For general discussion and debate. Possible talking point: STDs are on the rise. Any guesses why?
|
“Exposing & Combating Liberal Media Bias”
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Open ThreadFor general discussion and debate. Possible talking point: STDs are on the rise. Any guesses why? | |
Comments Policy
I'll take a stab at an answer...
November 14, 2007 - 11:04 ET by tater...birth control, planned parenthood, letting little kids have access to birth control, "the pornification" of the media (thank you Laura)...I'm sure there are more reasons for an STD increase.
Do you realize how much it costs to run for office? More than any honest man could afford. -Montgomery Burns
oh...
November 14, 2007 - 11:19 ET by tater...and sex education in the public schools.
Do you realize how much it costs to run for office? More than any honest man could afford. -Montgomery Burns
Bill Clinton... v
November 14, 2007 - 11:22 ET by vrwc13Bill Clinton...
v
STD's
November 14, 2007 - 15:01 ET by TruthMongerit's global warming and the war in iraq
And now, today's Shrub
November 14, 2007 - 11:12 ET by Roger the ShrubberAnd now, today's Shrub Report®:
Add Denmark to the growing number of European countries shifting to the Right. It is the first time since WW2 that the Social Democrats were not the most popular party in Denmark.
Damn you, you patient's rights advocates!
How about three Culture of Corruption Updates, all from PA. Here, here, and here.
Leon, once again, your claim that Al-Qaeda is a meaningless and minor force in Iraq is proven correct!
A Damn that Bush Economy Update. It's bad news when retail sales are up, and core inflation well under control, which you only had to read 371 words down to the last sentence to find out.
Whoops! My bad!
Another cause for celebration by the "sexually-liberated" Left! Woohoo!
Fun With Headlines! (6:57am) Stock market to open higher! No, wait, (8:53am) I mean lower! (9:10am) Damn, I meant higher opening!
Here's a Chinese Toy Update.
And, finally, today's stupid list.
The Stupid List!!!!
November 14, 2007 - 11:32 ET by motherbeltThe Stupid List!!!! ROFLMAO
Some people really have WAY too much time on their hands........
You just can't lick
November 14, 2007 - 11:37 ET by Jack BauerYou just can't lick the quality of Chinese toys!
True, so true, but
November 14, 2007 - 11:46 ET by FastEdit should have been the lead article - ah, leed(?), leead(?), . should have been the FIRST article.
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
...
November 14, 2007 - 12:48 ET by Jack Bauer....
FastEd... How dare you
November 14, 2007 - 12:47 ET by Jack BauerFastEd... How dare you attack the old Chinese custom of ingesting lead!
Stop bringing your old dead white European ideas of consumer safety to an ancient culture that predates us.
Don't know what i was thinking
November 14, 2007 - 13:30 ET by FastEdafter all, lick one Thomas the Tank Engine, five minutes later I want another -
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
Stupid List
November 14, 2007 - 11:48 ET by tateris great...I'll never watch those cartoons the same again.
Do you realize how much it costs to run for office? More than any honest man could afford. -Montgomery Burns
Al-Qaeda redux
November 14, 2007 - 11:53 ET by FastEd"Coalition forces disrupt al-Qaeda networks; one killed, 14 detained" - Multi-National Force.
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
Not a "guess".....
November 14, 2007 - 11:12 ET by JamesonLewis3rdLack of self-control.
Hebrews 11:8
Jeremiah 33:3
Buddies
November 14, 2007 - 11:12 ET by ChaitealoverI've never figured out the point of the "Buddy List." Is it just to show that other people like you, like in Junior High, or is there some purpose to it that I'm not seeing?
Chai
In explaining any puzzling Washington phenomenon, always choose stupidity over conspiracy, incompetence over cunning. Anything else gives them too much credit. Charles Krauthammer
Yes you are seeing the purpose clearly.
November 14, 2007 - 11:34 ET by MightyMouthAlthough you seem to be demeaning the buddy list by using the "Junior High" example. Why not High School or College? Did you only have buddies in Junior High?
