Bono on O'Reilly ***NOW WITH TRANSCRIPT***

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

40% failure is not sufficient to bank someone's life on - that's worse than Russian Roulette with two bullets in a six shooter.

Where's this 40% stat coming from? If used properly, condoms are good for the high nineties. Now if you don't educate them on how to use them, then it might be lowered.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: PatboyX
this thread seems to suggest that cyclowizard is, in fact, an old member re-emerged.
(it was brought up somewhere else. that is the only reason i state it now.)

ROFL... People keep saying this, but it just ain't so. Even if it were, why would it matter? Personally, I just think it's funny that people actually think that much about it. I moved in a week before classes started and have nothing to do in the meanwhile but watch Olympics and post on here - hence the zillion posts.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
ROFL... People keep saying this, but it just ain't so. Even if it were, why would it matter? Personally, I just think it's funny that people actually think that much about it. I moved in a week before classes started and have nothing to do in the meanwhile but watch Olympics and post on here - hence the zillion posts.

Because it would be disingenous and dishonest. That said, I'm not convinced you're and old poster but some comments have been pretty inconstent with someone who has only been here for a little while.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: maluckey
If an adult dies of AIDS complications after being told that either safe-sex, pior testing and/or abstinece can save their life, I have little pity. They took the gamble, and paid the price.

Your pity doesn't help much, does it? Telling people that condoms will keep them safe from HIV is lying to them, plain and simple. 40% failure is not sufficient to bank someone's life on - that's worse than Russian Roulette with two bullets in a six shooter.

No, actually, 40% failure rate isn't even close for those who HAVE been educated.

I have lived a wild life after my divorce and i have YET to see a condom that i have put on, even when i was drunk, break or slip off.

And the virus cannot penetrate the rubber, if it could, the mosquito would be the worst distributor of aids infection, and it isn't possible.

You cannot measure the chances of getting HIV when a condom is properly used in percents, not even in promille.

Your entire argument speaks FOR safe sex education, not against it.

Honestly, a condom breaks and slips of 4 times out of ten? and you would get infected every time, LOL, no.

No, try reading what I said. It breaks or slips ~11% of the time, according to the source I posted above, for those who are not familiar with their use. I think these Africans fit in that category. It was lowered to 4% for those who were familiar, which still translates to a 35% overall failure rate when you combine it with the lack of protection against AIDS that is also mentioned in that article. Your mosquito theory just isn't accurate, sorry. Learn how the virus is translated, learn something about microscopic mass transfer, then you can argue with the experts. Until then, why waste everyone's time?

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: PatboyX
this thread seems to suggest that cyclowizard is, in fact, an old member re-emerged.
(it was brought up somewhere else. that is the only reason i state it now.)

ROFL... People keep saying this, but it just ain't so. Even if it were, why would it matter? Personally, I just think it's funny that people actually think that much about it. I moved in a week before classes started and have nothing to do in the meanwhile but watch Olympics and post on here - hence the zillion posts.

I guess all fundies are the same, seen one post you seen them all?

Wasn't the last guy muslim though?

Enough with the OT, answer my post, explain it to me, and this time, don't quote anything, just link to it.

I'll accept anything that is not religiously, politically or otherwise influenced, a peer reviewed published study will do the job.

 

[Kibbo]

Regarding the "help those who help themselves" argument.

Many in Africa don't know what causes aids, or what prevents it, or what treats it.

The President of South Africa has stood up and publicly stated that he doesn't beleive that HIV causes aids.

With leadership like this, how can you place responsibility on the people? The education level in Africa (the root cause of many of their problems) is very low. You quote peer-reviewed medical studies, and they don't beleive you, they listen to the rumours they hear on the street.

Some beleive that sex with a virgin will cure aids. A very small minority rapes babies in order to gain the benifits of this "cure."

We can help, both by treating these people and by educating them.
We must help.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: maluckey
If an adult dies of AIDS complications after being told that either safe-sex, pior testing and/or abstinece can save their life, I have little pity. They took the gamble, and paid the price.

