Are safe sex programs ineffective?
On December 1, 2005, Elder Robert C. Oaks of the Presidency of the Seventy said the following: “Governments and corporations have found out that so-called “safe sex” programs don’t work. … Abstinence before marriage and fidelity after marriage… is the best solution to stop the spread of AIDS.”
Do you think Elder Oaks made a responsible statement?
Do you think Elder Oaks made a responsible statement?
posted by Affirmation at 20:29
13 Comments:
I a 22-year-old lds guy from Argentina (somewhat still in the closet)and I believe that governments should even make extra efforts to go on promoting safe-sex and sexual education especially with teenagers. Of course the policies taken so far worldwide are not as succesful as they should. However, we must be realistic: abstinence is not the option for everybody. In my country the current government is trying to pass a law to have sexual education as a compulsory subject in high school besides having a Nation-wide safe-sex Prevention Programme with free condoms and anti-conceptive pills , but some retrograde right-winged groups and specifically the Catholic Church are fiercely blocking the project. In my opinion, every nation has the duty and responsability to stand up for the welfare of ALL citizens, sponsoring, campaigning and informing about safe-sex options to prevent AIDS, STDs or UNWANTED PREGNANCIES, since not everyone has enough information or resources to do so( especilally among the poorer levels of our societies - actually, I´m a middle-class university student and it wasn´t until last year that I found out about herpes, lice, chlamydia, etc on the internet!!!). Without a doubt, it´s important to respect freedom of belief and choice, promoting abstinence as another valid option, but it´s highly IRRESPONSIBLE to claim it´s the only one.
I think that the statement in and of itself is responsible, but I also think that the statement is made on a basis of ignorance and a closed-minded perspective. It would appear that the GA responded with the typical mindset of the SLC brethren that the only way to appropriately and safely have sex is within a marriage. The teaching of this mindset was confirmed to me when my mother made a comment about a friend of mine being sexually assaulted was caused by pornography. I quickly corrected her, but I do digress from the topic.
Oaks’ statement isn’t necessarily false, because abstinence does prevent the spread of diseases such as HIV/AIDS, prevents unwanted pregnancies, and so on. However, what they do not realize is the result of someone having all this unreleased sexual energy plus the ignorance of what a real-world relationship is. The dating world within the Mormon Church and the one outside the church is drastically different, and those of us who are unaware of the treacherous waters of non-LDS-sanctioned dating are up for a rude awakening. I tend to believe that boys who want to marry girls in the church because then they can finally have sex without guilt and retribution are up for a serious reality check a couple years into that marriage.
I think that the statement would probably be more respected if it read something like “responsible sexual activity leads to the prevention of HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases.” At least that’s what I think anyway. Thank you for listening.
--Micah Bisson, Chapter Director, Affirmation Denver
Teenagers need to be educated on sexual issues in a common environment, since not all parents are equally capable or willing to educate them. However, Elder Oaks is absolutely correct - abstinence before marriage and fidelity afterwards is the SAFEST form of sex. Consequently, comprehensive sex education should clearly motivate teenagers towards abstinence as the SAFEST choice. This will help teenagers resist the putrefying MTV-style "Girls Gone Wild" mentality which not only suborns so many of our youth, but which stirs up great hatred against America particularly in the Muslim world.
No. You have to deal with reality. Where's the research? Where's the science behind this crap? Society has to deal with homophobia and instilling low-self-esteem...throwing away PEOPLE...before theu can pretend to these kind of observations.
On the surface, yes, his commment is true: abstenance is the best way of preventing the spread of diseases like AIDS. And then, once married, confining sexual activity to a monogamous marriage does stop the spread of disease to those people.
Since Africa is the country afflicted with the most cases of AIDS, not the gay and lesbian communities of North America, one has to look at the situation a slightly different way. Until they have all the same standards of the LDS church, they will not see any need for remaining pure until marriage. In fact, in most of their cultures, one doesn't even stay pure in marriage, or even married for that matter. When one feels the urge, one moves on. That is they way of life.
Trying to get these people to use protection has not worked, as they hate using it or asking for it (many people in our culture are the same way), and attempting to instill a desire to remail morally chaste has not worked any better, in fact, works worse, with these people. Their mindset doesn't understand the moral values we teach.
Until one can instill a moral value on sexual activity it is not possible to convince people they are to remain morally pure. And obviously, the spread of the disease itself has done nothing whatever to stop people from doing what comes naturally.
I am not so sure the protection programs have really failed all that much. In the Gay community, AIDS is at a stand-still for the most part. All those huge figures thrown out in the 80's about how many cases there would be have not come to pass. The younger gay people are not thinking as much on protection as they should, but I wouldn't say that is a failure of the program so much as it is just the mindset of the young. "It will never happen to me" mentality. However, as a whole, the gay and lesbian communities responded very well to safe sex, and it has paid off a great deal.
Homophobes?
Your intellectual determination to stereotype people facinates me. I'm facinated enough to leave a comment.
Abstinence works everytime it's tried.
To Cabe:
Abstinence does not work every time it is *tried* it works every time it is successfully accomplished. But the point of my post is not to parse your words...
The real point here is that while abstinence before marriage works (with respect to preventing STDs) what happens when you remove the option of marriage? Since the heterosexual side of the country has refused that right to homosexuals they no longer have "abstinence before marriage" as an option. They are, rather, left with the option of celibacy. I'm not aware of formal studies, but anectdotally speaking, celibacy doesn't seem to *work* too well. Is it an option you would be willing to consider for your own life?
Cabe, I appreciate you putting your name to your comment.
We are in total agreement that: "Abstinence works everytime it's tried."
Abstenence is best. Safe sex is second best. Ignorance of safe sex is worst.
