.

The Catholic Church doesn't say it doesn't lower the chances of protection, but what it is trying to say (It's difficult to say anything if you have the Guardian quoting you) is that it provides a false security from AIDS, which will then increase promiscuity because people feel they are 'protected' (It's the same with teenagers in the united states, 'Don't worry, we're protected' only to find that there really is a 10% chance of pregnancy despite 'the protection', thus teenagers going through traumatic abortion and ruining their lives).

Thus in the end because of the new found 'security' you are back at square one. Teenage pregnancies, at least outside of marriage (people used to get married younger), are only a recent phenomena, made more of a problem because of the false security of the ever more worshipped condom.

[tintub]

Originally posted by undotwa:
Why is that so? Because I said something politically incorrect?

Ooh a personal reply! I am so honoured!

See that everybody? Undotwa replied to ME! PERSONALLY!

[edit: I should have had the courtesy to reply to your post. You are not a f*ckhead because you are politically incorrect. Many people who are politically incorrect are not f*ckheads. You are a f*ckhead because you don't seem to realise that the people dying of AIDS in Africa are real people - sons, fathers, brothers, sisters, mothers... You are condoning LYING to these people, so that rather than have sex and wear a condom, they have sex and don't wear a condom. How about this for a campaign: "wear a condom, and don't get AIDS. don't have sex, and get into heaven." Surely that is more honest than lying and saying "condoms are useless.". What would Jesus do?'

[undotwa]

Originally posted by tintub:
Ooh a personal reply! I am so honoured!

See that everybody? Undotwa replied to ME! PERSONALLY!

[edit: I should have had the courtesy to reply to your post. You are not a f*ckhead because you are politically incorrect. Many people who are politically incorrect are not f*ckheads. You are a f*ckhead because you don't seem to realise that the people dying of AIDS in Africa are real people - sons, fathers, brothers, sisters, mothers... You are condoning LYING to these people, so that rather than have sex and wear a condom, they have sex and don't wear a condom. How about this for a campaign: "wear a condom, and don't get AIDS. don't have sex, and get into heaven." Surely that is more honest than lying and saying "condoms are useless.". What would Jesus do?'

You have not understood at all what I have said.

[nvaughan3]

the level of ignorance in this thread is mind boggling.

the sooner people realize the catholic church is one of the most destructive organizations in the history of the world, the sooner the world can get better.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by nvaughan3:


the sooner people realize the catholic church is one of the most destructive organizations in the history of the world, the sooner the world can get better.

While I am no fan of the Catholic Church, I would say this was a exaggeration.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by nvaughan3:
the level of ignorance in this thread is mind boggling.

the sooner people realize the catholic church is one of the most destructive organizations in the history of the world, the sooner the world can get better.

How so?

[nobitacu]

The catholic church and the pope is a joke the first place.

Ming

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by undotwa:
You have a flawed perception. Granted some areas of Africa are poor soil (for example Ethiopia), but many nations, have the mineral resources (diamond and gold mines and even fertile soil) however government corruption is getting in the way of any economic progress whatsoever. And because of this you disasterous social problems which are products of this.

You say western influence did this to the African people, maybe it did, or maybe it didn't, but I haven't actually ever heard any real hard evidence to show that it actually did. The Gold Coast colonies of West Africa performed better economically and socially under British protection (not saying there wasn't any corruption, but the British leaders were far less corrupt than the African leaders who followed).

1000 years? Where did you get that figure from? The west didn't start to even go into the depths of Africa until say the 16th century.

Africa will never return to being nomadic. There are now far too many people in Africa for a non-cultivated life style to even support the amount of people who live there. African society is in crisis, because of corruption, serious health problems (widespread disease, genitalia infection which is far worse than aids, AIDS etc.), under-developed infrastructure, a generally promiscuous culture amongst a sizeable portion of the population - all contribute to the current problems in Africa. What need is not more band solutions, such as condoms, which provide a false security against infection (AIDS is not the only sexually transmitted disease which is widespread in Africa!!!), not more handouts, which are simply not sustainable and do nothing to develop infrastructure in Africa, rather what we need is an overhaul, of African society, no not to destroy what is currently there, no not undermine their heritage and tribal traditions, no NOT to treat them as inferiors, but to IMPROVE their society, with the help from the Churches which are trying to this, especially the Catholic Church and DEVELOP infrastructure which is something the our governments are failing to take a leading role in.

I'd hate to break it to you. But Africans were around for 1000 years. Just because the western world didn't invade until the 1500-1600's. Doesn't mean they didn't exist (a bit narrow minded eh?)


If you put a bunch of Europians in the wilds of Africa... you can bet most would die quickly... not being able to survive with their social beliefs in a different land. It's not possible to carry western ideals of "country" in a land that isn't designed for it.

Nomadic life isn't wrong, despite western conception... it's actually better for the environment, and avoids wars.

Originally posted by undotwa:
Unfortunately , I'm inclined to agree. Even with 'unprotected' sex, (I'm talking of penile-vaginal sex here, not anal sex which is quite risky since the anus isn't designed for the penis, thus skin breakages often occur providing a high risk scenario for contracting infection), the vagina - because it was designed by nature or God, whoever's story you believe, to do a darn good job of protecting the body from sexually contracted disease.

