View Full Version : Extra small condoms for 12 year-old boys go on sale in Switzerland
Extra small condoms for boys as young as 12 are going on sale in Switzerland.
Alexandra Williams in Geneva
Published: 8:13PM GMT 03 Mar 2010
Called the Hotshot, the condom has been produced after government research showed 12 to14-year-olds did not use sufficient protection when having sex.
The study, conducted on behalf of the Federal Commission for Children and Youth, interviewed 1,480 people aged 10 to 20.
t showed more 12 to 14-year-olds were having sex, in comparison with the 1990s.
The Hotshot condoms, which cost 7fr60 (£4.70) for a packet of six, have been created by Lamprecht AG, a leading condom manufacturer in Switzerland.
The company has said the UK would be "top priority" if they expanded abroad, considering that it has the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Europe.
Nysse Norballe, a spokesman for the company, said: "At the moment we are only producing the Hotshot in Switzerland. But the UK is certainly a very attractive market since there is a very high rate of underage conception. The UK would definitely be top priority if we marketed abroad."
A standard condom has a diameter of 2ins (5.2cm) in comparison with the Hotshot's diameter of 1.7ins (4.5cm). Both are the same length – 7.4ins (19cm).
According to a German study of 12,970 13 to 20-year-olds, a quarter said a standard condom was too large.
Family planning groups and the Swiss Aids Federation campaigned to have the Hotshot produced after a number of studies, including the government study researched at the Centre for Development and Personality Psychology at Basel University.
Nancy Bodmer, who headed the research, said: "The result that shocked us concerned young boys who display apparently risky behaviour. They have more of a tendency not to protect themselves. They do not have a very developed sexual knowledge. They do not understand the consequences of what they are doing and leave the young girls to take care of the consequences.
"The results of this study suggest that early prevention makes sense."
The age of consent in Switzerland is 16, although if the age difference is not more than three years there will be no punishment. Other concessions exist if the older person is not more than 20 or believed the younger person to be at least 16.
The Swiss initiative comes as the UK government announces an overhaul of its teenage pregnancy strategy after new figures showed conception rate among 18s were not falling fast enough.
The UK has the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Europe.
In 1999, the government pledged to halve the teenage conception rate within 10 years.
But data released last week from The Office for National Statistics shows it has clearly failed to make any significant impact.
Source (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7361181/Extra-small-condoms-for-12-year-old-boys-go-on-sale-in-Switzerland.html)
Well, is it not the cutest thing? :rolleyes: :disgust2:
Nancy Bodmer, who headed the research, said: "The result that shocked us concerned young boys who display apparently risky behaviour. They have more of a tendency not to protect themselves. They do not have a very developed sexual knowledge. They do not understand the consequences of what they are doing and leave the young girls to take care of the consequences.
I wonder if boys of that age will actually buy the condoms at all if their emotional development is so immature.
The UK has the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Europe.
:eek: I did not know this! :eek:
If it protects against STDs and pregnancy, then I don't see a problem with creating a product with a specific client-base which shows a need for such a product.
I wonder if boys of that age will actually buy the condoms at all if their emotional development is so immature.
well, contraception is the girl's problem, right?
*ducks head*
well, contraception is the girl's problem, right?
*ducks head*
:tomato:
If it protects against STDs and pregnancy, then I don't see a problem with creating a product with a specific client-base which shows a need for such a product.
I have no problem with someone creating a product for this consumer group. However, it will only protect them if they use it. Given their maturity level I wonder what percentage of boys will use the condom at all. It was proven in the study that they regularly engage in risky behaviors. This is common with this age group and they may not see the value of buying a condom and using it.
ResearchMonkey
3/05/10, 06:16pm
I'm thinking 12y/o boys would want normal sized condoms to protect themselves from STD's.
http://img534.imageshack.us/img534/9065/kjvaseline02.jpg
:sick5:
I think I'll just stay away from this tread
:sick5:
I can't believe that we're discussing teh maturity level of 12 YEAR-OLDS.
12 year-olds
There are bigger issues here (I know of what I speak, I was not a 12 year old virgin)
ResearchMonkey
3/05/10, 09:03pm
~~~nsfw, better left as a link (http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/161/1267830867123.jpg)
ResearchMonkey
3/05/10, 10:29pm
Obviously they weren't teaching the joys of exploring another person body when you were in school.
-- Thanks Kevin Jennings
I have no problem with someone creating a product for this consumer group. However, it will only protect them if they use it. Given their maturity level I wonder what percentage of boys will use the condom at all. It was proven in the study that they regularly engage in risky behaviors. This is common with this age group and they may not see the value of buying a condom and using it.
Better sex ed at an earlier age? Frankly, if they're mature enough to actually get into a sexual relationship, they should be mature enough to understand the consequences of said relationship.
With all that in mind, teens and tweens still suffer from the Superman mentality. Nothing bad will ever happen to them..which is why they don't wear helmets to skateboard, bike, ski, snowboard etc..why they're more likely to speed or dwi in a car, why they're more likely to get stitches for trying to reproduce stunts they saw online or on tv etc etc...
What you can do to make these kids buy the condoms (if not use'em), is bragging rights. ... or, they make handy water balloons.
Well, let's hope they use them. But I wouldn't leave this as the only method for for reducing/eliminating teen pregnancy (and STDs) in that age group. They need their parents to be honest with them and they need to hear it again in school (sex ed class). Knowledge is always the best weapon to combat such things.
Well, let's hope they use them. But I wouldn't leave this as the only method for for reducing/eliminating teen pregnancy (and STDs) in that age group. They need their parents to be honest with them and they need to hear it again in school (sex ed class). Knowledge is always the best weapon to combat such things.
Parents?? Most parents are hesitant in discussing sex with their kids, either out of embarrassment, a false-hope that if they don't talk about it that their kids won't do it, or some inane religious/cultural reason that forbids them from thinking about or even talking about sex and sexuality with anyone, much less their kids.
The other side of the coin is What teen (or tween) could want to be caught dead talking with their parents about sex? The mere thought of it makes them gag..much less, the thought of their parents actually *gasp* being sexually active.
You have to teach kids before they form those barriers, and before their peers beging filling their heads with BS. Keeping the kids at arm's length socially is a good idea as well..so that the relationship doesn't affect the message. A teacher is neither a peer nor a parent. Their job is to impart wisdom and knowledge...as such, they are the best source. For younger kids who ask such questions, the parents are the best source...but after age 11 or 12 :shrug: I think not.
Parents?? Most parents are hesitant in discussing sex with their kids, either out of embarrassment, a false-hope that if they don't talk about it that their kids won't do it, or some inane religious/cultural reason that forbids them from thinking about or even talking about sex and sexuality with anyone, much less their kids.
The other side of the coin is What teen (or tween) could want to be caught dead talking with their parents about sex? The mere thought of it makes them gag..much less, the thought of their parents actually *gasp* being sexually active.
You have to teach kids before they form those barriers, and before their peers beging filling their heads with BS. Keeping the kids at arm's length socially is a good idea as well..so that the relationship doesn't affect the message. A teacher is neither a peer nor a parent. Their job is to impart wisdom and knowledge...as such, they are the best source. For younger kids who ask such questions, the parents are the best source...but after age 11 or 12 :shrug: I think not.
I totally agree with this. The discussion should be started when the child is young enough to grasp the concept of "little brother/sister" and pregnancy. That's pretty young. Parents are the best teacher, but not all parents will bring up the subject young enough to make a difference (or, as you put it, at all). These kids will interact with YOUR kids. Best to reiterate this is a class setting in middle school.
I have a 4yr old and a nearly 8yr old. They both started asking questions by the time they reached age 3. We answer honestly though skip the more ...er..pornographic details. Pregnancy is discussed openly, body parts are named properly, fucntions etc... Eventually, they'll have more elaborate discussions, and it should be easier to talk about because of a building up of trust and knowledge. Far too many parents wait for too ling and then try and give the kids the 'talk'... often completely out of context. (ie. the neighbour's daughter is knocked up...time to finally talk with your 15yr old about condoms. )
ResearchMonkey
3/09/10, 03:38pm
Our children understand the mechanics of sex as well as the basic of the emotional construct of personal relationships, it comes naturally by simply being fairly honest with them over time. They understand the differnce between the physical human body and the acts of pushing the limits of orifices for xxxxxx reasons. My daughters are not uncomfortable about seeing a vagina or penis in an appropriate context, nor will they flinch when discussing age appropriate related issues.
We encourage and participate in discussing any questions our children may have. Admittedly there are some issues I as a father are not privvy to but mother is. We feel our children have developed a healthy sense of self. While they know "fisting" might be all the rage, they also it's not really a place where people should be sticking their arm because it's full of poop. Just important for young girls they have knowledge of the psyche of sexual predators
People are shocked when they hear a 6-yo say the word "penis" in a proper context.
/bragging
ResearchMonkey
3/09/10, 03:42pm
Best to reiterate this is a class setting in middle school.It's not the schools job beyond the most simplistic view of the mechanics. Stick to the basics of education, not life style.
BeardofPants
3/09/10, 03:52pm
I have a 4yr old and a nearly 8yr old. They both started asking questions by the time they reached age 3. We answer honestly though skip the more ...er..pornographic details. Pregnancy is discussed openly, body parts are named properly, fucntions etc... Eventually, they'll have more elaborate discussions, and it should be easier to talk about because of a building up of trust and knowledge. Far too many parents wait for too ling and then try and give the kids the 'talk'... often completely out of context. (ie. the neighbour's daughter is knocked up...time to finally talk with your 15yr old about condoms. )
You can be honest & open 'til the cows come up. Probably won't help when they're teens (see your previous answer). My BF's 'rents were hippies who periodically had naked hippie drug parties. They were open about this shit too. Still didn't stop the BF & I from sneaking around & not telling them.
ResearchMonkey
3/09/10, 04:05pm
You can be honest & open 'til the cows come up. Probably won't help when they're teens (see your previous answer). My BF's 'rents were hippies who periodically had naked hippie drug parties. They were open about this shit too. Still didn't stop the BF & I from sneaking around & not telling them.My first thought would be that his parents having free-love-hippy parties contributed your BF actions of banging you in the back seat.
just a thought
BeardofPants
3/09/10, 04:09pm
Probably. Doesn't explain his fear of bananas though. :hmm:
ResearchMonkey
3/09/10, 04:40pm
Did they serve food at these party's?
:lol2:
Better sex ed at an earlier age?
Wanna bet there are more pregnant 13 year old today than when 13 was marrying age?
Sorry, bish, sex ed has only accelerated STD's & teen pregnancy.
Wanna bet there are more pregnant 13 year old today than when 13 was marrying age?
Sorry, bish, sex ed has only accelerated STD's & teen pregnancy.
That isn't true. In areas where sex ed is not taught there is a higher rate of teen pregnancies.
It's not the schools job beyond the most simplistic view of the mechanics. Stick to the basics of education, not life style.
It's the school's job to teach basic anatomy and physiology. Sex is part of that. I said nothing about life style.
You can be honest & open 'til the cows come up. Probably won't help when they're teens (see your previous answer). My BF's 'rents were hippies who periodically had naked hippie drug parties. They were open about this shit too. Still didn't stop the BF & I from sneaking around & not telling them.
Did you get pregnant during this romping?
Did you get an STD during this romping?
If you answered "No" to both of these, then what your folx (and his) told you about sex etc sunk in enough to make a difference.
Wanna bet there are more pregnant 13 year old today than when 13 was marrying age?
Sorry, bish, sex ed has only accelerated STD's & teen pregnancy.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/health/2004293974_sexed20m.html
Study results: 2002
Sixty-seven percent of the adolescents had taken comprehensive sex-education classes; 24 percent had received abstinence-only education, which emphasizes the safest sex is no sex and which discourages premarital sex. The remaining 9 percent received no sex education.
