From: rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally)
Subject: Re: AIDS info to kids? (was Re: separation of church and state)
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: tx
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 23:05:11 GMT

In article <431DoB1w164w@keys.lonestar.org> cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org (Chris Winemiller) writes:
>rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally) writes:
>
>> In article <L2a7NB1w164w@keys.lonestar.org> cwinemil@keys.lonestar.org (Chris
>  Winemiller) writes:
>> Problems: Which is safer, to use a condom, or not?  Answer: To use one.

>To some extent, yes.  We haven't established how much more effective it is. 
>But read on, anyway.

	Well, in many ways, we have. Much has been said here about "leaks"
in condoms, relative sperm size and all. Fine. Does anyone know where the
sperm has to _get to_ before the egg is fertilized? It has to travel quite a
ways (my guess- 4 to 6", can't recall). Typically, only those that are
shot out of the penis stand a chance of making the complete trip. It's very 
unlikely for a non-spurted sperm to reach that far. As I'm sure you know, they 
die quickly. This is w.r.t teen pregnancy. Now, w.r.t AIDS- if you need any
proof that a condom can help reduce the chance of infection, try using one.
I'm married (as of June 27th this year,BTW), but I do use them. I don't want
to gross anyone out, here, but each time we have sex, there are millions of
sperm in the condom when we finish. If I'm HIV +, each and every one of those
could infect her. Maybe a few get through. I've got evidence, still, that
millions didn't. And not one condom has yet broken.Tell me, if you had a choice
of millions of bullets being fired at you, or just a few, which would be safer?
(I have no idea if the qty. is in the millions, guessing again).
	In an article I've referred to previously, Chris, the WHO urges
promotion of condoms for adults. Why? Because they have documented evidence
that it does indeed reduce the incidence of transmission. From that article:
["Promoting the use of condoms can be a sensitive matter in many societies",
said WHO's AIDS chief, Dr. Michael Merson. "It must be done according to local
customs and beliefs- but it must be done."
	The survey evaluated programs that ranged from educating truck drivers
in Tanzania and prostitutes in Thailand and Mexico, and changing behavior 
through explicit publicity in Switzerland and the Phillipines.
	In an interview Monday in New York, Merson said the survey was
significant because it showed the programs work in different settings, and
take only months to produce results.
	"For those who have doubts whether there's something we can do for
this disease, we now have good evidence we can do something to slow down
transmission of the AIDS virus," provided the programs have enough money
and gov't support, he said.
	Projects produced declines in new cases of the AIDS virus or other
STD's in Thailand, Rwanda, Zaire, Peru and Australia, he said.
	When the project began in Zaire, for example, 1/3 of female prostitutes
surveyed in the capital, Kinsasha, tested positive for the HIV virus. 2 years
later, the annual rate of new infections among prostitutes tested had declined
from 18% to 3%, the U.N. agency said.] 

>> Which is safer, to have no sex, or "safe" sex? Answer:
>> To have no sex.
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Which is the best course --- one which I've been advocating.

	And I'm telling you that if you want them to choose between unprotected
sex and _no_ sex, you're omitting that necessary step- safer sex. If the
choice is unprotected or none, they'll have unprotected sex. I think you're
considering _your_ children, _not_ ghetto kids. Righteous. Results? No. Is
offering condoms to kids righteous? Probably not. Could it produce results?
Probably so. Get off the high horse, think about people that don't share the
reality you have experienced. They aren't going to stop having sex. To even
_think_ that they might totally stop demonstrates the difference in realities.
It's repressive. We'll be damned lucky if we can get them to use condoms. If
we can, however, I'll be prepared AT THAT POINT to join you in trying to 
get them to avoid sex until they're older. Iacco seems to indicate that he
sees no problem with kids having sex anyway. I do. They're screwing up their
lives. That's what matters. What offends any religious group is far less
important to me than what's happening to kids' chance in life. Iacco might
feel that it is any person's right to screw up their life, and I'd have to
agree with that. But, let's give them info that might help them avoid such.

>> We're nearing "repression", though, when you 
>> don't want to try to change unprotected sex habits to protected sex habits
>> because you don't want to appear to advocate sex.
>
>I _have_ been advocating the change of sex habits!  I've been advocating
>_abstinence_ as the change in behavior!  If that isn't a change in sexual
>behavior, I don't know what is.

	Again, you're not advocating the change from unprotected to
protected. What you advocate may well work with your children. After all,
they're living (I assume) in at least a middle-class scenario, with 2
loving parents. What do you suggest for ghetto kids? Abstinance? You may as
well suggest that they become millionaires, and move into mansions. It
ain't gonna happen. Repressive. Can we then help those kids with
righteous, pious attitudes? No. I think that's easy to percieve. Therefore,
I ask myself (since I believe there must be some motivation): "Why would
someone advocate abstinance to these kids? Because that someone is
blind? ignorant?" So far, the best explanation I can come up with is that
it makes you feel better about yourself. Righteous. Results? Of course not.

>> Who goddamn cares if 
>> we _are_ advocating sex, at this point, because, like it or not, Chris,
>> they're doing it.
>
>Yes, and we should encourage refraint from that activity.  How is it helpful
>to say to a minor, "Well, we know you're sexually active, [and we don't
>think it's any use to ask you to refrain], so here's something [condoms]
>that will increase your safety by some factor [unknown], although if you
>keep having sex over time, even with condoms you run a high risk of getting
>STD's (and AIDS)".

	How is it helpful to misrepresent what the condom programs are
about (Besides the impact it might have on this argument)? 

>  You want to say all that, and not ask them to exercise
>self-restraint?  That's the biggest glaring hole in the entire pro-condom
>argument.

	That's the glaring hole in your assessment of the program(s).

>Positive results based on doing what is right (righteousness) will produce
>longer-lasting results because it's based upon one's world view and
>corresponding moral code.

	Well, we have at last reached the "right/wrong" dilemma w.r.t
righteousness, and one of the easiest and most obvious ways to show
that righteous is nothing more than an adjective that describes one's emotional
feeling about one's actions.

>> Your pat answer indicates your choice is righteousness.
>
>Come on, Joe.  It's not a "pat answer."  One's world view (and one's
>corresponding moral code) has great effect upon one's behavior.

	"Pat" indicates you didn't really answer the question, which is
whether to choose righteousness, or results. You still haven't, at least 
in my view of things. I feel you _must_ accept the premise-that righteousness
and results are not necessarily compatible- and then answer which you choose.

	None of this is meant as condemnation of you in any way, but
(hopefully) it will be of benefit to you and I to work out this paradox-
that doing what is "right" isn't always the cure, and that part of the reason 
why is that others must agree with you about what is right. Ghetto kids,
for example.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Mullally (rocky@sugar.neosoft.com) PH:713-681-2495
"You know what they say about a honey bear. If you shave off all that baby
hair, you have a hairy-minded pink bare bear."- Lou Reed.