attitudes to Sex

ISAW

I was just listening to Spin 103.8 FM in Dublin around 13:20 1st December 2011 A caller mentioned that when she had sex one about a year ago she had such fear of HIV that she has been tested five times since and would rather not have sex than the have fear of getting AIDS.
There was a male and female presenter.
The female suggested the "obvious solution "[from memory ] was to wear a condom.
The girl said that she didn't trust even condoms and preferred not to have sex. The presenter said that "well they are not 100 per cent certain but they are 99 per cent are they...?" or words to that effect.
The male presenter said "I'm not suggesting you are crazy but" or words to that effect and suggested she contact a professional about her irrational fear.

If she decided not to have sex why attack her for being irrational?
Why not just say "well that is your choice" without adding "but you are mentally ill for not having sex using condoms"

Why is the media not able to accept some people don't want to have sex and instead have to push it on them like some "feelgood" drug? I mean they wouldn't try to say the person not take heroine if the person had a fear of hepatitis would they? Would they say the "obvious answer" is to use a clean needle?

ISAW

ISAW wrote: »

Why is the media not able to accept some people don't want to have sex and instead have to push it on them like some "feelgood" drug? I mean they wouldn't try to say the person not take heroine if the person had a fear of hepatitis would they? Would they say the "obvious answer" is to use a clean needle?

I assume this woman rang the radio station herself to discuss the subject, so it was not "pushed on her".
As for accepting it, having sex and wanting it is the most natural thing in the world. If you don't want it don't do it, but an irrational fear is an irrational fear and should be looked at. If I absolutely hated eating or drinking something because I was obsessed with germs despite all contrary evidence, I'd expect to be told I have a problem as well.

CiaranMT

Having had sex once, and being tested 5 times for HIV/AIDs in the intervening year does suggest that she isn't being entirely rational about this.

Did she elaborate on the partner she had sex with? Or any other possible reasons for her concern?

Also, why post this here, and not in Radio?

Fanny Cradock

What has this got to do with Christianity?

If people are saying that choosing not to have sex is in and of itself a form of mental illness (and some have said as much here) then I think they are wrong. If, however, the presenters are saying that her reasons were based upon an irrational fear of contracting HIV then perhaps they are correct.

For example, it might be considered reasonable not to go to the park because you don't enjoy parks, suffer from hay-fever, are too busy working or whatever else. However, if you avoid parks simply because you think that you will get murdered by a knife wielding maniac then that seems to be an irrational fear (at least with respect to my experiences in parks).

28064212

Two presenters does not equal "the media"

Benny_Cake

Getting tested 5 times for HIV in the space of a year after a single potential exposure is not rational behaviour.A person should take the negative result and get on with their life,and it sounds to me like she may need counselling if it is affecting her life in such a negative way.Obsessive compulsive behaviour is not a pleasant condition.

Since you are comparing having sex to intravenous drug use,yes,most professionals would rather someone uses a clean syringe if they were going to use drugs.Condoms have been proven to be an extremely effective weapon in the fight against HIV.In spite of some interpretations of Christian morality,people will have sex,and HIV doesn't care about religious strictures.So people should be as safe as possible.

Lady Chuckles

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

What has this got to do with Christianity?

+1

irishh_bob

ISAW wrote: »

I was just listening to Spin 103.8 FM in Dublin around 13:20 1st December 2011 A caller mentioned that when she had sex one about a year ago she had such fear of HIV that she has been tested five times since and would rather not have sex than the have fear of getting AIDS.
There was a male and female presenter.
The female suggested the "obvious solution "[from memory ] was to wear a condom.
The girl said that she didn't trust even condoms and preferred not to have sex. The presenter said that "well they are not 100 per cent certain but they are 99 per cent are they...?" or words to that effect.
The male presenter said "I'm not suggesting you are crazy but" or words to that effect and suggested she contact a professional about her irrational fear.

If she decided not to have sex why attack her for being irrational?
Why not just say "well that is your choice" without adding "but you are mentally ill for not having sex using condoms"

Why is the media not able to accept some people don't want to have sex and instead have to push it on them like some "feelgood" drug? I mean they wouldn't try to say the person not take heroine if the person had a fear of hepatitis would they? Would they say the "obvious answer" is to use a clean needle?

the likes of spin 103-8 or impossibley trendy modern stations like that see anything traditional as uncool , im an athiest but im conservative on many issues , abstanence should be allowed mention without the idea being mocked by witless clone like trendy liberals who,s vocabulary begins with cool and ends with totally

Benny_Cake

irishh_bob wrote: »

the likes of spin 103-8 or impossibley trendy modern stations like that see anything traditional as uncool , im an athiest but im conservative on many issues , abstanence should be allowed mention without the idea being mocked by witless clone like trendy liberals who,s vocabulary begins with cool and ends with totally

Nothing wrong with abstinence if someone wants to live their life that way, but if they are doing it solely because of a completely irrational fear then that just isn't healthy.

Duke Leonal Felmet

bluewolf wrote: »

ISAW wrote: »

Why is the media not able to accept some people don't want to have sex and instead have to push it on them like some "feelgood" drug? I mean they wouldn't try to say the person not take heroine if the person had a fear of hepatitis would they? Would they say the "obvious answer" is to use a clean needle?

I assume this woman rang the radio station herself to discuss the subject, so it was not "pushed on her".
As for accepting it, having sex and wanting it is the most natural thing in the world. If you don't want it don't do it, but an irrational fear is an irrational fear and should be looked at. If I absolutely hated eating or drinking something because I was obsessed with germs despite all contrary evidence, I'd expect to be told I have a problem as well.