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
I didn't mean
November 14, 2007 - 12:54 ET by ChaitealoverHAVING friends, I meant the need to post a list of who their friends are is something a Jr. Hi kid would do to prove her popularity. High School and College students didn't feel the need to tell others who their friends were when I was in school, everyone knew who hung with who. I don't use Facebook or My Space, but my grandkids do & I believe the "friends" list on those refers to who can make contact with them, so that 's not the same thing.
I'm not demeaning the buddy list here, I just couldn't see if there was some sort of chat room or something available to those who chose to be "buddies" that allowed them to connect outside of NB, without having to share their email addresses.
Chai
In explaining any puzzling Washington phenomenon, always choose stupidity over conspiracy, incompetence over cunning. Anything else gives them too much credit. Charles Krauthammer
I think the buddy list
November 14, 2007 - 13:08 ET by MightyMouthI think the buddy list helps identify who are other like minded individuals for a particular member.
That's how I see it when I check out someones profile, anyhow. There are exceptions of course ie: balboa is on my buddy list, but we rarely see eye to eye. :-)
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
You mean he is taller than
November 14, 2007 - 17:28 ET by Dan The Man 2You mean he is taller than you?
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Maybe standing on a soap box...
November 15, 2007 - 00:11 ET by MightyMouthNo, he's looking left and I'm looking right.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
What high school did YOU go to???
November 15, 2007 - 07:49 ET by UnsaneHigh School and College students didn't feel the need to tell others who their friends were when I was in school, everyone knew who hung with who. Not in my high school. Not in any others I am familiar with. Only in college is adult behavior allowed and encouraged...
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
The increase in Bill
November 14, 2007 - 11:17 ET by HermanoThe increase in Bill Clinton's campaigning?!?
You beat me to it
November 14, 2007 - 11:50 ET by Prester JohnGreat minds think alike.
My "guess why" is bigger and bigger government.
November 14, 2007 - 11:20 ET by sarcasmoBut the real trick is to predict the probable "solution" we'll see from just about everyone in both parties. My guess there: More spending.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Gotta agree Sarc, I don't
November 15, 2007 - 23:49 ET by RESTLESS 1Gotta agree Sarc, I don't see either party stopping the growth of government. The Republicans may slow the growth some, but that's about it. Any candidate that would eliminate "riders" on bills would have by vote, damn near wouldn't care if they came from Mars.
How is this for a tale of
November 14, 2007 - 11:30 ET by motherbeltHow' this for heartbreaking? Love and Alzheimer's
Sandra Day O'Connor's husband has Alzheimers, and has forgotten who she is, and has a relationship with another woman.
This is both inspriational and heartbreaking. My heart goes out to this woman. The nutshell is this:
Imagine being married to a man for 50 years and having him struck down
with Alzheimer's Disease. Then, just consider how painful it must be,
after the love of your life has forgotten who you are, to see him fall
in love with another woman.
This is just heartbreaking.
Indeed it is.
Motherbelt
November 14, 2007 - 11:37 ET by ChaitealoverI'd like to read this story but the link is just taking me to a blank NB page. Can you please re-post it?
Chai
In explaining any puzzling Washington phenomenon, always choose stupidity over conspiracy, incompetence over cunning. Anything else gives them too much credit. Charles Krauthammer
Sorry about that....try
November 14, 2007 - 11:52 ET by motherbeltSorry about that....try this: Love and Alzheimer's
Thanks, MB
November 14, 2007 - 13:05 ET by ChaitealoverI appreciated the different insight into what Alzheimer's disease care-givers have to deal with. I never liked O'Conner as a Supreme Court Justice, but I admire her for standing by her husband, even though he has forgotten her.
Chai
In explaining any puzzling Washington phenomenon, always choose stupidity over conspiracy, incompetence over cunning. Anything else gives them too much credit. Charles Krauthammer
The Clintons are the
November 14, 2007 - 11:41 ET by Senior ChiefThe Clintons are the reason. He is THE role model for today's people where sex is not really sex, until you get caught. She condoned his sexual activities and "encouraged" a new generation of sexual perverts and redifine sense of morality. People sensed a new kind of sexual freedom and forgot what God's intention for creating humans. They saw the president in Clinton as a Bible-carrying sexual pervert and got away with all his extra-marital affairs- and not punished by his wife and his god. Reading and seeing all kinds of sexual perversion today may could be the result of the Clinton's behavior. People became numb and they'll reason, if the president can do it and get away with, why can't I?
