Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    never suggested it was the only way! and i know fantastic work is happening. I just think that an aids diagnosed person should never be told to have sex with his wife without a condom! maybe it will get through in some cases, though im still unsure about this myself, but at least some kind of barrier which is worldwide considered very safe, has to be better than nothing!

    I find it very unlikely that a health authority could say it was as effective as they do if there is evidence to the contrary coz it wouldnt make sense to do so!

    Also, on the note of aids, my uni (birmingham) made the BBC news with our campaign to allow homosexual men to give blood as freely as hetrosexuals (and gay women). Slight digression there i know, but still had to say it.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Lauren Hart)

    I find it very unlikely that a health authority could say it was as effective as they do if there is evidence to the contrary coz it wouldnt make sense to do so!
    If a person is not in a committed, long-term relationship then it is obviously better to use some form of contraception than none if there is no desire to have a child!

    Health Authorities are charged with responsibility by the Government to take action to minimise the incidents of teen pregnancies. The reasons for this are not solely for the well-being of the teens but also for the sake of the public purse! It costs money to support a teen through a pregnancy and aftercare support has to be provided also.

    The Government would far rather these teens went into the workforce and contributed to the public purse, rather than take from it.

    This is what 'sex education' is about - the agenda to save money is the primary aim.

    As I said before, no contraceptive is 100% effective! Study after study has borne this out.

    BTW - don't you think that preventing the cause rather than treating the symptom is the best way to go, ultimately? If a married person stayed within a monogamous sexual relationship with their husband/wife there would be no risk of contracting AIDS through intercourse, thereby negating the need to use condoms for protection against STD's.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Two points to make, im on my out.

    1) treating someone with AIDS is likely to be far more expensive than what the government does to supporting a child. So im sure that is a factor. Not to mention plenty of "teen" parents stay in school these days, and have jobs so they can help to support their families.
    Also, a health authority cant say that something stops the STI if it doesnt, it'd get the arse sued off of it for doing that.


    2) i agree there is no need for 'condoms' in a monogomous relationship, i dont use them, Im on the pill instead because i know im in no position to be bringing a child into the world. I simply gave the example that someone who HAS aids, ought to do all they can to help prevent it from spreading, and so far as i can see, condoms do help. Im not saying they never fail, because they obviously do! IM not saying we should stop trying to use other methods of controlling the disease, all im saying is that everything possible should be done!
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    BTW - don't you think that preventing the cause rather than treating the symptom is the best way to go, ultimately? If a married person stayed within a monogamous sexual relationship with their husband/wife there would be no risk of contracting AIDS through intercourse, thereby negating the need to use condoms for protection against STD's.
    Except that sex isn't the only way to get AIDS
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    oh yes, that went without saying, though maybe it didnt.... just meant was best to prevent it as best as you can
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    Unless you have studied the debates for and against the dubious protection offered by condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS, you will not have the necessary understanding to give an informed opinion.

    As with everything else that is subject to debate, if one only listens to or is exposed only to one side of the debate, one is never able to move forward in a mature manner - e.g. what do you know of the controlled studies into eradicating AIDS in Nigeria and Somalia, using differing methods - and do you know the outcomes in terms of increases and decreases in the spread of AIDS?

    Yes, but saying that condoms are "laced with AIDS", as some of the Vatican's representatives did, is simply irresponsible. If the WHO thinks they make a difference, it's best to promote their use, rather than try for abstinence which isn't going to happen.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shinytoy)
    secondly - no , the rhythm method is the only acceptable way - its 85% accurate. the woman measures stuff like discharge and days from her period as to when she is ovulating. there is apparantly only 2 days a month when a woman can get pregnant - the trouble is, knowing when they are and also, that sperm can stay alive in the uterus for i think 3 days
    Ergo, by your logic, the 'rhythm' method will be approximately 85% as morally repugnant. Congratulations on having what is probably the single, most patently ludicrous and hypocritical excuse for an 'ethical' stance that I have ever seen.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The Vatican actually claimed condoms spread AIDS. Well done, really helping Africa there
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story...059068,00.html

    Anyway, best not get on my hobby horse
    I'd end up joining you....
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Apagg)
    Yes, but saying that condoms are "laced with AIDS", as some of the Vatican's representatives did, is simply irresponsible. If the WHO thinks they make a difference, it's best to promote their use, rather than try for abstinence which isn't going to happen.
    Source, please.