Stop pushing food on me!

JimiTime

ISAW wrote: »

I was just listening to Spin 103.8 FM in Dublin around 13:20 1st December 2011 A caller mentioned that when she had sex one about a year ago she had such fear of HIV that she has been tested five times since and would rather not have sex than the have fear of getting AIDS.
There was a male and female presenter.
The female suggested the "obvious solution "[from memory ] was to wear a condom.
The girl said that she didn't trust even condoms and preferred not to have sex. The presenter said that "well they are not 100 per cent certain but they are 99 per cent are they...?" or words to that effect.
The male presenter said "I'm not suggesting you are crazy but" or words to that effect and suggested she contact a professional about her irrational fear.

If she decided not to have sex why attack her for being irrational?
Why not just say "well that is your choice" without adding "but you are mentally ill for not having sex using condoms"

Why is the media not able to accept some people don't want to have sex and instead have to push it on them like some "feelgood" drug? I mean they wouldn't try to say the person not take heroine if the person had a fear of hepatitis would they? Would they say the "obvious answer" is to use a clean needle?

Like Fanny alluded to, I think its the motive and not the actual not having sex thats the issue. If she said that she didn't want to have sex because she didn't want to risk STI, or she had a moral objection or whatever, then I think that would be rational. However, she does seem irrational about the AIDS thing.

Penn

ISAW wrote: »

I was just listening to Spin 103.8 FM in Dublin around 13:20 1st December 2011 A caller mentioned that when she had sex one about a year ago she had such fear of HIV that she has been tested five times since and would rather not have sex than the have fear of getting AIDS.
There was a male and female presenter.
The female suggested the "obvious solution "[from memory ] was to wear a condom.
The girl said that she didn't trust even condoms and preferred not to have sex. The presenter said that "well they are not 100 per cent certain but they are 99 per cent are they...?" or words to that effect.
The male presenter said "I'm not suggesting you are crazy but" or words to that effect and suggested she contact a professional about her irrational fear.

If she decided not to have sex why attack her for being irrational?
Why not just say "well that is your choice" without adding "but you are mentally ill for not having sex using condoms"

Why is the media not able to accept some people don't want to have sex and instead have to push it on them like some "feelgood" drug? I mean they wouldn't try to say the person not take heroine if the person had a fear of hepatitis would they? Would they say the "obvious answer" is to use a clean needle?

Surely it was more to do with the 'irrational fear' than trying to convince her not to be abstinent?

What would happen if she stayed abstinent, found a boyfriend, got married and a few months later, decided she wanted kids... but still had a fear of contracting HIV? I mean, what if her husband was tested and it was negative... but what if the test was wrong? What if she got HIV from him? What if she kept getting herself tested but still thought she might have HIV? Could she have a child if she had HIV?

Seeking professional help to combat the issue of her irrational fear now means she is free to be abstinent or have protected sex, but with a clear mind and a conscious decision.

ISAW

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

What has this got to do with Christianity?

I guess the point is in the so called "modern" world the whole "use a condom" or "use a clean needle" thing is promoted as normal and abstinence or monogamy or marriage for life ( traditional Christian values) or avoiding drugs are viewed as sort of "mental".

Penn

ISAW wrote: »

I guess the point is in the so called "modern" world the whole "use a condom" or "use a clean needle" thing is promoted as normal and abstinence or monogamy or marriage for life ( traditional Christian values) or avoiding drugs are viewed as sort of "mental".

"Use a condom" and "Use a clean needle" are two very different things, and I would say that "Use a clean needle" isn't something which is promoted as normal, whereas avoiding drugs is.

number10a

ISAW wrote: »

I guess the point is in the so called "modern" world the whole "use a condom" or "use a clean needle" thing is promoted as normal and abstinence or monogamy or marriage for life ( traditional Christian values) or avoiding drugs are viewed as sort of "mental".

Okay, sex and heroin are two veeeerrrry different things. I am a gay atheist, so basically the complete opposite to a good Christian, and even I, heretic that I am, have never ever heard of anyone being slated for not taking drugs of any sort, let alone heroin.

ISAW

28064212 wrote: »

Two presenters does not equal "the media"

got me there! Mea culpa One can argue from the general to the particular butnot vice versa i.e particaur examples proving a general rule I have and do outline the "media myths" elsewhere in the clerical child abuse thread for example or many on WMD in Iraq in politics in the past. I have posted to the "Manufacturing consent" theory of Chomsky in this regard. But I think it apt to post about examples as ans when one witnesses them. So I guess I am really giving a p[articular example of what I already have referred to as a general pattern.

JimiTime

ISAW wrote: »

got me there! Mea culpa One can argue from the general to the particular butnot vice versa i.e particaur examples proving a general rule I have and do outline the "media myths" elsewhere in the clerical child abuse thread for example or many on WMD in Iraq in politics in the past. I have posted to the "Manufacturing consent" theory of Chomsky in this regard. But I think it apt to post about examples as ans when one witnesses them. So I guess I am really giving a p[articular example of what I already have referred to as a general pattern.

TBH, I don't think its a good example, as this was more about this womans paranoia about AIDS. I agree that the modern attitude to sex is far from virtuous or the Christian view, but I just think that the example in the OP is not a good example.:)

ISAW

Penn wrote: »

Surely it was more to do with the 'irrational fear' than trying to convince her not to be abstinent?