When differences in race, age, gender and family makeup were taken into account, students who'd had comprehensive sex education were 60 percent less likely to report a pregnancy than those without any sex education and 50 percent less likely than the abstinence-only group.
ResearchMonkey
3/10/10, 01:04pm
,del>
Sorry, bish, sex ed has only accelerated STD's & teen pregnancy.
no.
um perhaps there are other factors in operation that have gotten where we are today?
in the 1920's they blamed the automobile. In Muncie, Indiana they called 'em "pregnancy wagons."
yeah, cars and sex ed. that why the children are stupid fornicators.
:retard:
ResearchMonkey
3/10/10, 01:53pm
I just can't think of any other negative social factors that might affect the way people think about the human body.
http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/1239/att6q.jpg
Not that there's anything wrong with self-mutilation as form of self-expression.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/health/2004293974_sexed20m.html
Study results: 2002
Sixty-seven percent of the adolescents had taken comprehensive sex-education classes; 24 percent had received abstinence-only education, which emphasizes the safest sex is no sex and which discourages premarital sex. The remaining 9 percent received no sex education.
When differences in race, age, gender and family makeup were taken into account, students who'd had comprehensive sex education were 60 percent less likely to report a pregnancy than those without any sex education and 50 percent less likely than the abstinence-only group.
Thanks for posting this, Bish. I was going to go look it up today because I didn't have time when I posted yesterday. :)
BeardofPants
3/10/10, 10:09pm
Did you get pregnant during this romping?
Did you get an STD during this romping?
If you answered "No" to both of these, then what your folx (and his) told you about sex etc sunk in enough to make a difference.
Yes to the first, no to the second. My parents didn't do shit for the sex ed. I got my period long before any "talk". First time I got my period, I thought I was dying.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/health/2004293974_sexed20m.html
Study results: 2002
Sixty-seven percent of the adolescents had taken comprehensive sex-education classes; 24 percent had received abstinence-only education, which emphasizes the safest sex is no sex and which discourages premarital sex. The remaining 9 percent received no sex education.
When differences in race, age, gender and family makeup were taken into account, students who'd had comprehensive sex education were 60 percent less likely to report a pregnancy than those without any sex education and 50 percent less likely than the abstinence-only group.
"Our research has shown that no single school-based CSE program has produced evidence of a reduction in teen pregnancy or STD rates. None has produced a sustained increase in consistent condom use by teens - a behavior that's necessary to achieve even the partial risk reduction afforded by their use. And none has shown compelling success at promoting both abstinence and increased condom use within the same program - the very advantage claimed by CSE proponents.
These findings were confirmed in a recent Centers for Disease Control meta-analysis that showed that among school-based programs, no significant effect was found for pregnancy reduction, STD prevention or increased condom use. But this is not what most people believe. Most believe that CSE programs are effective."
Comprehensive Sex Ed Doesn’t Work (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/27/evaluating-what-matters/)
Cute study, Goth...unfortunatly, you may want to check references for the people who wrote it. The Diector and Founder of the IRE.*
*A group specifically pushing for Abstinence-only education (http://instituteresearch.com/index2.php?menu=m1)
Biased? I think....
Yes to the first, no to the second. My parents didn't do shit for the sex ed. I got my period long before any "talk". First time I got my period, I thought I was dying.
I don't see why you have an issue with, then?
IF they had talked with you about sex earlier..you feel that it wouldn't have made any difference?
BeardofPants
3/11/10, 12:49pm
Nope, per above. Open-honesty policy only gets you so far with a teen. Still better'n abstinence-only education, but honestly? Teens aren't wired brain-wise to be anything other than stupid idiots.
Cute study, Goth...unfortunatly, you may want to check references for the people who wrote it. The Diector and Founder of the IRE.*
*A group specifically pushing for Abstinence-only education (http://instituteresearch.com/index2.php?menu=m1)
Biased? I think....
The Institute
The Institute for Research and Evaluation (IRE) is a nonprofit research organization that has gained national recognition for its work evaluating sex education programs, particularly abstinence education interventions. IRE has conducted program evaluations for Title V, CBAE, and Title XX projects in 30 states and three foreign countries, collected data from more than 500,000 teens, and produced over one hundred studies of abstinence education during its 20-year history. IRE staff members have published several journal articles and frequently speak at professional conferences and workshops. Dr. Stan Weed, Founder and Senior Fellow at IRE, has served as a national consultant for Federal Title XX and CBAE projects, and was a charter member of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy. He has been invited to provide expert testimony to state legislative bodies, the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives (April, 2008), and the White House (June, 2009). IRE is directed by Paul Birch, who has been with the Institute for eight years.
Stan E. Weed, PhD—Founder and Senior Fellow
Dr. Weed completed his PhD in 1978 at the University of Washington in the field of Social Psychology. He has taught graduate and undergraduate courses in his field. His primary professional and research interest has been the social problems and preventive programs related to adolescents: teen pregnancy, drug abuse, and delinquency. His research has been published in scholarly professional journals and presented at meetings of the American Psychological Association, Academy of Management Association, Society for the Scientific Study of Religion, American Evaluation Association, National Conference on Family Relations, and World Conference of Sociologists. He has served as a consultant to the U.S. Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, and as a consultant to the Office of Adolescent Pregnancy Programs in the Department of Health and Human Services. His work assessing the impact of current social policy on teen pregnancy has been cited on NBC TV and in The Wall Street Journal, Time Magazine, Readers Digest, and scores of newspapers around the country. It has also been presented in Washington D.C. at The White House, the U.S. Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, the U.S. House Committee on Health and Transportation, the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, to legislative bodies in several states, and at Moscow University in Russia. He founded IRE in 1988.
Source (http://instituteresearch.com/aboutus.php?menu=m6)
Nope, per above. Open-honesty policy only gets you so far with a teen. Still better'n abstinence-only education, but honestly? Teens aren't wired brain-wise to be anything other than stupid idiots.
Teen's too late. You have to start earlier so you get retention when the kid becomes a teen and you suddenly become an embarrassment and a stupid one at that.
"When I was young, I thought that my parents knew everything. When I was a teen, I thought that they were the stupidest people on Earth. Now that I'm in my twenties, I'm surprised at how much they've learned in such a short period of time."
ResearchMonkey
3/11/10, 01:21pm
There's nothing wrong with teaching the whole shabang, parents need to step up to the plate, not the schools.
Source (http://instituteresearch.com/aboutus.php?menu=m6)
Great..you gave me back my source. They study abstinence only education and talk with GVTs about it. How does this make them unbiased again?
Great..you gave me back my source. They study abstinence only education and talk with GVTs about it. How does this make them unbiased again?
They do not only study abstinence. Case in point: Another Look at the Evidence: Abstinence and Comprehensive Sex Education in Our Schools (http://instituteresearch.com/docs/Another_Look_at_the_Evidence_%28IRE,_05-13-09%29.pdf)
ResearchMonkey
3/11/10, 01:48pm
Image of "just tissue", also part of teaching the shebang! (harsh) (http://img117.imageshack.us/img117/4659/1268267469010.jpg)
I wonder how many weeks in that one was.?
I find the direction this thread has taken offensive.
Teenage pregnancy is not a joke.
I have never met one woman that has had an abortion
who wasn’t negatively affected by the experience.
I taught my Son well the ramifications of not minding
what he did with his seed and it has not resulted in any
preggers females as of yet. It’s really simple, really.
If people can not master this simple process, then they reap the
disastrous consequences of their ineptitude!
They do not only study abstinence. Case in point: Another Look at the Evidence: Abstinence and Comprehensive Sex Education in Our Schools (http://instituteresearch.com/docs/Another_Look_at_the_Evidence_%28IRE,_05-13-09%29.pdf)
When Abstinence-only education fails..it fails spectacularly...mostly because of lack of education about such things as birth-control and stds. On the other hand, CSEs also discuss abstinence.
What if the lessons taught at home are the only thing that really
determine whether or not your daughter is going to get preggers?
This is the trufax of the situation, anything else is an attempt to
blame society. Oh and by the way Bish boys don’t get pregnant.
Nope..they don't get pregnant. They get child-support payment plans instead. :P
Like I said... IF you're the kind of parent that can teach at home (or can even broach the topic), more power to you. Start early enough that they 'get it' before they tune you out. For many parents, talking sex with their kids is tougher than it sounds. Lacking that, I'd rather have a trained nurse talking sex with kids than their peers.
it certainly does begin with good parenting.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/dd/Cletus.gif
Nope..they don't get pregnant. They get child-support payment plans instead. :P
Like I said... IF you're the kind of parent that can teach at home (or can even broach the topic), more power to you. Start early enough that they 'get it' before they tune you out. For many parents, talking sex with their kids is tougher than it sounds. Lacking that, I'd rather have a trained nurse talking sex with kids than their peers.
ummmm, nurse.
ResearchMonkey
3/12/10, 04:36pm
Maybe we sould have schools for parents to teach them how to be good parents.
Pack a bag and report to your local drive in theater for "parent camp".
As if failure to be good a parent isn't the parents own fault.
NO.
If you abrogate your responsibility to ‘trained nurses’
Lawd only knows what kinda crap they will put in your kids head.
Do you really think the stuff you type is true
or do you merely do it too try to get the goat
of normal people?
Yeah that's the funny thing a lot of parents don't get.
The time to 'talk' to kids about sex is before puberty
cuz yeah after they won't listen. It’s when they are in their late
teens/early 20's that they will say:
"Wow you were right and thanks for telling me".
Teach the Kid how to shoot before he has any bullets in his gun ;)
ResearchMonkey
3/12/10, 04:39pm
Selfish parents don't have the time to be bothered with such trivial issues, the state will do it for them.
I guess it takes a village, ya know like the one's they have in Kenya?
Are we talking a 12" B&W unit?
Heck no we are talkin' 55 inch Plasma 1080p Full-HD Resolution with
7.1-channel Dolby Digital Plus High Resolution surround sound!
And lots of rubbers!
When Abstinence-only education fails..it fails spectacularly...mostly because of lack of education about such things as birth-control and stds. On the other hand, CSEs also discuss abstinence.
Yeah, they discuss abstinence, e.g., "Of course, the best method of preventing STD's and pregnancy is abstinence. However, if you do not abstain from sex use a condom". It lasts about one breath.
There are plenty of examples where abstinence succeeds spectacularly. Especially in Africa.
But the real problem is not coupling abstinence with chastity. Oh, and I am not talking about chastity exclusively in the religious sense. I can send you an mp3 of an actual abstinence/chastity talk given in a high school. It is about an hour long. I believe all high school students should listen to this. I think if you listen to this yourself, then you just might want your kids to listen to it. ;)
Let me know if you are interested and I will send you the link.
Gothy how many children have you raised to adulthood?
There are plenty of examples where abstinence succeeds spectacularly. Especially in Africa.
:roll2::roll2::roll2::roll2::roll2:
Next you'll tell me that teaching abstinence has had a major impact of HIV/AIDS in Africa.
HIV/AIDS rates in parts of Africa go as high at 30% of the population. Girls get married as young as age 7 and close to 60% are married prior to 18...and well on their way to their 3-5th child.
Abstinence is until marriage...and if paired up with BOTH being faithful and BOTH having been virgins AND having avoided other methods of getting AIDS/HIV upon marriage works well to avoid spreading.* (Note: Does not include rates because of rape)
The odds of all those coming together ... well, I suppose that the transmission/death statistics should go a long way towards showing how large THOSE odds are.
penicillin is one of the most effective weapons against AIDS in africa. it's often secondary sores and infections that yuck-up the genitals and allow the easier transmission of the virus during heterosexual contact.
often truckers are blamed for this, as they travel from town to town pigging the local whores with festering weeners.
perhaps some of the moralizers in this thread should go try to teach african truckers (or any truckers) to exercise good sense and abstinence HA HA HA HA. or perhaps we should just kill all the truckers, purging the gene pool, and replace them with chimpanzees wearing those cute little fez hats.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ZEsYAqtq0gw/Svl5NZP9WHI/AAAAAAAAC8Q/ebaoUJoERYI/s400/CHIMP_IN_FEZ.jpg
Gothy how many children have you raised to adulthood?
