The Dangers of Promoting Unprotected Sex
“Safe” sex. “Protected” sex. The terms alone are misleading, as sexual activity is inherently risky, physically, emotionally, and, as medical research is increasingly demonstrating, psychologically. Sex has massive potential either to foster trust and devotion or to destroy a person’s ability to experience either; too often, the latter becomes a reality, particularly when an individual is sexually active early in life.
Even correct condom use (and when we don’t trust teens to do just about anything else correctly, why would we trust them to get this right while in a state of adolescent arousal?) only reduces the risk of some sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) by 50% and does not guarantee the prevention of pregnancy. With respect to most negative emotional and psychological outcomes (e.g., betrayal, depression, decreased academic performance, etc.), condoms have a prevention rate of 0%. Not very reassuring statistics, those.
Yet handing out condoms to all comers at a public school contributes to the flood of raging hormonal giddiness that so effectively drowns out voices of caution. Ah, you say, that raging hormonal giddiness exists anyway, so why not provide some level of protection to kids who are already or would anyways become sexually active? Because it is naïve to believe that making condoms freely available does not lead to increased sexual activity one way or another. It is the difference between arranging a romantic fire, bearskin rug, and massage oil for a couple of 15-year-old lovebirds, and at least requiring them to purchase and set up the honeymoon suite themselves. At least there’s the chance that the extra energy and time required will lower the heat and allow a few of those boring yet sobering statistics from health class to pop into their still-developing brain.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
You are supposed to be an "expert"? If you were, you would know that teens have sex anyway. You are just closing your eyes to reality. The fact is that areas with abstinence-only programs have far more unwanted teenage pregnancies than areas that take teen sexuality seriously.
I find it completely idiotic that you are using a religious fundamentalist organization as a reference, by the way!
If it were about monogamy (not that monogamy and marriage always coincide) there wouldn't be an issue. He is promoting abstenance in place of condom use among unmarried people. This would prove to be more effective than condoms . However, the thought that most unmarried people will be monagamous, or not have sex,is very nieve. So if you are a "sinner" please stop having sex outide of marriage period! But if you won't, or can't USE CONDOMS!
What is naive is the notion that the common resolution of sexual desire is intercourse. Ask most any primate, elephant, lion. The most common resolution of sexual desire, for males at least, is frustration. Look at the bower birds. Two or three or four males lined up making nests for a female, and guess what, she picks --- wait for it --- one. And though they lose the genetic lottery, they don't die. When somebody says they're going to die if they don't have sex, we call that a "line."
I haven't seen any statistics, but I think that most people who have matured to the point of having sexual desires, have also been frustrated. I think the National Enquirer would have picked up the story if any of us had died of it.
My opinion is pretty much parallel. I agree. My statement was not that intercourse is any kind of resolution of sexual desire. Although frustration is no resolution only a result. Intercourse, for the vast majority of Americans, is saught after for the resolution. EVEN IF ITS NOT A FIX FOR ANYTHING, it still remains as so. Now that we have established that people do have sex married, unmarried, spoken for, single, gay (ooo God forgive that one), young, old, healthy, diseased, of leagal age, juvenile, even the "animal lovers", reguardless of moral views or oppinions of anyone else including myself....Condoms arent the problem, nor are they going to be a solution for anything. But they do help and only help prevent...the obvious. Just a safety measure for something people have done, are doing, and will continue to do. If you want to stop "sinful" sex you'll have to start with whatever it is that makes people want to do it in the first place.
My statement "But if you won't, or can't USE CONDOMS!" (Not punctuated right) was a bit sarcastic on the CAN'T. I know its not a have to thing with anyone. All I was saying was please use them if you aren't being monogamous. READ THIS Ask most any primate elephant, lion, even the bower birds...the majority aren't monogamous. Elephants are polygamous, most lions are despite their affectionate breeding habits. Only one bower bird, the Catbird, is monogamous, OF 20 SPECIES of bower birds!!! If that were to carry to us, that would be what ratio? USE A CONDOM!
We all can be monogamous. We all can go without sex at all. Will we?
Now Im simply rambling. I apologize. If you see anymore of my comments...although hard to portray in text...it may be somewhat sarcastic. Kind of like the seatbelt...
In polygamous species, the females are sexually active, but the males are largely celibate and often ostracized from the group. The high status male in the herd or troop or pride or flock is the one that is sexually active. In monogamous species, the rates of sexual activity are by definition equal between males and females. Just in case you were thinking that polygamy sounded like an attractive alternative!
Its pretty obvious that sexual activity would be equal in monogamous relationships considering if one has sex...the other is having sex with them. Im not sure the relevance of the statement...we both apparently know the definitions of both words. Umm, I don't beleive that polygamy is a good thing. I myself would rather have a very monogamous relationship with whom I am with. But thats not what we were talking about, hence my confusion of why it was mentioned that ME personally would find it attractive. This topic is way to vast. It was not my intent to offend you, I can only believe that this is why you are attacking me personally rather that debating a point of view. I must say though. Nothing I have said is point of view nothing Ive said can be argued. Its fact. Very unfortunate facts for people like you and myself. But you saying assuming that because I recognize most people are not monogamous and that most people do find recreational sex with random people attractive that I do those things is very judgmental and wrong. I see the facts, you seem to believe what you choose to. If I said global warming is fact would you say you don't believe in that either. Its not a belief system. Its not faith . Its not religous practice. Though you and I may believe, morally, that polygamy is wrong it doesn't change the fact that alot of people practice it. Again the only point that I wanted to make was. If you are polygamous...or you have an STD, or you don't want an STD, or you don't want to reproduce...WEAR A FRICKIN' CONDOM! Thats it...not a belief common sense. Why do you eat? not to get sick and die. There are preventative systems of all sorts for all sorts of things. Why attack this one. There are many people that don't believe in driving cars, and they don't. But those of us that do...usually wear a seatbelt...and usually greatful for that measure of prevention. Monogamy whether it be morally right or religeously right or both. There are measures to prevent even worse things and they should be used. Does it make it more morally wrong to wear a condom when having sex than just having sex?
I meant that final sentence to be a lighthearted jibe at those who do think that polygamy means lots of sexual activity for males. I certainly didn't mean for you to take it personally. I'm sorry. The limitations of communicating solely through text.
I understand now. Text does mislead me sometimes. Thank you for clarifying that for me. Sorry to "jump the gun". Kinda funny reading it now.
WHO is promoting COMPLETELY unprotected sex?
I have ignored the fact that condoms are also used for and effective against pregnancy prevention and focus solely on condom use for STD transmission prevention.
The Pope is advocating monogamous sex in place of condom use. In the AVERAGE monogamous relationahip, one where both partners are STD free, condoms are not needed because each partner's trust in the fidelity of the other offers them protection.
Everyone else is advocating condom use in place of the condomless sex that people are doing with whomever they're doing it with. The condoms offer protection to all of the sexual partners of the user.