From: karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
Subject: Re: In Defense of a Little Virginity
Summary: I do read this group and have to respond to this kind of disinformation
Organization: Macro Computer Solutions, Inc., Chicago, IL
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 04:03:34 GMT

In article <444903LY81VH00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jloucks@uts.amdahl.com (Jim Loucks) writes:
>I don't read this newsgroup but was asked to post this article here.
>============

I do.  :-)

>The following article is used by permission from Focus on the Family. 
>Reference numbers are enclosed within square brackets (e.g. [1]). The
>article is over 300 lines long.

This is a rather long post.  I'm not going to take issue with all of it --
only most.  Some of the basic statements in here are true.  However, all of
it is a play on morality and (surprise) religious fundamentalism -- which is
where, I believe, "Focus on the Family" comes from.

Further, these folks are masters at lying with statistics.  I intend to
expose every fraudulent statement in here, especially those which state
"odds" or draw parallels to other risky behavior (like russian roulette).
I'll also draw some of my own parallels -- like with the chances you take
every day due to automobiles being present on our roads, and your riding in
(or driving) them.

>	The federal Centers for Disease Control estimate that there are
>	now 1 million cases of HIV infection nationwide. [1]

Perhaps.  An estimate; not a proven conclusion.  PROVEN cases of HIV
infection are much lower.  Further, the >vast majority< of these can be 
traced to one of two activities:

1)	Unprotected sexual intercourse (NOT condom failure)
2)	IV drug use

>	1 in 100 students coming to the University of Texas health center
>	now carries the deadly virus. [2]

See above.

>	The rate of heterosexual HIV transmission has increased 44%  since
>	September 1989. [3]

From a near zero rate this is not surprising, especially with people trying
to restrict the sale of contraceptives and a failed "drug war" that leaves
IV drug addicts with no choice but to share needles with potentially
infected other users.

>	Syphilis is at a 40-year high, with 134,000 new infections per
>	year. [8]

There are 220,000,000 people in the country.  This means that annually, if
you take only "standard" precautions, you have a .06% (yes, one half of 
one-tenth of a percent chance) of catching Syphilis in a year.  And Syphilis 
is curable in most cases, >even in advanced stages< (contrary to what many 
will tell you).

As a comparison you have a one in 6,000 chance of being killed in a traffic
accident -- before accounting for the much higher fatality rate among teens.  
This is a .016% chance per year.  So you have a higher risk of catching a 
curable disease than being hit by a car and DYING - but only by about a 
factor of four.

Note that teens are about twice as likely to die in an automobile accident
as those over 25 -- therefore, it really is only about twice the risk here.

>	4 million cases of chlamydia occur annually; [11] 10-30% of 15- 
>	to 19-year olds are infected. [12]

Another curable disease IF caught.

>are rampant among the young. Add to that the problems associated with
>promiscuous behavior; infertility, abortions and infected newborns. 

Wait a second!  I detect the real reason for this message here -- the
dreaded "A" word is being used here.  Note that nowhere do they say
"unwanted babies" -- yet I think that's another problem with promiscuous
behavior..... unwanted children are a real problem too - they destroy
careers, cut short much-needed education and doom many women to a life of
poverty.

>will continue, and millions of kids ... thinking they are protected ...
>will suffer for the rest of their lives. Many will die of AIDS.

Any many will die in auto accidents.  Many will become addicted to drugs and
alcohol.  And yes, some will die of AIDS.  This is a tragedy, but let's be a
little more realistic with our statistics here and report the FACTS instead
of being alarmist and outright LYING to our kids.

>There is only one safe way to remain healthy in the midst of a sexual
>revolution. It is to abstain from intercourse until marriage, and then
>wed and be faithful to an uninfected partner. It is a concept that was
>widely endorsed in society until the 1960s. Since then, a "better idea"
>has come along ... one that now threatens the entire human family. 

There are >two< ways to remain healthy:

1)	Wed and remain faithful to an uninfected partner.
2)	Only screw around with unifected partners.  IF YOUR PARTNER IS NOT
	INFECTED WITH A STD, YOUR RISK OF CONTRACTING ONE FROM THAT PARTNER
	IS ZERO!  MARRIAGE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS FACT, AND NEITHER
	DOES VIRGINITY!

