condoms make aids worse

_

danny72688 wrote:

scb wrote:

danny72688 wrote:

Condoms increase promiscuity

Prove it.

Seriously? Humor me for a second and just think with me.


Pretend there is no such thing as a condom or any kind of "barrier", nothing at all to prevent pregnancy or STD transmission. There will never be a "barrier" in the future. The idea of one is inconceivable.


With me?


Now retain the knowledge we have today about pregnancy and STDs.

Would you, or anybody, honestly, hook up for a night, or even have sex within the first month of meeting someone? I sure as fuck would not take the risk.



But now return to what we all know. Condoms exist, so we can more frequently, and carelessly enjoy sex because that barrier will protect us for the most part. Since we have a barrier to keep us from harm, why should anybody think twice about having sex? The risk is still there, but it's far less than if there was no condoms.

I fully understand your line of reasoning, I just think this is a misperception that has been used for too long as an argument against condoms, other contraception (including the Morning After Pill), and abortion. I know you said you disagree with the Pope for using it that way, but perpetuating the misconception upon which his argument was made is not helpful. Meanwhile, the idea that condoms increase promiscuity has still not been substantiated.

Back_Pedal

Organized Religion aggravates me just because of stupid comments like this. Sure, I believe that there's something out there, who knows what, but specifically lying to people and potentially causing many deaths to fit your own religious agenda? Fuck that.

so-much-clearer

danny72688 wrote:

[Would you, or anybody, honestly, hook up for a night, or even have sex within the first month of meeting someone? I sure as fuck would not take the risk.

But now return to what we all know. Condoms exist, so we can more frequently, and carelessly enjoy sex because that barrier will protect us for the most part. Since we have a barrier to keep us from harm, why should anybody think twice about having sex? The risk is still there, but it's far less than if there was no condoms.

This may be a shock to you, but people like to fuck. Ancient Greece and Rome were loads more promiscuous than us and I'll bet they didn't promote condoms back then. Better that people do it "safely", because they will do it. Abstinence-only has never worked for the majority and only people in denial continue to believe it does.

prytocorduroy

So Much Clearer wrote:

danny72688 wrote:

[Would you, or anybody, honestly, hook up for a night, or even have sex within the first month of meeting someone? I sure as fuck would not take the risk.

But now return to what we all know. Condoms exist, so we can more frequently, and carelessly enjoy sex because that barrier will protect us for the most part. Since we have a barrier to keep us from harm, why should anybody think twice about having sex? The risk is still there, but it's far less than if there was no condoms.

This may be a shock to you, but people like to fuck. Ancient Greece and Rome were loads more promiscuous than us and I'll bet they didn't promote condoms back then. Better that people do it "safely", because they will do it. Abstinence-only has never worked for the majority and only people in denial continue to believe it does.

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.

so-much-clearer

HIV is not the only STD, and there was as much promiscuous activity between men and women back then fyi. Just sayin'.

prytocorduroy

So Much Clearer wrote:

HIV is not the only STD, and there was as much promiscuous activity between men and women back then fyi. Just sayin'.

I also am aware of this, just keeping on topic.

haffajappa

decides2dream wrote:

this kinda shit soooo pisses me off. :evil: :evil: :evil:
seriously, even most catholics i am going to guess utilize BC. it's the responsible thing to do, even after marriage! but, fine.....even if you want to preach to YOUR church, condoms are wrong, abstinence is the way to go, etc, etc.......which is utter ridiculousness, but ok.....fine. just DON'T make an assinine public statement to the masses such as this, such MISinformation....and such can cost LIVES. i am not asking religions to give up their core teachings, not at ALL......i am asking at most, some realism, even amongst your 'faithful'...to realize, the bible is not infallible, even if you *believe* you should realize it was written for a particular time, and while sure...the basic tenets can carry on forever......certain things, like 'go forth and multiply'.....just really don't seem like 'god's plan' or desire today......to overrun the world, to bring children into the world you cannot afford.....or simply, to realize humans ARE fallible, make errors....and that yes, condoning BC, including condoms is not the end of civilization, nor religion, as we know it.

/end rant.



the part i bolded...right on!

exactly
i have a problem with mission-type trips in general too, i don't think that religion should be spread like that. if you're going to go to a place to build houses, wells, schools, etc... do it for that reason and not use it as an underlying tool for the spread of your religious dogma...

i feel the same way as you, times are different. especially in an epidemic like this, the pope doing what he did is going to force a giant step back for the people who are trying to combat the situation. and yah, 'go forth and multiply'...that fucking drives me crazy.

haffajappa

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!

and this isn't the first time a pope has gone to Africa and told them not to use condoms...
i understand also why he has done it, if he encouraged the use of condoms he'd be undermining a huge part of what the catholic church believes in... but at the same time, is it really acceptable to allow religious dogma and one church's belief get in the way of an epidemic? so the fact of the matter here is not that the pope has a realistic interest in the wellbeing of this continent, but only a real interest in supporting and spreading the beliefs of his church...

this is one of my biggest problems with religion, especially Christianity. It's never enough to worship your own god and beliefs - which is how it should be... they always think they have to spread it and some even think they have to push it on you.

washedinblack91

ugh........ just.. ugh...

it's bullshit like this that reminds me why i need to become a teacher. i need to teach kids how to be open minded and challenge authority/what they think they know, so maybe a few more people can grow up with open minds and when they see bullshit like this they'd be able to roll their eyes instead of believing it. it's taking me way too long to be a teacher dammit, i need to make sure this kind of thinking stops spreading!
and WHAT the flying fuck was that idiot saying about if your husband with HIV forces to have sex with you?! WHAT?! what is up with people still thinking men can have whatever they want from a woman?! UGH!
dammit i need to have my new world order... there's gonna be sooo many dead people when i'm queen of the world..

PJaddicted

I wonder how many Catholics are actually virgins before marriage? None that I personally know of, except my Mother who was one back in the day before she married my Dad, now she is *living in sin* with her boyfriend! :shock:

Sian-of-the-dead

There are no words to describe how utterly feckin' ridiculous this is... :x

Kel Varnsen

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.

TheDecline13

haffajappa wrote:

ledvedderman wrote:

He probably meant to say that condoms make SEX worse...not AIDS

what like less pleasurable?

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!

prytocorduroy

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.

Schoki

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.

haffajappa

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

vedder_soup

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

decides2dream

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?

haffajappa

decides2dream 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

decides2dream

haffajappa wrote:

decides2dream 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.