None.
penicillin is ......
What?? No addressing why that ape is looking so happy?
:roll2::roll2::roll2::roll2::roll2:
Next you'll tell me that teaching abstinence has had a major impact of HIV/AIDS in Africa.
HIV/AIDS rates in parts of Africa go as high at 30% of the population. Girls get married as young as age 7 and close to 60% are married prior to 18...and well on their way to their 3-5th child.
Abstinence is until marriage...and if paired up with BOTH being faithful and BOTH having been virgins AND having avoided other methods of getting AIDS/HIV upon marriage works well to avoid spreading.* (Note: Does not include rates because of rape)
The odds of all those coming together ... well, I suppose that the transmission/death statistics should go a long way towards showing how large THOSE odds are.
Abstinence is working in Africa (http://foreign.senate.gov/testimony/2003/GreenTestimony030519.pdf) - Testimony before US Senate
Abstinence Saves Lives
The Catholic Church is often pilloried, or worse, for opposing condoms.
The Catholic Church is often pilloried, or worse, for opposing condoms. We are told that the Church irrationally clings to abstract dogmas while real people lose their lives to AIDS.
It’s time to go on offense. The Church has a life-giving answer to the AIDS epidemic. Condom-promoters are the ones who are clinging to a ridiculous, discredited dogma at the cost of innocent lives.
Look at Africa. Nearly every country on the continent has vigorously promoted condoms to stem the tide of the AIDS epidemic there. And every one of them has failed to stop the epidemic — or even slow it down, much.
One African nation — Uganda — on the other hand, has experienced the greatest decline in HIV prevalence of any country in the world, reports the Heritage Foundation.
Studies show that from 1991 to 2001, HIV infection rates in Uganda declined from about 15% to 5%.
“The Ugandan model has the most to teach the rest of the world,” says Edward Green, a senior research scientist at Harvard and author of Rethinking AIDS Prevention. “This policy should guide the development of programs in Africa and the Caribbean.”
Jeff Spieler, chief of the research division in the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) population office, states, “It just happens to be where the evidence is pointing.”
The Ugandan model was to emphasize that abstaining from sex outside of marriage was the only effective way for most people to reduce exposure to AIDS. Social scientist Joe Loconte says that there are four lessons that Uganda taught the world, if it’s willing to learn them:
1. High-risk sexual behaviors can be discouraged and replaced by healthier lifestyles.
2. Abstinence and marital fidelity appear to be the most important factors in preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS.
3. Condoms do not play the primary role in reducing HIV/AIDS transmission. Uganda’s program did offer condoms as a last resort, mostly for high-risk groups. Abstinence was exclusively promoted for young people — and it worked.
4. Religious organizations are key in the fight against AIDS.
And yet the prevailing opinion of many cultural elites continues to be that condoms are the answer.
It should be obvious why they’re wrong.
Imagine that roller coaster operators decided to remove all of the safety bars from their rides. Instead, they decided simply to post a notice that said: “Practice safe roller-coastering! Bring a belt and strap yourself into your seat. Warning: If you fail to, you may get hurt, or even die!”
What would happen? Kids would die. Parents would be outraged. No one would expect every teen out to have a good time at an amusement park to have enough forethought and self-restraint to turn back at the roller coaster’s turnstile and go procure a safety belt. If governments responded by giving out roller coaster safety belts at schools, parents wouldn’t be satisfied.
And yet, when it comes to “safe sex,” too many people are happy with the sign-at-the turnstile approach.
Teens live in a world where sex is promoted on television, in movies and in music. Yet, a worldwide epidemic of venereal diseases mean that sexual activity can make people sick, or, in the case of AIDS, kill them.
It makes no sense simply to tell teens to remember to use a condom. Teens are rarely responsible enough to make their beds every morning. Why do we expect that, in the heat of passion, after we have given our tacit approval to premarital sex, they will use a condom?
The more effective method is to start telling people that sex isn’t healthy — physically, morally or emotionally — outside of marriage to start with.
That’s what Uganda did. The nation’s AIDS epidemic turned the corner when its culture began delivering the same message from middle-school classrooms to churches to community seminars and in radio, print and television broadcasts. That message: Save sex for marriage, where it belongs. It’s folly to expect to have sex safely any other way in this day and age.
“The effect was to create what researchers call a ‘social vaccine’ against HIV,” wrote Joe Loconte, “a set of cultural values that encouraged more responsible sexual attitudes and behaviors.”
As a result, Uganda’s Demographic and Health Survey of 2000-2001 found that 93% of Ugandans changed their sexual behaviors to avoid AIDS.
Catholics shouldn’t be afraid to insist that abstinence is the right answer to the epidemic of venereal diseases worldwide. Ours is the only answer that saves lives.
Source (http://www.ncregister.com/site/article/1909/)
African AIDS: the facts that demolish the myths
The mystery of why AIDS has been so devastating in Africa has been solved. And it’s not lack of condoms.
Benedict XVI’s recent comment on the African AIDS crisis -- "the scourge cannot be resolved by distributing condoms; quite the contrary, we risk worsening the problem" – provoked an international sensation all out of proportion to its half-sentence length.
"Impeach the Pope!" wrote a Catholic columnist in the Washington Post. This Pope is "a disaster", a Vatican official told the London Telegraph. These bouquets came from his friends. His foes were sulphurous. "Grievously wrong!" thundered the New York Times. "There is no evidence that condom use is aggravating the epidemic and considerable evidence that condoms, though no panacea, can be helpful in many circumstances."
No evidence, eh? None at all? Not even just a teensy-weensy bit? Had the Gray Lady and the thousands of other politicians and journalists who rained abuse on the Pope queried any AIDS experts about this? Apparently not. Had they done so, they would have discovered that many African AIDS strategists are having serious misgivings about an obsession with condoms.
