NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, it was World Aids Day, and the EU has released a statement (http://www.eu2005.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1115146994806&a=KArticle&aid=1132598987501&date=2005-12-01) about the topic that is apparently critical of the idea that simply promoting abstinence is a good idea to stop the epidemic.

I guess one can't really deny that the US (especially with all the recent ideas of sponsoring religious organisations as a policy option) has taken a shine to that strategy though.

This interview with the head of the UK's Global Aids Policy Team focusses on that topic.
"Nobody Should Die Because of Sex" (http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,388032,00.html)

Do you think abstinence should have any part in anti-AIDS campaigns?

I personally don't think so, because not only does everyone have the right to have sex as often and with whomever they want (given mutual consent of course) but also because it positively reeks of Christian opposition to Condoms as a form of preventing a child from being born (right to life for all my little sperms....)

Of course it should be a way of fighting AIDS.

If you don't screw, you won't get screwed.

(Yes, you can all quote that if you want.)

Plain and simple. If you don't have sex, you pretty much can't get it or spread it.

Once a person contracts HIV, abstinence is their only sensible course - unless your partner already has it as well, I guess - certain types of sexual contact just become much too risky.

Abstinence to prevent contracting the virus in the first place? I don't think that's a practical policy for a city/country/continent/world!!

the problem with abstinence is that when you "fall off the wagon" you tend to do it with some very risky behavior. like "being swept off your feet" and not using a condom.

what the world needs is a frank discussion of how HiV is spread, what behaviors are risky and what are the best ways to prevent getting it. THEN if the person decides that the safest route is through abstinence s/he knows why and what might really happen if s/he decides to have sex one wild and crazy night.

As an option? Sure what the the hell. It could work for some people.

As a focal point. HELL NO!

People that tend to preech abstinence tend to down play if not talk about other avenues(ie condoms).

I think it most definitely should be included and mentioned, if not encouraged. However, that doesn't mean it will recieve primary attention, nor should it crowd out the presentation of all possible prevention methods.

Abstinence is the only 100% effective method to prevent AIDS (barring, of course events over which you have no control and/or drug use), so it is very important.

Abstinence is the only 100% effective method to prevent AIDS (barring, of course events over which you have no control and/or drug use), so it is very important.
But it is absolutely and totally unrealistic. You can spend billions on abstinence campaigns, and all you get is young guys either going to prostitutes or getting it without consent (that is assuming young girls don't get horny).

And besides - we are taking away their right to have sex, not really because of AIDS, but simply because some religious nutjobs think it's bad.
Young people in the Western World have sex all the time, they use condoms and the like. They know about the disease and try to prevent getting it.
Tell me one reason why people in the Third World don't deserve the same treatment.

But it is absolutely and totally unrealistic. You can spend billions on abstinence campaigns, and all you get is young guys either going to prostitutes or getting it without consent (that is assuming young girls don't get horny).

That's why you don't make it the focal point of your efforts. People who are smart will take the advice and either abstain or use the methods presented.

And besides - we are taking away their right to have sex, not really because of AIDS, but simply because some religious nutjobs think it's bad.
Young people in the Western World have sex all the time, they use condoms and the like. They know about the disease and try to prevent getting it.
Tell me one reason why people in the Third World don't deserve the same treatment.

They do, and that's why any attempt to eschew the teaching of safe sex in favor of religious ideology is ridiculous. We should teach them everything possible as a means of educating them on how to prevent AIDS, including abstinence; however, this should in no case be the primary method presented.

But it is absolutely and totally unrealistic. You can spend billions on abstinence campaigns, and all you get is young guys either going to prostitutes or getting it without consent (that is assuming young girls don't get horny).

And besides - we are taking away their right to have sex, not really because of AIDS, but simply because some religious nutjobs think it's bad.
Young people in the Western World have sex all the time, they use condoms and the like. They know about the disease and try to prevent getting it.
Tell me one reason why people in the Third World don't deserve the same treatment.

Exactly. Even here awhile back they touted the abstinece pledge for teens. A group signed it and awhile latter I saw a blip somebody checked up on them and there was a high failure rate.

It's rather simple minded to think abstinence will stop AIDS.

Of course it should be a way of fighting AIDS.

If you don't screw, you won't get screwed.

(Yes, you can all quote that if you want.)

Plain and simple. If you don't have sex, you pretty much can't get it or spread it.

And that is why information on what AIDS is and how you can get infected is still so very much important, boys and girls.

The idea that you have to have sex to get infected is plain wrong. People got and get infected by infected blood transfusions, lacking hygiene in hospitals (hopefully not in the first world, but most definitely in the third world), by sharing syringes when doing drugs and a number of other ways in which blood cells or germ cells are being transmitted from one human being to another, and, not to forget, by eating bush meat (monkeys and apes)

While it definitely is a good idea to mention abstinence as a means of preventing the desease from spreading, focusing on it is a waste of time and public money.

