If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(MSNBC)   South African bishops condemn condoms, "may even be one of the main reasons for the spread of AIDS"   ( msnbc.com) divider line
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

1302 clicks; posted to Main » on 31 Jul 2001 at 8:52 AM (16 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

71 Comments     (+0 »)

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

2001-07-31 09:01:04 AM  
Actually, they are finding that condoms may be helping less than previously determined. They are finding that is helps against the spread of aids, but it has lesser protection against other forms of venereal disease.
2001-07-31 09:04:41 AM  
Send all the French to Africa.
2001-07-31 09:04:44 AM  
oh great
so religion once again stands in the way of education, common decency, and good public policy
guess they'd rather have dead converts than live heathens
nothing new
2001-07-31 09:15:11 AM  
there goes the neighborhood.
2001-07-31 09:16:16 AM  
Mole4hire: second that! It doesn't go for all religions though. Few people (even Muslims) realise that a good Muslim is supposed to educte himself and indulge in science. It does explain the fact that the Ottoman empire was so incredibly advanced as compared to the rest of Europe (e.g. both algebra and the word algoritm came from there...)

I still believe it's mostly the churches farking things up, rather than religion...
2001-07-31 09:17:58 AM  
Amongst other things, he'd have to learn to spell...

2001-07-31 10:21:00 AM  
Ah, yes! It's so good to learn that all the enlightened ones out there have decided that our True Savior is a little piece of latex. And to think I once foolishly thought that all was lost.
2001-07-31 10:21:52 AM  
I hear his nickname is Bishop Dumbdickhead
2001-07-31 10:27:22 AM  
Makes me wonder, ya know, does this bishop play with...

...his bishop? HAW HAW!
2001-07-31 10:30:34 AM  
Catholic bishop was later quoted as saying: "What do you mean the earth is round?"
2001-07-31 10:49:40 AM  
Ignorant bastard!
2001-07-31 10:57:01 AM  
The Catholic church is so backwards sometimes.
About a week ago they kicked a preist out for getting married, to a woman. But I haven't heard of them ever kicking a preist out for molesting boys.
Now this: As pro-Life as the Catholic church is, they are contributing the death of millions of people. How could the pope really want all these parentless children?

Oh, I just got it. Put 2 and 2 together.
2001-07-31 11:38:33 AM  
Well obviously they don't have a problem with casual sex anyway, considering that about half the continent has aids.
2001-07-31 11:47:05 AM  
Aids is GOD's way of telling you HE don't want you reproducing.
2001-07-31 12:02:34 PM  
Isn't it ironic that the Catholic Church, an organization which prohibits its' clergy from engaging in sex, (unless it is with underage boys it seems) is trying to tell people how to have sex? It is like someone who refuses to eat, or who only eats turnips, trying to tell me how I should eat. Sure, they may have done more research than I have on the subject, but it is easy for you to tell someone not to eat ice cream when you only know how turnips taste. I gotta go grab lunch now. For some reason I am hungry all of a sudden, and I got a hell of a boner too.
2001-07-31 12:12:44 PM  
Very interesting thoughts that came to me a while ago....

Before imperialism/whitey invaded africa,
there was no real healthcare, civilization was primitive, no real restrictive religion, etc.

When whitey invaded, the standards of living/healthcare went up. Consequently, the life expectancy rose exponentially(I forget how to spell that, but just leave it alone). However, the morality imposed by the new restrictive religion introduced fewer kiddies per adult, thus equalizing it (and I believe it could be shown that the ratio of kids:adult is almost all a function of life expectancy) along with the lesser need to have kiddies (I hope this is making sense on SOME subliminal level). Because of all of this, the population stayed more or less the same, BUT

When whitey got tired of the darkies in africa and left for the most part, the religion died away, thus the population rose greatly because they still had a high standard of healthcare (relative to before imperialism). This population would have been a problem and the balance would be thrown out the window.

Along comes AIDS, generations are wiped out.
The balance is restored.

