From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Subject: Re: Passing out Condoms  (Was Re: Better Off Than Four Years Ago NOT)
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 17:02:06 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.131123.24352@crd.ge.com>, doel@ausable.crd.ge.com (Michael Doel) writes:
>
>Better yet is not having sex at all.  Too often the advocates of condom
>distribution seem to refuse the best alternative.

And suicide is the best cure for cancer.  Sometimes the cure is worse than the
disease.

>Of course condom use is better than sex without a condom,

Well, err, maybe *you* prefer sex with a condom to sex without, but *I*
don't.  :-)

>but it's not the best choice in most cases (remember, we're talking school
>kids here).

Excluding abstinance as a solution, what *is* "the best choice"?

>If we don't feel protected by a condom, we shouldn't be handing them out to
>kids as a protective device.

If they'd save lives, we should be handing them out unless there's a better
protective device.  Holding the moral high ground at the expense of the lives
of our youth is unacceptable.

>We should encourage the kids to refrain from the dangerous behavior.

Absolutely!  But how?  Not by wagging our fingers at them and saying "no, no,
no--mustn't do *that*".  We need *good* sex education, regardless of what the
prudes say.

>Do you know of studies which indicate that sexual activity is not affected in
>any way if condoms are handed out?

No, but if it ever *is* shown that condom availability increases sexual
activity, buy stock in Trojan (or your favorite brand) because teenage boys
will immediately start stockpiling them.  1/2 :-)

>My point is that emotion should be involved with sexual activity.

WRONG!  *You* may think that's necessary, but I don't.  If sufficient care
is given to preventing AIDS transmission, adequate birth control is used,
and all parties are aware of the risks, what's wrong with recreational sex? 
Nothing.  Now, your personal beliefs might impart a value judgement on
recreational sex, but that's certainly not something the government can or
should impose on the people.  EVEN IF THE MAJORITY HOLDS THOSE SAME
BELIEFS--you have no right to impose your sensibilites on others.

>People may disagree on whether or not premarital sex is bad, but just
>about everyone I know would agree that if a couple has premarital sex,
>there should be a level of commitment higher than "we talked at a party
>for a couple of hours."

Sounds like you hang with a pretty uptight crowd.

>Simply cutting down on the number of sexual partners people have would
>go a long way towards halting the spread of AIDS and teenage pregnancy.
>The best way to accomplish this is to encourage abstinance.

WRONG!  Given the choice between abstinance and sex, many people will choose
the latter.  :-)  What we need to do is educate teens in the hazards of sex
(babies, AIDS, etc.) and the ways to avoid those hazards (abstinance, condoms,
fewer partners).  Forewarned is forearmed, and given this information *many*
more will choose a safer path.  Preaching abstinance and the evils of
premarital sex won't help those who choose not to abstain.

>I'm not saying that teaching about condom use and availability isn't
>important.  I just don't think that handing them out in schools sends the
>right message.

Message, shmessage.  You don't want *your* kids to have access to condoms? 
Move to some fascist or totalitarian country that, unlike the US, isn't free
and doesn't treat its citizens like intelligent beings.

-- 
Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)	   For every Bill Joy there is a Kirk McKusick.
Martin Marietta Energy Systems     For every Bill Gates there is a Richard
Workstation Support                Stallman.                     --Paul Graham
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections