From: doel@ausable.crd.ge.com (Michael Doel)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Passing out Condoms  (Was Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT)
Date: 25 Aug 92 17:20:31 GMT
Reply-To: doel@crd.ge.com
Organization: GE Research & Development

In article <BtJpp8.MKM@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
> In article <1992Aug25.143848.25921@crd.ge.com> doel@crd.ge.com writes:
> 
> >>   Oh, ca-ca!   Condom advocates are realistic enough to know that
> >>   people will have sex.  If you know some reliable way to prevent
> >>   young people from having sex **PLEASE** post it to the net!
> >
> >I have no way of "preventing" young people from having sex, but I have
> >a way of reducing the number of young people having sex.  Simply start
> >a campaign in the mass media and in the schools similar to the "just
> >say no" campaign against drug use.  We're starting to see the amount
> >of drug use among the young go down because of this campaign.
> 
>   We are?   We are seeing decreases in some drugs and increases in
>   others.  Also note that nature does not provide a built-in incentive
>   to stick a needle in your arm (i.e., it doesn't come naturally) but
>   sex is another matter.   I'm not objecting to a "just say no"
>   campaign; I just don't see any evidence that it works in terms
>   of pregnancy and STD's.  Whereas condoms, if used, demonstrably 
>   reduce the risk of pregnancy and STD transmission.   

A couple of points:
    1. I assume that the built-in incentive of sex (i.e. the thing that makes
       it a "natural" act) you talk about is reproduction.  That certainly
       isn't the motivation young kids use when having sex.  They have sex
       for the same reasons as for drug use, namely it feels good and it
       can help them fit in with a crowd.  Thus, I consider this to be a
       spurious argument for saying that a "just say no" campaign wouldn't
       work.
    2. You haven't seen a "just say no" campaign work for pregnancy and
       STDs because it hasn't been tried, at least not on a large enough 
       scale.  I've seen a couple of commercials talking about the dangers
       of sex, but almost all of them encourage condom use instead of
       abstinence.
    3. You say, "Whereas condoms, if used ...".  Thats a pretty big if.  I've
       seen lots of stories (one on 20/20 a couple of weeks ago) that
       demonstrate that people still aren't using condoms all that often,
       even though they know the dangers of unprotected sex.  I think that
       convincing people to use condoms is just as difficult as convincing
       them to abstain.



> >I agree whole-heartedly.  That's why I think we have to get the
> >mass media on the side of reducing promiscuity.  So far, I haven't seen
> >it.
> 
>   And you probably aren't going to.  What is their incentive?  
>   Sex sells!   Anyway, until someone plans, organizes, and FUNDS
>   such a mass media blitz your points are all academic!   But con-
>   doms exist *today*.  They're the only even moderately effective
>   weapon we have against pregnancy and STD's.   

So are you saying that those in the media would put their own financial
interests ahead of public health?  I thought that's what Republicans
are always being accused of.  I thought those in the media were the
"sensitive" types who put public good ahead of their own self-interests.
It seems that if that were the case, they'd be willing to sacrifice a
few bucks to help stop the spread of AIDS and teen pregnancy.


> >> >> >	2) Handing out condoms encourages their use.
> >> 
> >>   Evidence, please!
> >
> >I don't have any, but I haven't seen any to the contrary either.
> 
>   This has to the THE most common logical error on Usenet!   It happens
>   dozens (hundreds?) of times a day.   The net.gods ought to require
>   everyone to pass a remedial logic class before being given the right
>   to post.    Nota very bene:   it is up to the person making the 
>   *positive* assertion to provide evidence.   There are many sound 
>   reasons why it is illogical to attempt to prove a negative (except
>   perhaps in certain small, closed systems, if you believe in closed
>   systems).

Sorry, I wasn't saying that as an attempt at proof.  I was just indicating
that I haven't been ignoring studies which come to conclusions contradictory
to my own.  Once again, I can't offer any studies but in deciding whether
or not condom distribution encourages sexual activity consider the
following statements:

      Physical act S is physically pleasurable but may have negative
           consequences.
      Object C can help prevent some of the negative consequenses of S.
      I give you C.

I don't think you need a degree in psychology to conclude that you're
now more likely to do act S.  When the risks (pregnancy, STDs) of a
beneficial (it feels good) act (intercourse) are reduced, people will
be more likely to do the act.

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mike Doel				<doel@crd.ge.com>
P.O. Box 8
Schenectady, NY 12301			(518) 387-6203

"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat
 and wrong." - H.L. Mencken
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3308 alt.fan.dan-quayle:3077 alt.politics.clinton:3352 alt.politics.elections:11846