The problem, of course, is how do you determine whether one is uninfected.
Absent 100% certainty (and that is not possible) you have to rely on 
statistics and do what you can to improve your odds.

>  Why, apart from moral considerations, do you think teenagers should
>  be taught to abstain from sex until marriage? 
>         
>No other approach to the epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases will
>work. The so-called "safe-sex" solution is a disaster in the making.

The "so-called safe-sex" solution isn't called that -- it's called 
SAFER SEX.  No one has lied to our kids about this.

Condoms are NOT failproof.  They are particularly not foolproof when not
used properly or not used at all! 

>Condoms can fail at least 15.7 percent of the time annually in preventing
>pregnancy. [14] They fail 36.3 percent of the time annually in preventing 
>pregnancy among young, unmarried minority women. [15] 

Primarily because people "forget" to use them.  The actual failure rate of a
condom, providing that it is correctly used, is something like 3% annually.
This is NOT from "one session" of sex -- it is the percentage of couples, over
a >year's time<, who rely only on this method who will suffer contraceptive
>failure<.  Failure here is defined as the method failing to work (i.e. the
condom breaks during normal usage).

Again, if you don't use it, it CANNOT protect you.

The "standard statistics" take into account failure to USE the contraceptive
method.  That's rediculous -- its like saying "if I forget to use the brake
when I approach a red light that should be taken into account in how many
times the light fails to turn red".

>In a study of 
>homosexual men, the British Medical Journal reported the failure rate due
>to slippage and breakage to be 26 percent. [16] 

This is considered by the manufacturer's to be "abnormal use"; condoms are 
not designed for this purpose and will fail at a higher than normal rate 
when used this way.  However, it is INFINATELY preferrable to use a condom
if you are going to be a homosexual man and engage in this form of sex than 
not to.

>Remembering that a woman can conceive only one or two days per month, 
>we can only guess how high the failure rate for condoms must be in 
>preventing disease, which can be transmitted 365 days per year! 

Remember that most couples who sleep together do so on average of two to
three times a week. IF a contraceptive fails you will have "parents"
regardless of the contraception used.

Also note that the disease vectors and the vector for pregnancy are
different.  HIV, in particular, is transmitted by blood <> fluid contact.
Other STDs are MUCH easier to catch than HIV.  HIV is damnedly hard to
transmit; this is a good thing, or we >would all be dead<.  However, don't
kid yourself -- IF you do catch it, at least today, you will probably die.

>Then we must recognize that there are other differences between pregnancy
>prevention and disease prevention. HIV is 1/25 the width of sperm, [17] 
>and can pass easily through even the smallest gaps in condoms. Researchers 
>studying surgical gloves made out of latex, the same material in condoms,
>found "channels of 5 microns that penetrated the entire thickness of 
>the glove." [18] HIV measures .1 microns. [19] Given these findings, 
>what rational, informed person would trust his or her very life to such 
>flimsy armor?

C'mon, tell the truth.  FREE HIV particles are not always available.  HIV 
is a virus; it operates in a living cell.  Therefore, you pass a >cell< 
through that membrane, which is (conservatively) the size of a sperm.  
Further, there is a collidal suspension in a "used" condom which tends to
inhibit the passage of the mixture.  Over a period of >hours< there may be
some osmotic leakage; how many sexual events last hours?

>This surely explains why not one of 800 sexologists at a conference a 
>few years ago raised a hand when asked if they would trust a thin 
>rubber sheath to protect them during intercourse with a known HIV-
>infected person. [20] 

No kidding.  I wouldn't sleep with a known HIV infected person either!  But
an >unknown< status person can easily become a >known< HIV-NEGATIVE person
-- by getting tested at least 6 months after their last sexual event.  If
you are celibate for 6 months, do not use IV drugs, and then get tested, 
you have a extremely good chance of knowing your true HIV status.  If it 
is negative, you CANNOT TRANSMIT THE DISEASE TO ANOTHER PERSON.  That is 
a fact.  Ergo, all this nonsense about "safe sex" is unnecessary from this
standpoint.

>that lie in wait. It is abstinence before marriage, then marriage and
>mutual fidelity for life to an uninfected partner. Anything less is
>potentially suicidal.

No, sleeping with a known-Negative partner is no more risky than sleeping
with an uninfected "married" mate.  Marriage confers no immunity.  Only the
person's disease status matters.