Your pity doesn't help much, does it? Telling people that condoms will keep them safe from HIV is lying to them, plain and simple. 40% failure is not sufficient to bank someone's life on - that's worse than Russian Roulette with two bullets in a six shooter.

No, actually, 40% failure rate isn't even close for those who HAVE been educated.

I have lived a wild life after my divorce and i have YET to see a condom that i have put on, even when i was drunk, break or slip off.

And the virus cannot penetrate the rubber, if it could, the mosquito would be the worst distributor of aids infection, and it isn't possible.

You cannot measure the chances of getting HIV when a condom is properly used in percents, not even in promille.

Your entire argument speaks FOR safe sex education, not against it.

Honestly, a condom breaks and slips of 4 times out of ten? and you would get infected every time, LOL, no.

No, try reading what I said. It breaks or slips ~11% of the time, according to the source I posted above, for those who are not familiar with their use. I think these Africans fit in that category. It was lowered to 4% for those who were familiar, which still translates to a 35% overall failure rate when you combine it with the lack of protection against AIDS that is also mentioned in that article. Your mosquito theory just isn't accurate, sorry. Learn how the virus is translated, learn something about microscopic mass transfer, then you can argue with the experts. Until then, why waste everyone's time?

It isn't a theory and your article is an ordered article meant to produce ONE result, it is not a peer reviewed study and cannot be said to be scientific evidence.

I have had sex more than 1000+ with a condom, not ONCE has it slipped off or broken.

The mosquito isn't a theory, it is a fact, imagine this, your skin is much more porous (sp?) than any condom, yeat you could drown your skin in HIV infected blood and you wouldn't stand a chance to get infected.

The mosquito can penetrate your skin, it could not penetrate a condom and the virus couldn't either, that was my point.

the virus can only be transferred by breaks in the skin from female to male, the other way around is different, the sperm acts as a transfer.

How the virus is translated? i assume you mean transfered from individual to individual, it happens from body fluid to blood stream, or from blood to blood, NOT from body fluid to body fluid or even from blood to body fluid.

I am willing to discuss the means of transfer if you bring me someone who knows how it works, you obviously do not.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: Kibbo
Regarding the "help those who help themselves" argument.

Many in Africa don't know what causes aids, or what prevents it, or what treats it.

The President of South Africa has stood up and publicly stated that he doesn't beleive that HIV causes aids.

With leadership like this, how can you place responsibility on the people? The education level in Africa (the root cause of many of their problems) is very low. You quote peer-reviewed medical studies, and they don't beleive you, they listen to the rumours they hear on the street.

Some beleive that sex with a virgin will cure aids. A very small minority rapes babies in order to gain the benifits of this "cure."

We can help, both by treating these people and by educating them.
We must help.

There are also those in Africa who believe that condoms do not help at all, so they won't use them, i guess we have the catholic church to thank for their deaths.

Unfortunantly, the sex with a virgin idea is growing larger, it has to do with catholic ideas too, that sex with a virgin is pure.

God, christianity and it's stupid half-assed ideas doesn't work in real life, just let them live without religion but WITH reality.

 

[imported_hscorpio]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
After you account for slippage/breakage, it works down to 61%. In any case, if we're going to implement changes, why should we go with something that still fails more than 2/3 of the time? Abstinence is hard, but AIDS is harder. I can't condone giving people condoms telling them that they'll save their lives, when they won't.

Actually, if you take into the consideration the chances of getting the disease from someone infected (from sexual intercourse), then WITH the use of condoms you cannot measure how it works/doesn't in percentages, it is hardly measurable in promille.

You are going to preach abstinence to people where the culture of sex is so strong? It doesn't even work in the US, why on earth do you think it would work there?

Chances are, your children will have sex five years earlier than you would like, they won't be wearing condoms because "they offer little protection" and you will be the proud father who destroyed your childrens lifes.

Safe sex IS the most important part to teach, BECAUSE we are all sexual beings.

My feelings exactly.
CycloWizard those numbers you qouted must be from outdated or flawed studies because I took a look through the cdc, nih, and fda websites and they all contradict those numbers and say condoms are highly effective when used consistently and properly..

The study compared the transmission rates for couples who used condoms consistently to those who didn't. Of the 123 couples who consistently used condoms, none of the HIV-free partners became infected during the study, whereas 12 of the 122 partners who didn't consistently use condoms became infected. quoted from FDA

Among participants who reported always using condoms, the summary estimate
of HIV/AIDS incidence from the twelve studies was 0.9 seroconversion per 100
person years. Among those who reported never using condoms, the summary
estimate of HIV/AIDS incidence from the seven studies was 6.7 seroconversions
per 100 person years. Overall, Davis and Weller estimated that condoms
provided an 85% reduction in HIV/AIDS transmission risk when infection rates
were compared in always versus never users.
NIH condom report

Maybe we can make a loose anology to seatbelts; Thousands of people die every year from car accidents, how can we stop this? You say seatbelts don't have a 100% protection rate in a traffic accident. You then say the only true way to prevent automobile deaths from accidents is to simply not use automobiles. Abstinence from driving is the only 100% safe bet. You say not driving is hard but getting in a car crash is harder. So you tell people seatbelts don't work and that they shouldn't drive. Yet you know people will continue to drive, for multiple reasons, and now when they do they won't waste time with seatbelts since you said they don't work. This is how I see your argument.

People are always going to drive. Tell them how to do it safely, and to buckle up.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: PatboyX
this thread seems to suggest that cyclowizard is, in fact, an old member re-emerged.
(it was brought up somewhere else. that is the only reason i state it now.)

ROFL... People keep saying this, but it just ain't so. Even if it were, why would it matter? Personally, I just think it's funny that people actually think that much about it. I moved in a week before classes started and have nothing to do in the meanwhile but watch Olympics and post on here - hence the zillion posts.

I guess all fundies are the same, seen one post you seen them all?

Wasn't the last guy muslim though?

Enough with the OT, answer my post, explain it to me, and this time, don't quote anything, just link to it.

I'll accept anything that is not religiously, politically or otherwise influenced, a peer reviewed published study will do the job.

I already did, but apparently you missed it. Here's an online transcript of the portion I quoted.
http://www.righto.com/theories/condoms1.html

If you honestly don't think that AIDS can pass through rubber, try this:
1. Fill a condom with water.
2. Tie it closed.
3. Weight it.
4. Set it somewhere for a while, then weigh it again.

The condom will have lost weight. The cause of the lost weight is due to the diffusion of water out if microscopic holes in the condom. This is the same mechanism that transmits a virus or other STD through a condom, only the rate of diffusion is increased during sexual activity to to the applied pressure on the rubber. That's about as simple as I can make it.

The mosquito isn't a theory, it is a fact, imagine this, your skin is much more porous (sp?) than any condom, yeat you could drown your skin in HIV infected blood and you wouldn't stand a chance to get infected.

The mosquito can penetrate your skin, it could not penetrate a condom and the virus couldn't either, that was my point.

If you would like me to explain the difference between an applied stress (in the case of a mosquito) and skin porosity, then I can. If you want me to explain how a mosquito carrying blood with the AIDS virus doesn't pass it on, then I will. However, I will ONLY do these things if you genuinely will listen and base your opinion on what I tell you. From what I've read in your posts so far, I'm not going to waste my time.

If you don't believe the source that I provided, a study conducted by the VA medical association, despite the fact that it has a completely provided methodology and results, then what will you believe? Is the VA medical center a Christian front or something?

Originally posted by: Klixxer
There are also those in Africa who believe that condoms do not help at all, so they won't use them, i guess we have the catholic church to thank for their deaths.

