condoms make aids worse

2»

Comments

  • :|

    There are no words to describe how utterly feckin' ridiculous this is... :x
    Been to this many PJ shows: Reading 2006 London 2007 Manchester & London 2009 Dublin, Belfast, London, Nijmegen & Berlin 2010 Manchester 1 & Manchester 2 2012...

    ... and I still think Drive-By Truckers are better.
  • Kel VarnsenKel Varnsen Posts: 1,952
    I think regardless of HIV the idea of telling people in Africa not to use birth control is a pretty bad idea. I mean with the level of poverty there is maybe having 10 kids because the Pope said there is no other option isn't such a good idea.

    I think it is funny how the Catholic Church is now totally for people having a ton of kids. I remember back when I was in university I took anthropology and the prof told us that back in the middle ages sometime the church came up with the idea of "no sex before marriage" because they wanted people to have less kids. Since the less screwing going on the less chance there is of people having kids, and if you don't have kids you were supposed to leave all your money to the church (making the church richer). Now they seem to be wanting people to have more kids.
  • haffajappa wrote:
    He probably meant to say that condoms make SEX worse...not AIDS
    what like less pleasurable? :D

    no...they are still preaching abstinence... people are animals, they're gonna fuck... get the point.


    on a side note,
    cute baby by the way!!!!!!


    "they're gonna fuck" my god that was sexxxy!
    Tour with fucking NOFX
  • prytocorduroyprytocorduroy Posts: 4,355
    haffajappa wrote:
    danny72688 wrote:
    I'm well aware that people like to fuck. I love fucking. But it's not worth being diseased or dying over. Also they didn't have HIV to worry about back in Ancient Green and Rome. A lot of the promiscuous activity was between men, so there was no need for a condom. Abstinence-only is a good idea, but doesn't work.

    I'm just saying that if fucking safely wasn't an option, more people probably would choose not to have sex (or choose partners wisely) knowing the risks, dangers and consequences.





    And scb, I don't know what else to say that I haven't already said.
    But fucking safely is an option... its not like it isn't an option in Africa... so obviously they still aren't doing it... they're just fucking. because they like to. we like to... humans like to!
    That's just the point the pope is getting at. Since we can be "safe" about it, we are more promiscuous in our sexual activity. I know this based on myself and all my buddies, and anybody I've talked to on the topic. The option of condoms influences my sexual behavior. Nothing wrong at all in my mind. Of course the pope wants there to be no condoms so people will abstain, so he shoots this unclear and misguiding message. Condoms are great and mostly effective.
  • SchokiSchoki Posts: 5,072
    Habemus papam. It´s quite a shame being german an catholic these days. This guy is a shame for the term human. Really considering leaving the catholic club.
  • haffajappahaffajappa British Columbia Posts: 5,955
    Schoki wrote:
    Habemus papam. It´s quite a shame being german an catholic these days. This guy is a shame for the term human. Really considering leaving the catholic club.
    join the chess club...
    still includes pawns, but i hear its much more leisurely ;)
    live pearl jam is best pearl jam
  • vedder_soupvedder_soup Posts: 5,861
    the old guys are just trying to stop people from having sex, because they themselves have never had sex! (except maybe with little boys, but that is a different topic all together...)

    the Catholic heirachy needs to get with the program and see that it is a bit behind the times
    2003 - Sydney x3,
    2006 - Reading Festival,
    2007 - Katowice, London, Nijmegen, Rock Werchter,
    2008 - MSG x2, Hartford, Mansfield x2, Beacon Theater,
    2009 - Melbourne, Sydney,
    2010 - I watched it go to fire!
    2011 - EV Brisbane x3, Newcastle, Sydney x3,
    2012 - Manchester x 2, Amsterdam x2, Prague, Berlin x2, Stockholm, Oslo, Copenhagen,
    2014 - Sydney, EV Sydney x3

    I wave to all my Friends... Yeah!
  • decides2dreamdecides2dream Posts: 14,977
    danny72688 wrote:
    haffajappa wrote:
    danny72688 wrote:
    I'm well aware that people like to fuck. I love fucking. But it's not worth being diseased or dying over. Also they didn't have HIV to worry about back in Ancient Green and Rome. A lot of the promiscuous activity was between men, so there was no need for a condom. Abstinence-only is a good idea, but doesn't work.

    I'm just saying that if fucking safely wasn't an option, more people probably would choose not to have sex (or choose partners wisely) knowing the risks, dangers and consequences.





    And scb, I don't know what else to say that I haven't already said.
    But fucking safely is an option... its not like it isn't an option in Africa... so obviously they still aren't doing it... they're just fucking. because they like to. we like to... humans like to!
    That's just the point the pope is getting at. Since we can be "safe" about it, we are more promiscuous in our sexual activity. I know this based on myself and all my buddies, and anybody I've talked to on the topic. The option of condoms influences my sexual behavior. Nothing wrong at all in my mind. Of course the pope wants there to be no condoms so people will abstain, so he shoots this unclear and misguiding message. Condoms are great and mostly effective.


    and i think that was the *point* a few were making in this thread: where is there any PROOF that we are more promiscuous? people have been fucking around since the beginnings of time. premarital sex, adulterous sex, all kindsa sex....has always existed and probably always will. and people were having all this promiscuous sex with ALL the risks associated, and they STILL were fucking anyway! that's the whole point. people have, can, and will continue to have sex, so why not ENCOURAGE safe sex, since we actually do have that option today?
    Stay with me...
    Let's just breathe...


    I am myself like you somehow


  • haffajappahaffajappa British Columbia Posts: 5,955

    and i think that was the *point* a few were making in this thread: where is there any PROOF that we are more promiscuous? people have been fucking around since the beginnings of time. premarital sex, adulterous sex, all kindsa sex....has always existed and probably always will. and people were having all this promiscuous sex with ALL the risks associated, and they STILL were fucking anyway! that's the whole point. people have, can, and will continue to have sex, so why not ENCOURAGE safe sex, since we actually do have that option today?
    yea exactly... safe sex exists, the only difference between promiscuity now and promiscuity then is that we have the ability to have sex more safely...

    the church doesnt even let you use contraception when you're married... so the issue isn't entirely the promotion of promiscuity... its just teh church being stuck in their ways because of weird rules they made up 'in the name of God' or whatever
    live pearl jam is best pearl jam
  • decides2dreamdecides2dream Posts: 14,977
    haffajappa wrote:

    and i think that was the *point* a few were making in this thread: where is there any PROOF that we are more promiscuous? people have been fucking around since the beginnings of time. premarital sex, adulterous sex, all kindsa sex....has always existed and probably always will. and people were having all this promiscuous sex with ALL the risks associated, and they STILL were fucking anyway! that's the whole point. people have, can, and will continue to have sex, so why not ENCOURAGE safe sex, since we actually do have that option today?
    yea exactly... safe sex exists, the only difference between promiscuity now and promiscuity then is that we have the ability to have sex more safely...

    the church doesnt even let you use contraception when you're married... so the issue isn't entirely the promotion of promiscuity... its just teh church being stuck in their ways because of weird rules they made up 'in the name of God' or whatever



    absolutely. and i know that AIDs didn't exist way back when, but they STILL had STDs, and while many of them aren't so dangerous anymore...back then, they probably were since they didn't have the same treatments as we do today. besides which, the biggest 'worry' of unprotected sex - pregnancy - carried a LOT higher price/stigma and people STILL fucked w/o protection. i mean, helloooooooooo? how many unplanned pregnancies occur EVERY year, even in this country, let alone elsewhere....and we DO have access to BC, so yes.....people will fuck, with and w/o protection, even in the the age of AIDs.


    and yes, it's not just about promiscuity as you say....it's simply about the church still wanting that *control*....saying what is right/wrong....and that we are NOT to be altering/controlling our own reproduction and bodies.
    Stay with me...
    Let's just breathe...


    I am myself like you somehow


  • haffajappahaffajappa British Columbia Posts: 5,955
    haffajappa wrote:

    and i think that was the *point* a few were making in this thread: where is there any PROOF that we are more promiscuous? people have been fucking around since the beginnings of time. premarital sex, adulterous sex, all kindsa sex....has always existed and probably always will. and people were having all this promiscuous sex with ALL the risks associated, and they STILL were fucking anyway! that's the whole point. people have, can, and will continue to have sex, so why not ENCOURAGE safe sex, since we actually do have that option today?
    yea exactly... safe sex exists, the only difference between promiscuity now and promiscuity then is that we have the ability to have sex more safely...

    the church doesnt even let you use contraception when you're married... so the issue isn't entirely the promotion of promiscuity... its just teh church being stuck in their ways because of weird rules they made up 'in the name of God' or whatever



    absolutely. and i know that AIDs didn't exist way back when, but they STILL had STDs, and while many of them aren't so dangerous anymore...back then, they probably were since they didn't have the same treatments as we do today. besides which, the biggest 'worry' of unprotected sex - pregnancy - carried a LOT higher price/stigma and people STILL fucked w/o protection. i mean, helloooooooooo? how many unplanned pregnancies occur EVERY year, even in this country, let alone elsewhere....and we DO have access to BC, so yes.....people will fuck, with and w/o protection, even in the the age of AIDs.


    and yes, it's not just about promiscuity as you say....it's simply about the church still wanting that *control*....saying what is right/wrong....and that we are NOT to be altering/controlling our own reproduction and bodies.
    not to mention that these rules were made in a time where the earths population was a fraction of what it is today... which makes these out of date religious stipulations even more ridiculous. popping out lots of kids made sense when contraception didnt exist, infant mortality and child death was extremely high, and most importantly, when the population of the earth wasn't catastrophic.

    it took the catholic church over 350 years to apologize for condemning Galileo for teaching the sun was the centre of the solar system... they're not exactly the epitome of basing their judgements and accusations on facts - and they're certainly not going to change their narrowminded views for sake of the truth over their 'rules'.
    live pearl jam is best pearl jam
Sign In or Register to comment.