To be honest I was suspicious she was put up to it to test whether the presenters would accept her abstinence. But maybe not. The salient point however is that if she just rang up and said she believed in abstinence show might not have get on but the "I am afraid of getting AIDS" line got her on. The isnt any story in abstaining there is in suggesting irrational fear.
But the thing is if condoms are not 100 per cent safe how is she being "irrational"?

Do we call people "irrational" for buying lottery tickets?
Yet their chances of winning are less than their chances of a condom not working.

JimiTime wrote: »

TBH, I don't think its a good example, as this was more about this womans paranoia about AIDS. I agree that the modern attitude to sex is far from virtuous or the Christian view, but I just think that the example in the OP is not a good example.:)

I agree. She isn't a paragon of virtue nor did she claim to be. But she did raise issues about what our values are and what we expect from people and how we judge them.

Penn

ISAW wrote: »

But the thing is if condoms are not 100 per cent safe how is she being "irrational"?

Getting herself tested 5 times for HIV in a year even after the first test came back negative.

CiaranMT

ISAW wrote: »

But the thing is if condoms are not 100 per cent safe how is she being "irrational"?

Again, this is nowt to do with condoms and more to do with her irrational fear of contracting HIV/AIDs.

Do we call people "irrational" for buying lottery tickets?
Yet their chances of winning are less than their chances of a condom not working.

I would :pac:

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

I was just listening to Spin 103.8 FM in Dublin around 13:20 1st December 2011 A caller mentioned that when she had sex one about a year ago she had such fear of HIV that she has been tested five times since and would rather not have sex than the have fear of getting AIDS.
There was a male and female presenter.
The female suggested the "obvious solution "[from memory ] was to wear a condom.
The girl said that she didn't trust even condoms and preferred not to have sex. The presenter said that "well they are not 100 per cent certain but they are 99 per cent are they...?" or words to that effect.
The male presenter said "I'm not suggesting you are crazy but" or words to that effect and suggested she contact a professional about her irrational fear.

If she decided not to have sex why attack her for being irrational?
Why not just say "well that is your choice" without adding "but you are mentally ill for not having sex using condoms"

Why is the media not able to accept some people don't want to have sex and instead have to push it on them like some "feelgood" drug? I mean they wouldn't try to say the person not take heroine if the person had a fear of hepatitis would they? Would they say the "obvious answer" is to use a clean needle?

I would guess because this woman clearly has an irrational fear of sexual intercourse (genophobia) or irrational fear of disease (hypochondria), and probably needs help to deal with it.

While they certainly shouldn't have called her mentally ill on air, that is utterly disgraceful, equally there is no need to indulge such an irrational fear as if it is normal or sensible. Politely pointing out that it is an irrational fear can be what the person needs to seek help.

If someone said they were never leaving their house because they might get hit by a car I'm sure people would say the same thing to them, this is irrational, it is not normal, you need help dealing with it.

ISAW

ISAW wrote: »

Do we call people "irrational" for buying lottery tickets?

Yes, that's why it's called a "tax on stupidity"

Zombrex

number10a wrote: »

Okay, sex and heroin are two veeeerrrry different things. I am a gay atheist, so basically the complete opposite to a good Christian, and even I, heretic that I am, have never ever heard of anyone being slated for not taking drugs of any sort, let alone heroin.

+1

Yes people seem to forget that "use a clean needle" is not said to teenagers in sex ed classes, it is said to homeless chronic drug users, ie people who are already in a terrible place and who the support groups are trying to stop falling into an even worse fate.

The idea that saying use a clean needle encourages drug is like saying having a sign up in a Army hospital instructing the use of gloves to stop infection spreading encourages wars :rolleyes:

Spacedog

hey ISAW,

You seem to take personal issue with what the radio presenters said. Do you abstain from sexual activity?

It seems the caller had an irrational fear of HIV, and had let that fear manifest itself into a fear of sex? which would raise issues later if she wanted to have kids etc.

The radio presenters comments were in this context, and were clearly not directed towards insulting abstinent choirboys such as yourself, who would make minority of their listenership.

Getting upset about such a comment is like the type of atheist who gets upset when someone says 'Happy Christmas'.

ISAW

Zombrex wrote: »

+1

Yes people seem to forget that "use a clean needle" is not said to teenagers in sex ed classes, it is said to homeless chronic drug users, ie people who are already in a terrible place and who the support groups are trying to stop falling into an even worse fate.

The concept is the same "use clean needles" or "use condoms" . Drug use is a criminal activity but sex isn't ( actually maybe in this case it was. In fact the presenters went on to talk about fifteen year old having sex and mentioning "that does not mean all of them are doing it" In effect they were saying the illegal activities of teens are okay if condoms were used) . Maybe if heroine was legalised or even cannabis they would promote "safe" ways of taking these drugs?
I note the way you catagorise all heroine addicts who dont use clean needles and who share needles as "homeless".

The idea that saying use a clean needle encourages drug is like saying having a sign up in a Army hospital instructing the use of gloves to stop infection spreading encourages wars :rolleyes:

not at all! the "use a condom top prevent AIDS" does not solve the AIDS problem nor does it promote a society where sex is monogamous. I mean if all sex was with somoene you know and you kept to that partner how would a condom make any difference as regards HIV?

ISAW

Spacedog wrote: »

hey ISAW,

You seem to take personal issue with what the radio presenters said. Do you abstain from sexual activity?

Ill give you a straight answer to that.
None of you r business and not a topic for this thread.

snip ad hominem

Benny_Cake

ISAW wrote: »

not at all! the "use a condom top prevent AIDS" does not solve the AIDS problem nor does it promote a society where sex is monogamous. I mean if all sex was with somoene you know and you kept to that partner how would a condom make any difference as regards HIV?