Unfortunantly, the sex with a virgin idea is growing larger, it has to do with catholic ideas too, that sex with a virgin is pure.

God, christianity and it's stupid half-assed ideas doesn't work in real life, just let them live without religion but WITH reality.

This is the single most ignorant thing I've heard in a long time. I'm deeply offended by your ignorance and your attempt to shift blame to the 'stupid half-assed ideas' of Christianity. If you would care to look into anything that you debate on here, you'd realize that nothing you've posted in this thread has been close to fact, and this post is no exception. If you have nothing informed or non-inflammatory to say, kindly keep your mouth shut.

Obviously you are operating under the notion that you have a say in what can and cannot be posted here. I have news for you, you don't!

🙂

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: hscorpio
Maybe we can make a loose anology to seatbelts; Thousands of people die every year from car accidents, how can we stop this? You say seatbelts don't have a 100% protection rate in a traffic accident. You then say the only true way to prevent automobile deaths from accidents is to simply not use automobiles. Abstinence from driving is the only 100% safe bet. You say not driving is hard but getting in a car crash is harder. So you tell people seatbelts don't work and that they shouldn't drive. Yet you know people will continue to drive, for multiple reasons, and now when they do they won't waste time with seatbelts since you said they don't work. This is how I see your argument.

People are always going to drive. Tell them how to do it safely, and to buckle up.

The FDA 'article' you posted was an ad for condoms, not scientific literature. It's put out in "U.S. Food and Drug Administration Consumer Magazine," not a scientific journal, to influence people to use condoms.

Look, I'm not saying that condoms won't slow the spread of AIDS. I'm saying that they won't stop the spread of AIDS. Is it preferrable to go from 69,000 deaths per day (or whatever the stat was) down to 10,000? Sure it is, and no one will argue with that. However, I'm saying that if we're going to stop AIDS, condoms are not the long-term solution. People are not animals that have to engage in sexual activity - we control our own faculties. Given sufficient education, the threat of AIDS is enough to prevent an intelligent person from having sex. I'll read the NIH publication and let you know if that changes my opinion.

[edit]I would also argue against the seatbelt analogy from the standpoint that sex is not meant to accomplish any ends - it is an ends in and of itself. Travel is much more of a necessity than is sex. I can also argue about auto safety, but I'll do that in another thread. 😛

I would also like to add that saying people will have sex because that's what people do is fallacious. It appeals to a complete lack of personal responsibility. Sex is like driving drunk - you'll likely get away with it 99 times out of a hundred, but it only takes one time to kill someone or yourself.[/edit]

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: PatboyX
this thread seems to suggest that cyclowizard is, in fact, an old member re-emerged.
(it was brought up somewhere else. that is the only reason i state it now.)

ROFL... People keep saying this, but it just ain't so. Even if it were, why would it matter? Personally, I just think it's funny that people actually think that much about it. I moved in a week before classes started and have nothing to do in the meanwhile but watch Olympics and post on here - hence the zillion posts.

I guess all fundies are the same, seen one post you seen them all?

Wasn't the last guy muslim though?

Enough with the OT, answer my post, explain it to me, and this time, don't quote anything, just link to it.

I'll accept anything that is not religiously, politically or otherwise influenced, a peer reviewed published study will do the job.

I already did, but apparently you missed it. Here's an online transcript of the portion I quoted.
http://www.righto.com/theories/condoms1.html

If you honestly don't think that AIDS can pass through rubber, try this:
1. Fill a condom with water.
2. Tie it closed.
3. Weight it.
4. Set it somewhere for a while, then weigh it again.

The condom will have lost weight. The cause of the lost weight is due to the diffusion of water out if microscopic holes in the condom. This is the same mechanism that transmits a virus or other STD through a condom, only the rate of diffusion is increased during sexual activity to to the applied pressure on the rubber. That's about as simple as I can make it.