Drugs for example always pose some threat to the user, but sex when conducted in a sensible manner has NO risk at all. Educating someone in sex ed is a much more effective tool.

The dangers of abstinence are that you miss out on one of the joys of life and practice for when you meet someone you really love. And basically try getting places like Africa to conduct abstinance where they need 5+ kids per family in order to economically survive.

Tell me one reason why people in the Third World don't deserve the same treatment.

They are already having too many children, they need to practice abstinence. So this campaign might even kill two birds with one stone.

Tell me one reason why people in the Third World don't deserve the same treatment.

They are already having too many children, they need to practice abstinence. So this campaign might even kill two birds with one stone.

They are already having too many children, they need to practice abstinence. So this campaign might even kill two birds with one stone.
using condoms would be a better method to prevent both things.

They are already having too many children, they need to practice abstinence. So this campaign might even kill two birds with one stone.

Most simplistic solution _ever_...

Mate, the people I _think_ you're talking about live in a primarily agrarian culture and are (most of the time) a little above the subsistence level with very limited government welfare, if any. A large family is their only chance of social security (to replace our maternity leave/pensions/health insurance etc.), enough folk to work the farm, deal with early deaths, and of course high infant mortality. They _need_ large families to survive.

When they fall below the subsistence level, of course a large family is a drawback. But you can't undo hundreds, even thousands, of years of social engineering with an abstinence drive!

And that is why information on what AIDS is and how you can get infected is still so very much important, boys and girls.

The idea that you have to have sex to get infected is plain wrong. People got and get infected by infected blood transfusions, lacking hygiene in hospitals (hopefully not in the first world, but most definitely in the third world), by sharing syringes when doing drugs and a number of other ways in which blood cells or germ cells are being transmitted from one human being to another, and, not to forget, by eating bush meat (monkeys and apes)

While it definitely is a good idea to mention abstinence as a means of preventing the desease from spreading, focusing on it is a waste of time and public money.

Yes, you're right. However, what's the MAIN way we hear of its spread?

Well, it was World Aids Day, and the EU has released a statement (http://www.eu2005.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1115146994806&a=KArticle&aid=1132598987501&date=2005-12-01) about the topic that is apparently critical of the idea that simply promoting abstinence is a good idea to stop the epidemic.

I guess one can't really deny that the US (especially with all the recent ideas of sponsoring religious organisations as a policy option) has taken a shine to that strategy though.

This interview with the head of the UK's Global Aids Policy Team focusses on that topic.
"Nobody Should Die Because of Sex" (http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,388032,00.html)

Do you think abstinence should have any part in anti-AIDS campaigns?

I personally don't think so, because not only does everyone have the right to have sex as often and with whomever they want (given mutual consent of course) but also because it positively reeks of Christian opposition to Condoms as a form of preventing a child from being born (right to life for all my little sperms....)


"Simply" is the word - implying that if you promote only a single way as a means of fighting AIDS.

If we only fought it a single way, we would be making a mistake.

For a small number of people abstinence is practical. But not for most people - because they're going to have sex.

Condoms are not 100%

Being choosy about your partner is not 100%

Being monogamous (and hoping your partner is) is not 100%

Getting tested regularly just tells you you're infected when it happens.

You need to use as many methods as possible and practical for you.

I can't understand why there are so many "no" votes.
Is abstinance an effective means to prevent AIDS? Of course it is.
Should it be included as a way of fighting AIDS? Of course it should be.
Should it be the only method of prevention? Of course it shouldn't be the only method.

If it can prevent just one case of AIDS a year, how can you no voters say that it shouldn't be included in the overall stratagy against AIDS?

Drugs for example always pose some threat to the user, but sex when conducted in a sensible manner has NO risk at all. Educating someone in sex ed is a much more effective tool.

Absolutely false. There is no zero-risk form of sex. At all. Anyone who's told you otherwise has NO idea what they're talking about. There are STDs and contagious diseases that condoms can NOT stop. (Herpes, both genital and oral.) The only thing a condom does is keep out most (read: not all) of your partner's bodily fluids to decrease (but not eliminate) the chance of contamination, and decrease the chance of pregnancy (same as with STDs. Condoms aren't 100% effective.

The ONLY zero-risk solution is to abstain, but we all know that it's a bit difficult to have kids that way. If you do want to procreate, or at least have intercourse for pleasure, the only minor-risk solution is to get tested and use protection.