>Some will. Some won't. It's still the only answer. 

Nope.  It is >one< answer.  It is one which some people will choose.  But
not all.  Those who choose to have sexual relations deserve to know the
facts -- that they CAN cut their risk.  Not to zero -- but by perhaps two
orders of magnitude.  That's certainly better than NO decrease!

>Even if we spent another $50 billion to promote condom usage, most 
>teenagers would still not use them consistently and properly. The nature
>of human beings and the passion of the act simply do not lend themselves
>to a disciplined response in young romantics.

Incorrect.  A number of us, myself included, went through our entire
adolescent period and KNEW how to use condoms properly, and DID SO.  Sure,
its a pain in the neck -- but it greatly reduces the risk of all STDs.  My
life is important enough for me to use a condom -- the "heat of passion" is
overcome by my love of life.

>  But if you knew a teenager was going to have intercourse, wouldn't
>  you teach him or her about proper condom usage?
>
>No, because that approach has an unintended consequence. The process 
>of recommending condom usage to teenagers inevitably conveys five
>dangerous ideas: (1) that "safe sex" is achievable; (2) that everybody
>is doing it; (3) that responsible adults expect them to do it; (4) that
>it's a good thing; and (5) that their peers know they know these things,
>breeding promiscuity. Those are very destructive messages to give our 
>kids.

Not teaching a teenager about using condom usage who you >KNOW IS GOING TO
HAVE SEX< is negligence and child abuse, and should be prosecuted to the
full extent of the law.  Failing to give a young person EVERY AVAILABLE TOOL
to mitigate potential harm to their person out of some misguided sense of
morality is wrong, harmful, and ought to get you 20 years in prison.  If
that youngster contracts AIDS due to your misinformation, you should get
life instead.  After all, you COULD have possibly saved this young person's
life by telling them how to avoid infection.

This is presuming that a young person has chosen to have sex.  If the choice
has not been made, then it is all well and good to point out the risks.  But
give that young person the tools to make an >informed< choice.

Responsible adults DO expect young persons who have sexual relations to do
so in as >safe a manner as is possible<.  There is NO SUCH THING AS SAFE
SEX - EVEN BETWEEN MARRIED FAITHFUL COUPLES.  Women die every year from the
complications of pregnancy -- three or four times on a percentage basis as 
many as die from first-trimester abortions in fact.  Women die from PID who
have no STD to speak of other than the PID (which is a potential consequence
of sexual relations)  There IS, however, "Safer sex".  The difference should 
be obvious.

>Want proof of that fact? Since the federal government began its major
>contraception program in 1970, unwed pregnancies have increased 87 
>percent among 15- to 19-year-olds. [25] Likewise, abortions among teens
>rose 67 percent; [26] unwed births went up 61 percent. [27] And venereal 
>disease has infected a generation of young people. Nice job, sex counselors.
>Good thinking, senators and congressmen. Nice nap, America.

This is not proof.  You have not established causation.  Back to Statistics
101 for you; you flunk the first test.  In fact, the Government began that
major contraception program BECAUSE of a skyrocketing incidence of unwed
pregnancies and STDs.

>  But if you were a parent and knew that your son or daughter was 
>  having sex, wouldn't you rather he or she used a condom?
>
>How much risk is acceptable when you're talking about your teenager's
>life? 

This isn't the point.  You cannot reach "zero" risk in your teenager's life.
It simply isn't possible.  The point is this:  IF you know your son or
daughter is having sex then it is a FACT that you have failed in pushing a
"virginity" agenda on them.  Therefore, you OWE IT TO THEM to teach them
about ways to >decrease their risk<.

>One study of married couples in which one partner was infected
>with HIV found that 17% of the partners using condoms for protection
>still caught the virus within a year and a half. [28]

To put this in perspective, IF (and I doubt this) there are 1 million HIV
positive persons in the US today, you have a 0.45% chance of picking one
of those persons to have sex with by random chance.  Now, IF you choose an
infected partner, you have a 17% chance (again, accepting the numbers given
without judgement) of catchin the disease in 18 months.  Thus, your chance
is 0.0765% over 18 months, or 7 out of 10,000.  This is higher than your
risk of getting killed in a car accident by about 4 times.  It presumes two
things -- that there are 1 million HIV positive persons in the US, and your
chance of catching the disease is 17% if you use condoms with a known
positive individual.

I doubt both of those numbers.  ONE study does not a statistic make.  I
would like to see the results of a half-dozen properly peer-reviewed
studies.  Further, some of those HIV positive persons are obviously ill and
therefore removed from your candidate list.

Even if all this is true, this risk isn't far out of line with the risk of 
getting killed in an automobile.  

Note that condom use here reduced your chances by over FIVE TIMES.  Sounds
like damn cheap insurance, even if it doesn't always pay off.

>to "reduce their risk" to one in six (17%) is not much better than 
>advocating Russian roulette. 

Sure it is -- Russian Roulette is 1-in-6 chance of death, or 16.66%.  This
is a 0.0765% chance of death, again, IF I accept your numbers unchallenged.
Every year I run a .0166% chance of death from an automobile accident.

>It is a popular myth that teenagers are incapable of understanding that
>it is in their best interest to save themselves until marriage. Almost
>65 percent of all high school females under 18 are virgins. [29]

A self-reported statistic.  How many high school females under 18 are willing
to admit in a survey that they had sexual relations?  In >my< high school I
could have probably counted the number of graduating senior women who were
virgins on the fingers of one hand.

>prepared public address system. Who says kids won't listen to this
>time-honored message?

Listen, sure.  Act on it?  Perhaps.

>entitled, "Teens Have the Right," and is apparently intended to free
>adolescents from adult authority. Inside are the six declarations that
>make up a "Teenager's Bill of Rights," as follows:
>
>	I have the right to think for myself.
>
>	I have the right to decide whether to have sex and who[m]
>	to have it with.
>
>	I have the right to use protection when I have sex.
>
>	I have the right to buy and use condoms.
>
>	I have the right to express myself.
>
>	I have the right to ask for help if I need it.

Well well!  No kidding.  I happen to agree with this 100%.  I also would
encourage any teen of an appropriate age (16+) who was told differently by
his or her parents to file for emancipation.  How's that for parental
authority? :-)

>Under this final item (the right to ask for help) is a list of 
>organizations and phone numbers that readers are encouraged to call.
>The philosophy that governs several of the organizations reflects the
>homosexual agenda, which includes recruitment of the young and vigorous
>promotion of a teen's right to sexual expression.

If you're going to take a swipe at sexual preference, then let me introduce 
some facts:

FACT 1:	Homosexual orientation has >nothing< to do with STDs.  It is in no
	way connected to any form of disease transmission.

FACT 2:	HIV is an equal-opportunity disease.  There is >one< sexual practice
	which happens to be a darn good way to catch it.  This practice is
	performed by BOTH STRAIGHT COUPLES AND HOMOSEXUAL MEN.  This
	particular practice is >darn< dangerous and probably should be
	abstained from by >all< people unless you KNOW FACTUALLY that both 
	partners are HIV negative.

FACT 3:	Lesbian women have the LOWEST HIV transmission statistics per-capita
	of ANY GROUP.  That includes heterosexuals.  Ergo, it is safer from 
	an HIV standpoint to be a lesbian than a straight woman.  Therefore,
	from a public health standpoint we should advocate lesbian lifestyles
	for women, right?

Uh huh -- I thought so.

>If you agree with Focus on the Family that it is time for a new approach
>to adolescent sexuality, copy this ad and save it. Take it to your next
>school meeting. Send it to your congressman or senator. Distribute 
>copies to the PTA. And by all means, share it with teenagers. Begin
>to promote abstinence before marriage as the only healthy way to survive
>this worldwide epidemic.

I think I just let the world know how I feel about the misinformation which
"Focus on the Family" would push on youngsters.  When you folks start 
presenting facts in an unbiased light instead of saying "you have a one in
six chance of dying" then you'll get a more level response from some of us
who learned how to do basic math in school -- instead of just parroting that
which some people tried to shove down our throats.

>Jim Loucks           jloucks@uts.amdahl.com 
>{apple, pyramid, sun, uunet}!amdahl!jloucks

--
Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Data Line: [+1 312 248-0900] Anon. arch. (nuucp) 00:00-06:00 C[SD]T
Request file: /u/public/sources/DIRECTORY/README for instructions