Rubber labels

[verte76]

]




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?

 

[Irvine511]

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.

 

[u2bonogirl]

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

 

[Irvine511]

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.

 

[u2bonogirl]

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

 

[Irvine511]

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.

 

[starsforu2]

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

 

[nbcrusader]

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.

 

[Irvine511]

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]

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"?

 

[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.

 

[u2bonogirl]

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

 

[Irvine511]

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]

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?

 

[pax]

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.

 

[u2bonogirl]

I think youre right, the absense of a model is the secular view on sex. Basically a no rules attitude in which each person creates their own system of morals.
Theres a lot of argument on what sex meant for among christians, and there used to be a prevalent attitude of "sex is only for procreation and must not be used for anything else"
If you look at the bible you will realize that thats not true. It simply states that once you marry your body is not your own, but your lovers and you are to please your lover with your body often.
Some say that the book 'song of solomon' is an allegory about jesus and the church.
I personally dont believe so. I think its a love story and really romantic if you look closely.
I really hope this whole idea of sex being unchristian fades because Ive read some really sad stuff.
Like wives being told to only give sex as little as possible and begrudgingly as not to encourage her husband to want it often.

hell no!
Marriage is a safe haven for us to express our passions and desires. Not to squelch it.

 

[indra]

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 don't deny those emotional harms can occur, but, hell, students can get those same emotional harms from math class.

I think we'd be far, far better off to as treat sexuality as a wonderful part of being human instead of trying it up in sin and humiliation and emotional harm. We (the US, as a nation) seem to only be able to treat sex as a scuzzy, marketable commodity or as "you're gonna go blind and then burn in Hell!" sin, and ignore the good qualities. And I feel that by doing this we help to manufacture emotional harm which not otherwise be there.


As for labeling condoms, they should be labeled showing the effectiveness of them as used correctly. If most people don't use them correctly, the next step should be a push to teach people to use them correctly. It's simply foolhardy not to.

 

[Irvine511]

I think we'd be far, far better off to as treat sexuality as a wonderful part of being human instead of trying it up in sin and humiliation and emotional harm. We (the US, as a nation) seem to only be able to treat sex as a scuzzy, marketable commodity or as "you're gonna go blind and then burn in Hell!" sin, and ignore the good qualities. And I feel that by doing this we help to manufacture emotional harm which not otherwise be there.

i agree. i think what does most harm is not sexuality itself, but it's transformation into a commodity, and the implied message that, without it, you're worthless, ugly, fat, etc. i'm speaking less about pornography -- where it's rather explicit what the intent and purpose of that particular product is -- and more about the binkinis used to sell Diet Coke. it makes sex banal, borning, and of little more value than an outfit you might buy at H&M.

this applies to film and music, though i think there's a big difference between a movie like, say, "Wild Things" which has loads of nudity but is exceedingly juvenile versus a film like "The Unbearable Lightness of Being" which has lots of naked bodies, but is quite adult and mature. i find that many European countries -- the Benelux nations, Scandinavia -- have a more advanced view of human sexuality. that it's normal and natural and precious and special and it's up for each individual to determine how it must function in his/her life. that it is a gift, and it has consequences as well as rewards, and that it can be a source of great pain as well as great joy, and it can be utterly animalistic or profoundly spiritual. sex is not one thing, it's many things (perhaps all things) and to deny any aspect of that, for the sake of a particular religous view or the natural tendency for parents to want to keep their children pre-pubescent as longa s possible, is not a good thing.

and the worst thing is to cheapen it into a jingle for diet cola.

 

[nbcrusader]

I think we'd be far, far better off to as treat sexuality as a wonderful part of being human instead of trying it up in sin and humiliation and emotional harm. We (the US, as a nation) seem to only be able to treat sex as a scuzzy, marketable commodity or as "you're gonna go blind and then burn in Hell!" sin, and ignore the good qualities. And I feel that by doing this we help to manufacture emotional harm which not otherwise be there.

Emotional harm is a secular concept - completely separate from sin.

I think you would be kidding yourself to say that every sexual encounter was a wonderful part of being human. There are plenty of emotional harms that occur.

 

[Irvine511]

Emotional harm is a secular concept - completely separate from sin.

I think you would be kidding yourself to say that every sexual encounter was a wonderful part of being human. There are plenty of emotional harms that occur.

you're right -- i can think of several sexual encounters that were far from wonderful.

but they were all a part of being human, of getting hurt, and of learning from experience and deepening my understanding of sexuality and resolving to make better choices in the future.

am a bit confused -- are you saying that any sexual encounter outside marriage automatically creates emotional harm?

 

[u2bonogirl]

It creates emotional harm because you leave a piece of yourself with that person.
Im speaking christian POV. Biblically speaking, you give a piece of your soul, or your heart with a person you "become one" with

 

[deep]

It creates emotional harm because you leave a piece of yourself with that person.

you are doing it wrong.

watch more educational films

 

[u2bonogirl]

actually, Im getting married instead

 

[deep]

best wishes to you
sincerely

 

[u2bonogirl]

thanks
Now I can go have Gold glorifying sex as my pastor puts it

 

[nbcrusader]

am a bit confused -- are you saying that any sexual encounter outside marriage automatically creates emotional harm?

No, it would not be automatic.

I would think, however, the probablity of harm decreases as the level of commitment to each other increases - both inside and outside of marriage.

 

[80sU2isBest]

I don't think rubber labels are effective. Paper labels are better, if they have an adhesive backing.

 

[deep]

I have heard some lick before they use.

 

[verte76]

you don't see Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists or agnostics twisting facts in order to promote their interpretation of how their religion views human sexuality.

Actually, you do see them twisting facts. Muslims who oppose women's rights claim what they're doing is based on what's going on with women's hormones; it's claimed that they make them incapable of being reasonable. I'd call that twisting facts.

 

[echo0001]

I don't think rubber labels are effective. Paper labels are better, if they have an adhesive backing.

Personally, I like the snot-like adhesive they use on mailing labels.