Absolutely false. There is no zero-risk form of sex. At all. Anyone who's told you otherwise has NO idea what they're talking about. There are STDs and contagious diseases that condoms can NOT stop. (Herpes, both genital and oral.) The only thing a condom does is keep out most (read: not all) of your partner's bodily fluids to decrease (but not eliminate) the chance of contamination, and decrease the chance of pregnancy (same as with STDs. Condoms aren't 100% effective.

The ONLY zero-risk solution is to abstain, but we all know that it's a bit difficult to have kids that way. If you do want to procreate, or at least have intercourse for pleasure, the only minor-risk solution is to get tested and use protection.
Thank you Glamdring, I couldn't have said it any better than if a much more learned scholar wrote it down for me. :D

But it is absolutely and totally unrealistic. You can spend billions on abstinence campaigns, and all you get is young guys either going to prostitutes or getting it without consent (that is assuming young girls don't get horny).

And besides - we are taking away their right to have sex, not really because of AIDS, but simply because some religious nutjobs think it's bad.
Young people in the Western World have sex all the time, they use condoms and the like. They know about the disease and try to prevent getting it.
Tell me one reason why people in the Third World don't deserve the same treatment.

"If you don't screw, you won't get screwed"

"If you don't screw, you won't get screwed"

That's the sort of advice that... well, it's crappily put, but I know what you mean! No, that sort of advice works if you're talking to an individual, or to a small group (say, a class of school kids). But you can't possibly expect it to work as a matter of social policy for a country.

If it can prevent just one case of AIDS a year, how can you no voters say that it shouldn't be included in the overall stratagy against AIDS?
Because it is not a desirable thing to do...kinda like saying killing all Democrats will end Partisan bickering.

Sex is a good and healthy thing - trying to stop people from having sex is not good.
People who would disagree with that statement show what I meant earlier: They don't really care about AIDS or STDs, they care about morality.

Yes it is not possible to make it 100% safe, but education, enough condoms and basic medicine makes it come close.

The problem with promoting safe sex is that it works, except when it doesn't.

The problem with promoting abstinence is that it works until it doesn't.

When populations are taught abstinence only huge segments of the population simply start having unsafe sex later. It isn't a realistic method. It's a realistic option for an individual, but not for a population. It's like saying that winning the lotto is easy, all you have to do is fill in the bubbles for the 6 numbers that are going to be picked that week. So why doesn't everyone do it? The numbers for abstinent populations aren't much better.

I believe abstinence is already taught under the successful ABC programme which says abstain, and if you can't, be faithful, and if you can't, wear a condom.

I'm not religious at all, so I have no moral objection to pre-marital sex. But guess what! If you keep your fucking legs closed, and keep your fucking wang in your pants, you probably won't get AIDS!

I'm not a prude, but I'll tell you this much. NO amount of pussy is worth getting fucking AIDS! Here's how it went when I was single. If I had a rubber, I'd screw. If I didn't, I wouldn't. PERIOD! And guess what! I DON"T HAVE AIDS!

Nothing wrong with abstinence as part of the solution. Yes, it's naive to use it as the only solution, but it should be THE MOST IMPORTANT part! If you want to be a slut (male or female) then even with condoms, you can get AIDS. And without them, well...... Keep your dirty ass away from me!

Personally, for my two cents, anyone with AIDS who has sex with someone and gives that person AIDS should be tried for murder, but that's just me.

Other than that, yes, I think abstinence is a great idea to stop AIDS -- for people who already have it. Being one of those horrid conservative Christians, I think abstinence until marriage is also a good idea, but I obviously can't tell you not to screw whoever and whatever you want. (Not unless I succeed in my evil plan of Global Domination!!!! Bwahaha....er...)

And I suppose that ABC programme would work, but condoms aren't the most effective thing on the planet....

This (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4433069.stm) is about Uganda, which has done well using traditional methods of promoting condoms and education, as well as abstinence.
Instead they are now going to focus a lot more on abstinence. Why?
This push for abstinence and faithfulness in the fight against HIV/Aids has been welcomed by some sections of society, especially religious groups.
Pastor Martin Ssempa says donor funding has for years been heavily biased towards condom promotion, and he claims this has lead to an escalation in casual sex and infidelity.

The only people that abstinence is a realistic option for are incredibly young, the incredibly old, the incredibly handicapped/disabled and the incredibly prude. I'm willing to bet that those numbers would have a whopping grand total of less than 2% of the world's population.

At best abstinence should be a footnote in the AIDS awareness and protection campaign. Education is the second greatest weapon in this fight. the greatest problem in the AIDS awareness campaign is getting people to not only listen to and understand the facts, but also exercise their knowledge of the facts. Utilizing that education is the greatest weapon against AIDS.

:cool:

The only people that abstinence is a realistic option for are incredibly young, the incredibly old, the incredibly handicapped/disabled and the incredibly prude. I'm willing to bet that those numbers would have a whopping grand total of less than 2% of the world's population.

