HIV in Africa, and the approaches to solving the epidemic.

[Black]

This article is a study on how HIV rates in Zimbabwe have fallen and the underlying cause:

http://www.news24.com/News24/Africa/...874591,00.html

Change in sex habits 'cut HIV'

However, it postulated that a significant fall in infection rates in Uganda in the 1990s came after sexual behaviour changes.

Now, why did I bring this up? Well, we all know that the liberal approach to curbing the proliferation of HIV is to provide condoms to the public. We also know that the Vatican and other conservative groups are vehemently against this idea and desire to solve the problem by reducing promiscuous behavior and promoting abstention.

Now, the purpose of this topic:

What do you think? This study promotes the conservative approach and also acknowledges the benefit of the liberal approach in dealing with it, yet each side isn't friendly with the other. Which side do you think has the right idea?

Personally, I'm on the conservative side. Promiscuous behavior is the true cause of the HIV epidemic. Condoms might have some success but it would be severely limited. Sexual responsibility is the way to go, yo!

This study shows that abstention is not an out-dated concept and that it is effective. I don't know about you guys, but in my health classes they always stress using a condom but never stress abstention. Why not!? Bah, I can't help but feel there is some bias going on.

[ceejayoz]

My opinion would be that getting people to use a condom is far more likely than getting them to stop having casual sex. Studies have shown that those "abstinence pledges" only delay sexual activity a few months, and those who take them are in fact somewhat more likely to engage in risky activity when they do start. That's why I strongly oppose abstinence-only sex ed.

I've no objections to advocating abstinence as the best way, I've objections to it being taught as the only way and all other options - i.e. condoms etc. - ignored.

All of my health classes stressed abstinence as the only 100% effective way of preventing pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. Perhaps you're seeing a "bias" when the reality of the matter is that there's just not that much to say about abstinence versus condoms. "Don't have sex" can't fill up a one hour class period.

Of course, it's possible that we do indeed have different sex ed curriculums in our respective areas.

[Black]

My opinion would be that getting people to use a condom is far more likely than getting them to stop having casual sex. Studies have shown that those "abstinence pledges" only delay sexual activity a few months, and those who take them are in fact somewhat more likely to engage in risky activity when they do start. That's why I strongly oppose abstinence-only sex ed.

I've no objections to advocating abstinence as the best way, I've objections to it being taught as the only way and all other options - i.e. condoms etc. - ignored.

All of my health classes stressed abstinence as the only 100% effective way of preventing pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. Perhaps you're seeing a "bias" when the reality of the matter is that there's just not that much to say about abstinence versus condoms. "Don't have sex" can't fill up a one hour class period.

Of course, it's possible that we do indeed have different sex ed curriculums in our respective areas.

From a quick skim over the NYS health curriculum standards, there is no specific mention of abstention or protection. It was very open and only demanded that the school discuss sexual activity and it's consequences. So I guess our respective schools took different directions with it. If I had to grade my school as liberal or conservative I would most definetely label it as liberal (even though the label has only a shallow meaning when talking about ideology and politics, but that's beside the point), which just goes to show the stark contrast in the approach towards sexual activity.

IMO "Don't have sex" is more air-tight than "Use a condom" because:

1) A condom isn't 100% effective. If you use one in addition to a contraceptive you're putting medication in your body that you don't necessarily need. Now, I don't know if that's nescessarily bad, but it just doesn't sit right with me. Medication should only be taken as a necessity.

2) Sexual activity is risky in other ways, such as the possibility of abuse.

Also, it would be kind of hard to advocate both positions wouldn't it? If you promote condoms you are weakening the Abstention argument. I prefer to lean towards the "Avoid it altogether" side.

[SquidDNA]

We're not ready for another one of these. Do a search for AIDS, put on some sock puppets, and read the threads aloud to yourself.