i have 4 kids; 1 still born; and 1 aborted child thanks to condoms breaking. they do help if you don't kiss the person. but if you're doing it right; you can't trust condoms.
I was always taught you had to use BC and condoms toegther for it to be 98% effective.
My Girlfriend said to me..."How many guitars do you need?" and I replied...."How many pairs of shoes do you need?" She got really quiet.
i have 4 kids; 1 still born; and 1 aborted child thanks to condoms breaking. they do help if you don't kiss the person. but if you're doing it right; you can't trust condoms.
This is why we need education. When condoms fail six times with the same person, the problem isn't with the condoms.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
i have 4 kids; 1 still born; and 1 aborted child thanks to condoms breaking. they do help if you don't kiss the person. but if you're doing it right; you can't trust condoms.
See, condom education could have helped you
Well, I've always used condoms, except with my long-term GF, just used Coitus Interruptus. I have no kids, but I got some great sex education in high-school.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I got a girl pregnant first time using a condom. If they don't break, the problem still arises when you change them and touch things from one to the other. It only takes a drop depending on how potent you are. It's not as though you're going to run to the bathroom and wash your hands. I could go into details but it'd be gabbly chat material
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Here is proof positive that we need more education regarding condoms. For various medical reasons, I couldn't use the pill, IUD or diaphragm, so I used nothing but condoms for about 25 years. Never had one break, never had one leak, never got pregnant, never got a disease. They work if you know what you're doing, so why not teach kids how to use them?
Exactly.
We had a religious nut come yell at our the students at my school about what she claimed was 'sex education'. Turned out to be a bunch of lying (a few things inparticular that were so wrong they made my friends and I simultaneously turned to eachother with the 'what the hell is she talking about' look on our faces) and an abstinance only sermon.
Some things she told us...
- Condoms NEVER (she emphasized NEVER and said it more than once) work and don't protect you against any diseases or pregnancy.
- 4/5 sexually active kids in our school have contracted chlemydia (sounds like I quoted her incorrectly,.. which I thought at first... but then I went around fact checking and about 30-40 people all heard it too).
etc...
religion needs to stay the fuck out of our school system.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
The use of condoms will prevent STD's most of the time, but they are not 100% guaranteed like abstinence. That's a fact.
Without getting religious here, I do care where our tax dollars go in the aid of African nations. There are studies out there that point out that HIV is actually spreading MORE in those African nations that have the most condom aid.
So if there are facts against it. Why not use a different approach?? Here at home may be a different story, I believe it is up to each individual/family on how to view this issue.
What a pathetic answer to a ridiculous question. What kind of journalist asks this:
"But you would agree that condoms do stop the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Would you say: ‘No, we’re not going to distribute them,’ knowing that?”
The use of condoms will prevent STD's most of the time, but they are not 100% guaranteed like abstinence. That's a fact.
Without getting religious here, I do care where our tax dollars go in the aid of African nations. There are studies out there that point out that HIV is actually spreading MORE in those African nations that have the most condom aid.
So if there are facts against it. Why not use a different approach?? Here at home may be a different story, I believe it is up to each individual/family on how to view this issue.
What a terrible, biased and poorly written article... They state their sources on numbers such as aids deaths, but their main point of condoms don't work that well is backed up by phrases like "According to the latest research".
My whole life
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
What a pathetic answer to a ridiculous question. What kind of journalist asks this:
"But you would agree that condoms do stop the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Would you say: ‘No, we’re not going to distribute them,’ knowing that?”
I was reading in an article recently, I will provide a link shortly, that the majority of condom failures are atributed to three things; the users did not know that the condom's experation date had passed, the condom was too small, or that the condom was too large. People are not educated on the proper use of condoms. They think that you just pick any condom, nilly-willy style, and that's it. They come in all shaped and sizes for a reason. I mean you wouldn't just walk into a store and buy just any shirt or pair of pants without knowing if it's the right size. The same applies to birth control. You wouldn't believe the amount of female friends I have that had no idea that anti-biotics counter the effect of the birth control pill.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
What a pathetic answer to a ridiculous question. What kind of journalist asks this:
"But you would agree that condoms do stop the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Would you say: ‘No, we’re not going to distribute them,’ knowing that?”
That's a political position, not a question.
I was thinking the same thing about the questioning. It was a Hannity style line of questioning.
It is good to see this board come to my side on McCain though after all of the support he has been given here for so long.
"But you would agree that castration does stop the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Would you say: ‘No, we’re not going to force them,’ knowing that?”