I hope this makes sense.
2001-07-31 12:37:37 PM  
"Thank God I'm a Catholic boy!" I'm so glad to be of that Christian denomination. And I enjoy being associated with the supression of sexual education.

(Whew, that's dripping with sarcasim).
2001-07-31 12:40:02 PM  

Actually, the births per woman is most strongly correlated to poverty levels - the poorer you are, the more children you have. This may seem counterintuitive, but it seems to work out that as you look at poorer people, the children start becoming assets instead of liabilities. So, it still would fit with your argument, but not quite in the same way. The real thing that's caused the overpopulation is medicine. Births per woman haven't substantially changed in most places in africa, but the survival rate has, dramatically.

We need to be encouraging two things in africa: condom usage, and breastfeeding. We don't need to be feeding the infants, but feeding the mothers. That way, they can't get pregnant.

-= rei =-
2001-07-31 12:53:07 PM  
Can't we all just remember-that-them-rubbers-fail-
was-a-1-in-17-chance-yo-airplane-might-crash,-you-probably-be-takin'-d​a-bus-or -train-more-often along?
2001-07-31 01:16:19 PM  
From my pal, Jeremy!

[image from stallionfence.com too old to be available]


Damn idjuts! Slackless, soul sucking VAMPIRES!
2001-07-31 02:12:07 PM  
good for them, H.I.V is the perfect population control for over there soon the continent will be sparse and void of human life then we'll be able to destroy a bit of the over population problem and we'll come out smelling like a rose

thank you CIA you always have the best plans cant wait for the next one
2001-07-31 02:21:55 PM  
To the original poster;

Isn't it obvious that condoms won't prevent all disease, particularly if you aren't careful?

Last I checked, they (condoms) only cover a small portion of the skin down there - and if infected skin touches non-infected skin, regardless of if there is a condom elsewhere, the infection will spread.
2001-07-31 02:22:37 PM  
catholics, mormons. Damn em all
2001-07-31 02:28:33 PM  
lemme state first, i didnt read the article

okay. now, the only way i can *possibly* see condoms being a reason for the spread of aids is if you have some kinda false sense of security, solely rely on that for std prevention, and then go and pork everyone you see. no one ever said condoms alone were enough to completely prevent std prevention. you're a moron if you rely only on condoms.
2001-07-31 02:51:57 PM  
cere: hiv is spread through bodily fluids, not skin contact.

dirk: that was sad

and from the article, the bishop wasn't quoted as saying condoms were a cause of AIDS, directly, but more that it encouraged people to continue having casual sex. which is a little bit less "asnine."
2001-07-31 02:59:14 PM  
I believe that the bishop believes that promoting condoms is promoting sex. I think he knows that condoms aren't always effective, and that people that have sex feel that condoms alone are enough to prevent aids. He's saying promoting condoms is promoting casual sex, and he thinks they should be promoting sex only when you're married, and know that you, as well as your partner are aids-free. But the bishop is unrealistic, people would be having casual sex, even without the promotion of condoms.
2001-07-31 03:19:25 PM  

The rate of transmission of HIV via proper condom use is trivial, and in almost every country where condom use has increased, HIV has decreased. Most (not all, but most) stds also corresponded in the same way.


And they do :) All over the world.

-= rei =-
2001-07-31 03:45:40 PM  
I know I'm going against the crowd here, but *ahem* READ THE ARTICLE.

When the priest said the promoting condoms helped promote AIDS spread, he did not mean that wearing a condom was what caused AIDS. He meant that when you promote casual sex you are promoting AIDS because condoms aren't fool proof.

The article actually promotes abstinence before marriage(and is rather passe). So a priest urges people not to "sin." What's so newsworthy about that?