You can teach a child do do or not do things for their own good. But you cannot stop a child from experimenting, testing their limits, or even revelling in something with possible disasterous consequences.
Abstenence Only programs have resulted in Utah having one of the highest per capita out of wedlock teen pregnancies in the United States.
It is my personal opinion that Abstenance Only programs fail miserably in their mission.
Sincerely, James Kent
I have been in the health education field for quite a few years and have heard both sides of this arguement time and time again. Abstinence in and of itself can never be the most effective prevention against sexually transmitted disease and unplanned pregnancy. It has a higher potential to become effective when coupled with being faithful and condom use (ABC model). Human beings are sexual by nauture and will always continue to be so. Limiting the choices one has to protect and prevent is a recipe for failure. Expanding education and providing options is the most logical choice. I was alarmed to read that an adult person of 22, learned only one year ago about other sexually transmitted diseases and parasites. There are several sexually transmitted diseases which can be spread with minimal skin to skin contact even when penetration is not a part of the behavior and to not have been given this knowledge as a part of regular sexual education sounds to be a very dangerous gamble with the health and quality of life for younger and inexperienced people. The debate surrounding the ethical and moral ramifications of unprotected sex, or any sex out side of marriage will go on no matter what policy is in place. The steady rise in sexually transmitted diseases among youth and the 30,000+ new HIV infections per year statistics are what really need to be addressed. Supporting research into effective behavioral change is a good direction and supporting programs which incorporate behavioral models, which have been shown to be effective, is also a good direction. Many of these models can be tailored to fit the particular needs of the community they are meant to reach. I personally believe that community level interventions have the greatest chance of success. But then again thats just my opinion.
Safe Sex programs are, in fact effective, despite the propaganda otherwise.
It's like the obesity stats that are thrown around these days. Yes, there are more fat people today, but there are also more people today. The actual ratio of fat to population is the same as it's always been. The same can be said for literacy. The ratio of literate to illiterate is actually the same if you take the population into account. Although, given the influx of immigrant populations, those stats are probably skewed.
On the other hand, the ratio of AIDs to population, with the exclusion of Africa (which is in dire straights no matter how you count it) is actually *down* from where it was originally.
This is *mostly* because of the programs and messages of *both* abstinence and safe sex that were out constantly over the last two decades. It's also because we have better medical and sexual ed information that we did two decades ago. I just don't see how one can responsibly advocate using only *one* method - given human nature.
It's like dieting. No one method works for everyone.
We'd be right back up to those horrible numbers if we went back to the sex education methods of the past *or* to a strict abstinence model.
That's my opinion anyway.
Elder Oaks is correct. If people obeyed the law of chastity before marriage and fidelity during marriage, HIV would come to a stunning halt. Contrary to what the leader of Affirmation says (regarding HIV+ men forcing their wives into sex), Elder Oaks is still correct. It would be difficult for that husband to become HIV+ if he obeyed the law of chastity. And the Church feels very strongly about rape, even within marriage. I speak both as a member of the Church and an avid HIV researcher.
It is true that total abstinence will prevent both pregnancy and disease, but it is not a practical solution. Safe sex programs are not TOTALLY effective. But to throw out the program because it only prevented 80% of kids from getting a sexually-transmitted disease is incredibly stupid and short-sighted. Of course they work. They don't save every single person from problems, but they are useful as long as they save a lot of people. The safe-sex instruction should always include instructions on how to properly put on a condom, using a dildo as a visual aid. Both boys and girls need to know this. Improper condom wear causes most of the breakage than in turn causes disease and pregnancy.
As usual, I fall somewhere in the middle on this proposition. First of all, monogamy is only a fool-proof protective mechanism if both partners are monogamous. If you look at the African situation, many women have contracted AIDS from errant husbands who spend much of their time away from home. It is impossible to blame these women for their own condition, or to blame the children they bear who are born with the affliction. Essentially, the abstinence/monogamy-only standard is emotionally satisfying to those people who believe that immorality should bring consequences--even death if necessary. Clearly, the lack of condom use by men in this case, harms the guilty and the innocent alike. So the greater good is served by educating fallible humanity to prefer the moral path, but to protect itself in any case. The errant sinner who dies is lost. The errant sinner who lives has a chance to reform. Right?
On the other hand it is pure moral abdication to say that the Church has proscribed marriage for homosexuals. Why should they then worry about the abstinence issue? If marriage is not possible, then must one be celibate? Of course not! We don't need a church placing its stamp on our relationships to take responsibilities seriously. Ultimately, we can't look back to the Church and say, you cast me out, now watch me do whatever I want. Where is the personal responsibility in this scenario?
Perhaps a better concept for us than monogamy would be sexual discipline. Discipline starts with asking yourself what your aim really is in your personal life. For most of us, it is finding a soulmate that we can commit to, feel comfortable with, and grow with into the future. Sexual pleasure would be a secondary corollary of that aim, not a reason in and of itself. In spite of what culture teaches men about their sexuality, all of us are capable of restraining our urges or at least channeling them. Unfortunately, some are happy through the excuse of exclusion and persecution to abandon all standards.
If, on the other hand, we allow our behavior to be regulated by the purpose we've established, we'll find ourselves kissing a lot of frogs along the way, yes, but we will not lose focus on the goal. We will regulate our sexual lives circumspectly. For me, this involved limiting the number of partners and limiting what I would do with them until I felt reasonably sure about their potential. On the side, I took precautions when needed. Then I proceeded very slowly until those feelings were confirmed. A lot of duds, yes, and then, after years, the perfect partner. Now monogamy is possible and I have much less cause to fear STDs. So monogamy and precaution were equally important for me.
Post a Comment
<< Home