    I have found that many of the remarks that are attributed to someone have not actually been made, but instead are 'made up' and used in an effort to demean.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Apagg)
    The Vatican actually claimed condoms spread AIDS. Well done, really helping Africa there
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story...059068,00.html

    Anyway, best not get on my hobby horse
    Instead of jumping on the bandwagon of hysterical condemnation, read the research on this link and see why the Vatican have a very valid point.

    http://vatican.mondosearch.com/cgi-b...d%20condoms%20

    It's always best to engage in debate when in full possession of all the facts. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Apagg)
    Except that sex isn't the only way to get AIDS
    Which is why I qualified my comments on #63 to;

    "If a married person stayed within a monogamous relationship with their husband/wife there would be no risk of contracting AIDS through intercourse."

    Name me the ways that one can ordinarily contract AIDS apart from mutual sharing of intimate bodily fluids....and then tell me how wearing a condom would protect them from contracting it in these situations!
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Profesh)
    Ergo, by your logic, the 'rhythm' method will be approximately 85% as morally repugnant. Congratulations on having what is probably the single, most patently ludicrous and hypocritical excuse for an 'ethical' stance that I have ever seen.
    If you explain properly what your criticism is of shinytoys post then she might be able to articulate a response.

    If she can't then I can!
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    If you explain properly what your criticism is of shinytoys post then she might be able to articulate a response.

    If she can't then I can!
    My critique is self-evident.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    Which is why I qualified my comments on #63 to;

    "If a married person stayed within a monogamous relationship with their husband/wife there would be no risk of contracting AIDS through intercourse."

    Name me the ways that one can ordinarily contract AIDS apart from mutual sharing of intimate bodily fluids....and then tell me how wearing a condom would protect them from contracting it in these situations!
    If your partner has already contracted AIDs through drug use, or has had it from birth because their mother contracted whilst they were in the womb. Not to mention contaminated donated blood. In each case, a condom would spare the uninfected partner from becoming infected.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    Instead of jumping on the bandwagon of hysterical condemnation, read the research on this link and see why the Vatican have a very valid point.

    http://vatican.mondosearch.com/cgi-b...d%20condoms%20

    It's always best to engage in debate when in full possession of all the facts. :rolleyes:
    Regardless of the efficacy of condoms in preventing AIDS, even if it is as low as 85% (as your source seems to suggest), given that people will have sex anyway, it is best not to tell them that condoms make things worse, which is the belief of many in Africa. 85% protection is better than none at all.

    http://www.condoms4life.org/facts/CondomsAndAIDS.htm
    Read this, most notably

    Claims that latex condoms allow HIV to pass through are unfounded. The pores of latex condoms are too small to allow HIV to pass through. Condoms have been shown to be effective barriers not only to HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, but also to herpes simplex, CMV, hepatitis B, chlamydia and gonorrhea
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    Source, please.

    I have found that many of the remarks that are attributed to someone have not actually been made, but instead are 'made up' and used in an effort to demean.
    n Lwak, near Lake Victoria, the director of an Aids testing centre says he cannot distribute condoms because of church opposition. Gordon Wambi told the programme: "Some priests have even been saying that condoms are laced with HIV/Aids."
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story...059068,00.html
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    re: the OP -
    Haven't tried the Tingle ones, they look expensive!
    My boyf and I have tried Durex Jeans, Extra Safe and Pleasuremax.
    I like the PLeasuremax ones best but recently Extra Safe have been really strange - riding up the penis and kind of bunching up at the top, not leaving really any rubber at the tip of the penis to do what it's meant to. The condom doesn't split when this happens - we checked. They were fine for ages and he knows how to put a condom on properly!! This doesn't happen to us with other condoms. We weren't impressed!
    Why does this happen? Answers on a postcard...
    • #2
    #2

    Durex Tingle feels tickly and warm, and intensifies the feeling...

    It's also got a mint taste that my girlfriends prefers to the bland taste of extra safe!! Btw I had that with extra safe, they're a tiny bit of a worry when that happens eh!
    Offline

    13
    Obviously a difference of interpretation of statistical evidence on permeability of condoms.

    When both sides have such differing views on the spread of Aids it is inevitable that these discrepancies arise.

    Who's to say who is right and who is wrong, since both sides produce evidence to validate their claims?

    There is no validation of the statement you provided from the Guardian by the representative of the Aids testing centre that what he said about being told that 'condoms were laced with AIDs is true. It could well be a lie to espouse his cause and denigrate the Vatican's stance.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anonymous)
    Durex Tingle feels tickly and warm, and intensifies the feeling...

    It's also got a mint taste that my girlfriends prefers to the bland taste of extra safe!! Btw I had that with extra safe, they're a tiny bit of a worry when that happens eh!
    Yeah it is worrying - what's even more worrying is that it's only just started happening...
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: February 4, 2006
Poll
Have you ever experienced bullying?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.