In fact, a Harvard expert on AIDS prevention, Dr Edward C. Green (http://www.harvardaidsprp.org/faculty-staff/edward-c-green-bio.html), told MercatorNet bluntly: "the Pope is actually correct". Dr Green is no lightweight in the field of AIDS research. He is the author of five books and over 250 peer-reviewed articles -- and, he added, he is an agnostic, not a Catholic.
The not-enough-condoms explanation of the global HIV/AIDS epidemic is driven "not by evidence, but by ideology, stereotypes, and false assumptions," Dr Green wrote last year in the journal First Things. And myths kill: "they result in efforts that are at best ineffective and at worst harmful, while the AIDS epidemic continues to spread and exact a devastating toll in human lives".(1)
Experts with doubts
Dr Green is not a maverick voice. Similar views are being expressed in the world’s leading scientific journals. In an article in The Lancet, for instance, James Shelton, of the US Agency for International Development, stated flatly that one of the ten damaging myths about the fight against AIDS is that condoms are the answer. "Condoms alone have limited impact in generalised epidemics [as in Africa]," Shelton wrote.(2)
As long ago as 2004, an article in the journal Studies in Family Planning conceded that "no clear examples have emerged yet of a country that has turned back a generalized epidemic primarily by means of condom promotion". In fact, the prevalence of HIV/AIDS can actually rise with increased distribution of condoms. Take Cameroon, for instance, the country to which the Pope was flying when he made his notorious remarks. Between 1992 and 2001 condom sales there increased from 6 million to 15 million -- while HIV prevalence tripled, from 3 percent to 9 per cent.(3)
Benedict’s critics blithely assume that the solution is more condoms because AIDS in Soweto is like AIDS in San Francisco. It’s not. In the West, AIDS is confined to high-risk groups, like sex workers, homosexuals, and injecting drug users. Within these groups, studies do show that condoms are effective to some extent. But AIDS in Africa is a generalised, heterosexual epidemic which affects ordinary people.
For years, researchers have desperately sought to understand why AIDS there has been so devastating. Sub-Saharan Africa is most heavily affected region in the world. It accounts for 67 percent of all people living with HIV and for 72 percent of AIDS deaths in 2007.(4) But now the answer is crystal clear. The reason is the widespread practice of "multiple concurrent partnerships".
Multiple partnerships
What does this mean? In Africa, it is not uncommon for an individual to have more than one long-term partner at a time. In the West, we might use the terms "mistress" or "boyfriend". Relationships like these are more than just casual hook-ups; to some extent they are based on intimacy, trust and friendship. In these circumstances, it is very difficult to persuade men to use condoms consistently. Concurrency, as the scholars term it, is a deadly recipe.
This is the theme of a highly-praised 2007 book by the medical journalist Helen Epstein, The Invisible Cure: Africa, the West, and the Fight Against AIDS (warmly reviewed by the New York Times, by the way). For a long time she attributed the epidemic to commercial sex, poverty, discrimination against women and low condom use. But after observing that HIV rates were increasing despite higher condom use, she grasped that concurrency is the key to the problem. She describes these multiple long-term partnerships as the "super highway of infections" with casual sex operating as "on ramps".
"Condoms alone won’t stop the virus, because so much transmission is taking place in longer term relationships in which condoms are seldom used," she told an interviewer last year. "Therefore, a collective shift in sexual norms, especially partner reduction, is crucial."(5)
And it turns out that condoms can be worse than just ineffective in a generalised epidemic. Dr Green explained to MercatorNet that they "may even exacerbate HIV infection levels due to a phenomenon called risk compensation, or behavioral disinhibition. People take more sexual risks because they feel safer than is actually justified when using condoms."
Effective solutions
If showering condoms over Africa can’t stop the epidemic, what will? According to a recent article in Science by researchers from the University of California at Berkeley, Harvard, the University of California at San Francisco, and the San Francisco Department of Public Health, only two interventions definitely work: male circumcision and reducing multiple partnerships.(6)
Male circumcision significantly reduces the risk of heterosexual HIV infection and has even been called a "surgical vaccine". It may explain why HIV rates in West Africa are relatively low. The UN is promoting it vigorously in southern Africa. But the challenge is huge – about 2.5 million circumcisions by the year 2010.
The other effective strategy, say these experts, is "partner reduction", which -- surprise! surprise! -- sounds remarkably like what the Pope recommends. In Uganda, HIV prevalence reduced dramatically after an intensive "zero grazing" campaign in the 1990s. A recent decline in Kenya’s HIV rate seems to be due to partner reduction and marital fidelity. Furthermore, despite scepticism by Westerners, it is possible to change sexual behaviour. A 2006 campaign in Swaziland about the danger of having a "secret lover" resulted in fewer partners.
If the standard HIV-prevention toolbox has "failed utterly to reduce HIV transmission", as Dr Green and other researchers contend in the current issue of Studies in Family Planning (7), how much is being spent on the treatment that works? Very little, complain the authors of the article in Science. The biggest chunk of the US$3.2 billion UNAIDS budget has been allocated to interventions which are "unsupported by rigorous evidence". Only 20 percent goes to generalised epidemics in Africa and elsewhere, even though these account for two-thirds of all HIV infections. Only 5 percent goes towards male circumcision -- and a negligible amount to changing sexual behaviour.
An editorial in the Seattle Times derided Pope Benedict for living in an "alternate universe".(8) But it isn’t the Pope who has take up residence there. It’s his critics. As Dr Green wrote last year, "Christian churches -- indeed, most faith communities -- have a comparative advantage in promoting the needed types of behavior change, since these behaviors conform to their moral, ethical, and scriptural teachings. What the churches are inclined to do anyway turns out to be what works best in AIDS prevention." (9)
Michael Cook is editor of MercatorNet.
Source (http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/african_aids_the_facts_that_demolish_the_myths/)
And finally, many articles sourced from Africa telling condoms are ineffective (http://www.abstinenceafrica.com/library/index.php?cat=Africa%3A+Condoms).
And actually, if you think about it........PETA should get involved on that ape's behalf. Who gets busted??
the catholic priest that's pleasuring the chimp out of the frame of the photo?