No one pretends condoms are a silver bullet,just a weapon in the arsenal. The strategy that has yielded the best results is the ABC strategy - Abstain, Be faithful, use a Condom.

Standman

ISAW wrote: »

The concept is the same "use clean needles" or "use condoms" . Drug use is a criminal activity but sex isn't ( actually maybe in this case it was. In fact the presenters went on to talk about fifteen year old having sex and mentioning "that does not mean all of them are doing it" In effect they were saying the illegal activities of teens are okay if condoms were used) . Maybe if heroine was legalised or even cannabis they would promote "safe" ways of taking these drugs?
I note the way you catagorise all heroine addicts who dont use clean needles and who share needles as "homeless".


not at all! the "use a condom top prevent AIDS" does not solve the AIDS problem nor does it promote a society where sex is monogamous. I mean if all sex was with somoene you know and you kept to that partner how would a condom make any difference as regards HIV?

It doesn't solve the problem but its a damn good way of protecting yourself if you choose to have many partners, which is everyone's right. It doesn't promote anything other than safe sex.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

The concept is the same "use clean needles" or "use condoms" . Drug use is a criminal activity but sex isn't ( actually maybe in this case it was. In fact the presenters went on to talk about fifteen year old having sex and mentioning "that does not mean all of them are doing it" In effect they were saying the illegal activities of teens are okay if condoms were used) . Maybe if heroine was legalised or even cannabis they would promote "safe" ways of taking these drugs?

Sorry did you mean to say the concept isn't the same? Because you said it was the same and then contradicted that in the very next sentence.

ISAW wrote: »

I note the way you catagorise all heroine addicts who dont use clean needles and who share needles as "homeless".

Er, no I didn't, not that it is even vital to the point if I did.

ISAW wrote: »

not at all! the "use a condom top prevent AIDS" does not solve the AIDS problem nor does it promote a society where sex is monogamous. I mean if all sex was with somoene you know and you kept to that partner how would a condom make any difference as regards HIV?

What does that have to do with the use a needle campaigns?

Also not solving something is not the same as causing it (Condom usage and education on how to use them does greatly reduce STI transmission but again that is beside the point).

Do you believe having disinfected hospitals promotes war? Of course not. War happens anyway, we disinfect our hospitals to minimise the effects of it.

People are going to have sex whether they are given a condom or not. So why not give them a condom, it will minimize further risk to them.

People are going to drive a car whether we give them a seat belt or not. So why not give them a seat belt, it will minimize further risk to them.

People are going to take drugs whether we give them a clean needle or not. So why not give them a clean needle, it will minimize further risk to them.

People are going to have wars whether we give them clean army hospitals or not. So why not give them clean army hospitals, it will minimize further risk to them.

Etc etc etc.

ISAW

Benny_Cake wrote: »

No one pretends condoms are a silver bullet,just a weapon in the arsenal. The strategy that has yielded the best results is the ABC strategy - Abstain, Be faithful, use a Condom.

and "D" - do it with whomsoever you want including complete strangers you never met before and don't know anyone who knows them?
You see if the strategy is do A and if you are not going to do A try to do B and so on you eventually have to get to a "use a silencer" option
i.e.
Don't have a gun
If you have a gun have a handgun and not a more dangerous high velocity rifle
Dont a carry it about the streets
If you are going to carry it keep it concealed
dont point it at people ...and so on until ...
If you decide you are going to shoot people in the head anyway ...use a silencer.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

and "D" - do it with whomsoever you want including complete strangers you never met before and don't know anyone who knows them?
You see if the strategy is do A and if you are not going to do A try to do B and so on you eventually have to get to a "use a silencer" option
i.e.
Don't have a gun
If you have a gun have a handgun and not a more dangerous high velocity rifle
Dont a carry it about the streets
If you are going to carry it keep it concealed
dont point it at people ...and so on until ...
If you decide you are going to shoot people in the head anyway ...use a silencer.

You think having pre-marital sex is the moral equiviliant of shooting someone in the head?

If you manage to get pre-marital sex made illegal then you might have a point, since whether or not you use a silencer is of no consequence to whether or not it is illegal to shoot someone in the head.

But until you do manage to get fornication made illegal (good luck with that one) your analogy with shooting people is frankly stupid.

At the moment, whether you agree with this or not, sexual intercourse between consenting adults is legal. So a far better analogy is driving.

If you drive a car you might die and you might kill someone. Despite this very few people believe that the risks are so great that you shouldn't ever drive a car.

So given that it is legal and people want to drive and thus will drive, car safety campaigners have attempted to increase safety in cars, such as introducing seat belts, since even if they wanted to simply telling people not to drive is rather pointless.

Do seat belts "solve" the problem of fatal car crashes? Nope, you still might die in a car, but the odds are reduced.

Does this mean seat belts encourage dangerous driving? Not based on any statistics I've ever seen.

ISAW

Zombrex wrote: »

Sorry did you mean to say the concept isn't the same? Because you said it was the same and then contradicted that in the very next sentence.

Nope I said the "concept" was the same.
If I am building a house and want an entrance to the property round the backit could be a gate or a door. the concept of "it is an entrance" is the same/ That does not mean all gats are doors.

Er, no I didn't, not that it is even vital to the point if I did.

Er yes you did ( equate homeless people to free needles and by default non homeless to the "clean" group of teenagers who have sex all they want and arenot intravenous drug users but healthy/wealthy people. Not far short of having straight white teeth and all the other "in group" attributes.) .

It isn't related to the point I agree but it was what you chose to say. You brought the comparison up. If it was not related why use the example?
whatyou stated:

"use a clean needle" is not said to teenagers in sex ed classes, it is said to homeless chronic drug users, ie people who are already in a terrible place and who the support groups are trying to stop falling into an even worse fate.

What I compared was the concept of free needles and the concept of using condoms as being "good" for preventing AIDS or even the concept of having a silencer as opposed to not carrying a gun at all.

Also not solving something is not the same as causing it (Condom usage and education on how to use them does greatly reduce STI transmission but again that is beside the point).

And not having sex with anyone other than ones partner would reduce STI transmission by 100 per cent. That is in fact the point. Promoting sex.

Do you believe having disinfected hospitals promotes war? Of course not. War happens anyway, we disinfect our hospitals to minimise the effects of it.

WE disinfect hoispitals to remove infections. That has nothing to do with War! I cant think oiof a case in history where a policy of disinfecting a hospital resulted in causing or preventing a war.

People are going to have sex whether they are given a condom or not. So why not give them a condom, it will minimize further risk to them.

People are going to kill other people too? why not give them all guns and have done with it? Or maybe offer free silencers to thosewho have guns? Or free handguns to those
with rifles?

People are going to drive a car whether we give them a seat belt or not. So why not give them a seat belt, it will minimize further risk to them.

And pass laws that demand they wear it? so why not pass laws that outlaw extra marital sex if you think why not have society regulate them?

People are going to take drugs whether we give them a clean needle or not. So why not give them a clean needle, it will minimize further risk to them.

If giving free needles makes it easier for them why not just give them free drugs then if you believe they will take them anyway?

People are going to have wars whether we give them clean army hospitals or not. So why not give them clean army hospitals, it will minimize further risk to them.

Yeah and chariot races and gladiators too!
The point is they should have clean hospitals without wars! Hospitals should not be there to facilitate warmongers!

robbie_998

just lob it in boss !

Corkfeen

There is not any similarity between injecting drugs into your veins and sex. Condoms are a safe way to have sex, it hurts neither party by doing so. The person who phoned the radio station showed irrational fear of HIV so it was probably best to recommend that she gets some help.

Heroin use can ruin lives while on the other hand for condoms, they prevent pregnancies and STDs (Awful right?). It creates a safe environment that the vast majority of the time does not result in the ruining of lives. It's entirely up to the individual to choose what sort of sex life that they choose to pursue and to be perfectly honest, no one should be condemned if they choose to abstain or for having a having a healthy sex life. Pre-marital sex or otherwise has little to do with anyone besides the parties involved. This claim that societies values are warped is absurd, based solely on a fair point that was made by the radio presenters...

superstoner90

one time me and my friend , got used condoms and threw them onto the roof of the church really funny

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

Nope I said the "concept" was the same.
If I am building a house and want an entrance to the property round the backit could be a gate or a door. the concept of "it is an entrance" is the same/ That does not mean all gats are doors.

Is it the same concept as seat belts in cars? What exactly, to you is the concept?

ISAW wrote: »

Er yes you did ( equate homeless people to free needles and by default non homeless to the "clean" group of teenagers who have sex all they want and arenot intravenous drug users but healthy/wealthy people. Not far short of having straight white teeth and all the other "in group" attributes.) .

You seem to have gone off the reservation with that one, I equated clean drug users to teenagers having sex? In what universe? :rolleyes:

ISAW wrote: »

It isn't related to the point I agree but it was what you chose to say.

Actually what I said was free needle campaigns target homeless chronic drug users. Why? Because they tend to be the ones that need the needles.

Everything else seems to have only taken place in the imaginary conversation you experienced in your head.

ISAW wrote: »

You brought the comparison up.

No, actually you brought up clean needles in your original post.

ISAW wrote: »

If it was not related why use the example?

Because you brought it up and it is important to explain how it is not a fair comparison.

ISAW wrote: »

What I compared was the concept of free needles and the concept of using condoms as being "good" for preventing AIDS or even the concept of having a silencer as opposed to not carrying a gun at all.

Yes, I know. You brought up the comparison and I explained how they have very little to do with each other.

ISAW wrote: »

And not having sex with anyone other than ones partner would reduce STI transmission by 100 per cent. That is in fact the point. Promoting sex.

Correct. And never leaving your house will mean you never get hit by a car.

The problem with that is people actually want to leave their houses. So the question for car safety campaigner is not How can we make sure no one leaves their houses, it is how can we make people safer when they are driving.

ISAW wrote: »

WE disinfect hoispitals to remove infections. That has nothing to do with War! I cant think oiof a case in history where a policy of disinfecting a hospital resulted in causing or preventing a war.

Yes ISAW, that is the point. Wars happen independently to whether our army hospitals are clean. We do not clean them to promote wars, we clean them because wars happen anyway and when they do happen we don't want to make it worse by having dirty hospitals.

ISAW wrote: »

People are going to kill other people too? why not give them all guns and have done with it?

Because giving people guns doesn't make them any safer.

A better analogy would be handing out flack jackets to journalists in war zones. You can't stop the war, you can't stop people having pop shots at the journalists. You can tell the journalists to not go to the war zone but you can't legally stop them doing so.

So what do you do? You hand out flack jackets to them.

Does this encourage journalists to go get killed in war zones? Does this mean you are making a moral decision to support the war? No, that would be stupid.

ISAW wrote: »

And pass laws that demand they wear it? so why not pass laws that outlaw extra marital sex if you think why not have society regulate them?

I think you mean laws that demand condoms are used. Laws that outlaw fornication are not the equalivant to seat belts, they are equalivant to banning driving.

I think making condom use mandatory is a great idea but utterly un-enforceable for most people. In areas where it is actually enforceable, such as in legal pornography (such as in America) then condom use should be mandatory, just like wearing a seat belt.

ISAW wrote: »

If giving free needles makes it easier for them why not just give them free drugs then if you believe they will take them anyway?

Because giving them free drugs doesn't make them any safer.

This is the second time I've had to explain this to you, are you even sure you know why campaigners hand out free clean needles?

ISAW wrote: »

Yeah and chariot races and gladiators too!

THis makes them safer how exactly?

ISAW wrote: »

The point is they should have clean hospitals without wars! Hospitals should not be there to facilitate warmongers!

Of course there should be no war, but there is and you are not going to stop having clean Army hospitals just to make a point about not having wars at all, are you?

laoch na mona

sex is grand no danger if you do it right

ISAW

Zombrex wrote: »

You think having pre-marital sex is the moral equiviliant of shooting someone in the head?

I find it a bit rich for someone who follows a philosophy of moral relativity to lecture others on "moral equivalance" when their own philosophy rejects comparison with moral absolutes.

I'm not saying sex is worse than murder or better than murder.
I am saying if something is wrong it is wrong.
Similarly one believe in God or they don't. You don't believe in "more God" or "believe more" in God.
From the point of view of a valid logical argument of comparison we can classify certain things into the set of "things that are wrong" . If unprotected sex with a compolete stranger and shooting someone arein this set can refer to "justifying something which is wrong" without having to say murder is "more wrong" than rape for example.

But until you do manage to get fornication made illegal (good luck with that one) your analogy with shooting people is frankly stupid.

Might i point out the sex being made illegal is nbased on your suggestion about it being wise to have seat belts so that people would use them and My pointing out that the consequence of making them available was making not wearing them against the law. Logically if you think of wearing the seat belt as equivalent to not having sex and not wearing them equivalent to having sex ( and I think that isn't a difficult thing to compare) then making it illegal to wear a seat belt is logically equivalent to to making it illegal to have sex. Logically follows from your example of what you considered a wise practice.

At the moment, whether you agree with this or not, sexual intercourse between consenting adults is legal.

Actually no you are wrong . It might not be criminal but it might well be illegal. Adultery for example. In some cultures adultery is in fact a crime. I'm sure at least as a moral relativist you will respect that?

If you drive a car you might die and you might kill someone. Despite this very few people believe that the risks are so great that you shouldn't ever drive a car.

But only people who can legally have sexd can drive cars. If they are under 17 it is illegal to drive and have sex.

So given that it is legal and people want to drive and thus will drive, car safety campaigners have attempted to increase safety in cars, such as introducing seat belts, since even if they wanted to simply telling people not to drive is rather pointless.

And it is illegal for most teenagers to drive but you would say "if you are going to drive illegally wear a seat belt"? Surely you think it is better to advise them not to drive in the first place?

Do seat belts "solve" the problem of fatal car crashes? Nope, you still might die in a car, but the odds are reduced.

Nor do they solve the problems of underage illegal drivers. Similarly condoms don't solve the AIDS problem but that still does not mean underage sex is legal. It isn't!

Does this mean seat belts encourage dangerous driving? Not based on any statistics I've ever seen.

You have ti backwards! Rather then focus on dangerous driving you were saying "whether or not there is dangerous driving we had better demand all cars have seat belts"
Now by your own admission you are saying seat belts are not related to dangerous driving.

What I am clearly saying is if you encourage a culture of "focus on having seat belts" and forget about the dangerous drivers we will have carnage on the roads.

ISAW

Zombrex wrote: »

...

You seem to have gone off the reservation with that one, I equated clean drug users to teenagers having sex? In what universe? :rolleyes:
...

Actually what I said was free needle campaigns target homeless chronic drug users. Why? Because they tend to be the ones that need the needles.

Everything else seems to have only taken place in the imaginary conversation you experienced in your head.

What you stated was "use a clean needle" is not said to teenagers in sex ed classes, it is said to homeless chronic drug users,

Those were your actual words you had the free needles and compared them to teenagers and condoms in the same sentence. It was not only about free needles being targeted at homeless people.

[quo0te]
No, actually you brought up clean needles in your original post.

Because you brought it up and it is important to explain how it is not a fair comparison.
[/quote]

I brought it up as an example of doing something wrong ( taking heroin) being ignored in order to promote what is consider a "cool " right thing ( clean needle exchange programmes/ condom campaigns)
I was demonstrating that such things tackle a symptom not the problem.
They have a great programme for saving all the peopole who are drowning drifting by them in the river but they dont think to go upstream and find out who is chucking all these people in!

You on the other hand made a different comparison and compared homeless people with those who are in needle exchanges programmes. That is the comparison I drew attention to. Why the addicts in needle exchange programmes are more likely to be homeless than other addicts i have yet to learn.

Yes, I know. You brought up the comparison and I explained how they have very little to do with each other.

While making another comparison between heroin users in needle exchanges and homelessness.

Surely you are aware ( given you just referred to it) that I was referring to a girl worried about HIV and her fear of unprotected sex?
Surely you are aware that the whole "wear a condom" ( also referred to in my Original post) concept was promoted as a preventative measure for the spread of HIV?
You are aware unprotected sex is connected to spreading HIV?
You are also aware intravenous drug use is also a vector for spread of AIDS/HIV?

