NationStates Jolt Archive

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/africa/05/19/Kenya.condoms.reut/index.html

But we all know that it's all the Vatican's fault that Africans don't use condoms.

Well of course. The Vatican is also responsible for the sexual molestation scandals, the Crusades, the Inquisition, Islam, American foreign policy, creationism, the pain behind my eyes, and guilt complexes everywhere.

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/africa/05/19/Kenya.condoms.reut/index.html

But we all know that it's all the Vatican's fault that Africans don't use condoms.
:headbang:

Let's face it: humans are instinctual creatures. Teenagers are especially instinctual, with raging hormones and desires burbling under the surface in a sea of morass just waiting to spill out in spurts of creamy joy. I know, as I am a teenager. The sex drive is incredibly strong in teenagers, for, in general, teens are the healthiest people to have children.(Or at least this would be true were we still having a diet provided by natural foraging and hunting as opposed to the lovely processed foods made for us by dozens of corporations today in civilized society.) As such, teens will have sex, whether we like it or not. Refusing to face this fact is foolish and naive. Sexual education, therefore, must be centered on safe sex, not preventing sex. Further, birth control methods, such as the "pill" and the condom should be made freely available to teens. Some say this would encourage more sex. No, it won't. It will simply make what has, does, and will always go on safer.

Depends on if she is a catholic.

Now I would say the shrubby has more to do with that as aid was going to require abstinence programs. Kenya might be doing lip service to shut the shrub up......

the pain behind my eyes,

No, that one's probably cancer, another Vatican invention

No, that one's probably cancer, another Vatican invention

Touche.

Wether or not the Vatican is soley responsible for the lack of condoms in Africa or not, they arent helping the matter at all, wich makes them an accomplice to the death of about 20,000 people every day.

Some parts of Africa are over 70% HIV positive, (meaning over 70% of the population has it).

Rape gangs are prevailant, and the primitive belief that raping a virgin will cure AIDS is all over.
Female circumcisions with dirty instruments, ( and dozens of these a day with the same dirty instruments).

All they would have to do is fully support the use of condoms, and fucking disease control, and they could help millions...but they steadfastedly refuse to do so, thus making them equally responsible as if they had infected the people themselves.

Its sad to think that the Catholic Church that is SUPPOSED to care about its flock, gives far more attention to outdated, foolish traditions that endanger, and even contribute to the death of millions.

Total swine, all of them.

But we all know that it's all the Vatican's fault that Africans don't use condoms.

Well... she is repeating the Vaticans words...

Total swine, all of them.

Apparently, in your righteous indignation you forgot that there are some members of the Church who are quite in agreement with the use of condoms in Africa and otherwise.

Apparently, in your righteous indignation you forgot that there are some members of the Church who are quite in agreement with the use of condoms in Africa and otherwise.
Good for them! But if the majority don't, and if the leaders don't, then the Church is still at fault, decent members or no.

Good for them! But if the majority don't, and if the leaders don't, then the Church is still at fault, decent members or no.

Ah. Yes, a situation in which there are myriad biological, cultural, political, tribal, and religious factors at play is the fault of one religious institution rather than the fault of a large number of the people involved. Of course. Why didn't I see that before?

Ah. Yes, a situation in which there are myriad biological, cultural, political, tribal, and religious factors at play is the fault of one religious institution rather than the fault of a large number of the people involved. Of course. Why didn't I see that before?
I didn't say that. They are at fault, however. Obviously not entirely. But still at fault. It's not an all-or-nothing situation here.

Surely, if they all lead "good, Christian lifestyles", i.e. not sleeping around, it wouldn't be such a problem...(?) You can't have pre-marital intercourse and then say that, as a Catholic, you mustn't wear a condom.

This is probably a sign of my ignorance, but it does puzzle me...

Apparently, in your righteous indignation you forgot that there are some members of the Church who are quite in agreement with the use of condoms in Africa and otherwise.

The Catholic Church may be on the road to stopping being so ruddy stupid (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4938076.stm) on the issue, according to the BBC...

...Although as it only admitted Galileo was right in 1992 I don't think we need worry about it happening too soon.

I didn't say that. They are at fault, however. Obviously not entirely. But still at fault. It's not an all-or-nothing situation here.

Precisely. That was the point I wanted to get across.

It seems to me that blaming the Church for the situation with AIDS in Africa is rather like dealing with a case in which five men beat a women to death by charging the one who held her arms back with murder. Certainly, he is guilty, but hardly alone in causing her death and arguably a smaller part than the others.

The Catholic Church may be on the road to stopping being so ruddy stupid (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4938076.stm) on the issue, according to the BBC...

...Although as it only admitted Galileo was right in 1992 I don't think we need worry about it happening too soon.

The Church moves rather slowly, that's for sure.

As leader of the Condomites I have to say that what you humans do to our people is disgusting! We came in peace, goddammit, and this is how you treat us!

As leader of the Condomites I have to say that what you humans do to our people is disgusting! We came in peace, goddammit, and this is how you treat us!
...I...

What the hell man? What. The. Hell.

As leader of the Condomites I have to say that what you humans do to our people is disgusting! We came in peace, goddammit, and this is how you treat us!

Bah! The Condomites are merely a small portion of the Empire of Latex, unworthy of the good treatment given to the the Rubbergloves.

At least she wasn't saying that condoms don't work because the HIV virus can pass through microscopic holes in the latex. I wonder if people who say that bother to wear raincoats or use umbrellas when it's raining because H2O molecules are even smaller than viruses and so should pass straight through.

At least she wasn't saying that condoms don't work because the HIV virus can pass through microscopic holes in the latex. I wonder if people who say that bother to wear raincoats or use umbrellas when it's raining because H2O molecules are even smaller than viruses and so should pass straight through.

Well, one piece of advice that seems to be lost on people is route of transmission.

The CDC has known for years that route is as much or more important than a condom.

If you're not wearing a condom, for instance, vaginal sex has a 1 in 16,000 chance per sexual event of transmission of HIV - assuming the male is infected. Anal sex is 1 in 4, by comparison. Oral sex is a much lower risk than either.

A condom only reduces this by 90 to 99 percent, depending on how "perfect" you use it. "Perfect" as defined by most researchers, means no slippage - not even a millimeter, which is rare.

So anal sex with a condom is still a 1 in 400 shot.

Anal sex is extremely popular in some parts of the world as a method of birth control. Which is why it spreads through some heterosexual populations far faster than others.

We could probably save a lot of lives, not only by distributing condoms, but by distributing the Pill as well - and educating these people to reduce their use of anal sex as a birth control method.

We could probably save a lot of lives, not only by distributing condoms, but by distributing the Pill as well - and educating these people to reduce their use of anal sex as a birth control method.
Sounds like a sensible idea, although the coil could be better than the pill as it's as reliable and fire-and-forget, so easier to use.

However...
1) If people are using one reliable form of birth control it's fairly unlikely you'll get them to use a less reliable and more intrusive one as well, even to protect them from HIV. That's pretty much the case in the well-educated West too, after all...
2) They might enjoy anal sex.

Your plan's good and I would support it, it'd just be doomed by humans being stupid.

Sounds like a sensible idea, although the coil could be better than the pill as it's as reliable and fire-and-forget, so easier to use.

Can't the coil get lost inside people?

If you're not wearing a condom, for instance, vaginal sex has a 1 in 16,000 chance per sexual event of transmission of HIV - assuming the male is infected.

A woman only has a one in sixteen thousand chance of getting infected if she has vaginal sex with a man and a one in four chance if she has anal sex? I know a vagina is much more resistant to infection than the rectum but I can't believe it is 4,000 times more resistant. Aint nobody got an armor plated vagina.

A woman only has a one in sixteen thousand chance of getting infected if she has vaginal sex with a man and a one in four chance if she has anal sex? I know a vagina is much more resistant to infection than the rectum but I can't believe it is 4,000 times more resistant. Aint nobody got an armor plated vagina.
I'm not sure it's so much to do with the resistance of the vagina as the 'weakness' of the anus - it's one of the quickest way into the bloodstream. It is, after all, one of the preferred ways Doctors get drugs into the body.

But he could have made the figures up as well. :p

A condom only reduces this by 90 to 99 percent, depending on how "perfect" you use it. "Perfect" as defined by most researchers, means no slippage - not even a millimeter, which is rare.

Do note however that these percentages refer to the chance of something bad happening despite 'perfect' useage in a year. So it is not so that 90% safe means you get infected once every ten times you have sex; it means that only 10% of the people that use condoms correctly will get infected once in a year time.

So anal sex with a condom is still a 1 in 400 shot.
Nope - the chances are much more favourable. Still greater than with other forms of intercourse though.

We could probably save a lot of lives, not only by distributing condoms, but by distributing the Pill as well - and educating these people to reduce their use of anal sex as a birth control method.
Agreed.

Do note however that these percentages refer to the chance of something bad happening despite 'perfect' useage in a year. So it is not so that 90% safe means you get infected once every ten times you have sex; it means that only 10% of the people that use condoms correctly will get infected once in a year time.


Nope - the chances are much more favourable. Still greater than with other forms of intercourse though.


Agreed.

The chances I listed of 1 in 16,000 for vaginal sex and 1 in 4 for anal sex are "per sexual event", not per year.

A woman only has a one in sixteen thousand chance of getting infected if she has vaginal sex with a man and a one in four chance if she has anal sex? I know a vagina is much more resistant to infection than the rectum but I can't believe it is 4,000 times more resistant. Aint nobody got an armor plated vagina.

It's what the CDC has come up with. It's what Planned Parenthood tells people when they walk in the door - one of the first questions they ask you is if you've had anal sex - and they warn you not to.

It explains the extreme difference in infection rates between people who do anal sex, vs. people who never do anal.

Can't the coil get lost inside people?
I think it had a bad press for a while, due to some scare or something, but it's one of the most reliable forms of contraception around today. BBC Health info on the IUD (http://www.bbc.co.uk/relationships/sex_and_sexual_health/contr_iud.shtml).

I know it has a few nasty things listed in "disadvantages", but if you're worried about that then just go read the side-effects warnings on any medication ;)

It's what the CDC has come up with. It's what Planned Parenthood tells people when they walk in the door - one of the first questions they ask you is if you've had anal sex - and they warn you not to.

It explains the extreme difference in infection rates between people who do anal sex, vs. people who never do anal.

Okay anal sex is bad. Your colon is designed to absorb water so viruses could easily be absorbed as well. I'm not saying Planned Parenthood is wrong, but the 4,000 times difference is different from other figures I've looked at. Maybe we are looking at different studies, but it seems a little high to me. (Or maybe they're not doing it right.)

We do not like first Ladies, nobody elected them. I never fuck one (happy me).

Aids and other HIV are not authorized in our Holy country or you are evicted to a rich country where they do nothing but talk a lot about it.

Our colleagues in the Vatican are more anxious to preserve their own troops than to be clever. As stated safe sex is hand made sex. They prefer anal sex.

Our religion make sex compulsory, we are the fathers of your children.

Nice talking with you, NEXT!

The High Priest

Well of course. The Vatican is also responsible for the sexual molestation scandals, the Crusades, the Inquisition, Islam, American foreign policy, creationism, the pain behind my eyes, and guilt complexes everywhere.
Well, you ARE personally responsible for the pain fo Christ.

The chances I listed of 1 in 16,000 for vaginal sex and 1 in 4 for anal sex are "per sexual event", not per year.

Yes, but your "condom security" figures are per year; not per event.