Look, the underlying political position behind the question is "how dare you not support something that would slow the spread of STDs..." It's a contention, not a question.
Now, that said, McCain's response is absolutely ridiculous and exposes him as the fraud and opportunist he is.
"But you would agree that castration does stop the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Would you say: ‘No, we’re not going to force them,’ knowing that?”
Look, the underlying political position behind the question is "how dare you not support something that would slow the spread of STDs..." It's a contention, not a question.
Now, that said, McCain's response is absolutely ridiculous and exposes him as the fraud and opportunist he is.
first; the question was not a fair question. the public believes condoms stop aids but the truth is they don't. answering truthfully would have started more problems then having the balls to say "i don't know".
second; the us has been sending condoms to africa since the 70's yet they won't use them.
third; what is the government doing in our bedrooms? africans see people dying around them but don't get the plot.
first; the question was not a fair question. the public believes condoms stop aids but the truth is they don't. answering truthfully would have started more problems then having the balls to say "i don't know".
second; the us has been sending condoms to africa since the 70's yet they won't use them.
third; what is the government doing in our bedrooms? africans see people dying around them but don't get the plot.
Meh...it's pretty stupid to answer a question by asking someone else what your position on it is. It really calls into question where those positions are coming from in the first place. Especially with McCain, who seems to be a headline politician, not a principled one.
A good conservative answers the question by challenging the underlying motives and silly logic. First, as you point out, reject the idea that condoms "stop" AIDS. They don't. They can help slow AIDS from spreading, but so can a lot of things that people wouldn't be willing to support. Secondly, challenge the typical argument that AIDS is a "world" problem. AIDS, for the most part, is a lifestyle problem that affects a severe minority in America. Thirdly, reject the unspoken "obligation" distributing condoms would confer upon Americans who have no interest in buying condoms for people who by and large refuse to use them. Finally, tell the reporter you're about to go have sex with your wife and then chide him for not brining you a condom.
Yes, the question is stupid. But that doesn't justify a stupid response. If I asked you why you don't support 1+2=5, I'd hope you'd smartly tell me why 1+2=3.
Meh...it's pretty stupid to answer a question by asking someone else what your position on it is. It really calls into question where those positions are coming from in the first place. Especially with McCain, who seems to be a headline politician, not a principled one.
A good conservative answers the question by challenging the underlying motives and silly logic. First, as you point out, reject the idea that condoms "stop" AIDS. They don't. They can help slow AIDS from spreading, but so can a lot of things that people wouldn't be willing to support. Secondly, challenge the typical argument that AIDS is a "world" problem. AIDS, for the most part, is a lifestyle problem that affects a severe minority in America. Thirdly, reject the unspoken "obligation" distributing condoms would confer upon Americans who have no interest in buying condoms for people who by and large refuse to use them. Finally, tell the reporter you're about to go have sex with your wife and then chide him for not brining you a condom.
Yes, the question is stupid. But that doesn't justify a stupid response. If I asked you why you don't support 1+2=5, I'd hope you'd smartly tell me why 1+2=3.
i agree with you; but if you asked me a question i wasn't sure of the answer; i'd ask someone who would know or i'd research it. for example; if i ask you:
what is the difference in selenium levels in grain fed meat vs pasture raised meat? you'd have to ask someone or research it.
for a long time i thought condoms would stop aids. until a nurse got body fluids from an aids patient on her forearm. she was put in an office and has to have an hiv test every 6 months for 5 years before she can return to her normal duties. i also learned that you can contract aids by "deep" kissing a patient with an open sore in their mouth.
aids is a world problem but if people won't take responsability for themselves; why should government step in? government was never meant to be our personal health coaches. i want government as far out of my personal life as possible. i would have responded that "that is a question for the CDC."
i agree with you; but if you asked me a question i wasn't sure of the answer; i'd ask someone who would know or i'd research it. for example; if i ask you:
what is the difference in selenium levels in grain fed meat vs pasture raised meat? you'd have to ask someone or research it.
for a long time i thought condoms would stop aids. until a nurse got body fluids from an aids patient on her forearm. she was put in an office and has to have an hiv test every 6 months for 5 years before she can return to her normal duties. i also learned that you can contract aids by "deep" kissing a patient with an open sore in their mouth.
aids is a world problem but if people won't take responsability for themselves; why should government step in? government was never meant to be our personal health coaches. i want government as far out of my personal life as possible. i would have responded that "that is a question for the CDC."
