From: perry@apollo.hp.com (Jim Perry)
Subject: Re: SURVEY <-- Please read this one!
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 19:54:50 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Aug25.082811.310@doc.bmd.trw.com> jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com writes:
>In Message-ID: <10209@vice.ICO.TEK.COM>
>bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:

(I hope I've cut the attributions correctly)
(that's ">  " for Bob, ">    " for Jim)

[various musings on statistics omitted]

>    The point is, *nobody knows* how effect condoms can be against
>    HIV *at their best*, but assuredly we know that *most* people
>    won't use them properly (hence the 80% *average* statistic for
>    effectiveness against pregnancy).
>
>    I believe that's it's simply irresponsible negligence to promote
>    condom use as a key to "safe sex" in light of all the variables
>    that we don't know.

It would be thoroughly irresponsible to respond to HIV by doing
nothing but handing out condoms, without additional education.  It
would be thoroughly irresponsible to simply advocate abstinence,
without additional education.

Hint: the *most* important is that kids should be thoroughly educated
about sex, sexuality, pregnancy, and AIDS.

>
>>
>>The problem is that condoms will give people a false sense of security
>>and the HIV infection rate will go up.  That's why decent minded citizens
>>oppose the distribution of condoms.  It promotes sexual activity in
>>teenagers by providing this false sense of security.  The *only*
>>*rational* preventive measures against AIDS remains abstinence and
>>*strict* monogamy.
>
>  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 in the Good Old Days when people followed their Bibles all those
males abstained, not having heard of condoms.  And they didn't
masturbate either.

>  Read the August 3rd edition of _Newsweek_ for a
>  closer look at the facts.  Teenagers will have sex, whether you
>  approve or not.
>
>    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.

And how do you know that?  I would like teenagers to be taught
everything I know (at least) about sex, AIDS, condoms, and the like,
and then condoms made available to those who choose to have sex.
They're going to do it anyway, always have and always will, whether
their parents like it or not.  If they're going to have sex, it's far
better for them to use condoms than not.  Pretending they're going to
be good little Christians and just abstain is burying your head in the
sand.  Nor is being handed a rubber going to be the incentive that
leads an otherwise chaste teen to committing the dirty deed.

>  Currently, homosexuals can be denied housing,
>  employment, and I'm certain many other of your rights simply on
>  the basis of sexual orientation.
>
>    Bull.  No person can be denied such *legally* under the law.
>    Some may in fact suffer such discrimination, [...]
>    but it is not *legally sanctioned*, at least not under
>    Federal law.

So gays have legally protected equal rights to serve in the military
services?  I must have missed the news.  The various intelligence
services (FBI, CIA, NSA...) have no problem with gay employees.  Glad
to hear it.  I've clearly not been paying close enough attention to
the news.

>  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.
[wide-eyed red-baiting rant deleted]

That was entertaining and enlightening, but scarcely apropos.  The
ACLU, who'll stand up for Nazis and communists and criminals and
degenerates and other scum of the earth say even they have no legal
recourse to protect homosexuals from discrimination.  Doesn't that say
something to you, or do you just automatically ignore any press
statement by pinkos?
-- 
Jim Perry   	    	    	    Distributed Object Computing Program
perry@apollo.hp.com	    	    Hewlett-Packard Co., Chelmsford MA
This is the way the breakfast ends, not with a wimp but a banger.