Subscribe to Reality Out of Sync (RSS)So the Pope gets up one day and decides, “Hmm, you know what I want to do? I want to fuck up some people’s life. How can I most effectively do that?” He putters around the Vatican, having people serve him tea and cater to his whims. Hell, maybe he has his own dick holder, some poor sap that screwed up his toilet flushing duties. Little does this guy know he’s about to hear the most insidious idea to be bandied around the Vatican rest room in many moons. “Ah hah!” The dick holder almost misses his cue for the three shakes and tissue wipe. “I shall impress upon my followers, that condoms are the work of the devil. Condoms must not be used!” The Pope slams his gnarled hand atop his dick holder’s cranium.
I am aware that the Catholic ignorance of no contraceptives such as condoms has been taught for a very long time, I’m just poking fun at the leadership. If you don’t like that, I don’t care. It’s not my problem.
There are over 25 million people who have died from AIDS in Africa. There’s not really much more to say about it. It boils down to a few things. Monogamy does not ensure you will remain AIDS free anywhere actually, least of all in Africa. People are, well, people, and having sex is a natural act. I do not understand why Catholics are so concerned with when, where, and how their constituents bed with one another. Telling your followers that only abstinence is the key to stopping AIDS is both false, and dangerous. People are going to have sex. They are going to get AIDS if they don’t use protection. Well, they’ll get HIV and then AIDS. People will get pregnant an deliver children with HIV who will get AIDS (or other diseases for that matter it’s not _just_ AIDS you need to worry about, people) and pass it on to others and/or die prematurely.
This is the same sort of thing that conservatives want to teach in the US. It’s not safe, it’s not intelligent, and it isn’t an issue of morality if you’re going to have sex. Sex is a normal human act between other humans. There’s nothing moral about it. It’s not a symbol of love in and of itself. Humans were having sex and animals to this day have sex, without any thought of love. It’s not abnormal. Sex _can_ be used in such a way to display love, but that isn’t what sex is all about when you lay it out on the table. Bringing a deity into it to guilt people into straying from their humanity is just silly. That’s really what’s being done. You’re being asked by an invisible man, to deny your humanity. The deity isn’t the secret tot he universe. The people who follow the deity do not have the secret to the universe. If you’re honest about it, you don’t know. No, stop denying it and just admit it. You do not know. No one really _knows_ the secrets of the universe, that’s what we have the sciences for. Faith is a lie, that it will save humanity alone is a lie.. Telling people that not using condoms is a good idea is socially irresponsible. No condoms == high potential for death (no matter where you are). Don’t believe the lie.
Wanting to do her is normal (if your sexual orientation permits), it's human. Not using a condom because you're Catholic is socially irresponsible, and stupid.
Grant says:
I think the main reason for no birth control of any kind with the Catholics is that they want more Catholics being born and raised to tithe.
Another story I read said that the illegal sex industry in China is growing and, since it isn’t regulated, STD’s are on the rise. One study said the number of cases of HIV would reach about 15 million in China within the next few years at this rate.
March 18, 2009 8:40 am, March 18, 2009 8:40 amGary Baker says:
“Telling your followers that only abstinence is the key to stopping AIDS is both false, and dangerous. ”
That’s right! I mean sure, it is the only 100% effective method, and not only prevents STD’s but a lot of other traumatic emotional effects and unwanted pregnancy, but still… It’s obviously the advice that is wrong. Nothing wrong with people mating like animals. After all, they are animals, no different than any other. No higher reasoning skills or anything like that.
“People are going to have sex.”
And people are going to rape, too. No sense getting bent out of shape about it. And they are going to steal, as well. Hey, come to think of it, people will do just about anything antisocial, and it will come perfectly natural too them. Why not just get rid of any and all social penalties? Sure will relieve prison overcrowding.
“People are, well, people, and having sex is a natural act.”
So is defecating when the need takes you. Amazing how some people believe that one of the functions of society is to restrict certain activities to appropriate time, place, and circumstances.
“You’re being asked by an invisible man, to deny your humanity.”
No, you’re being told that you have the choice to overcome your bestiality. Obviously many people do not. Claiming that it’s “natural” in no way makes the act more noble or the consequences less severe.
March 18, 2009 6:21 pm, March 18, 2009 6:21 pmGary Baker says:
BTW – Your arguments about faith up there are contradictory. The word “lie” implies deliberate deception, yet you also say they cannot know. If they can’t know, then neither can you, so you have no rational grounds for determining that there is any “lie” involved.