What you would probably NOT say is "Oh sure, I have a position on that, but damned if I know what it is! I've studied it extensively, of course, having been in Congress for 25 years, having voted on the issue in the past, but I've got NO FLIPPIN' IDEA what I think ... you'll have to ask Brian about that."
I mean, honestly .... what a dumbass. I agree the question was no prize-winner, but 25 years in Congress, he's on his second presidential bid, he ought to know how to handle stupid questions from the media by now. This looks to me like he's slipping mentally.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
i agree with you; but if you asked me a question i wasn't sure of the answer; i'd ask someone who would know or i'd research it. for example; if i ask you:
what is the difference in selenium levels in grain fed meat vs pasture raised meat? you'd have to ask someone or research it.
for a long time i thought condoms would stop aids. until a nurse got body fluids from an aids patient on her forearm. she was put in an office and has to have an hiv test every 6 months for 5 years before she can return to her normal duties. i also learned that you can contract aids by "deep" kissing a patient with an open sore in their mouth.
aids is a world problem but if people won't take responsability for themselves; why should government step in? government was never meant to be our personal health coaches. i want government as far out of my personal life as possible. i would have responded that "that is a question for the CDC."
The government isn't forcing you to wear a condom. If you want to have totally unprotected sex that's entirely up to you. Personally, I'll take the added protection of a profilactic than be completely unprotected.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
why should government step in? government was never meant to be our personal health coaches. i want government as far out of my personal life as possible. i would have responded that "that is a question for the CDC."
As long as the government, through our tax dollars and many of the social programs, are paying for the medical expenses of those irresponsible ones that refuse to care of themselves, I believe the government should try and curb the problem in the best manner possible. The problem lies in the government itself and their inefficiencies.
As long as the government, through our tax dollars and many of the social programs, are paying for the medical expenses of those irresponsible ones that refuse to care of themselves, I believe the government should try and curb the problem in the best manner possible.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
The problem lies in the government itself and their inefficiencies.
Yep -- so let's try not to compound the problem by extending their influence or power.
As long as the government, through our tax dollars and many of the social programs, are paying for the medical expenses of those irresponsible ones that refuse to care of themselves, I believe the government should try and curb the problem in the best manner possible. The problem lies in the government itself and their inefficiencies.
I agree with you, but who are the irresponsible ones?
A person can be born with HIV, a person can get HIV the first time they have sex, a person can get HIV from blood transfer (e.g. fights). There are so many ways to get HIV and 33 million people have it.
I don't think this epidemic is entirely an issue of responsibility of the individual. That's like saying that birds should be more responsible with the avian flu virus. Or people who get Norwalk or West Nile virus are irresponsible. Hell, if you've ever had a cold your irresponsible.
It's only ok for people to put the blame entirely on the shoulders of the diseased because it's trasferable sexually.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I agree with you, but who are the irresponsible ones?
In the vast majority of cases, the people who made the lifestyle choices that led to them getting infected, particularly if part of them knew better. In the vast minority of cases wherein hospital negligence or birth comes into play, then the responsibility falls onto the hospital, the parents, and potentially some others.
In the vast majority of cases, the people who made the lifestyle choices that led to them getting infected, particularly if part of them knew better. In the vast minority of cases wherein hospital negligence or birth comes into play, then the responsibility falls onto the hospital, the parents, and potentially some others.
So, for example, San Francisco gay bath houses? Like, before anyone heard of AIDS.
HIV doesn't discriminate against homosexuality or IV drug users. It may seem unlikely but you could be abstinent your whole life, meet a girl, fall in love, get married, have sex and contract HIV. That's just how STDs work.
Take HPV as an example. 70% - 80% of the population come in contact with the virus. Roughly 30% of people have it and most people are asymptomatic, so they have no knowledge they have the virus. Men can only be diagnosed if they are symptomatic, so if they are not, they will probably never know. Women can be diagnosed by pap test, and more screening and now a vaccine is provided to women because it can lead to cervical cancer. But in general, most people will contract the virus at some point, thankfully the human immune system is capable of defeating it.
Would you suggest that anyone that has any STI is irresponsible granted they got it from sexual contact?
Also, it sounds like your saying they knowlingly chose to live a lifestyle that would result in HIV.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I agree with you, but who are the irresponsible ones?
A person can be born with HIV, a person can get HIV the first time they have sex, a person can get HIV from blood transfer (e.g. fights). There are so many ways to get HIV and 33 million people have it.