The Question: Did Bill found sexual fulfilment in his wife? If he did, then why she let him continue what he was doing all these years. You all out there knows exactly what I'm talking about...
not enough
November 14, 2007 - 11:44 ET by johnGnot enough condoms and sex education.
BREAKING
November 14, 2007 - 11:48 ET by JDWAP- Musharraf expected to step down as army chief...
President Gen. Pervez Musharraf tells The Associated Press that he expects to step down as Pakistan army chief by the end of November and begin a new presidential term as a civilian.
A senior official said Wednesday that opposition leader Benazir Bhutto will remain under house arrest for at least another day, while the Bush administration said it was sending its No. 2 diplomat to Pakistan to urge the general to rescind emergency rule.
Meanwhile, another opposition leader was arrested after he showed up at a student rally in Lahore, police said. Imran Khan, a cricket legend who leads a small but outspoken opposition party, was the only one of President Gen. Pervez Musharraf's most outspoken critics not in detention or exile. ...
Will Bhutto form a partnership with Sharif?
How will Pakistan's role as a US ally be affected?
What is the future of a democratic society?
JDW
Sen Clinton: Distinguished Founder of Media Matters
I'm sure it's because the
November 14, 2007 - 11:50 ET by balboaI'm sure it's because the evil democrats are ruining American society, blah blah blah...
that's right dirty liberals
November 14, 2007 - 11:53 ET by johnGthat's right dirty liberals and democrats are corrupting the soul of america!!!!
So is Mark Foley a victim
November 14, 2007 - 12:06 ET by balboaSo is Mark Foley a victim of that same corruption?
Mark Foley is a victim of the MSM.
November 14, 2007 - 12:08 ET by MightyMouth"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
i mean, he's a democrat
November 14, 2007 - 12:09 ET by johnGi mean, he's a democrat really in republican clothing. right?
And where is Mark Foley
November 14, 2007 - 13:16 ET by Roger the ShrubberAnd where is Mark Foley today? Living in a trailer down by the river, right?
If he was a Democrat, not only would he have been re-elected, but would have been celebrated (ie: Barney Frank, President Clinton, Gavin Newsome, Fred Richmond, Jesse Jackson, Gerry Studds). Whoops, that would mean that, once again, Democrat(ic)s have promoted and endorsed sexual promiscuity.
That wasn't my question.
November 14, 2007 - 13:22 ET by balboaThat wasn't my question.
You were trying to say
November 14, 2007 - 13:28 ET by Roger the ShrubberYou were trying to say corruption as a universal thing, which it is. The difference is, which I think I clearly stated, Republicans get rid of the damaged goods, while Democrat(ic)s celebrate them.
Again, I don't know if
November 14, 2007 - 14:27 ET by balboaAgain, I don't know if "celebrate" is a good term. No one's throwing parties because that Jefferson guy had all that cash in his freezer.
No, but Barney Frank is
November 14, 2007 - 14:41 ET by Roger the ShrubberNo, but Barney Frank is celebrated as a hero of the gay rights group, and Jesse Jackson is THE #1 black rights person in America. Once again, you are not correct simply because you say you are correct.
Barney Frank has been re-elected ever since his sex scandal in the 1980's.
Jesse Jackson has funnelled money from his Rainbow Push to hush up his mistress and bastard child.
Fred Richmond was caught soliciting sex from a minor, but was re-elected over and over again, until he was finally busted for tax evasion.
Gerry Studds had sex with an underage male page, but was still re-elected 6 times.
I would consider multiple re-elections of a candidate to be accepting, endorsing, and celebrating sexual misconduct.
And I never brought up Jefferson, becuase that was not a sex scandal. Stick with the topic.
You make good arguments
November 14, 2007 - 15:11 ET by sarcasmoBut Vitter's a bit of a fly in the ointment, isn't he? And Larry Craig's still in-office, too. I'd say both parties have a bit more work to do takin' out the trash. Flame away. After all, I just told the sad, bipartisan truth! :)
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
..
