From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Passing out Condoms  (Was Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT)
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 18:05:55 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Aug25.172031.29145@crd.ge.com> doel@crd.ge.com writes:
>In article <BtJpp8.MKM@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>> 
>>   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. 

  Jeesus, what a Usenerd!   The "built-in incentive" I'm talking 
  about is that humans are sexually attracted to each other.  They
  *desire* to have sexual contact with members of the appropriate
  sex.  When I was a teenage boy, teenage girls held a certain, shall
  we say, "fascination" for me.  Believe me, it had *nothing* to do 
  with reproduction.   

>       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.

  You don't know whether drugs feel good unless you try them.  This isn't
  true for sex.  You know you're sexually attracted to someone even if
  you're a virgin, and even if you wouldn't have clue what to do with 
  them if they said "yes".   It's much more fundamental than drugs.  


>    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. 

  So what's your point?  _As I said before_ this is *hypothetical* 
  because nobody is even talking about organizing and funding
  such a campaign, and anyway it would have to compete with music
  advertising and TV shows promoting sex.  _As I said before_ 
  condoms EXIST, NOW, TODAY.  They're not perfect but they're
  the best weapon we've got.  When there's a mass-media anti-sex
  crusade ready to go THEN we can talk about whether this would
  be preferable to condoms.



>> >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! 
>
>So are you saying that those in the media would put their own financial
>interests ahead of public health? 

  Are you naive enough to think they wouldn't?!    Did you just fall
  off a turnip truck?


> I thought that's what Republicans are always being accused of.

  So?  They're not mutually exclusive, you know.



>                                I thought those in the media were the
>"sensitive" types who put public good ahead of their own self-interests.

  You did, huh?   You should really "just say no" to drugs.  Or turnips.
                                                                     

---peter






Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush