Rubber labels - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-29-2005, 02:46 PM   #31
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 02:51 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
]




it's asked, and answered all the time.

when used correctly, condoms provide protection from pregnancy and most STDs around 99% of the time.

ask any doctor who isn't employed by the Family Research Counsil or a Republican Congressman.
They work, so why not use them, at least to stop the spread of AIDS?
__________________

__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 06-29-2005, 02:57 PM   #32
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,495
Local Time: 09:51 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
Is the 15% pulled out of thin air, or is there some basis in fact? Dismissing it as pure agenda is equally misleading.


as far as i know, i've only ever seen the 15% statistic (as the only statistic ... as in, condoms always fail 15% of the time) in the midst of an abstinence-only agenda.

i know several doctors, all will point to 97-99% when used correctly.

perusing through several sites, many say that condoms are effective 88-99% of the time, and nearly 100% when combined with withdrawal. i see two things going on here: 1) a clear lowballing of the effectiveness, and 2) a refusal to teach people how they can up the effectiveness of condom useage. if you're not going to teach people how to use a condom, then you're probably going to have a 15% failure rate.

also, most medical advice is extremely conservative -- not in politics, but in warning people about the risks involved. for example, while there has never been a documented case of someone getting HIV from oral sex, it is theoretically possible, so oral sex is considered an at risk activity for HIV.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-29-2005, 04:55 PM   #33
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
u2bonogirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Back on the blue crack after a long break
Posts: 6,726
Local Time: 10:51 AM
Since when is using a condom frowned upon in christianity?
I can see why in catholicism, but not christianity.
Sex before marriage is the forbidden thing in christianity so if that involves a condom then I guess the whole thing is fecked
But if youre gonna do it then you might as well protect yourself
The world would probably be better off if people didnt sleep around
__________________
u2bonogirl is offline  
Old 06-30-2005, 07:42 AM   #34
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,495
Local Time: 09:51 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by u2bonogirl
Since when is using a condom frowned upon in christianity?
I can see why in catholicism, but not christianity.


i've never heard anything about condoms in the Bible, but i think the reasoning is that STDs and pregnancy are great way to scare people into abstinence. condoms reduce, significantly, the risk of STDs and pregnancy, thus reducing the ability to weild fear as a weapon in promoting what they (and by they i mean these political groups) view as the only acceptable standard for human sexuality.

the catholic position i don't agree with, but it is consistent. consistently wrong, but still consistent.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-30-2005, 08:44 AM   #35
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
u2bonogirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Back on the blue crack after a long break
Posts: 6,726
Local Time: 10:51 AM
If youre a christian the fear should not be about the condom, or getting pregnant first off. It should be about hurting yours and anothers soul. About the sin. In turn, it will keep you from having to deal with the crap that comes with getting an STD or an unplanned pregnancy.

But if youre not a christian, and you dont believe that having multiple sexual partners is a dangerous way to go then I guess your fear would be STDs and pregnancy.
I find those things a good reason not to sleep around, not the risk of a condom breaking or failing. I know enough people who have gotten pregnant while using a condom so I have a healthy fear of using them alone (Im on the pill and have been because of this)
Ive not been your good christian girl and waited until Im married, but I have had some self restraint and only had one other person before the man Im going to marry.
I wish I had waited though. And I wish I didnt have to deal with the thought that he's made love to other women besides me
The baggage we carry from past sexual encounters goes beyond the disease
I dont think its right to keep people from using birth control out of fear. Especially if they dont all share the same beliefs. Its better to let people live their lives the way theyre going to live it and prevent some unplanned children, but condoms still dont work all the time and they dont protect you from emotional damage
__________________
u2bonogirl is offline  
Old 06-30-2005, 09:08 AM   #36
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,495
Local Time: 09:51 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by u2bonogirl
I dont think its right to keep people from using birth control out of fear. Especially if they dont all share the same beliefs. Its better to let people live their lives the way theyre going to live it and prevent some unplanned children, but condoms still dont work all the time and they dont protect you from emotional damage


to me, that sounds like a great lesson in a comprehensive sex education class.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-30-2005, 09:08 AM   #37
Refugee
 
starsforu2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Ashburn, VA (and permanently residing in u2bonogirls head!)
Posts: 2,070
Local Time: 10:51 AM
Yeah, sex ed doesn't get into the possible regrets you may have from having a personal history. In many ways I've gotten over much of what I've done to myself, but I do feel bad that my history impacts Tara. Over time we'll forget, and all this stuff will heal, but as I get older, based on experience and not doctrine, I've come to agree more and more with the biblical model of sexual relations and not the secular model of sexual relations. This comes primarily from experience, not deep conviction. (Although maybe one day I'll get there)

So yeah, I think you should preach abstinence loudly while you give them the facts on other methods of birth control, because once you start having sex, it's less likely you'll stop. And I think it's better to have accurate warnings on condoms than hopeful warnings. Who has picked up a pack of cigarettes and read the Surgeon General's Warning? Maybe condoms should have that as well. The functional difference is that the Condom doesn't cause death by itself. But sex is always risky behavior and Condoms aren't used frequently outside of sexual activities.