At best abstinence should be a footnote in the AIDS awareness and protection campaign. Education is the second greatest weapon in this fight. the greatest problem in the AIDS awareness campaign is getting people to not only listen to and understand the facts, but also exercise their knowledge of the facts. Utilizing that education is the greatest weapon against AIDS.

:cool:
A prude is one who is embarrassed or offended by sex, not someone who acts responsible about it so they don't get AIDS.

A prude is one who is embarrassed or offended by sex, not someone who acts responsible about it so they don't get AIDS.
Abstinence is not being responsible though, it's simply avoiding the problem.
And it encourages (if not requires) a culture in which sex is considered something bad - ergo, education will suffer.
You cannot expect anyone who not only has no idea what actually happens, yet still has to deal with his/her hormones to act responsibly.

We may be animals, but we do have the ability to control our urges. Do you punch someone in the face whenever you get the urge? Do you have sex every time you get the urge?

These folks in Africa are so uncivilized, I don't think any programs will save them. Seal the borders and let the virus run it's course.

We may be animals, but we do have the ability to control our urges. Do you punch someone in the face whenever you get the urge? Do you have sex every time you get the urge?

These folks in Africa are so uncivilized, I don't think any programs will save them. Seal the borders and let the virus run it's course.

I've thought about this option. I almost agree, but it would be very hard to enforce.

I'm not religious at all, so I have no moral objection to pre-marital sex. But guess what! If you keep your fucking legs closed, and keep your fucking wang in your pants, you probably won't get AIDS!

I'm not a prude, but I'll tell you this much. NO amount of pussy is worth getting fucking AIDS! Here's how it went when I was single. If I had a rubber, I'd screw. If I didn't, I wouldn't. PERIOD! And guess what! I DON"T HAVE AIDS!

Nothing wrong with abstinence as part of the solution. Yes, it's naive to use it as the only solution, but it should be THE MOST IMPORTANT part! If you want to be a slut (male or female) then even with condoms, you can get AIDS. And without them, well...... Keep your dirty ass away from me!
and im sure that works really well for you. but there are parts of the world, the most aids ridden, where the basic facts about aids are a mystery. where men think that if they have sex with a virgin it will CURE aids. where a woman's worth is limited to her ability to produce sons.

these places need education, not a lecture about keeping it in their pants. they need access to health care so they know when they have Hiv before they develop aids and cant ignore it. they need access to condoms so that when they do what all adult humans do, the lower the risk of getting the virus.

abstinence is more of a personal choice than a strategy for stopping the spread of aids. as a personal choice it can be very powerful; as a mandate from above its just wishful thinking.

and im sure that works really well for you. but there are parts of the world, the most aids ridden, where the basic facts about aids are a mystery. where men think that if they have sex with a virgin it will CURE aids. where a woman's worth is limited to her ability to produce sons.

these places need education, not a lecture about keeping it in their pants. they need access to health care so they know when they have Hiv before they develop aids and cant ignore it. they need access to condoms so that when they do what all adult humans do, the lower the risk of getting the virus.

abstinence is more of a personal choice than a strategy for stopping the spread of aids. as a personal choice it can be very powerful; as a mandate from above its just wishful thinking.

Africa is out of control. Even when I was there in the 80's we saw that the problem was absolutely hopeless. The best thing would be to discover a vaccine (if even possible), in the mean time, let the virus run it's course. Western countries are just throwing money away when they pledge help. Sad but true IMHO!

Western countries are just throwing money away when they pledge help. Sad but true IMHO!
It's not. Did you read the article I posted last page about Uganda? It worked there.

Africa is out of control. Even when I was there in the 80's we saw that the problem was absolutely hopeless. The best thing would be to discover a vaccine (if even possible), in the mean time, let the virus run it's course. Western countries are just throwing money away when they pledge help. Sad but true IMHO!

what kind of people would we be to let a whole generation die without trying to help?

what kind of people would we be to let a whole generation die without trying to help?

Repub--- er, selfish dickfaces?

I can't understand why there are so many "no" votes.
Is abstinance an effective means to prevent AIDS? Of course it is.
Should it be included as a way of fighting AIDS? Of course it should be.
Should it be the only method of prevention? Of course it shouldn't be the only method.
If it can prevent just one case of AIDS a year, how can you no voters say that it shouldn't be included in the overall stratagy against AIDS?

Because it is illogical, impractical, and a waste of funds which could be diverted to more realistic prevention measures, treatment options, and/or curative methods.

First- religions already try and preach abstinence. We need more people trying to drum that into teenagers like we need a hole in the head. Ever hear of rebellion? It tends to happen.