November 14, 2007 - 18:40 ET by dervishBut Vitter and Craig are yet to be RE-elected. I dunno whether Vitter can talk his way out of the jam, but I'd be glad to bet you that Craig's done for.
Actually, neither of your
November 14, 2007 - 20:50 ET by Roger the ShrubberActually, neither of your examples hold water, since neither have been re-elected since their scandals broke, and neither have exactly had Republican lining up to back them up. Had either one of them been re-elected, hoisted up on the shoulders of the Republican base, then you might have something. But, alas, you have nothing.
I think one of the reasons Vitter has not resigned yet is because a Democrat governor would have chosen his replacement. Now that a Repub is governor, watch him resign in early 2008. As for Craig, he is a pariah now, and nobody will touch him with a ten-foot pole.
Yes, both sides need to "take out the trash", but this hardly seems to germaine to the discussion at hand.
Your post needs a little revision:
November 14, 2007 - 11:56 ET by MightyMouthI'm not sure, is it because the evil democrats are ruining American society? Yes Yes Hell Yes...
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Replace "evil" with
November 14, 2007 - 12:02 ET by KarmaReplace "evil" with "misguided" and I might agree. Also, I would go with more "blah's", three probably isn't enough.
Rank and file dems, yes.
November 14, 2007 - 12:07 ET by MightyMouthRank and file dems, yes. But "Evil" is an accurate way to describe the Democratic leadership!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Alright, I'll let Balboas'
November 14, 2007 - 12:14 ET by KarmaAlright, I'll let Balboas' comment stand as is. I still think he needed more "blah's" though.
more blah's...agreed
November 14, 2007 - 12:24 ET by MightyMouthYou'll find that balboa's "Conservative Lexicon" is severely limited by his liberal leaning mindset. We say "personal responsibilty" and he hears "blah". <sigh>
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
I'm all for personal
November 14, 2007 - 12:36 ET by balboaI'm all for personal responsibility. That's a huge problem. I just don't think that it's the Democrats' fault that there isn't more.
I agree. It would be silly
November 14, 2007 - 13:09 ET by Roger the ShrubberI agree. It would be silly to associate a lack of "personal responsibility" with a former world leader who made it A-OK to commit adultery and receive oral sex from a subordinate. What was I thinking?
Yeah because we all know
November 14, 2007 - 13:17 ET by balboaYeah because we all know the concept never existed before Clinton. "What? I could be having sex with my intern? Thanks, Bill Clinton!"
Maybe we can't thank bubba
November 14, 2007 - 13:20 ET by MightyMouthMaybe we can't thank bubba for inventing it, but we can sure thank him for perfecting it!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Now imagine if a corporate
November 14, 2007 - 13:25 ET by Free StinkerNow imagine if a corporate president, say of Exxon, did what Bill Clinton did.
We would have news reports every night, protests, and boycotts until he resigned.
It was never celebrated and
November 14, 2007 - 13:25 ET by Roger the ShrubberIt was never celebrated and accepted as okay before, no. The concept existed, and was kept hushed up because it reduced the office and was embarrassing. Now President Clinton has makde millions of dollars, and lives the lifestyle as a celebrated rock star.
Come on, Bal, you presented zero evidence and proof to the contrary, aside from being your usual contrarian self.
I don't think his flaws are
November 14, 2007 - 14:24 ET by balboaI don't think his flaws are celebrated, though. He is presented too much as some great guy by the media, yes. But I don't think that translates into people somehow decide that it's OK for them to have affairs, contract STDs, because the president did.
You can say what you say all
November 14, 2007 - 14:32 ET by Roger the ShrubberYou can say what you say all you want, but you have presented a very feeble defense. What we are all saying is not wrong just because it does not fit into your paradigm.
Well, it's not exactly
November 14, 2007 - 14:53 ET by balboaWell, it's not exactly scientific to say that the rise in STDs is all because Clinton had an affair, now is it? There could be myriad other reasons, too.
What about the rise in
November 14, 2007 - 15:07 ET by MightyMouthWhat about the rise in "blue dress" and "Cigar" jokes? You'll have to admit bubba has done that single handedly.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Absolutely. No one helped
November 14, 2007 - 15:10 ET by balboaAbsolutely. No one helped late night talk shows and morning radio in the '90s than Bill.