I don't think this epidemic is entirely an issue of responsibility of the individual. That's like saying that birds should be more responsible with the avian flu virus. Or people who get Norwalk or West Nile virus are irresponsible. Hell, if you've ever had a cold your irresponsible.
It's only ok for people to put the blame entirely on the shoulders of the diseased because it's trasferable sexually.
I agree, the problem is much more complicated than irresponsibility, unlike say, smoking. The fact is gov't needs to spend our resources in assisting in the problem, and as such, should enact ways of curbing the problem.
Yes, two wrongs don't make a right. But we don't have the option of eliminating the first wrong.
I agree, the problem is much more complicated than irresponsibility, unlike say, smoking. The fact is gov't needs to spend our resources in assisting in the problem, and as such, should enact ways of curbing the problem.
Yes, two wrongs don't make a right. But we don't have the option of eliminating the first wrong.
So you think smoking is a result of irresonsibility as well? Would that be the irresonsibility of past generations who made it so readily available for children and failed to outlaw it? Or the tobacco industry for adding 466 toxic additives to make it taste better? Or is it the irresponsibility of the 12 year old child that tries his first smoke? Or the parents who can't keep an eye on their child 24/7? Is it the 47 year old man that has been smoking since he was 12 and is not only addicted to nicotine but all the other additives as well?
I guess what I'm trying to get at is it's everyone's responsibility, as a society, to eliminate harmful substances like nicotine, we shouldn't allow the industry to do what they do, and what they have done. In the past cigarette ad campaigns have been like mind control, I mean the same way McDonald's got so big.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Comments
I was always taught you had to use BC and condoms toegther for it to be 98% effective.
See, condom education could have helped you
Well, I've always used condoms, except with my long-term GF, just used Coitus Interruptus. I have no kids, but I got some great sex education in high-school.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
We had a religious nut come yell at our the students at my school about what she claimed was 'sex education'. Turned out to be a bunch of lying (a few things inparticular that were so wrong they made my friends and I simultaneously turned to eachother with the 'what the hell is she talking about' look on our faces) and an abstinance only sermon.
Some things she told us...
- Condoms NEVER (she emphasized NEVER and said it more than once) work and don't protect you against any diseases or pregnancy.
- 4/5 sexually active kids in our school have contracted chlemydia (sounds like I quoted her incorrectly,.. which I thought at first... but then I went around fact checking and about 30-40 people all heard it too).
etc...
religion needs to stay the fuck out of our school system.
http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
Oh my, they dropped the leash.
Morgan Freeman/Clint Eastwood 08' for President!
"Make our day"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:God-kills-kitten.jpg
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Without getting religious here, I do care where our tax dollars go in the aid of African nations. There are studies out there that point out that HIV is actually spreading MORE in those African nations that have the most condom aid.
http://www.crisismagazine.com/june2006/browder.htm
So if there are facts against it. Why not use a different approach?? Here at home may be a different story, I believe it is up to each individual/family on how to view this issue.
"But you would agree that condoms do stop the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Would you say: ‘No, we’re not going to distribute them,’ knowing that?”
That's a political position, not a question.
What a terrible, biased and poorly written article... They state their sources on numbers such as aids deaths, but their main point of condoms don't work that well is backed up by phrases like "According to the latest research".
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
No, it's a health question.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
I was thinking the same thing about the questioning. It was a Hannity style line of questioning.
It is good to see this board come to my side on McCain though after all of the support he has been given here for so long.
Thanx Frankie!
Is this a health question?
"But you would agree that castration does stop the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Would you say: ‘No, we’re not going to force them,’ knowing that?”
Look, the underlying political position behind the question is "how dare you not support something that would slow the spread of STDs..." It's a contention, not a question.
Now, that said, McCain's response is absolutely ridiculous and exposes him as the fraud and opportunist he is.
first; the question was not a fair question. the public believes condoms stop aids but the truth is they don't. answering truthfully would have started more problems then having the balls to say "i don't know".
second; the us has been sending condoms to africa since the 70's yet they won't use them.
third; what is the government doing in our bedrooms? africans see people dying around them but don't get the plot.
Meh...it's pretty stupid to answer a question by asking someone else what your position on it is. It really calls into question where those positions are coming from in the first place. Especially with McCain, who seems to be a headline politician, not a principled one.