Second- Although it has practical applications such as reducing STD's, teen pregnancy, etc- that is not the primary goal of abstinence. Historically, it is to keep boys from messing with daddy's little girls. Every father knew what he was like at that age, and he wants to keep all those horny guys away from his daughter. Pure and simple.

Third- it has always, and always will, mostly fall on deaf ears. Sure, I listened to mommy and daddy and the pastor. Until I turned about 13, when all I wanted in life was to see a naked girl. It is instinctual, hormonal, and better off left to parents and religious leaders to try and delay since it is inevitable.

Fact is, if two people abstain until entering a monogamous relationship like marriage they will get no STDs, including AIDS. It is the only 100% safe method. Now, it might not be reasonable to expect everybody to be able to abstain, but it still seems like a damn good option for places where AIDS is rampant. At some point people need to start taking responsibility for themselves.

Basing goodness on doing nothing is what bothers me more than anything else about the idea. It's not like people go around shouting to the world that they are a good person because they don't sodomize puppies for fun. I think if you are going to claim to be a good person, you should do so because of doing something good.

I picked other because I figure a better way to fight AIDS would be to advocate masturbation. That way people can release pent-up sexual frustration in other ways besides taking it out on their fellow human beings.

EDIT:
For that matter, why not advocate people with AIDS having sex with other people with AIDS? It's not like you can get more infected with AIDS.

Abstinence is the most effective manner of preventing AIDS. However, if you rely on abstinence as the sole defense as many religious institutions insist on pushing it as, then you are basically expecting people to walk a tightrope with no safety net. One slip and it's over.

note* I haven't read any previous posts so far.

Yes it should play a part to the extent that underage sex should be discouraged.

Though I believe it can't be a main part of the campaign. The real need is for awareness, cures, treatments, and protection.

note* I haven't read any previous posts so far.

Yes it should play a part to the extent that underage sex should be discouraged.

Though I believe it can't be a main part of the campaign. The real need is for awareness, cures, treatments, and protection.

Not an entirely bad idea, but Africa is hopeless under it's current conditions -- and a lot of it is the various African government's fault. Throwing money at a problem never works, and that's what the world is doing, and when it doesn't, do we look for a solution as to why it isn't working? No, they call for more money. Worthless.

I believe that money should be spent on education the most, and never for distribution of condoms. But that's the Calvinist in me. :)

Abstinence is the most effective manner of preventing AIDS. However, if you rely on abstinence as the sole defense as many religious institutions insist on pushing it as, then you are basically expecting people to walk a tightrope with no safety net. One slip and it's over.
Read back in the thread and you'll find that you're saying exactly what I said.

Whoa!

Of course abstinence campaigns should take part in the fight against AIDS, but there has been a level of dishonesty amongst these campaigns that has been detrimental to the cause.

Of course abstinence campaigns should take part in the fight against AIDS, but there has been a level of dishonesty amongst these campaigns that has been detrimental to the cause.

And there's no dishonesty amongst other groups who believe that if you wear condoms you'll be perfectly safe....

It's a multi-level approach that is needed - not a one-size fits all solution.

Repub--- er, selfish dickfaces?

George W is a so called republican and even Bono says he has done the most so far.

BTW We should care for our own first, then worry about others.

The best way to prevent AIDS, I believe, is fidelity. Abstinence before marraige would work, but who's gonna follow that? Even if they don't engage in "technical" sex, they'll still have anal and oral sex, which are just as dangerous. Condoms are ineffective. Therefore, martial fidelity is the best cure.
That needs to be addressed more. In many African societies, for instance, it is perfectly acceptable for a man to have sex with any woman he wants, but a woman to have sex from a man other than her husband is taboo. It restricts personal liberty and threatens health at the same time, and it must end.

The best way to prevent AIDS, I believe, is fidelity. Abstinence before marraige would work, but who's gonna follow that? Even if they don't engage in "technical" sex, they'll still have anal and oral sex, which are just as dangerous. Condoms are ineffective. Therefore, martial fidelity is the best cure.
That needs to be addressed more. In many African societies, for instance, it is perfectly acceptable for a man to have sex with any woman he wants, but a woman to have sex from a man other than her husband is taboo. It restricts personal liberty and threatens health at the same time, and it must end.

Fidelity doesn't work. Who's going to follow that?

"Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is-"

Wait, no, thats a monty python comedy skit. As in, its not to be taken serriously. Relgious claptrap banning condoms is inane. I wish the focus could get off abstinence, and onto safer, more responsible sex. The much lauded American "Culture of Life" is leading to overpopulation and the propigation of STDs, both of which could be limited with more comprehensive forms of sex ed.

I wrapped my willy, and got tested for AIDS monthly, while I was sleeping around. If I'd only recived abstinence only sex ed, as the USA is headed towards now, I'd probably have done neither. And I'd probably be an HIV positive father right now, instead of healthy and childfree.