The mosquito isn't a theory, it is a fact, imagine this, your skin is much more porous (sp?) than any condom, yeat you could drown your skin in HIV infected blood and you wouldn't stand a chance to get infected.

The mosquito can penetrate your skin, it could not penetrate a condom and the virus couldn't either, that was my point.

If you would like me to explain the difference between an applied stress (in the case of a mosquito) and skin porosity, then I can. If you want me to explain how a mosquito carrying blood with the AIDS virus doesn't pass it on, then I will. However, I will ONLY do these things if you genuinely will listen and base your opinion on what I tell you. From what I've read in your posts so far, I'm not going to waste my time.

If you don't believe the source that I provided, a study conducted by the VA medical association, despite the fact that it has a completely provided methodology and results, then what will you believe? Is the VA medical center a Christian front or something?

Originally posted by: Klixxer
There are also those in Africa who believe that condoms do not help at all, so they won't use them, i guess we have the catholic church to thank for their deaths.

Unfortunantly, the sex with a virgin idea is growing larger, it has to do with catholic ideas too, that sex with a virgin is pure.

God, christianity and it's stupid half-assed ideas doesn't work in real life, just let them live without religion but WITH reality.

This is the single most ignorant thing I've heard in a long time. I'm deeply offended by your ignorance and your attempt to shift blame to the 'stupid half-assed ideas' of Christianity. If you would care to look into anything that you debate on here, you'd realize that nothing you've posted in this thread has been close to fact, and this post is no exception. If you have nothing informed or non-inflammatory to say, kindly keep your mouth shut.

Obviously you are operating under the notion that you have a say in what can and cannot be posted here. I have news for you, you don't!

🙂

Forget it, you are not worth any effort from me, consider yourself ignored, your links are NOT what i asked for, i didn't ask for a christian doctrine corrected link, i asked for a peer reviewed study.

I don't care what you post here, and obviously you don't care about what you post either, so consider yourself ignored on my part, your info is wortless and i actually consider you as a worthless source of anything but hatred.

 

[imported_hscorpio]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

I would also like to add that saying people will have sex because that's what people do is fallacious. It appeals to a complete lack of personal responsibility. Sex is like driving drunk - you'll likely get away with it 99 times out of a hundred, but it only takes one time to kill someone or yourself.[/edit]

Ok how much of your stance on condoms is about saving people's lives and how much of it is about your personal view of sex? I hope your not using the AIDS epidemic as a means to push your view of sex as sinful.

I agree that multiple partner, unprotected sex is like driving drunk and your bound to get an std eventually. However what about most people who have sex within their relationship? With multiple partners it is very risky, at least condoms can reduce that risk. With one partner you trust it is not very risky and with condoms the risk is miniscule. Either way condoms should be used.

Back to Bono, I'm curious to know what his plan is, because this situation looks very bad. I think our whole little argument about condoms vs abstinence is moot if we cant even educate them that sex with virgins and babies is not going to cure AIDS.

 

[sandorski]

Condoms are the reason why HIV infections have deceased significantly in the First Wotld, not Abstinence.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
I think Bono should pressure certain European countries much more to get help for AIDS instead of trying to put the US & Europe in the same group. Most of Africa's problems resulted from barbaric European colonialism. I think the US should help out some and obviously does, but certain European countries really need to fork over more resources.

eh bull, they've had forever to get over it. all of asia has had colonialism... europe was bombed to shreds.. excuses excuses.. its getting old.

Europe was bombed to shreds and then rebuilt. Many colonies were raped and then left in the gutter.

did we rebuild the millions of dead too?
yes and many still survived. so the arguement is basically still bull.

Forget it, CanOWorms just hates Europe and will always bring up how racist, nazist, discriminating we are or have been (and should forever pay for it).

He never misses a chance in ANY thread, don't feed him.