So we conservatives are
November 14, 2007 - 16:13 ET by MightyMouthSo we conservatives are wrong. Bubba DID accomplish something during his presidency! I guess we owe BJ an apology.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
According to the AP today,
November 14, 2007 - 11:54 ET by MikeBAccording to the AP today, New York's governor Spitzer has abandoned his plan to issue driver's licenses to illegal aliens. The fourth paragraph says: "The governor introduced the plan with the goal of increased security, safer roads and an opportunity to bring immigrants 'out of the shadows.' " (emphasis mine)
Point one, governor: only illegal aliens are "in the shadows". Legal immigrants are not only not "in the shadows", they can legally have driver's licenses.
Point two: issuing driver's licenses to illegal aliens will not enhance security, rather it will decrease security. It will decrease security by creating an incentive for more illegals to invade your state.
I am a little fuzzy on how it would have made New York's roads any safer. Just because an illegal alien has a driver's license, it doesn't mean that illegal can read the road signs, and it doesn't mean they'll purchase liability insurance. So, how is it supposed to make the roads safer?
According to the story, Spitzer says that "the federal government has 'lost control' of the borders and left the states to deal with the consequences." That's pretty much true. However, the way to deal with the consequences, governor, it not to create a new incentive to attract illegal aliens, but rather make it as difficult and unpleasant as possible for illegal aliens to live and work in your state, so they'll have an incentive to stay home.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
Point two: issuing
November 14, 2007 - 12:04 ET by motherbeltPoint two: issuing driver's licenses to illegal aliens will not enhance security, rather it will decrease security.
Good point. It will decrease security because, in lieu of a national ID card, which was always vehemently opposed, the driver's license has become the "de facto" national ID card. Governor Spitzer and everyone else need to realize that. It is the document of authentication for everything else: banking, welfare, voting, you name it.
If they do decide to give licenses to illegals, we really need to revisit the idea of a national ID card....I don't care if the liberals think is fascist or reminisent of Nazi Germany.
Simple explanation of how the roads will be made safer
November 14, 2007 - 12:19 ET by Hunter12Three or four days a year, those drivers will be in a voting booth.
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
We've got the same thing happing in Joisey
November 14, 2007 - 12:23 ET by FastEdallowing illegal’s to have a "Driving Privilege card", being sponsored by our non-corrupt demolib majority - which is actuall a discriminatory proposal, as it allows ANYONE to receive a driving card, without ANY form of ID, and keeps any received info as private and not accessable by any other state or federal office. The discrimination comes from the fact that the rest of us LEGAL citizens, need 6 points of valid ID to get a drivers license - I'm wondering how the ACLU will spin their support?!?
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
The 'right decision'
November 14, 2007 - 16:16 ET by JDWNYS- The timing here is quite interesting
...Rangel of Harlem, told him: "The idea was right; the timing was wrong," he added.
A Queens congressman, Rep. Gary Ackerman, said: "This might not have been the exact right plan, but the governor is on to something."
Like Mr. Spitzer, the lawmakers all decried federal inaction on immigration, and while they pledged to keep working on the issue...
Mrs Clinton took a dive on this issue and the CNN debate is tomorrow.
Obviously the libs want the voting sector, they do not want to run on the issue, and they are willing to take the hit for Mrs Clinton.
JDW
Sen Clinton: Distinguished Founder of Media Matters
I think the problem started
November 14, 2007 - 11:57 ET by motherbeltI think the problem started way back in the 60's... with "make love, not war" and the attitude that sex was nothing more than a pleasurable pastime. Today's teens think it is just a form of entertainment that is free, easy, and readily available. The number of 16 year-olds who have had more than one sex partner is staggering....5th and 6th graders participating....
I shudder to think of what we, as a society, have done to our children.
i knew it was the hippies!!!
November 14, 2007 - 12:03 ET by johnGif it weren't for the hippies, gosh darn it! they ruined everything. i mean really, who wants everyone to get along and love eachother? and look with what they left us with? STD and children having sex! it's all their fault.
uhh...