It just shows he's ignorant about human nature by trying to stop non-devout Catholics from protecting themselves too.
2001-07-31 04:40:20 PM  
It's pretty obvious that if ever there was a time for traditional sexual morality it would be now, right in the midst of an epidemic spead largely by practices contrary to traditional sexual morality. But please (those of you to whom this applies) keep spewing that old-time anti-Catholic hatred. It really does reinforce one's occasioanlly wavering faith. Thanks so much. And Rei: could you please cite your authority for your claim about HIV infection rates decreasing where condom use is increasing?
2001-07-31 04:43:01 PM  

The problem is that he's discouraging something helpful to the society. Instead of preaching abstinance, he's preaching anti-condoms - laying the blame for youth sexuality on people who distribute condoms. Its like the arguments of Demothenes: stand up for principle, even if it means everything else goes down in flames, and ignore whatever evidence you need to to convince yourself that hts for the best.

In reality, condoms have nothing to do with promoting sexuality, only the safety of the sex. This is scapegoating, and that is where people have a problem with what he's saying.

-= rei =-
2001-07-31 04:49:37 PM  

Naturally, its modern sexuality that's caused all of our STD epidemics. That's why some of the worst AIDS infected countries are very socially conservative, right? Why gonorrhea, syphilis, chlamydia, et al, were almost plagues in Europe at various times in history?

If it were openness about sexuality that was the key, you'd expect the scandinavian countries to be amongst the worst in the world, instead of the best.

No, the most recent increases in STD spreads have not been due to a change in sexuality amongst youth, but due to increasing globalization - diseases from one location taken to other locations. Of course, this has been happening for a long time with sailors and other travelers, but the distances traveled, speed traveled, and corporate globalization has taken a much larger and more diverse spectrum of the population internationally.

-= rei =-
2001-07-31 04:59:27 PM  
"Everybody does it". "They're just going to do it anyway." Blah, blah, blah.

Frankly, I like Rodney's comment. If you knew that for every 17 planes that took off, at least one was going to crash and kill your butt, you might look for alternatives.

As is, the mantra beiong pushed in our public classroooms is that a thin layer of latex will make things "safe". What bullshiat.
2001-07-31 05:23:14 PM  

Again, you're giving condoms credit for something they don't claim. They don't have 100% protection from everything. But, they have very high rates of protection from *most* stds, and pregnancy. The pregnancy stat is the only one I have memorized, rate of conception with no protection are about 80% in a year of typical sexual activity. Odds of conception in sexual activity using methods most people who don't have access to condoms use (rythem, withdrawl) are about 50-60%. Condoms, under proper usage, are about 0.5%, and with improper usage, about 5%. There's not even a comparison. If you honestly believe that condoms are promoting 10-100 times more sex, you have bigger problems than reasoning things out can fix. Especially given that teen pregnancy rates are *dropping*.

"Mantra that is being pushed in our classrooms". Its being pushed in *one* classroom (sex ed, usually a 1 semester course), and the mantra is "Don't have sex! (lots of gross pictures and statistics to try and scare children). At least, if you do, use protection!".

-= rei =-
2001-07-31 05:53:51 PM  
I favor an implant for everyone, inhibiting reproduction, removed only when the would-be-spawner can answer a few basic Farkin questions like "how will you support the child" and "how old are you, mentally & physically" and "are you on the dole right now cause if so, NO WAY!".

The big problem arises when we figure out...
Who decides?
2001-07-31 05:55:48 PM  
Rei, you forgot to include sodomy as a sure-fire method of birth control.

Of course, there are a few health implications butt...
2001-07-31 06:36:25 PM  
"The rate of transmission of HIV via proper condom use is trivial, and in almost every country where condom use has increased, HIV has decreased. Most (not all, but most) stds also corresponded in the same way. "

This I do not dispute, but I was speaking to the recent article and the original poster. Even with proper use of condoms, some diseases can be transmitted.
How you took my comment the way you did, I do not understand.
2001-07-31 06:51:43 PM  
Go on, throw the first stone.

Oh, and you talk about health implications of sodomy - well, it depends on your definition.