And, in spite of the parallel logical argument about the media justifying immoral actions and promulgating myths, you conclude that in a conversion about the fear of spreading HIV these two main ways of spreading HIV have " very little to do with each other. " ?

Fair enough Ill leave it at that then. Wear your seat belt or don't. I'm sure my reasoning on it will probably be ignored.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

I find it a bit rich for someone who follows a philosophy of moral relativity to lecture others on "moral equivalance" when their own philosophy rejects comparison with moral absolutes.

I'm not saying sex is worse than murder or better than murder.
I am saying if something is wrong it is wrong.
Similarly one believe in God or they don't. You don't believe in "more God" or "believe more" in God.
From the point of view of a valid logical argument of comparison we can classify certain things into the set of "things that are wrong" . If unprotected sex with a compolete stranger and shooting someone arein this set can refer to "justifying something which is wrong" without having to say murder is "more wrong" than rape for example.

Well like I said, when you get sex made illegal you can make a valid comparison between handing out condoms and shooting someone in the head. Until then you are comparing two very different things.

ISAW wrote: »

Might i point out the sex being made illegal is nbased on your suggestion about it being wise to have seat belts so that people would use them and My pointing out that the consequence of making them available was making not wearing them against the law. Logically if you think of wearing the seat belt as equivalent to not having sex and not wearing them equivalent to having sex ( and I think that isn't a difficult thing to compare)

I don't. Having sex is equivalent to driving, and not having sex is equivalent to not driving. Wearing a seat belt is equivalent to wearing a condom while having sex.

I would have thought that would have been blindly obvious (what did you think the driving part was equivalent to, how is not wearing a seat belt an analogy for not having sex??? ), but if it wasn't before it should be now.

Car safety campaigners could just tell people Don't Drive! But they know people will drive, want to drive and will continue to drive anyway. So they give them seat belts to try and make them safer when they are driving.

ISAW wrote: »

Actually no you are wrong . It might not be criminal but it might well be illegal. Adultery for example. In some cultures adultery is in fact a crime. I'm sure at least as a moral relativist you will respect that?

Er, do we live in "some cultures". In some cultures fornication is illegal. But we are in Ireland. Sexual intercourse between consenting adults is not illegal.

ISAW wrote: »

But only people who can legally have sexd can drive cars. If they are under 17 it is illegal to drive and have sex.

What does that have to do with what I said?

You might die if you drive a car. Despite this people still drive cars, people still want to drive cars. Telling them they shouldn't won't stop this. So instead they are given seat belts.

If you like you can tell people not to have sex, but they will anyway. So instead give them condoms.

ISAW wrote: »

And it is illegal for most teenagers to drive but you would say "if you are going to drive illegally wear a seat belt"? Surely you think it is better to advise them not to drive in the first place?

Sure. I would advice children under the age of consent not to have sex as well. If I knew they were going to anyway I would tell them to wear a seat belt or wear a condom.

Which would you prefer, a dead child who wasn't wearing a seat belt or a banged up teenager who was.

It is the advantage of kids though, you can actually stop them if they are under age from a lot of things. You can't stop adults from doing legal things though, can you?

ISAW wrote: »

Nor do they solve the problems of underage illegal drivers. Similarly condoms don't solve the AIDS problem but that still does not mean underage sex is legal. It isn't!

What? That is really quite muddled. What does condoms protecting you against AIDS have to do with under age sex being legal?

Under age sex is considered illegal because it is considered harmful to the child and the child is considered unable to consent.

ISAW wrote: »

You have ti backwards! Rather then focus on dangerous driving you were saying "whether or not there is dangerous driving we had better demand all cars have seat belts"
Now by your own admission you are saying seat belts are not related to dangerous driving.

They are not related to dangerous driving, that was my point. People do not drive more dangerous because they have seat belts. People drive dangerously for other, often very stupid, reasons. The seat belt is there to help protect them and other car drivers from greater injury if there was an accident.

Equally condoms don't make people have risker sex (the opposite in fact), people have risky sex anyway. The condom is there to help protect them and their partner.

ISAW wrote: »

What I am clearly saying is if you encourage a culture of "focus on having seat belts" and forget about the dangerous drivers we will have carnage on the roads.

Who said anything about forgetting about dangerous driving.

The point is giving people seat belts doesn't encourage them to go out and be dangerous drives. The idea that we shouldn't give people seat belts because it will give them the wrong idea about driving is stupid.

Equally giving people condoms doesn't encourage them to go out and have dangerous sex. In fact it has the opposite effect, studies have shown that the more exposure to condoms people have the less likely they are to have risky sex, which leads to the conclusion that risky sex is a result of absent mindedness, which is combated by reminding people of the dangers of sex by providing something that exists because the dangers exist.

Siuin

OP why are you so obsessed with other people wearing condoms? Do you know that nobody is going to seize your dick and make you use one, so let people do what they want. They're being responsible by using protection- not everyone wants to sit in their room fapping all day.

ISAW

Zombrex wrote: »

Er, do we live in "some cultures". In some cultures fornication is illegal. But we are in Ireland. Sexual intercourse between consenting adults is not illegal.

Adultery is fornication!
Funny how as a moral relative you rely on Ireland as an absolute.
As it happens adultery is illegal here too. It is grounds for divorce or separation.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1989/en/act/pub/0006/sec0002.html#sec2

Sure. I would advice children under the age of consent not to have sex as well. If I knew they were going to anyway I would tell them to wear a seat belt or wear a condom.