November 14, 2007 - 12:08 ET by taterI know what you are saying is probably tongue in cheek but
I want people to get along and love each other...but that doesn't me we should all have sex with each other. I'd blame planned parenthood more than anybody on this problem.
Do you realize how much it costs to run for office? More than any honest man could afford. -Montgomery Burns
yes i wasn't being
November 14, 2007 - 12:14 ET by johnGyes i wasn't being serious.
see i blame parents more than planned parenthood. i just dont think parents are involved enough in children's lives when they become teenagers.
i feel like so many people just look to blame someone else in this situation.
I could see that too...
November 14, 2007 - 12:23 ET by taterParents need to be the primary sex educators in their child's life (when appropriate). But a lot of them aren't so they depend mostly on schools who will teach their kids more about condoms, birth control, and other things peddled by planned parenthood than being responsible and not having sex until marriage.
I lump planned parenthood in because they provide the resources for people to have lots of sex. Think...if you are taking birth control then when you have sex you don't have to worry about getting pregnant (at least in theory) but birth control doesn't stop STD spreading, condoms are at best a crap shoot. There is a big reason all these diseases, out of wedlock births, and divorces have all gone up since the 1960s.
Do you realize how much it costs to run for office? More than any honest man could afford. -Montgomery Burns
a lot of this country
November 14, 2007 - 12:37 ET by johnGa lot of this country thinks planned parenthood is a good thing, so it's not going away, which i think is even MORE of a reason parents must be the primary influence of sex education in their children's lives, and let schools and outside information be secondary. parents need to have those awkward conversations over and over, so that children are comfortable asking questions and being open.
i'm a firm believer in condoms. if used correctly they about 95% successful in preventing STDs (aren't they called STIs now though?). and i don't buy the argument that handing out condoms promotes sex, i think you must get a message out there that says if you're going to have sex, do it responsibly and do it safely.
95%????
November 14, 2007 - 13:03 ET by taterSo condoms if used correctly have a 95% prevention (and I think that figure is pretty high)....sorry but the HIV virus can pass thru latex condoms and if a few minutes of pleasure with a 95% protection rate is fine with you so be it. I'd be more concerned with the 5% chance you could get something that could ruin you or someone else's life.
The 95% successful rate also negates your last statement...and I bet they don't say that when they hand out condoms. If you are going to have sex, do it responsibly yes, but it isn't safe.
Do you realize how much it costs to run for office? More than any honest man could afford. -Montgomery Burns
pass through?
November 14, 2007 - 13:47 ET by johnGim sorry, but you just lost me. HIV does not pass through latex condoms(barring defects). where did you get this information? that's just simply untrue.
are you saying that "safe sex" is an oxymoron? please define safe sex for me.
There are many websites...
November 14, 2007 - 13:57 ET by tater...that talk about the HIV virus being much smaller than sperm (somewhere around 450 times smaller) and that small holes in a condom (some not even visable to the naked eye) can spread the virus. So if the condom is 100% hole free...then I could see HIV not being spread.
Do you realize how much it costs to run for office? More than any honest man could afford. -Montgomery Burns
Willing to gamble on 15 to 30%?
November 14, 2007 - 14:16 ET by vrwc13According to a 2000 report by the National Institutes of Health, correct and consistent use of latex condoms reduces the risk of HIV/AIDS transmission by approximately 85% relative to risk when unprotected. The same review also found condom use significantly reduces the risk of gonorrhea for men.
A 2006 study reports that proper condom use decreases the risk of transmission for human papilloma virus by approximately 70%. Another study in the same year found consistent condom use was effective at reducing transmission of herpes simplex virus-2 also known as genital herpes, in both men and women.
Although a condom is effective in limiting exposure, some disease transmission may occur even with a condom. Infectious areas of the genitals, especially when symptoms are present, may not be covered by a condom, and as a result, some diseases can be transmitted by direct contact. The primary effectiveness issue with using condoms to prevent STDs, however, is inconsistent use. wiki
v
Abstinence is 100% effective in protecting people against STDs.
nice in theory
November 14, 2007 - 17:18 ET by johnGsex happens. to think that abstinence is going to work on a majority of people i think is unrealistic. it's great in theory, but in reality...guess what? people have sex. to ignore it is dangerous. should we support abstinence? absolutely. but at the same time we should be fully supporting education that teaches prevention and safe sexual practices.
to argue against condoms for abstinence doesn't get society anywhere, we need to understand that people have sex and it's better to have people educated and prepared rather than just saying "hey abstinence is the only way you won't get AIDS!"
