kaya'08
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2008
- Messages
- 6,363
- Reaction score
- 1,318
- Location
- British Turk
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
but you are not 100% safe.
Because I know what the word "safe" means.
Because I posted a little word movie, just for you, to illustrate the difference between "safe" and "safer". Since that movied didn't work, please refund me the price of your ticket.
And at the most, it's a paraboic analogy. Falling bodies in constant gravity fields do not follow hyperbolas.
Actually I will agree with Scarecrow here on the wording. Condoms themselves are not safe, it is the proper use of condoms that makes it safer than not using them.
Afterall safe implies that you can't get pregnant, catch STDS, etc. at least in my mind.
Proper condom use is waaaaaay safer than not using one, but you are not 100% safe.
Either way, I would prefer educating Africans on proper condom use rather than telling them to abstain.
Theres nothing on this planet that can guarentee you 100% safety. This should go without saying. But is that an excuse to ignore condoms all together?
Theres nothing on this planet that can guarentee you 100% safety. This should go without saying. But is that an excuse to ignore condoms all together?
I had a Nigerian catholic friend once, he refused to use a condom during sex and what do you know, he contracted HIV. I'd pity him but he got himself into that position
Condoms is not a solution but it is a wonderful starting place.
Muslim Sub Saharan Africa has little aids and not to the scale of other places, you get a step into where the Pope has his stranglehold and deathgrip and you notice it's off the roof.
They aren't 100% effective, but they are far more effective than not using anything at all. It's better to be safe than sorry.
It is better to be safe than sorry? Wouldn't the safest thing be to following the teachings of the Church and NOT have sexual intercourse outside of marriage?
Sure. Abstinence is the safest method, but I believe that asking people to go against their primal nature is sure to fail most of the time. I know that abstinence was not a feasible option for me, thus protection and not sleeping with promiscuous women has worked for me so far. :2razz:It is better to be safe than sorry? Wouldn't the safest thing be to following the teachings of the Church and NOT have sexual intercourse outside of marriage?
Not everyone subscribes to that religious ideology. I certainly don't. It's absurd to expect everyone to.
Sure. Abstinence is the safest method, but I believe that asking people to go against their primal nature is sure to fail most of the time. I know that abstinence was not a feasible option for me, thus protection and not sleeping with promiscuous women has worked for me so far. :2razz:
I agree entirely.The primary problem in these parts of the world where HIV/AIDS is most prevalent is the lack of empowerment in women to make their own sexual decisions. That is where we need to focus our efforts.
It would be equally absurd to expect the Pope to advocate anything that would going against a fundamental teaching of the Church.
Where did you get I was saying ignore condoms all together?
I was just saying that the proper wording is in fact SAFER and not SAFE is all.
I think I clarified that in my last statement that I would rather them be educated in proper condom use than abstinence alone.
It would be equally absurd to expect the Pope to advocate anything that would going against a fundamental teaching of the Church.
so the question becomes why are their teachings so obviously flawed
so the question becomes why are their teachings so obviously flawed
How are they "obviously flawed"?
If you and your partner followed the church's teachings -- that sex should be reserved for a committed marital relationship, in which you should be well aware of your partner's HIV status, among other things (which, unless extraordinarily unlucky, should be HIV-free, having followed those teachings), then your risk of contracting or spreading HIV is low to nil.
People love to latch on to the "no contraceptives" part, but ignore the rest of it.
Perhaps because the Muslims in northern Africa are doing exactly what the Pope suggests?
It is better to be safe than sorry? Wouldn't the safest thing be to following the teachings of the Church and NOT have sexual intercourse outside of marriage?
What do you suggest? That the bible is re-written?
What crazy person is going to abstain from sex? Religious or no.
You would be hard press to find in the 21st century someone actually saving themselves for marriage.
I think that you can disgaree all you want with the Pope, but you do so understanding that your disagreement means nothing.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?