A good conservative answers the question by challenging the underlying motives and silly logic. First, as you point out, reject the idea that condoms "stop" AIDS. They don't. They can help slow AIDS from spreading, but so can a lot of things that people wouldn't be willing to support. Secondly, challenge the typical argument that AIDS is a "world" problem. AIDS, for the most part, is a lifestyle problem that affects a severe minority in America. Thirdly, reject the unspoken "obligation" distributing condoms would confer upon Americans who have no interest in buying condoms for people who by and large refuse to use them. Finally, tell the reporter you're about to go have sex with your wife and then chide him for not brining you a condom.
Yes, the question is stupid. But that doesn't justify a stupid response. If I asked you why you don't support 1+2=5, I'd hope you'd smartly tell me why 1+2=3.
i agree with you; but if you asked me a question i wasn't sure of the answer; i'd ask someone who would know or i'd research it. for example; if i ask you:
what is the difference in selenium levels in grain fed meat vs pasture raised meat? you'd have to ask someone or research it.
for a long time i thought condoms would stop aids. until a nurse got body fluids from an aids patient on her forearm. she was put in an office and has to have an hiv test every 6 months for 5 years before she can return to her normal duties. i also learned that you can contract aids by "deep" kissing a patient with an open sore in their mouth.
aids is a world problem but if people won't take responsability for themselves; why should government step in? government was never meant to be our personal health coaches. i want government as far out of my personal life as possible. i would have responded that "that is a question for the CDC."
I mean, honestly .... what a dumbass. I agree the question was no prize-winner, but 25 years in Congress, he's on his second presidential bid, he ought to know how to handle stupid questions from the media by now. This looks to me like he's slipping mentally.
The government isn't forcing you to wear a condom. If you want to have totally unprotected sex that's entirely up to you. Personally, I'll take the added protection of a profilactic than be completely unprotected.
As long as the government, through our tax dollars and many of the social programs, are paying for the medical expenses of those irresponsible ones that refuse to care of themselves, I believe the government should try and curb the problem in the best manner possible. The problem lies in the government itself and their inefficiencies.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Yep -- so let's try not to compound the problem by extending their influence or power.
I agree with you, but who are the irresponsible ones?
A person can be born with HIV, a person can get HIV the first time they have sex, a person can get HIV from blood transfer (e.g. fights). There are so many ways to get HIV and 33 million people have it.
I don't think this epidemic is entirely an issue of responsibility of the individual. That's like saying that birds should be more responsible with the avian flu virus. Or people who get Norwalk or West Nile virus are irresponsible. Hell, if you've ever had a cold your irresponsible.
It's only ok for people to put the blame entirely on the shoulders of the diseased because it's trasferable sexually.
In the vast majority of cases, the people who made the lifestyle choices that led to them getting infected, particularly if part of them knew better. In the vast minority of cases wherein hospital negligence or birth comes into play, then the responsibility falls onto the hospital, the parents, and potentially some others.
So, for example, San Francisco gay bath houses? Like, before anyone heard of AIDS.
HIV doesn't discriminate against homosexuality or IV drug users. It may seem unlikely but you could be abstinent your whole life, meet a girl, fall in love, get married, have sex and contract HIV. That's just how STDs work.
Take HPV as an example. 70% - 80% of the population come in contact with the virus. Roughly 30% of people have it and most people are asymptomatic, so they have no knowledge they have the virus. Men can only be diagnosed if they are symptomatic, so if they are not, they will probably never know. Women can be diagnosed by pap test, and more screening and now a vaccine is provided to women because it can lead to cervical cancer. But in general, most people will contract the virus at some point, thankfully the human immune system is capable of defeating it.
Would you suggest that anyone that has any STI is irresponsible granted they got it from sexual contact?
Also, it sounds like your saying they knowlingly chose to live a lifestyle that would result in HIV.
I agree, the problem is much more complicated than irresponsibility, unlike say, smoking. The fact is gov't needs to spend our resources in assisting in the problem, and as such, should enact ways of curbing the problem.
Yes, two wrongs don't make a right. But we don't have the option of eliminating the first wrong.
So you think smoking is a result of irresonsibility as well? Would that be the irresonsibility of past generations who made it so readily available for children and failed to outlaw it? Or the tobacco industry for adding 466 toxic additives to make it taste better? Or is it the irresponsibility of the 12 year old child that tries his first smoke? Or the parents who can't keep an eye on their child 24/7? Is it the 47 year old man that has been smoking since he was 12 and is not only addicted to nicotine but all the other additives as well?
I guess what I'm trying to get at is it's everyone's responsibility, as a society, to eliminate harmful substances like nicotine, we shouldn't allow the industry to do what they do, and what they have done. In the past cigarette ad campaigns have been like mind control, I mean the same way McDonald's got so big.