Anal sex being more risky is a complete myth.

Both involve the same amount of fluid transmission, the difference is just the fluid.

Dispite popular misconception, vaginal fluid is always present during sex, and is equally as potent to transmit an STD as blood.

The skin on the penis suffers tiny tears regardless of the sexual method. Those tiny tears, dispite not bleeding, can allow disease infected fluid to infect the body.

The reason why Anal sex, and AIDS was linked happened back when AIDS was first in the eyes of the CDC, the of the first theories involved anal sex being the culprit (microbes, and infection).

This was discredited when people who weren't homosexuals also got AIDS, apparantly from vaginal sex. Making the CDC believe it could happen from sexual contact.

Then they found blood transfusions... then it became a bloodborne disease.

With proper protection and lubrication, there is no higher risk from anal sex, than vaginal sex. There is no legitimate evidence to prove otherwise. The CDC discredited the anal sex transmission theory almost 2 decades ago.

[Zimphire]

Condoms are more likely to break during anal sex because the anus was not designed for a penis. Of course if you have a prisoner sized anus like the goat guy does, you probably wont have that problem.

[thunderous_funker]

Starving Third World Masses Warned Against Evils Of Contraception

Seriously though, I am consistently sickened by the staggering inhumanity of the fabulously wealthy Medievalists in the Vactican dictating "morality" to anyone, especially the poor and oppressed in Africa.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Condoms are more likely to break during anal sex because the anus was not designed for a penis. Of course if you have a prisoner sized anus like the goat guy does, you probably wont have that problem.

As doctors have been saying for years... that's purely personal.

Anus size varies just as vaginal or penile size. It's the combination that would create the tension necessary or not.

Trying not to get to graphic here, Having sex with a woman with tense vaginal walls, or other constrictions creates a higher chance of skin breakage as well. Virginity being a prime example. But for some women, the way their bodies are, it can happen every time, in some cases, making it so painful, they become afraid of intimate relations.

All activities carry risks. Which are higher or lower, is impossible to tell, unless you can manage to get an accurate representation on true anal size... which obviously isn't a high priority.

No matter what, you drastically reduce your risks with a Condom.


You almost eliminate your risks by abstaining (remember Oral sex still has a risk for transmission).

So they are right, you can still get AIDS (or another disease), but it's not very likely.


If you want to avoid most methods of disease transmission, avoid sexual contact. Want to reduce your risks, wear a condom. Don't care? Have sex with as many people as possible.

[Zimphire]

And not to mention the anus just wasn't meant for that type of "action".

There is no denying that. The vaginal walls expand a lot easier than the anus walls do. Esp in ENTRANCE. Where the anus was meant for a exit.

[khufuu]

Originally posted by nvaughan3:
the level of ignorance in this thread is mind boggling.

the sooner people realize the catholic church is one of the most destructive organizations in the history of the world, the sooner the world can get better.

M$ is an organization that's only been around for 20-30 years and it has almost as many nay-sayers as the Catholic Church which has been around for 1900 years. When you've been around that long, traditions, opinions, mores, etc have changed on you about 6000 times. They're bound to have 'screwed up' no matter what they did.

Today, slavery is an abomination, a century ago it was considered okay. That's only about 100 years. Can you imagine 1900 years?

Note: don't pick apart my numbers I'm just keeping them nice and round for simplicity sake.

Don't get me wrong, I basically agree with you, but hindsight is 20-20. I think that the Catholic church is about 700 years behind the times but I honestly don't think that they could have done any better than they did.

[bracken]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
It's western intervention that's caused ALL OF THE PROBLEMS:

...

Western culture screwed Africa up.

Don't forget to tell your professor about your post to get that extra credit for class. (By the way your daddy says that he just deposited the rent money in your account.)

[bracken]

Originally posted by khufuu:
Today, slavery is an abomination, a century ago it was considered okay. That's only about 100 years.

Try today.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
I'd hate to break it to you. But Africans were around for 1000 years. Just because the western world didn't invade until the 1500-1600's. Doesn't mean they didn't exist (a bit narrow minded eh?)


If you put a bunch of Europians in the wilds of Africa... you can bet most would die quickly... not being able to survive with their social beliefs in a different land. It's not possible to carry western ideals of "country" in a land that isn't designed for it.

Nomadic life isn't wrong, despite western conception... it's actually better for the environment, and avoids wars.


Anal sex being more risky is a complete myth.

Both involve the same amount of fluid transmission, the difference is just the fluid.

Dispite popular misconception, vaginal fluid is always present during sex, and is equally as potent to transmit an STD as blood.

The skin on the penis suffers tiny tears regardless of the sexual method. Those tiny tears, dispite not bleeding, can allow disease infected fluid to infect the body.

The reason why Anal sex, and AIDS was linked happened back when AIDS was first in the eyes of the CDC, the of the first theories involved anal sex being the culprit (microbes, and infection).