...
November 14, 2007 - 18:35 ET by taterYes I'll agree sex happens but let's say condoms, birth control, and any other barrier devices don't exist. Wouldn't people think long and hard before deciding to have sex with each other (such as getting married to each other). These things make it easier for people to decide to have sex because they promise that you won't get pregnant or catch a STD. Both promises have time and time again have failed.
...and if the physical stuff about sex isn't enough...it also helps to know about the emotional effects of pre-marital or extra-martial sex. If children knew these actions would cause emotional pain or reget they may think twice about doing it. You can't deny the brain produces bonding chemicals when you do the act. These bonding chemicals are hard to shake (intially but go down the more partners you have) and they are meant to help bond with your spouse better.
Do you realize how much it costs to run for office? More than any honest man could afford. -Montgomery Burns
i promise to disagree
November 16, 2007 - 10:39 ET by johnGthe human race didn't always have condoms and what happened? people died of syphillis! according to your theory the human race after centuries and centuries of seeing people die from sexually related diseases would stop having casual sex. great theory!
and condoms and birth control never promise anything(i don't remember my teacher saying "use this and you'll never get anyone pregnant!"), that's where proper education comes in. birth control, condom, etc when joined with correct information and education can be extremely effective. do you honestly disagree with that?
emotional issues are different for everyone, so again that's where proper education comes it. if children are aware of the dangers and consequences they can make better decisions about their own life.
and tater as to your bonding chemicals, i call in to question all your science and medicial statements after the "HIV can pass though condoms" remark.
Why?
November 15, 2007 - 07:56 ET by Unsaneto think that abstinence is going to work on a majority of people i think is unrealistic. Why not?
If more people embraced the concept of..."personal responsibility"...and figured out that sex can open a good number of Pandora's Boxes...my bet is that you would see a rise in abstinence.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
misinformation
November 14, 2007 - 17:02 ET by johnGit is wrong to imply that condoms aren't effective in preventing HIV transmission. it's just not right. condom are EXTREMELY effective against the spread of HIV and the prevention of AIDS. latex used for condom does not have holes large enough for the HIV to pass through even though you're correct in saying they're roughly 400-500 times smaller than a sperm.
like i said previous, barring a condom being defective it will prevent the tranmission of HIV.
100% effective
November 15, 2007 - 07:58 ET by UnsaneNothing beats keeping you pants zipped...or if you are the fairer sex, keeping your legs firmly together at the knees.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
master of the obvious
November 15, 2007 - 10:29 ET by johnGmaster of the obvious here.
when you come back to reality let me know...
Reality
November 16, 2007 - 06:09 ET by UnsaneHere's some reality...
We all know people can die from the lack of food, water, air...even sleep.
Name someone, anyone, who died, specifically, from the lack of sex.
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.
matter of life and death
November 16, 2007 - 10:24 ET by johnGwhen did they become a survival discussion? all i was saying is that i'm pro-condom and sex education to the max. and all im getting your argument is that condoms are BAD!
there are people who died because of lack of proper sex education. so their deaths could have been prevented.
i would also state that most people probably want to go through life having sex, not dying a virgin.
Matter of freewill and responsibility
November 16, 2007 - 12:42 ET by Unsanewhen did they become a survival discussion? all i was saying is that i'm pro-condom and sex education to the max. and all im getting your argument is that condoms are BAD! PLEASE quote for me where I said that "condoms are bad". I am not opposed to them, but to pretend that they are a cure-all is also misleading.
Sex education? I forgot who said this, but it seems that humanity had NO problem with reproducing before the advent of "sex education". I can't see where it helps any for that reason.
there are people who died because of lack of proper sex education. so their deaths could have been prevented. Those same people could be living if they kept it in their pants/kept their legs firmly pinned together. Sex is the result of a CHOICE. But that is clearly lost on you. So must be the concept of freewill.
i would also state that most people probably want to go through life having se