For example, god must just love lesbians. A couple with two women has the lowest risk for transmission of stds :) The health implications are for a woman to be *straight* ;)

The discussion was focusing on HIV at that point, so that's what I focued on in my response. You were referring to STDs in general, and said "they only cover a small portion of the skin down there - and if infected skin touches non-infected skin, regardless of if there is a condom elsewhere, the infection will spread.". This isn't true in the general case, only a few cases. Most STDs are spread by bodily fluids. You seemed to be advocating a reactionist argument based on data that only applies in a few cases, and not to this article. My apologies if you weren't. :)

-= rei =-
2001-07-31 07:08:05 PM  
First stone? Moi? I'm simply posing a question. Sheesh?
2001-07-31 07:09:16 PM  
Heheheheh! I like you.


2001-07-31 07:28:50 PM  
ASK God to make your heart clean by the blood of the Lord Jesus that He shed on the cross for you.Say to God,"l will be sorry for my sin".PSALMS 38:18
BELIEVE right now that God takes away all your sins,He promises you that He does it."The blood of Jesus His Son cleanseth us from all sin".(1 John 1-7).
TAKE the Lord Jesus as your gift to live in your clean heart.
2001-07-31 07:33:20 PM  
Find a private place and obey bibical commands to pray in private, you posturing hypocrite.
2001-07-31 07:35:11 PM  

I refer to my original post;
"To the original poster;
Isn't it obvious that condoms won't prevent all disease, particularly if you aren't careful? "

To which I refer to ... the original post;
"Actually, they are finding that condoms may be helping less than previously determined. They are finding that is helps against the spread of aids, but it has lesser protection against other forms of venereal disease."

I don't take the "reactionist" argument, I take the correct argument.
2001-07-31 07:43:17 PM  
I thought having sex with a virgin cures AIDS. Some african dude told me.
2001-07-31 07:46:17 PM  
Vegemite MORMONS!
2001-07-31 07:51:38 PM  

God even knows your name! He knows where you live. God knows all about you,because,He made you. He made everything else in the world,too.

I love you too!
2001-07-31 08:12:08 PM  
how, exactly, do you improperly use a condom? other than using it as a water balloon, or course, or to smuggle cocain or heroin. it's pretty intuitive, i'd say.
2001-07-31 08:35:17 PM  

I guess you're really trying to get into an argument? I apologized before if I misinterpreted you, but you brought the issue back up.

To the original poster;

Isn't it obvious that condoms won't prevent all disease, particularly if you aren't careful?

Last I checked, they (condoms) only cover a small portion of the skin down there - and if infected skin touches non-infected skin, regardless of if there is a condom elsewhere, the infection will spread.

First off, "to the original poster" isn't that clear. Most people talk in "threads", so to speak, on a particular topic, and the "original post" usually refers to the fp of that "thread". Then, you gave the impression that the topic that was being discussed (HIV) was such a disease that can be spread with skin contact (which it is not) - thus, I pointed that out. Such diseases are rare for STDs, and I pointed that out as well.

However, you jumped on top of me for that reply, for reasons I'm not sure. I certainly meant you no affront, and did offer to apologize if I misinterpreted you. I offer the apology again. But I don't see why you wish to keep bringing this back up.

-= rei =-
2001-07-31 08:58:17 PM  
Mme: That country you described earlier sounded a lot like the USA.
2001-07-31 10:45:45 PM  
oh this is priceless.... as i sit here watching "Gorillas In The Mist" on Animal Planet, and read the article about the Botswana people being the most HIV infected (1 out of 3) I can do nothing but smile a Bob Ross smile (happy trees and all)

FYI - The Botswana people were the ones wiping out the gorilla population back then - ironic how AIDS originated from monkeys, huh? Kinda almost makes ya think religious... (I'm not preaching - I'm more Wiccan than any religion)
2001-07-31 10:56:38 PM  
Okay, so now condoms contribute to AIDS. Now I hear that the Catholic Church has condemned motorcycle helmets because they contribute to motorcycle wrecks. I have no idea what I'm talking about, there's too much seriousness on this thread.
Displayed 50 of 71 comments

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.