Leaving FYM again ... Tara if you stay out of here, I won't follow you in
__________________
starsforu2 is offline  
Old 06-30-2005, 09:18 AM   #38
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 06:51 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
to me, that sounds like a great lesson in a comprehensive sex education class.
I'd agree, but we don't address the emotional harm in our schools.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 06-30-2005, 10:11 AM   #39
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,495
Local Time: 09:51 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


I'd agree, but we don't address the emotional harm in our schools.


ideally, this is where parents should do their job.

is it possible for a school to address something as subjective as the emotional component -- i don't agree that someone is automatically harmed by having sex, though there is that potential -- of human sexuality?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-30-2005, 10:13 AM   #40
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,495
Local Time: 09:51 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by starsforu2
I've come to agree more and more with the biblical model of sexual relations and not the secular model of sexual relations. This comes primarily from experience, not deep conviction. (Although maybe one day I'll get there)


what's the "secular model"?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-30-2005, 10:14 AM   #41
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 06:51 AM
I think you can treat the emotional harm in the same vein as a physical harm.

Measures of depression, loss of self worth, humiliation, etc. that can occur should be addressed.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 06-30-2005, 10:33 AM   #42
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
u2bonogirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Back on the blue crack after a long break
Posts: 6,726
Local Time: 10:51 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




what's the "secular model"?
The secular model is sex outside of marriage being okay, and sometimes even glorified.
The biblical model is waiting until you find your life long companion and lover and then unleashing your passions on them.
You would be surprised at how much some churches encourage the married couples to have active, healthy, and adventurous sex lives
__________________
u2bonogirl is offline  
Old 06-30-2005, 10:56 AM   #43
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,495
Local Time: 09:51 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by u2bonogirl


The secular model is sex outside of marriage being okay, and sometimes even glorified.
The biblical model is waiting until you find your life long companion and lover and then unleashing your passions on them.
You would be surprised at how much some churches encourage the married couples to have active, healthy, and adventurous sex lives


i think that's a misformulation of the secular model.

the secular model is almost the absence of a model. both attitudes you present above fit nicely into a secular model, since it being secular, it is pretty much up to the individual to determine what works best for him or her.

i am starting to notice -- not necessarily with you, but in lots of religious-oriented dialogue -- a new dichotomy being created: the believers vs. the secularists. and i think that's a false choice. religious people can be passionate secularists, for it is secularism that allows the robust practice of their religion as they see fit. you pointed out that some churches promote a healthy, adventurous sex life -- i think that's great -- yet other churches migth view sex as a pro-creative activity only. under the secular model, both views are tolerated, accepted, and freely practiced. however, for society to sanction a religious model, one of these two different attitudes would be right, and the other would be wrong.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-30-2005, 10:57 AM   #44
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,495
Local Time: 09:51 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
I think you can treat the emotional harm in the same vein as a physical harm.

Measures of depression, loss of self worth, humiliation, etc. that can occur should be addressed.


i think you're right, i'm just very curious to know how this would be accomplished.

any sex ed teachers out there?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-30-2005, 11:01 AM   #45
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 10:51 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511

i am starting to notice -- not necessarily with you, but in lots of religious-oriented dialogue -- a new dichotomy being created: the believers vs. the secularists. and i think that's a false choice. religious people can be passionate secularists, for it is secularism that allows the robust practice of their religion as they see fit. you pointed out that some churches promote a healthy, adventurous sex life -- i think that's great -- yet other churches migth view sex as a pro-creative activity only. under the secular model, both views are tolerated, accepted, and freely practiced. however, for society to sanction a religious model, one of these two different attitudes would be right, and the other would be wrong.
I agree.

"Secular" is being connected with the bad, the degenerate, the unholy, etc. etc. etc., when true secularism is by definition morally neutral. This country is not a Christian nation, despite what Bush and others would have you believe; it was quite clearly and purposely established as a secular nation to avoid the religious corruption that resulted from the excessive entanglement (if you will) of the Church of England with the government, and others like it.

The founders of this country knew that, and wanted to keep the government separate from the running of the churches precisely to safeguard the rights of those churches and other religious institutions to believe and live out what they believed as they saw fit.
__________________

__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com