Sure, someone that is critical of European policies hates Europe :roll:

LoL - Some say if you critical of Israel you are anti-jewish and terrorist lover. I guess it's the same thinking at work here right ?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Klixxer
Forget it, you are not worth any effort from me, consider yourself ignored, your links are NOT what i asked for, i didn't ask for a christian doctrine corrected link, i asked for a peer reviewed study.

I don't care what you post here, and obviously you don't care about what you post either, so consider yourself ignored on my part, your info is wortless and i actually consider you as a worthless source of anything but hatred.

Obviously, the VA hospital is just a Christian front, since it doesn't support your positions.
:beer:

Originally posted by: hscorpio
Ok how much of your stance on condoms is about saving people's lives and how much of it is about your personal view of sex? I hope your not using the AIDS epidemic as a means to push your view of sex as sinful.

I agree that multiple partner, unprotected sex is like driving drunk and your bound to get an std eventually. However what about most people who have sex within their relationship? With multiple partners it is very risky, at least condoms can reduce that risk. With one partner you trust it is not very risky and with condoms the risk is miniscule. Either way condoms should be used.

Back to Bono, I'm curious to know what his plan is, because this situation looks very bad. I think our whole little argument about condoms vs abstinence is moot if we cant even educate them that sex with virgins and babies is not going to cure AIDS.

Name one place where i mentioned the word 'sin.' Oh, that's right, you can't. Why? Because I don't use religious arguments, since they don't hold up in a public forum. Quit putting words in my mouth and read what I wrote. I purported that abstinence is the only way to truly stem the tide on AIDS, and that is my belief. I supported it with well-documented research. You can have sex all you want, Africans can have sex all they want, and it's not going to hurt me personally. However, sex is the primary mode for the transporation of AIDS, with or without condoms. You can get AIDS while wearing a condom, even while used properly. Teaching people that it will protect is essentially lying to them, since it can fail through no fault of their own. That is why I offered the analogy of drunk driving rather than just driving.

If I were using this as a personal soap box to promote abstinence, I wouldn't have said the following:

Look, I'm not saying that condoms won't slow the spread of AIDS. I'm saying that they won't stop the spread of AIDS. Is it preferrable to go from 69,000 deaths per day (or whatever the stat was) down to 10,000? Sure it is, and no one will argue with that. However, I'm saying that if we're going to stop AIDS, condoms are not the long-term solution. People are not animals that have to engage in sexual activity - we control our own faculties. Given sufficient education, the threat of AIDS is enough to prevent an intelligent person from having sex. I'll read the NIH publication and let you know if that changes my opinion.

Condoms slow AIDS down, not stop it.

 

[imported_hscorpio]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Name one place where i mentioned the word 'sin.' Oh, that's right, you can't. Why? Because I don't use religious arguments, since they don't hold up in a public forum. Quit putting words in my mouth and read what I wrote.

Follow your own advice and reread what I wrote. I never stated you used the word sin or were using a religious argument. I asked you if your position was one derived from a personal religious stance that sex is sinful. The reason I asked this is because I thought you were implying so from your statement that sex appeals to a complete lack of personal resposibility and is equivalent to drunk driving. Sorry if it sounded harsh or that I was implying that you don't really care about stoping AIDS and were using the issue as a personal soap box.

I purported that abstinence is the only way to truly stem the tide on AIDS, and that is my belief. I supported it with well-documented research.

Abstinence may be the only 100% way to stop AIDS from spreading sexually but it's a pipe dream that is rarely practiced in the US, let alone a poor, uneducated, country. We can't dismiss condoms if we are going to stem the AIDS tide to where it is no longer an epidimic that takes so many lives. And I linked to well documented research that refuted yours about condom effectiveness. Let me ask you this, if condoms were improved and shown to be 99% effective would you then support them? Would you ever support them?

From the cdc:

Latex condoms, when used consistently and correctly, are highly effective in preventing transmission of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. In addition, correct and consistent use of latex condoms can reduce the risk of other sexually transmitted diseases STDs..

You can't write the cdc off as easily as the fda.