Sure, abstinece is more effective than condoms- when its practiced. But people don't abstain 100% of the time, so teens need to get practical sex ed as well.

I'm afraid that AIDS education is actually in a wose state now than it was in the early 90s, because of the partial sucsses of AIDS treatments. Its sad that we need the eminent fear of a painfull death to make us teach our teens about AIDS and safer sex, instead of "Just Say No." Saying no to a 16 year old's raging hormones must be a joke I just don't get.

And there's no dishonesty amongst other groups who believe that if you wear condoms you'll be perfectly safe....

I have never heard any group say that you will be perfectly safe with a condom, Trojan doesn't even say that. Those that promote condom use have a viewpoint where they are genuinely concerned about AIDS and other STDs, so they approach it with full intent on educating people on how to stop AIDS the best way they know how.

Abstinence only groups only care about getting kids to stop having sex, AIDS is tangent to them. They are more concerned with the morality of the child than the safety.

And just like any other person who wants you to follow his morality, they mold the truth around their viewpoint and only give the kids half of the story.

It's a multi-level approach that is needed - not a one-size fits all solution.

This is true, but stopping AIDS must remain the focus, not promoting abstinence.

Well, it was World Aids Day, and the EU has released a statement (http://www.eu2005.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1115146994806&a=KArticle&aid=1132598987501&date=2005-12-01) about the topic that is apparently critical of the idea that simply promoting abstinence is a good idea to stop the epidemic.

I guess one can't really deny that the US (especially with all the recent ideas of sponsoring religious organisations as a policy option) has taken a shine to that strategy though.

This interview with the head of the UK's Global Aids Policy Team focusses on that topic.
"Nobody Should Die Because of Sex" (http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,388032,00.html)

Do you think abstinence should have any part in anti-AIDS campaigns?

I personally don't think so, because not only does everyone have the right to have sex as often and with whomever they want (given mutual consent of course) but also because it positively reeks of Christian opposition to Condoms as a form of preventing a child from being born (right to life for all my little sperms....)
No, it shouldn't be a factor in combatting AIDS: should some righteously celibate sort's self control waver for a moment, they're not going to have any prophylactics to hind, are they?

Kimchi: rubbers aren't infallible, but you're far less likely to contract HIV or get somebody pregnant (or both) than you are riding her bareback.

grab all these useless $$$ spent on abstinence campaigns and use it on a STD-proof condom invention.

This thread is shocking to me, I had no idea people actually supported this.

Crossing the road is dangerous do we
A) Never cross a road and be 100% sure you'll never be hit
B) Look both ways reduce the risk and live a normal life.

Sex can result in STD's
A) Never have sex
B) Learn safe sex and reduce the risk and live a normal life

To me its the same thing and suggesting never having sex. Should we then teach abstinence from anything slightly dangerous as well?! Or do we live a liberal life, Americas lack of social liberalism saddens me.

I think many of us are more concerned about advancing political/moral/religious agenda then actually doing something to help fight AIDS.

Simply put abstinence is the best way to avoid HIV. Having sex with multiple partners is dangerous (even with protection). It doesn't matter if you support the sexual revolution or not. It's just the facts. I don't care if it reaks of Christian morals (though many other mainstream religions believe in abstience until marriage). Telling people the facts, that sleeping around is dangerous, in no way violates people's right to sleep around if they choose. But I think it's good for them to know the risks. Abstience programs in no way force abstience. It's up to the individual to choose to abstain from sex or not. That's like saying putting warning lables of ciggarrets is bad because it somehow violates your right to smoke. Not that it makes me an expert in policy decisions, but I'm a virologist and I have done HIV research in the past. I find it extremly distrubing that so many of you think abstience should not be including in HIV prevention. I assumed the original poster was just talking about should abstience be included so I voted yes. I don't think he was asking us to vote on if it should be abstience only. I just hope that many of you that voted no thought they were voting against an abstience only program, not simply the promotion of abstience.

All that said. It disturbs me further that so many support abstience only programs. We need to be realistic here. People are not going to be pursauded by a moral argument against having sex before marriage if they don't share that moral viewpoint. Very few will be pursauded for safety sake. People find sex too enjoyable to give up despite the risk. So we must include the use of protection. We must point out that some diseases, like HPV (the cause of cervical cancer) cannot be prevented by the use of protection, but that protection will reduce risks and if you are going to have sex you should use it. We also need to point out that there is a failure rate of protection. It's mostly due to human error, but even so is not 100%. We can incourage people to wait, while saying at the same time that if you don't wait protection is your next best option.

