[NGTM-1R]

Aldo: people have been having unsafe sex longer then abstinance has been preached by anyone, religious or otherwise.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by ngtm1r
Aldo: people have been having unsafe sex longer then abstinance has been preached by anyone, religious or otherwise.

And the preaching of abstinance has done nothing to prevent the spread of Aids in Africa and been condemned as acerbating the problem due to the churches unwillingness to condone parallel teaching of contraception.

In fact, the Catholic church has deliberately tried to prevent the use of condoms; methods which are known to have effectiveness in reducing the spread of the disease.  

(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3843797.stm)

[NGTM-1R]

I know. I'm merely pointing out the fact that you cannot expect either one, or even both in concert, to be wholly effective.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by ngtm1r
I know. I'm merely pointing out the fact that you cannot expect either one, or even both in concert, to be wholly effective.

But you can justifiably expect both in concert to be more effective than abstinance alone.  And certainly more effective than when one is used, and the other is actively being discouraged.

[NGTM-1R]

I know that too. (Which rather follows from my above statement.)

And I am in favor of it. But claiming either and/or both as 100%, or even 75%, effective, which is where those in favor of contraceptives are headed, is false.

[Kazan]

nobody said that comprehensive sex education would be 100% effective, but abstinance only, when compared to comprehensive, is 0% effective

[NGTM-1R]

And that's crap too. Abstinance has to have some effect. It can't NOT have an effect, otherwise there would be no point to having it as part of comprehensive education. Maybe it isn't as effective, but it does have an effect.

[.::Tin Can::.]

Originally posted by Kazan
yeah they convince you to make sure your partner is clean and that you wear protection

Protection doesnt really "protect" from STD's you know. In fact, it's got like, what, less than 10% chance? Even smaller? Honestly, seeing some guys dick hanging off what skin he had left on it just drove me mad for the next few weeks. But I dont think teenagers are going to take the time to check if they are STD Free.

"Hey there, what can I do for you?"
"I need to see if I have any sexual diseases."
"What for?"
"Just for the sake of knowing. ~_^"

[aldo_14]

I think it's highly likely that many of those who would listen to what is in effect the churches message, are the same people who would already have adopted abstinance based on their own religious beliefs.  

It could be very effective, or completely ineffective and pointless; as far as I know there is no comprehensive study either way.

i.e. i imagine a lot of it will be preaching to the converted.  Especially as that age group in particular have a high tendency to reject what they are told to do.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.


Protection doesnt really "protect" from STD's you know. In fact, it's got like, what, less than 10% chance? Even smaller? "

Between 80 & 99% effectiveness depending on how much you belief you put in the catholic churches propaganda.  

Barrier contraception also acts to prevent infection, it's a very simple principle; no mixing of the bodily fluid that can carry STDs.

[NGTM-1R]

The church is against protection, though. I doubt they rate it that highly.

I've heard a lot of different figures, midline being about 60%.

[karajorma]

Ignore the christian propaganda. The World Health Organisation has repeatedly called the vatican to task for spreading lies.

What the vatican did was to test novelty condoms and other such condoms that specifically state that they shouldn't be used to prevent STD infections and published the results of those tests.

Proper medical tests show that when used correctly a condom has an over 90% chance of preventing infections (IIRC it's higher than that. I remember it being 90-something).

What does drag the effectiveness down is improperly used contraceptives but we all know what's to blame for that!

[.::Tin Can::.]

Originally posted by aldo_14


Between 80 & 99% effectiveness depending on how much you belief you put in the catholic churches propaganda.  

Barrier contraception also acts to prevent infection, it's a very simple principle; no mixing of the bodily fluid that can carry STDs.

Didn't get the information from a Church "Propoganda" Instruction Seminar, it was actually in the 7th grade when they show you the videos of all the stuff that you can "catch".

[Kazan]

properly used normal condoms have a 99.99% chance of preventing pregnancy, and well over a 95% (but im not certain of that one) of preventing STD transmission


//edit: mesa stupid, too many things on mind

[.::Tin Can::.]

I know they can stop pregnancy, but I was refering to sexually transmitted diseases.

[Kazan]

i left off a words at the end of my last post

"well over 95% chance of preventing STDs"

the only STD had tends to get around condoms is HPV (yes hPv aka Genital Warts)

and it's generally easy to tell when your partner has that so you can say "whoa! no way!"

[.::Tin Can::.]

"Did you catch your dick on fire or am I just seeing things?"
"No seriously, it's totally fine."
"I dont think so..."

[Kazan]

Using this virus assay, FDA scientists tested many different types of male condoms and showed that condoms are highly effective barriers to virus passage with a very small chance of leakage (76, 77).

total 'condom failures' are estimated at between (slippage or breakage) 1.6% and 3.6%

estimated "relative risk" factors between 0.006 for a breakage to 0.00000004 a for viral-barrier defect





http://www.niaid.nih.gov/dmid/stds/condomreport.pdf

[NGTM-1R]

Assuming, of course, you aren't a numbskull, and you read the directions.

And we all know how likely that is. Humanity's own stupidity will kill it yet.

[Kazan]

yes that was assuming proper usage


which is why comprehensive sex education is important -- so they know how to properly use it