So you would advice people to do something illegal in a way you consider in your opinion might be less harmfull even though illegal?

Which would you prefer, a dead child who wasn't wearing a seat belt or a banged up teenager who was.

Id prefer they dint break the law or diver underage and respect other people in which case they wouldnt end up dead or in prison.

It is the advantage of kids though, you can actually stop them if they are under age from a lot of things. You can't stop adults from doing legal things though, can you?

non issue!
You can't stop kids from doing legal things either!

Look I'm taking a break from these "moral relative today and point to absolutes tomorrow" contradictory conversations.

Corkfeen

Siuin wrote: »

OP why are you so obsessed with other people wearing condoms? Do you know that nobody is going to seize your dick and make you use one, so let people do what they want. They're being responsible by using protection- not everyone wants to sit in their room fapping all day.

We're all immoral bastards apparently......

ISAW, I know plenty of people who had underage sex , some regret it, others don't. But they're studying for their degrees. If they were advised not to use condoms, perhaps they may have had a family far too young in life and not be where they are now. I'm not seeing an issue with them having the common sense to use condoms....

ISAW

Siuin wrote: »

OP why are you so obsessed with other people wearing condoms?

I'm not. I'm pointing to the "acceptable standards" and "manufactured consent" of media and how traditional values are scoffed at by the same.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

Adultery is fornication!
Funny how as a moral relative you rely on Ireland as an absolute.
As it happens adultery is illegal here too. It is grounds for divorce or separation.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1989/en/act/pub/0006/sec0002.html#sec2

That doesn't make it illegal.

And if you want to start arguing we should all be living in a country like Saudi Arabia go ahead, but as it stands right now we live in Ireland where sex is not illegal.

ISAW wrote: »

So you would advice people to do something illegal in a way you consider in your opinion might be less harmfull even though illegal?

I wouldn't advice anyone to do anything illegal, why would I advice them to do something illegal? That is terrible advice.

I would advice someone to be safe if I knew they were doing something dangerous, whether that dangerous thing was legal or illegal.

ISAW wrote: »

Id prefer they dint break the law or diver underage and respect other people in which case they wouldnt end up dead or in prison.

That wasn't the option I gave you. Would you prefer a teenager who was illegally driving and crashed but who was unharmed because of a seat belt, or would you prefer a teenager who was illegally driving, crashed and dead?

Out of those two options which would you prefer.

ISAW wrote: »

non issue!
You can't stop kids from doing legal things either!

That is utterly irrelevant to the point I was making, but thanks for pointing it out.

ISAW wrote: »

Look I'm taking a break from these "moral relative today and point to absolutes tomorrow" contradictory conversations.

Fair enough. I hope now you realize that it is not a question of whether or not we can allow or stop people having sex (we can't), but rather the question can we help ensure that when they have sex they are safer than they would have been without being offered a condom.

tommy2bad

ISAW wrote: »

I'm not. I'm pointing to the "acceptable standards" and "manufactured consent" of media and how traditional values are scoffed at by the same.

See this is your problem, Your acceptable standards are not in keeping with what are acceptable standards of the society you live in. It's not media manufactured consent it what most people live by. Conservative values are long gone, they were just a phase, nothing traditional about them at all. I blame the Victorians

Siuin

ISAW wrote: »

I'm not. I'm pointing to the "acceptable standards" and "manufactured consent" of media and how traditional values are scoffed at by the same.

Since when is being petrified of sex because of some irrational fear a 'traditional value'?! She could be a wiccan with a wardrobe full of voodoo dolls for all you know. Also worth noting that 'traditional' does not always mean 'superior' when it comes to morals. The 'traditional' place of a woman is in the home minding a dozen children with the father as the breadwinner- are you going to start braying at working mothers for being immoral next, or is it just sex that you're obsessed with?

An irrational fear and compulsive obsessive behaviour is not "traditional values".

dvpower

ISAW wrote: »

I guess the point is in the so called "modern" world the whole "use a condom" or "use a clean needle" thing is promoted as normal and abstinence or monogamy or marriage for life ( traditional Christian values) or avoiding drugs are viewed as sort of "mental".

Keep your clean needles in a different pocket to your condoms. That's advise we can all agree on.

ISAW

Siuin wrote: »

Since when is being petrified of sex because of some irrational fear a 'traditional value'?!

I thought I already pointed out the girl didnt espouse traditional values. The point is she prompted them to mind. A related point is the interviewers were dismissing her on the basis that shereached the wrong conclusion through faulty reasoning. They never considered that she might have reached the right conclusion through faulty reasoning. Whether or not she was irrational the idea that abstinence is reasonable is dismissed by many.

Also worth noting that 'traditional' does not always mean 'superior' when it comes to morals. The 'traditional' place of a woman is in the home minding a dozen children with the father as the breadwinner- are you going to start braying at working mothers for being immoral next, or is it just sex that you're obsessed with?

I think it is wise for at least one parent to be in the home if in any way possible. Men are discriminated against by feminists and law in this regard. It is usually women who do it. If the women want to give their kids over to the fathers to care for ( whether separated or not ) that's fine by me. But frequently fathers ( especially in broken relationships) have scant access to their children. Traditionally the grand parents also cared for children and there is some return to that. But the point is "family" or community staying together to look after their welfare. That has broken down and the loss of that tradition isn't a societal improvement.

ISAW

dvpower wrote: »

Keep your clean needles in a different pocket to your condoms. That's advise we can all agree on.

Touché