Oh and I agree we shouldn't waist our resourses on abstience only programs. But if we are going to go out promoting the use of condoms we might as well mention that abstience is the best way. It shouldn't cost anymore to do this if the same people promoting condom use are promoting abstience.

I see promoting abstience no different then asking people to stay away from unhealthy foods. Sure many will say I'll take the risks I want to enjoy my life and eat these foods. Others might be pursuaded to wait to have unhealthy foods (like cake) for special occasions. Others might not be willing to give up their unhealthy foods, but may be able to be convinced to at least eat ones with reduced fat.

I don't care what you believe. I just want to save lives and prevent HIV.

Who else has the steriotype of some catholic prude conservative saying "If you have sex you'll get sick and go to hell" to a bunch of 12 year olds.

Who else has the stereotype of some catholic prude conservative saying "If you have sex you'll get sick and go to hell" to a bunch of 12 year olds.
They've come under fire of late for claiming that condoms don't prevent pregnancy and cause AIDS, it's true.

Abstinence is ideal. However, it is simply not practical in today's culture.

It would be the equivalent of a society with no money. It would likely be ideal, as then each could go and get what was needed. It is, however, unrealistic and impractical because of the inherent desire to have more than everyone else. Impractical.

I do think that abstinence should be encouraged, as it is the way to be positive to avoid AIDS (Jurgencube, I lead a normal life without having sex as it stands), and I think that point should be emphasized. HOWEVER, I think there should also be other avenues for those who disregard that.

I do think that abstinence should be encouraged, as it is the way to be positive to avoid AIDS (Jurgencube, I lead a normal life without having sex as it stands), and I think that point should be emphasized. HOWEVER, I think there should also be other avenues for those who disregard that.
Of course there should be alternatives promoted. Unfortunately you get fuckwits* who argue that doing so just discourages people from abstaining. (Which it doesn't, of course: most people wouldn't abstain in the first place.)

*(In this case, "fuckwits" is far too generous and complimentary a term.)

If it can prevent just one case of AIDS a year, how can you no voters say that it shouldn't be included in the overall stratagy against AIDS?

Just think of all the kids who are NOT born, because their parents decide to be abstinent. Think of what effect abstinence could have on First-World-Countries struggling with too old societies and too few births.

Fact is, if two people abstain until entering a monogamous relationship like marriage they will get no STDs, including AIDS.

And one of those two people was born by a woman who suffered from AIDS. This person will infect his/her partner. They will have infected kids who grow up as orphans. Those orphans might stay abstinent till they find a partner for a monogamous relationship. Then they'll infect their partners and produce kids who are HIV-positive... :(

Abstinence as a way of fighting aids is kind of like saying, "Lets all follow the law so there are no more crimes."

Or

"Lets not use windows so there are no further defenestrations."

Or

"Lets not eat people so that there are no more cannibals."

No, wait. The last one is a good idea...

Abstinence as a way of fighting aids is kind of like saying, "Lets all follow the law so there are no more crimes."

Or

"Lets not use windows so there are no further defenestrations."

Or

"Lets not eat people so that there are no more cannibals."

No, wait. The last one is a good idea...

I would put it more like this:

"Our new plan for hurricane evacuations: everyone in the stike zone needs to grow wings to fly out of the path of the hurricane."

In other words, sure it would work, if human beings were the kind of thing that could do it. But trouble is, they're men, not angels, and we need to design policies with that in mind.

The Question asks......

'Should abstinence campaigns play a part in the fight against HIV?'
Now can anyone say it shouldn't and when saying this give a reasonable reason, keeping in mind it is not asking
'Should abstinence campaigns be the only part in the fight against HIV?'
Now that question could justifiable get a no answer. but the question asked could not.

I think it should play apart.
I don't think it is very sensible to go about 'banging' people you don't know or people you do know who go about or have gone about 'banging' people they don't know or people you may be going 'steady' with who have had a 'relationship' with someone who has been less than careful with their own body.

The Question asks......

'Should abstinence campaigns play a part in the fight against HIV?'
Now can anyone say it shouldn't and when saying this give a reasonable

No. There are tremendously limited resources to be spent on the problem, don't waste them on a 'solution' that can't possibly work in the long-run.

Elgesh']No. There are tremendously limited resources to be spent on the problem, don't waste them on a 'solution' that can't possibly work in the long-run.
Wait so are you saying people abstain until marriage and then the person they marry is 'a crawling with the VD' and the likes?

Wait so are you saying people abstain until marriage and then the person they marry is 'a crawling with the VD' and the likes?

Um... I think I understand what you're saying... but if my answer seems irrelevent, obviously I missed your point :)

What I'm saying is: you have $x to spend on halting the spread of HIV, yeah? Go to a small african village, inner-city in India, or a suburb in Chicago, and spend a proportion of that limited $x on advising abstinence... The take up rate of that policy amongst the people most at risk of catching and transmitting HIV (prostitutes, drug users, the homeless) is going to be minute - for some, sex is the one resource they have to sell, for others,it's not always their _choice_ to have sex, and so on.