You can have sex all you want, Africans can have sex all they want, and it's not going to hurt me personally. However, sex is the primary mode for the transporation of AIDS, with or without condoms. You can get AIDS while wearing a condom, even while used properly. Teaching people that it will protect is essentially lying to them, since it can fail through no fault of their own. That is why I offered the analogy of drunk driving rather than just driving.

Yes you can get AIDS while wearing a condom properly, you can also get struck by lightning while playing golf (well thats not too great an analogy but you get the point). Its all about managing risks. The nih, cdc, etc. all recommend people to use condoms if they are going to have sex. Teaching people that condoms are not effective is lying to them. We should tell them everything. Tell them that abstinence is the only sure way, AND tell them that if they still want to have sex they NEED to use condoms. We need to get people to think of condoms the same way they think of seatbelts. Everytime you get in a car you buckle up, everytime you have sex you put a condom on. Simple.

Also if we don't do something to stop AIDS and it continues to spread there is a very good chance it can still hurt you personally, you probably have many loved ones and friends.

To up my position read this from the cdc:
The surest way to avoid transmission of sexually transmitted diseases is to abstain from sexual intercourse, or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with a partner who has been tested and you know is uninfected. For persons whose sexual behaviors place them at risk for STDs, correct and consistent use of the male latex condom can reduce the risk of STD transmission. However, no protective method is 100 percent effective, and condom use cannot guarantee absolute protection against any STD.

You can't support that?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: hscorpio
Abstinence may be the only 100% way to stop AIDS from spreading sexually but it's a pipe dream that is rarely practiced in the US, let alone a poor, uneducated, country. We can't dismiss condoms if we are going to stem the AIDS tide to where it is no longer an epidimic that takes so many lives. And I linked to well documented research that refuted yours about condom effectiveness. Let me ask you this, if condoms were improved and shown to be 99% effective would you then support them? Would you ever support them?

My point was that they're already uneducated - if we're going to spend billions to educate them, why not take advantage of the situation and educate them about abstinence instead of condoms?

From the cdc:

Latex condoms, when used consistently and correctly, are highly effective in preventing transmission of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. In addition, correct and consistent use of latex condoms can reduce the risk of other sexually transmitted diseases STDs..

You can't write the cdc off as easily as the fda.

I stated that condoms are effective, to a certain extent, in preventing HIV and STDs. Another quote from your CDC paper (that I have still yet to read fully, because I'm slowwww):

the United States, more than 65 million individuals are living with an STD, the majority of which are incurable viral infections. Approximately 15 million new sexually transmitted infections occur annually in the U.S. In the United States, approximately 493,000 individuals have died from AIDS, and 800,000-900,000 people are living with HIV disease.

That is with the full benefit of 'safe sex' and condoms. I wouldn't even object to them being taught about abstinence and condoms, I suppose, as long as the two are given their fair shake. I just think it's a fool's errand to basically coerce them to use condoms.

Yes you can get AIDS while wearing a condom properly, you can also get struck by lightning while playing golf (well thats not too great an analogy but you get the point). Its all about managing risks. The nih, cdc, etc. all recommend people to use condoms if they are going to have sex. Teaching people that condoms are not effective is lying to them. We should tell them everything. Tell them that abstinence is the only sure way, AND tell them that if they still want to have sex they NEED to use condoms. We need to get people to think of condoms the same way they think of seatbelts. Everytime you get in a car you buckle up, everytime you have sex you put a condom on. Simple.

I'll agree on this, as I typed above before I read this far. 😛

To up my position read this from the cdc:
The surest way to avoid transmission of sexually transmitted diseases is to abstain from sexual intercourse, or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with a partner who has been tested and you know is uninfected. For persons whose sexual behaviors place them at risk for STDs, correct and consistent use of the male latex condom can reduce the risk of STD transmission. However, no protective method is 100 percent effective, and condom use cannot guarantee absolute protection against any STD.

Fair enough.