It's not just the Church that think promoting condoms isn't the way to reduce HIV in Africa. It seems a Harvard research group have figured out this strategy is not yielding results. Globally HIV causes 3.7% of mortality but received 25% of health aid. And handing out condoms willy nilly sends the wrong message. The armor doesn't work. Rather than getting it on, cutting down seems to be the solution, in more ways than one:
If we can make huge strides in reducing the ravages of AIDS for less money, just imagine the benefit to get that aid money for general health initiatives, like clean water and food production.
And as a bonus, they can go to the Catholic Church and ask for expert advice on how best to promote these strategies.
Related Link: Willy Nilly Condoms not the answer
...study leader Dr Daniel Halperin said many studies have shown that male circumcision significantly reduces the risk of heterosexual HIV infection.There are ways to help people, and some of it requires promoting personal responsibility, not liberal promiscuity.
Three trials in Africa were stopped early after showing at least a 60% reduction in HIV risk.
Furthermore, programmes to promote fewer sexual partners appears to have had a primary role in reducing HIV rates in Uganda, Kenya, Zimbabwe, Cote d'Ivoire, and in urban Malawi and Ethiopia, he said.
After a 1987 "Zero Grazing" campaign in Uganda, the number of people reporting multiple and casual partners declined by over half, he reported.
If we can make huge strides in reducing the ravages of AIDS for less money, just imagine the benefit to get that aid money for general health initiatives, like clean water and food production.
And as a bonus, they can go to the Catholic Church and ask for expert advice on how best to promote these strategies.
Related Link: Willy Nilly Condoms not the answer
Zen, claiming your church knows that promoting condoms is not the way to reduce aids is quite possibly the most spurious comment I have ever seen you make.
ReplyDeleteyour church has been and still is against any form of birth control (other than the rhythm method). trying to justify this ridiculous church driven mandate is beneath you.
Linking it to aids is contemptible.
And no I am not having a bad evening, just sick of spin, whether it be lefty spin or catholic spin.
Good point. I almost agree with you. I could have said this much better. I did not mean to make this equal to a church driven mandate, more about an overlap of common interests.
ReplyDeleteThe position of the Church is more that sex and love and life are all gloriously intertwined, and the consequences of promiscuity and selfish pleasure are some of the indications on why any other attitude is not for the best.
It is my personal opinion that condoms are over-hyped as the "solution" for disease prevention and protection from pregnancy. It is this opinion that merged with my opening comment, and diverted you from my more important points.
Probably not worth editing my post, I'll just wear the heat :-)
Yes honestly, you can do better than this. Universal condom use would almost completely eliminate STDs and unwanted pregnancies. Sadly usage has dropped recently because HIV isn't seen as a problem anymore in the West (yet it is), and the message of abstinence goes nowhere in Africa as it is seen as a form of Western colonial cultural oppression.
ReplyDeleteThe Catholic Church is indirectly responsible for the continued spread of HIV among the ignorant through such irresponsible spin. It spreads the vile philosophy of guilt about one's body. Little is more repulsive than abstinent white men telling Africans what best to do with their bodies whilst their own house remains plagued with perverts.
Oh come on, libertyscott /faux outrage tag/!!
ReplyDeleteNow it is your turn to do better.
The exact point is that promoting universal condom use isn't working, and it will never work, because those that don't practice self control, can't exercise self control when they need it (like when they don't have a condom around).
It's too easy to blame the church for this, when they are presenting a much bigger message. They don't say "dont use condoms" they also say, in the same breath, "and dont have sex outside marriage".
You cannot blame the church for people supposedly ignoring both parts of the message.
You do not understand the message (I suspect you haven't read say the "Theology of the Body") if you think this is about guilt about one's body. It's not.
Well Zen - some people are permanently on 'outrage-o-matic'- eventually it gets to the point where no-one care whether they are outraged...
ReplyDeleteThe problem is, IMO, that people are simply not taught science and biology. I don't know enough about Africa to have an opinion, but here they are taught how to put on a condom. That's about it.
I'm doing voluntary work with Youth Aid at present - and I am amazed at how little teens know. They have no idea how twins some about, for example. They are taught about feelings, not objective facts.
I don't have the answers. I do think self-control is glossed over though.
libertyscott, I'm sorry, but that just isn't true. In fact I've just watched a DVD on the subject and an interview with a doctor here in NZ.
ReplyDelete* If you use a condom correctly, and you use a condom 100% of the times you have sex, your chance of catching HIV over time is 15%.
* Studies have shown that if you use a condom perfectly and use a condom every time, your chance or catching Chlamydia after having intercourse with an infected person is 50%.
Chlamydia is VERY infections, so if you have ONE sexual encounter with a person who has it, your chance of catching it is 20%.
* If you use a condom perfectly and use a condom every time, your chance or catching Gonorrhea is in the range of 50%.
* If you use a condom perfectly and use a condom every time, your chance or catching Herpes is about 50%. There is also no cure for Herpes.
* Your chance of contracting HPV over time is virtually 100%, even using a condom.
'Safe sex' is a fantasy.
The "self control" point is valid, I will agree. Ruth is right this is about learning about biology too, I'll all for the use of information. However, of course, having sex within marriage wont save anyone from HIV - your spouse may already have it from a previous encounter.
ReplyDeleteMarriage is irrelevant of course, what matters is whether your sexual partner is diseased and you can't know this unless you know that person well and can trust him/her.
I can almost entirely eliminate my risk of catching STDs through condom use. Ignoring this is wilful blindness.
SafER sex is not a fantasy. What matters is that people have information. A rubber barrier makes a difference, it makes more of a difference with foams and gels. If it were not for condoms the rate of HIV in the Western gay community would have soared in the 1990s, now sadly it is at risk again because of compacency.
I'm not sure why you say "marriage is irrelevant of course".
ReplyDeleteMarriage would only be irrelevant to those who don't place any importance on it.
You say what is important is that you trust your partner. Marriage is a statement of trust, love and commitment. You do get to know and understand your partner through the sacrament of marriage.
Having sex within marriage would generally "save you" if you knew you and your partner were clear before marriage.
RE: Condom Reliability; On one hand we have you saying that rubber can almost entirely eliminate risk, on the other we have the stats that Fletcher produced.
We'll have to have a blog post-off one day and see if we can settle this :-).
Marriage is a statement of trust, love and commitment.
ReplyDeleteNo, marriage is a contract offerred and enforced by the state. It can, like all contracts, be voided under certain circumstances.
Trust, love and committment are what I have with my partner; it comes from within us and does not require a marriage contract for us to make that statement to each other. In fact, when we discussed setting up house together, she tought about a "pre-nup" as she brought many more assetts than I, but decided against it as our trust and love and commitment was stronger than any contract.
You do get to know and understand your partner through the sacrament of marriage.
Isn't it leaving things a bit late? Surely you kneed knowledge and understanding before not after. Or are you aligning yourself with the arranged marriage camp who belive love will grow after the wedding night?
Marriage would only be irrelevant to those who don't place any importance on it.
ReplyDeleteWell dúh!
Yes, duh, which made libertyscott's point totally irrelevant.
ReplyDeleteRe your first point, marriage to many is simply a public expression of that commitment and trust etc. Don't be so picky. Nag Nag Nag. Keep this up and I'm asking for a divorce from our relationship as poster and commenter. It's just not working out.
Maybe you should start seeing other blogs. What, you do? Trollop.