(Additionally, sex isn't the only way to contract HIV, but that's a whole 'nother debate!)

And for me, I don't want to forget the equity part either. In the Western World, kids are free to have fun in relatively safe conditions.
When they meet someone they like, they can go and have sex. They know about the risks, they have access to Condoms and all the rest of it.

They do that because it is fun. Are you going to tell me that we are somehow justified in telling kids in the Third World that they're not allowed to live the same way - when it would cost a fraction of what the West spends on cat food every year?

My answer to the question posed in the thread.

Hell NO.

If abstinance plays a part in campaigning against aids, than the promotion of exclusion, solitude and death of people with AIDS should also play a part.

Both are unpractical and stupid ways of dealing with AIDS.

it seems to me that if you teach the cause and prevetion of aids properly it make the value of abstinence so obvious that there is no need to make a big deal out of the notion.

Of course it should be a way of fighting AIDS.

If you don't screw, you won't get screwed.

(Yes, you can all quote that if you want.)

Plain and simple. If you don't have sex, you pretty much can't get it or spread it.

I imagine that knowledge is reassuring to the millions of Africans who have contracted the disease because they were raped.

Abstinence as a way of fighting AIDS is like using prayer to fight mosquitoes.

Enter the wishful thinkers.

"Lets not use windows so there are no further defenestrations."

You just wanted to use the word defenestration didn't you? :D

On topic:
I said no for the poll. Abstinence is 100% useful to prevent STD's. That is, until you get into a real situation to have sex. Then it breaks down into the natural instincts of a normal human being to be with the opposite sex.
Condoms are useful to prevent STD's but not 100% effective. Dilemma
Basically what it comes down to is if you trust your partner or not. Find out if they have done anything that could have been considered 'dangerous'. Sure, people lie. Might have just met the person a few hours before. Can't really trust them then.
How about selective abstinence (for lack of a better term) while using a condom then? Only have sex with people you know and trust. No more drunken party sex. That may be hard, but safe.
As far as other countries... There are not many suggestions I can make about things I know little about. :(

Yes, abstinence should be part of the message. But only part. It is far more important to teach people who ARE having sex with multiple partners how to not get it or spread it.

Abstinence and monogamous loyalty does not save those women whose husbands have multiple partners. The vice versa is true as well, except that women are more susceptible to getting HIV from men than the other way around. That and in countries currently ravaged by HIV and AIDS, many women have very little power in their relationships.

Part of the problem is, in some African and Asian countries where AIDS is a major problem(not all, mind you; don't want to make sweeping generalizations), a lot of men simply go to prostitutes for sex. Many of these prostitutes are unwilling partners, young women and girls who are forced into the sex industry and have no way out, and also have no say in what happens during sex. If the guy doesn't want to use a condom, he won't, and most of them probably wouldn't anyway.

Yes, abstiencne should be emphasized as much as contraceptives, but enforcing of international law against sex slaves would be a major help, too.

Abstinence is a perfectly reasonable way to avoid AIDS, but abstinence only programs are insane. If you teach people that the only way to avoid AIDS is to not have sex, then you basically give them the choice between AIDS and celibacy. And quite frankly AIDS seems like the lesser evil.

Well, it was World Aids Day, and the EU has released a statement (http://www.eu2005.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1115146994806&a=KArticle&aid=1132598987501&date=2005-12-01) about the topic that is apparently critical of the idea that simply promoting abstinence is a good idea to stop the epidemic.

I guess one can't really deny that the US (especially with all the recent ideas of sponsoring religious organisations as a policy option) has taken a shine to that strategy though.

This interview with the head of the UK's Global Aids Policy Team focusses on that topic.
"Nobody Should Die Because of Sex" (http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,388032,00.html)

Do you think abstinence should have any part in anti-AIDS campaigns?

I personally don't think so, because not only does everyone have the right to have sex as often and with whomever they want (given mutual consent of course) but also because it positively reeks of Christian opposition to Condoms as a form of preventing a child from being born (right to life for all my little sperms....)
if nobody had extra-marrital sex, nobody would spread aids. simple as that. and please, don't confuse catholics with christians....the catholic church is the only one that looks down on birth control. i'm a christian, and i personally look forward to many, many years of childless sex.

if nobody had extra-marrital sex, nobody would spread aids. simple as that.
That's wrong.

People can be born with HIV, people can contract it in all sorts of ways. Not being educated about it, or being told that abstinence protects you simply means that you're going to infect your spouse on the wedding night instead of the week before.