None.
are YOU practicing abstinence only until you get married?
(voluntarily?)
Yes, I finally went there: Exactly what do you mean by "small" Willis?? .....
http://img70.imageshack.us/img70/1881/article1255126028ceb8e0.jpg
http://www.avert.org/aids-uganda.htm
It has been suggested that the high number of AIDS-related deaths in the 1990s may have been largely responsible for the decline in the number of people living with AIDS in Uganda during this period.10 The reason so many people died in this decade is that there was no available treatment to delay the onset of AIDS, and high numbers of people infected with HIV in the 1980s were reaching the end of their survival period. In 2000 the Ugandan health ministry estimated that 800,000 people had died of an AIDS-related illness since the beginning of the epidemic.11
It is likely that the number of new HIV infections in Uganda peaked in the late 1980s, and then fell sharply until the mid 1990s. This is generally thought to have been the result of behaviour changes such as increased abstinence and monogamy, a rise in the average age of first sex, a reduction in the average number of sexual partners and more frequent use of condoms.12 Uganda's entire population was mobilised in the fight against HIV and everyone was made aware of the consequences that risky behaviour could have for their country. <Snip>
This frank and honest discussion of the causes of HIV infection seems to have been a very important factor behind the changes in people's behaviour. Music and educational tours by popular musician Philly Lutaaya (who was the first prominent Ugandan to openly declare he was HIV positive) also spread understanding, compassion and respect for people living with HIV.
A large number of deaths, talking about HIV/AIDS instead of hiding behind myths and ABC (Abstinance beFaithful, Use Condoms).
It ain't simply Abstinence, no matter how you cut your numbers. It's ABC & Education.
Penicillin cures HIV? Bring on the HIV positive wimen’s !
are YOU practicing abstinence only until you get married?
(voluntarily?)
Yes, and voluntarily as well. I lost a relationship largely in part because of it.
Penicillin cures HIV? Bring on the HIV positive wimen’s !
Male circumcision as well, apparently.
Yes, and voluntarily as well. I lost a relationship largely in part because of it.
how old are you, anyway?
or perhaps we should just kill all the truckers,
I'll be waiting for you sweetcheeks
Cue the love song from Deliverance
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tqxzWdKKu8
http://www.avert.org/aids-uganda.htm
A large number of deaths, talking about HIV/AIDS instead of hiding behind myths and ABC (Abstinance beFaithful, Use Condoms).
It ain't simply Abstinence, no matter how you cut your numbers. It's ABC & Education.
I do not see how what you quoted totally negates what I presented to you.
24, minks, how about you?
ResearchMonkey
3/16/10, 10:56pm
He's 138 y/o, and very smart statistically.
yes that is absolutely accurate.
I do not see how what you quoted totally negates what I presented to you.
What you attempted to do is discount the proper use of condoms and education in the reduction of HIV/AIDS in Africa and the world and replace it by quoting someone who thinks that circumcision and reducing sex-partners alone saved all those people...when nothing could be further from the truth. The truth is that 800,000 people died because of a lack of education about HIV/AIDS, what causes it, how to avoid it and how to treat it ... and most of those got HIV/AIDS because they refused to use condoms because one pissant line in the Bible says that 'spilling one's seed' is EVIL.
Better to die than spill one's seed, eh.
and most of those got HIV/AIDS because they refused to use condoms because one pissant line in the Bible says that 'spilling one's seed' is EVIL.
um probably not that one either.
What you attempted to do is discount the proper use of condoms and education in the reduction of HIV/AIDS in Africa and the world and replace it by quoting someone who thinks that circumcision and reducing sex-partners alone saved all those people...when nothing could be further from the truth. The truth is that 800,000 people died because of a lack of education about HIV/AIDS, what causes it, how to avoid it and how to treat it ... and most of those got HIV/AIDS because they refused to use condoms because one pissant line in the Bible says that 'spilling one's seed' is EVIL.
Better to die than spill one's seed, eh.
Convoluted logic...
Yeah, because it is better to ignore the fornication is a sin part, but to observe that contraception is a sin part. :rolleyes:
I will be back later to address the rest of your post.
Tell me then...why is condom use a sin even in a committed relationship?
Yeah, because it is better to ignore the fornication is a sin part.
hey not for us adults here that aren't stuck in ideology and scripture that's thousands of years old.
i'm sure osama bin laden thinks it's a sin, too.
:coffee:
Yes, and voluntarily as well. I lost a relationship largely in part because of it.
You wouldn't put out so she kicked you to the curb? That's cold, man... really cold.
Convoluted logic...
Yeah, because it is better to ignore the fornication is a sin part, but to observe that contraception is a sin part. :rolleyes:
Wait... did you just call your own mother a dirty whore? :eek: THAT IS NOT RIGHT IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM! She suffered with labor to bring you into this world!
:mad: You are very ungrateful. :mad:
:mad: You should rethink your stand on this subject. :mad:
:disgust2: Not nice... not nice at all. :disgust2:
hey not for us adults here that aren't stuck in ideology and scripture that's thousands of years old.
i'm sure osama bin laden thinks it's a sin, too.
:coffee:
How old are you?
hey not for us adults here that aren't stuck in ideology and scripture that's thousands of years old.
Which automatically makes it wrong?
Which automatically makes it wrong?
anachronistic, perhaps.
Which automatically makes it wrong?
the mores of a bunch of semi-nomadic goat fuckers 4000 years ago don't really apply so well to a (post)modern society.
automatically wrong? nope.
obviously wrong for us, now? yup.
oh, and gotholic, i'm about 15 years older than you.
Wait... did you just call your own mother a dirty whore? :eek: THAT IS NOT RIGHT IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM! She suffered with labor to bring you into this world!
:mad: You are very ungrateful. :mad:
:mad: You should rethink your stand on this subject. :mad:
:disgust2: Not nice... not nice at all. :disgust2:
Non sequitur.
ResearchMonkey
3/20/10, 03:12am
If you're old enough for sex, you're old enough for a gun.
