FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB General Discussion Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 02:40 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-28-2003, 12:11 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: here
Posts: 738
Default

Parents need to teach abstinence, too. Condoms don't prevent STD's, only pregnancies, to any extent.
Ultron is offline  
Old 04-28-2003, 03:39 AM   #12
Jat
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,311
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Ultron
Parents need to teach abstinence, too. Condoms don't prevent STD's, only pregnancies, to any extent.
There is a new type of condom avialable now. It is made of a flexible plastic and is far more puncture proof than the current condoms.
Jat is offline  
Old 04-28-2003, 05:09 AM   #13
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Deployed to Kosovo
Posts: 4,314
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Ultron
Parents need to teach abstinence, too. Condoms don't prevent STD's, only pregnancies, to any extent.
That would, of course, explain why the gonorrhea rate among teens in France is 70 times lower than it is here, where teens are taught how to have safe sex, including sex with condoms.
Daggah is offline  
Old 04-28-2003, 05:39 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: here
Posts: 738
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Jat
There is a new type of condom avialable now. It is made of a flexible plastic and is far more puncture proof than the current condoms.
Yes but viruses are small enough still to go through the condom easily. It's not as "safe" as some think.
Ultron is offline  
Old 04-28-2003, 05:41 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: here
Posts: 738
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Daggah
That would, of course, explain why the gonorrhea rate among teens in France is 70 times lower than it is here, where teens are taught how to have safe sex, including sex with condoms.
Condom's won't reduce the risk of catching STD's. Abstinence will. People who are much more concious of the risk will be more careful though.
Ultron is offline  
Old 04-28-2003, 06:59 AM   #16
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,751
Default

Quote:
Condom's won't reduce the risk of catching STD's.
Huh?

I think what you mean to say is that it is still possible to catch/spread an STD despite wearing a condom.

To equate this with not reducing the risk is to betray an ignorance of the idea of risk -- or of condoms -- or of STDs -- most likely all three.

You can still be hurt in a car accident despite driving carefully and wearing a seatbelt. Therefore, driving carefully and wearing a seatbelt "won't reduce the risk" of being hurt in a car accident?

Give your head a shake.
Clutch is offline  
Old 04-28-2003, 07:07 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: here
Posts: 738
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Clutch
Huh?

I think what you mean to say is that it is still possible to catch/spread an STD despite wearing a condom.

To equate this with not reducing the risk is to betray an ignorance of the idea of risk -- or of condoms -- or of STDs -- most likely all three.

You can still be hurt in a car accident despite driving carefully and wearing a seatbelt. Therefore, driving carefully and wearing a seatbelt "won't reduce the risk" of being hurt in a car accident?

Give your head a shake.
I don't mean to say it doesn't reduce the risk at all, but the viruses like HIV are much smaller than the pores in condoms and can get through. I thought I was being clear. I'll get some more coffee.
Ultron is offline  
Old 04-28-2003, 08:26 AM   #18
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,751
Default

Quote:
I don't mean to say it doesn't reduce the risk at all, but the viruses like HIV are much smaller than the pores in condoms and can get through.
Fair enough, but now I don't see the point of the original statement. Nobody was ever under the impression that donning a condom somehow made it impossible to transmit an STD. The question was rather:

Which policy minimizes the transmission of STDs: advocating abstinence, or advocating safe sex (including proper use of condoms)?

In the context of this question, the observation that it's possible to get an STD despite using a condom is just a non-sequitur.
Clutch is offline  
Old 04-28-2003, 08:39 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 913
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Ultron
I don't mean to say it doesn't reduce the risk at all, but the viruses like HIV are much smaller than the pores in condoms and can get through. I thought I was being clear. I'll get some more coffee.
I recall reading about this some time ago. And yes, while the HIV virus is smaller than the pores in the latex condom, the virus cannot travel by itself - it needs a transport medium. That medium is the semen and the pores in the condom are quite small enough to prevent any semen from getting out. As long as there are no physical tears in the condom it is an almost (note I say almost not absolutely) completely safe method of preventing HIV infection.

The bugaboo about the pore size is used as scare tactics by the abstinence only crowed.
LeftCoast is offline  
Old 04-28-2003, 09:02 AM   #20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: here
Posts: 738
Default

I see what you're saying but the problem is these kids are still playing a game of russian roulette with less bullets. Abstinence should be the first thing taught. If you're going to teach everything, they should in the very least be taught in context.
Ultron is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:20 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.