From: bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: SURVEY <-- Please read this one!
Date: 25 Aug 92 23:01:11 GMT
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.


  While there will be some content in the following post, those of
  you not interested in a rant better bop that 'n' key right now...

In article <1992Aug25.082811.310@doc.bmd.trw.com> jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com writes:
>    Bob, to use your own words...bullshit!  Who was trying to give me
>    a primer in math not so long ago??	OK, so you and your wife have
>    100% success!  Great!  Since 80% is a *statistical average*, that
>    means that for every one of you, there is some poor sucker out
>    there who has a ** 60% ** success rate!  Or there are two poor
>    suckers out there with 70% success rates.
>

  As another poster has pointed out, your understanding of the
  statistics of birth control effectiveness is somewhat lacking.
  The theoretical success rate for condom use, given proper
  instruction and use habits, is well into the high nineties.

>    So who is bothering to tell these poor guys and gals about the
>    *proper* way to use condoms as they are being handed out by the
>    truckload?	How many *teenagers* know enough to fall in the
>    98% to 100% catagory?

  Quoted w/o permission from _Newsweek_, August 3rd, 1992

  [Discussion of the adolescent AIDS-prevention program at Mount
  Sinai Medical Center, run by Cydelle Berlin.]

  "Sessions at clinics like Berlin's go far beyond technical
  descriptions of the virus--and discussions of abstinence seem
  beside the point.  On one recent afternoon, 20-year-old Jerome
  Bannister held up a pink plastic penis for a group of inner city
  teens. 'Anybody wanna touch this?' he asked.  'His name is
  Johnson.'  Bannister's 20-year-old partner, Diana Hernandez,
  flicked open a flesh colored condom.  'We've go a little friend
  here,' she said.  Bannister went next. 'You wanna put a little
  jelly inside,' he said, gesturing toward the condom.  'There are a
  lot of nerve endings in the penis. That way you get that wet, hot
  feeling when it's in the vagina where it's warm.  But
  lubrication's not only the that warm feeling.  It's also a backup,
  If you use nonoxynol-9, it can kill the sperm--and the HIV virus.'
  ...Bannister and Hernandez then demonstrated exactly how to slip
  the condom on the penis.  The team went through equally detailed
  descriptions of dental dams and the new female condom, which is
  inserted like a diaphragm."

    But I suppose these people should quit being realistic about
    teenage sexuality and stop spreading this immorality to our
    youngsters, huh?

>
>    And consider this while you stand on your self-styled pedastal.
>    All it takes is one mistake, and the person has HIV.  There is
>    no going back.  If a person accidentally gets pregnant, there
>    are different non-lethal (to the woman) options available.	So
>    suppose you can train these teenagers and sexually active people
>    to use condoms with 98% or 99% effectiveness.  Who wants to
>    take a 1 in 50 or a 1 in 100 chance of getting HIV?

  And teenagers shouldn't be allowed to decide for themselves what
  risks to take with their own body?  Or would you rather not train
  them in safe sex techniques and raise that 1 or 2% chance to
  something dramatically higher in terms of human life?

>    And please quote me the studies which show that condoms are *as*
>    *effective* in stopping HIV as they do sperm.  There are *no* such
>    studies of which I am aware.  An HIV is about 100 times smaller
>    than a sperm, and so such an assumption is quite groundless.

  Typical of conservative religious misinformation about HIV.
  Perhaps you'll be surprised to learn that HIV is transmitted only
  through living cells?  Stop the transmission of infected host
  cells, and you stop the transmission of the disease.  This is
  precisely what a condom is designed to do.

>  Well, us indecent minded citizens remember what it was like being
>  a teenager.  Specifically, most teenage males are *very*
>  interested in sex, and almost all teenagers consider themselves
>  indestructible.
>
>    True.  But abstinence never hurt teenagers, male or otherwise.

  And I never said it would.  Of course abstinence is the best
  prevention against HIV.  That doesn't make it the most attractive
  or acceptable solution.  After all, abortion is the best defense against
  childhood diseases.

  Time to pull your head out of the sand and realize that not
  everyone, especially teenagers, follow your morality.  I might
  concede your point if you could point to a study that showed that
  widespread condom availability had a dramatic effect on teenage
  sexual patterns.  Personally, I think it's a smokescreen to
  detract from the fact that you and your religious ilk want your
  morality to be the only acceptable solution to the problems of
  todays society.

>    And teenagers will have *more sex* with condoms thinking themselves
>    safe whether you like it or not.  And I seriously doubt that they
>    will use them with the same amount of care that you claim you do.

  Another bold assertion.  Another *unsupported* bold assertion.

>    Perhaps this pro-condom thing is really just a humanist plot
>    to promote hedonistic lifestyles regardless of the cost to
>    society?   What's ironic is that those who propose condom use
>    as a method of "safe sex" will do far more to "weed out the
>    moral undesirables in this country" than the Christian programs
>    to encourage monogamy and abstinence.  For all these gullible
>    people will practice this "safe sex" until they get AIDS, and
>    then they'll die.  Assuming a cure is not found first, of course.

  Sounds to me like the problem will solve itself then, and in a
  very agreeable manner for you christians.  So just sit back and
  wait a couple of decades and you can all jaw about those immoral
  bad ol' days.

>>They are not "discriminated" against at all *under the law*.  They have
>>the same rights as any other individual.  If you mean that they are
>>discriminated against by individual bigots, then fine, everyone, me and
>>you included, runs into people who are bigotted against us occasionally.

  My state of residence has on the November ballot a law that would
  classify homosexuality as a deviant bahavior.  Among other things,
  they would not be allowed to become licensed teachers.  Guess
  who's spearheading the movement?  What about people in the
  military?  They're getting drummed out by the dozens based on, and
  read this twice, nothing but their sexual orientation.  So rave on
  about equality under the law.

>  The local ACLU chapter in my
>  state did a news bit about the problem.  When a homosexual walks
>  into their office with a complaint about discrmination, all they
>  can do is nod their head in sympathy, pat the bloke on the back,
>  and send him on his way.  
>
>    Ah, the good ol' All-for Criminals Litigation Union.  What a shining
>    symbol of socialism that we have here in this country!  The only thing
>    I want to hear from them is that they've decided to move to the former
>    Soviet Union, except that I wouldn't even wish them upon our former
>    adversaries.  :)
 
  Just maybe the ACLU is partly responsible for some of the everday
  rights you take for granted (that perhaps aren't extended to those
  homo perverts).
  
  Yup, just the answer I'd expect from a flag wavin', pickup truck
  drivin', whench humpin', nigger whuppin' good ol' boy.

  Well, that was uncalled for, no?  But certainly no more so than the
  incredibly narrow minded religious intolerance that you masquerade
  as morality.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ 

Bob Beauchaine bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

"If I have to resurrect you, I'll resurrect you, whether you like it
or not!"
	 Paul to Jesus, _The_Last_Temptation_of_Christ_

"For dying is not to be feared--it is the final comfort.  As we all
learn, eventually."

  --Robert Heinlein