This was discredited when people who weren't homosexuals also got AIDS, apparantly from vaginal sex. Making the CDC believe it could happen from sexual contact.

Then they found blood transfusions... then it became a bloodborne disease.

With proper protection and lubrication, there is no higher risk from anal sex, than vaginal sex. There is no legitimate evidence to prove otherwise. The CDC discredited the anal sex transmission theory almost 2 decades ago.

To start, I never argued that Africans didn't exist before Europeans started to invade. Don't put words in my mouth.

It is short sighted to think that returning the nomadic lifestyle to all of Africa. How many Africans are there? I think there are around 800 million. They can't possibly all live off the fruits of the ground without cultivating it. Such a lifestyle is suited smaller groups of people, and extensive knowledge of the land which has been lost except to the bushmen of southern Africa.

Africa needs to be developed, socially and economically. Any less, or doing the opposite is equivalent to murder.

It is not a myth that anal sex is riskier sex than vaginal sex. There is a thinner epidermis on the anus compared to the vagina. The vagina has also built in mechanisms to combat sexually transmitted infection, while the anus doesn't. Because there have been many other sexually transmitted diseases before AIDS, the vagina has evolved over millions of years to be quite resistant, while the anus hasn't. Combined with promiscuous activities which are common to a lot of gays*, and the anal sexual practices, provides a perfect breedings ground for STDs.

Not that there is no risk at all for vaginal sex, but a much smaller one compared to anal sex.

* I realise it is a generalisation, I'm just commenting on general trends.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by undotwa:
To start, I never argued that Africans didn't exist before Europeans started to invade. Don't put words in my mouth.

It is short sighted to think that returning the nomadic lifestyle to all of Africa. How many Africans are there? I think there are around 800 million. They can't possibly all live off the fruits of the ground without cultivating it. Such a lifestyle is suited smaller groups of people, and extensive knowledge of the land which has been lost except to the bushmen of southern Africa.

It worked for millions of years.

There are believed to be less Africans around now, then before western intervention.

Africa is full of lush vegitation and wildlife, unlike any other place on earth. The problem is, it makes up for that, with large areas of desert. It's still more resourceful than Europe or the Americas. Hence no need for cultivating.

Cultivating was a technique pioneered by western society to combat overcrowding. Mainly in cities.

There is no need to do it when the population is spread over vast areas. Only when it's consolidated, and long term in one place.

When the food is low in on place, a tribe moves on. The land replentishes. Trees grow new fruit, animals reproduce. Most African tradition (as well as Native American) require them to only kill males for example, and not kill more than so many... so that there is enough for the future.

Africa needs to be developed, socially and economically. Any less, or doing the opposite is equivalent to murder.

You can't reasonably expect millions of people to live in a desert hundreds of miles from any water or food. it's murder. These places are intended to be uninhabitable.

Africas weather causes lands to become dry for years. This is normal for the contininent. When this happens, the people historically just left the area until things went back to normal.

The problem with the "country system" is that they can't leave their country. So they are forced to sit in these situations and just wait it out.


Then you have the problem that western culture just drew lines in thr ground. Forgetting that some of these "countries" contained two rival tribes. And in some cases, broke tribes in half.

This is like America going into Europe, and just drawing new country lines. And forcing Europians to abide by them.

It is not a myth that anal sex is riskier sex than vaginal sex. There is a thinner epidermis on the anus compared to the vagina. The vagina has also built in mechanisms to combat sexually transmitted infection, while the anus doesn't. Because there have been many other sexually transmitted diseases before AIDS, the vagina has evolved over millions of years to be quite resistant, while the anus hasn't. Combined with promiscuous activities which are common to a lot of gays*, and the anal sexual practices, provides a perfect breedings ground for STDs.

Not that there is no risk at all for vaginal sex, but a much smaller one compared to anal sex.

* I realise it is a generalisation, I'm just commenting on general trends.

Your working under the assumption that a 30 year old 15 inch male is having sex with an 8 year old boy.

An adult couple using proper technique, and lubrication can minimize friction and reduce tearing.

Your also assuming that vaginal sex is the complete inverse. An experienced woman and a small male. Not providing from the fact that it always tears, reagardless of the woman's sexual experience. There is always some sort of rip (same for the male genetalia). They learned this in the 70's, and has been forced down everyone's throat ever since.

Lastly, the vagina is designed to be receptive of fluids, as it's a reproductive organ. By definition it's going to be receptive of disease carried by reproductive fluids. That is a long dispelled myth that the vagina is resistant to diseases.


AIDS runs a risk whenever fluids come in contact. Regardless of the amount or size, the risk exists. No matter what the sexual contact, you run the risk. Doesn't matter if your strait, gay, or something else that I'd rather not know about.


It's even possible (and has happened) to get AIDS from kissing, if both have an open wound in the mouth, it can be transmitted through the saliva. So can several other "STD's".

There's no way to eliminate your risk other than abstain.


But using a condom, and using it properly, is an effective way to drastically reduce your risks.

[Superchicken]

Bigoted Post About Religion 14