BTW2 – Nice pic.
March 18, 2009 6:51 pm, March 18, 2009 6:51 pmprata says:
Everyone: I totally broke my dashboard today. So I’m late getting to the comments. I had to reload part of the CSS to get it working. Whoops!
Grant: Good point. I over looked the whole tithing thing. I must be more critically thinking!
Gary: =-P
“That’s right! I mean sure, it is the only 100% effective method…”
No one said that. Please see here, some follow up: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102053335&ft=1&f=1001
“And people are going to rape, too. No sense getting bent out of shape about it…..”
You are making sex a moral issue. It’s not. Religion makes sex a moral issue. Sex is not akin in any way with stealing or rape. Rape is not about sex either, it’s domination/power. It just happens to take the form of sex; although unfortunate, does not make sex any more moral than it was prior to the rape case.
“So is defecating when the need takes you….”
I see where you’re going with that. That’s cute. ^_^
“No, you’re being told that you have the choice to overcome your bestiality….”
Sex isn’t about nobility. Nor is it about beastiality. The suggestion of such is just gross, man. I mean…sure if you’re into lookin’ at horses and people together..that’s cool with me…really..but note, I didn’t bring that up. You did =-P I’m teasing, but I think you’re making more of it than there is.
You’re not being given a choice to overcome your beastial nature. You’re being instructed by a human being who says an invisible man wants you to not practice safe sex, if you’re going to have sex in the first place. It’s quite remarkable really.
I am of the opinion that faith is a lie. I don’t know that it is, but practically speaking (for me, not anyone else unless they subscribe to that line of thought, obviously) it’s a lie. Should I take it on faith that god wants me to practice unsafe sex with my spouse, who contracts AIDS from a blood transfusion or a needle stick because he/she was once a drug user, or he/she was raped and contracted the disease? Skip that and just go with, I fall in love with someone that was promiscuous and tested negative for HIV/AIDS when we got married. That person then discovers they are positive. By some miracle I’ve not tested positive, should I continue to not use condoms because my faith says it’s against the deity’s word? I think that’s purposely deceptive, if I seek advice from my spiritual leader and he tells me condoms are a sin. You don’t honestly believe that your god wants you to subject yourself to such suffering do you? That’s not very loving to me. I’m not the only one that thinks this.
She’s really cute. I’m a fan of her. I have some other pictures of her somewhere. I’ll have to locate them. ^_^ Glad you liked the imagery!
March 18, 2009 11:08 pm, March 18, 2009 11:08 pmGary Baker says:
Hi Prata,
I think the sarcastic or “tongue-in-cheek” nature of some of my comments got lost in the shuffle. I will attempt to clarify.
I was referring to abstinence as the only “100% effective” method of preventing STD’s and pregnancy, which is correct to the best of my knowledge. I know that condoms have relatively high success rates against some types of STD’s and pregnancy when used correctly. This touches on one of the great inconsistencies in the liberal argument from my standpoint. In Africa, where a lot of the HIV spread is occurring, the people most responsible for the spread have very few qualms about protecting themselves, protecting others, honoring marriage, etc. If you honestly think that a pronouncement from the Pope is a significant deterrent in their minds, I think you drastically overestimate his influence. I know several Catholics in my workplace and have know others in the past. They are generous with their respect of the Pope, but it is much the same way that people in England respect the Queen. Nice figurehead, but aside from controlling church organizations, he is definitely a figurehead. Christ is the head of the church.
“Sex is not akin in any way with stealing or rape.”
In at least one way, it is: They all fall under the heading of “things people are going to do.” My point being that saying that “people are going to have sex” is irrelevant to the rest of the argument. People do all kinds of things whether good or bad, and at least a small percentage will consider the worst acts as perfectly normal and acceptable. The only way that we can say they are not is if we make a moral judgment.
Right now, in countries in Northern Africa, slavery is legal and a fact. Lots of people are bought and sold. Legally. And lots of them are used for sex. Legally. If we say that sex has no moral component, then we really have no right to criticize people for lawful behavior, now do we? I mean, it’s their culture, right?
The “beastiality” that I was referring to above was not intended as a sexual term. I was referring to mankind’s tendency to act in a beastial manner absent some method of determining right and wrong, good and evil. A great many people do take on the attitude that man is simply a more intelligent animal. Absent divinity, bestowed by God, I would agree. I also think that would lead to a very bad world to live in, much worse than the one we inhabit now.