Schools need t6o offer gun safety classes and CCW training.
States need to quit requiring citizens from needing permits to exercis their rights.
ha ha ha yeah i'm certain the white haired guys that wrote all that stuff about rights and all imagined a rifle in the home, not a glock 19 stuffed in yer pants on a crowded subway.
and all the while I imagined they were thinking of:
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
Well our freedoms are sure as hell being infringed now, so grab that Hi-Power and go onna rampage!
ha ha ha yeah i'm certain the white haired guys that wrote all that stuff about rights and all imagined a rifle in the home, not a glock 19 stuffed in yer pants on a crowded subway.
No muskets at the Ye Olde Barre?
.....stuffed in yer pants on a crowded subway.
A blackpowder pistol stuffed in yer pantaloons' pocket?? ;)
http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/3904/p036661hz05.jpg
If you're old enough for sex, you're old enough for a gun.
Schools need t6o offer gun safety classes and CCW training.
You don't want sex ed in the schools but you want gun safety classes offered by the schools?
First, I think your gun safety class is a good idea as an elective, but not a requirement. Not everyone is going to have a gun.
But I still think sex ed should be a required lesson in a health class.
ResearchMonkey
3/21/10, 11:38pm
Gun safety is as important as sex ed in a free society. Target practice could be an elective and Hogan's Alley should be an inter-district sport in high school.
http://members.cox.net/phxtech/bush.JPG
Gun safety is as important as sex ed in a free society. Target practice could be an elective and Hogan's Alley should be an inter-district sport in high school.
Everyone has a body. Not everyone is going to own a gun. Health ed, therefore, should be taught to all. Whereas gun safety should be an elective.
Not sure what "Hogan's Alley" is... sorry. But if this is kind of like the rifle competitions in the Olympics then I would agree with you.
Not sure? Google is your friend.
ResearchMonkey
3/22/10, 04:26pm
Everyone has a body and the right to protect their body, like with condoms. You have the right to protect your body from rape and assault or worse.
Maybe if people were taught how to properly operate a fire arm, like condoms, they might better safely utilize this tool to protect their body.
Yeah, Hogan's is like target practice or qualifying your skills with particular weapon.
Everyone has a body and the right to protect their body, like with condoms. You have the right to protect your body from rape and assault or worse.
Maybe if people were taught how to properly operate a fire arm, like condoms, they might better safely utilize this tool to protect their body.
Yeah, Hogan's is like target practice or qualifying your skills with particular weapon.
Ah... then I agree that it would be a nice competition between schools that choose to have a team. You never know. The high school in your neighborhood could produce the next gold medalist at the next Olympics. :)
I found this an interesting read. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_sports)
http://members.cox.net/phxtech/bush.JPG
http://www.chowrangi.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/bush%20shoe%20attack.jpg
Twice, actually.
ResearchMonkey
3/22/10, 05:08pm
My little girls hunt quail with .22LR :headbng2:
ResearchMonkey
3/22/10, 05:10pm
http://www.chowrangi.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/bush%20shoe%20attack.jpg
Twice, actually.
http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/3417/saddamhusseinhanging.jpg
LOL, pwnt!
What you attempted to do is discount the proper use of condoms and education in the reduction of HIV/AIDS in Africa and the world and replace it by quoting someone who thinks that circumcision and reducing sex-partners alone saved all those people...when nothing could be further from the truth. The truth is that 800,000 people died because of a lack of education about HIV/AIDS, what causes it, how to avoid it and how to treat it ... and most of those got HIV/AIDS because they refused to use condoms because one pissant line in the Bible says that 'spilling one's seed' is EVIL.
Better to die than spill one's seed, eh.
I showed you evidence that abstinence had a greater effect than condoms, which you dismissed.
The primary reason why people do get STD's is not because they do not use condoms. That is akin to saying people get headaches because they have an aspirin deficiency. When you give someone a condom or an aspirin you are only treating the symptoms of a problem, not the underlying cause of said problem. The problem, of course, is promiscuity.
There is only an 85 percent risk reduction for the transmission of HIV for condoms when consistently and correctly used versus 100 percent through abstinence. All other STD's studied show the condom effective rate around 50 percent in prevention. Also, it is interesting to point out that a condom has a failure rate of 15 percent in preventing pregnancy during the first year of use. This should be alarming considering a woman can only get pregnant a few days of the month and the fact that a sperm is larger than a virus. Also, it seems the 15 percent failure rate does not take into account that the sperm which makes it through the condom does not always get the woman pregnant. Thus, the failure rate is probably much higher. Not to mention that you can get an STD any day of the month.
Ending AIDS by handing out condoms is like ending murder by handing out bullet-proof vests.
or one could have absurdly unrealistic expectations of human behavior, on the other hand.
Condom failure rate is less than 1.2% - and it involved breakage..mostly because people don't use'em properly. Either reusing them, putting them on too late, ripping the things when cutting through the package or with nails while rolling them on etc etc... mostly it's when people don't bother to stop once they realize that something's wrong with the condom. Mechanically, they're 100% effective.... it takes human nature to fuck up.
Kinka like abstinence being 100% effective...until it isn't when it become 0% effective vs. AIDS, STDs and unwanted pregnancy.
Condom failure rate is less than 1.2% - and it involved breakage..mostly because people don't use'em properly. Either reusing them, putting them on too late, ripping the things when cutting through the package or with nails while rolling them on etc etc... mostly it's when people don't bother to stop once they realize that something's wrong with the condom. Mechanically, they're 100% effective.... it takes human nature to fuck up.
Kinka like abstinence being 100% effective...until it isn't when it become 0% effective vs. AIDS, STDs and unwanted pregnancy.
Failure rate to what? An STD (which one too because it does matter) or pregnancy? If you are referring to HIV, then condoms provide an 85% in reduction rate when consistently and correctly used (http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/about/organization/dmid/PDF/condomReport.pdf). Which leaves 15% remaining.
You have to admit, GWB is pretty fast on his feet.
Replay:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0Q6sEpJLbo
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.