“By some miracle I’ve not tested positive, should I continue to not use condoms because my faith says it’s against the deity’s word?”
Again, most of the Catholics I’ve dealt with consider the Pope far more of a figurehead than “the” authority. The basis of Christianity is that it is a relationship with God through Christ. That being the case, in cases where God has not spoken on the subject in the Bible, you have the ability to go God for your own answers, which is what I practice (though not Catholic) and which I’ve observed in others. Practically speaking, I am pretty sure that you are talking about a great minority of cases. The vast majority of the spread of AIDs is achieved through promiscuity, homosexual and heterosexual, and drug abuse. People in these types of lifestyles seldom give two shakes of a rodent’s tail what the Pope says anyway.
There is something very intriguing to me about your argument in concept, however. You mention “having to deny” your humanity for your faith and how unnatural that is. From what I understand of Bhuddism, one of the basic tenants is eliminating desire. Wouldn’t that include eliminating desire for sex? So, if restricting actions related to sex is unnatural, how much more so would it be for people to completely eliminate their desire for it. It sounds as though to be a Bhuddist, you have to completely deny your humanity.
March 19, 2009 2:48 pm, March 19, 2009 2:48 pmprata says:
Oh I didn’t take all of what you said seriously man. Text kind of sucks for tone, I know. I knew what beastiality you were talkin’ about….but I just _could not_ help myself. I had seriously had a conversation about beastiality earlier in the day with my friend Matthew. It was just way too funny to pass up.
One of the other issues with the spread of AIDS in Africa is a lack of education. That’s (in my opinion, and is the biggest reason we have education going on over there about safe sex practices) why we see articles like that government official that was accused of rape. Whether it was rape or not, with AIDS so rampant, he said, “I took a shower afterward” as if that answers the disease question. That’s just ignorant! And it’s somewhat epidemic over there. Those in power don’t necessarily benefit from the masses being well educated. I honestly believe that if the populace was much more educated in general, there would be less of a concern (of the emergent sort) than right now.
Buddhism does not state one must no longer desire anything in context. Buddhism states that one must (in lay terms) not allow one’s desires to control one’s life. It’s perfectly okay to want sex. It’s perfectly okay to want to have a piece of candy. It’s _not_ okay to take those things and make them the center of your life. That is against the middle way. Maybe I don’t understand exactly what you mean by that?
Maybe this will touch on what you’re getting at. I’m not entirely sure.
“This mind is the Buddha. I don’t talk about precepts, devotions or ascetic practices such as immersing yourself in water and fire, treading a wheel of knives, eating one meal a day, or never lying down. These are fanatical, provisional teachings. Once you recognise your moving, miraculously aware nature, yours is the mind of all buddhas. Buddhas of the past and future only talk about transmitting the mind. They teach nothing else. If someone understands this teaching, even if [she's] illiterate [she's] a buddha. If you don’t see our own miraculously aware nature, you’ll never find a buddha even if you break your body into atoms.” Bodhidharma (5th cent.)
And, that might be true, about Catholics in general, but that’s not what Catholics are taught in school. I know this, I went to a catholic school in Grade School, and for three years in High School. My theology teacher in High School was a priest. Asking perfectly logical questions about the diety was met with disdain and calls to my mother. Way to foster intelligent thought about the faith. My sex ed teacher was a theology student of some sort in a seminary maybe? I was never told that condom usage was a way to help prevent pregnancy and STDs. He covered how the human reproductive system worked, and how difficult cultures went about the flirting process. I remember seeing a video in that class where chinese villagers would sing to one another across a road. And that’s how they paired up from the different villages. My mother had to tell me about condoms, since my father wasn’t speaking to me. That was totally awkward. If my mother hadn’t ever told me, I’d have had to rely on my friends to tell me that. Now, fortunately I had friends who were in public school and I had the joy of attending public school my sophomore year. their sex ed. class wasn’t based around catholic faith teachings. They would have told me if I asked. Imagine if you live in a country where everyone you know knows just as much as you do; nothing. What exactly do you think is going to happen when as a teen you don’t have any concept of control, and you and your girlfriend start having sex? Well you get teen pregnancy. You get some 18/19 year old guy that has sex with prostitutes that know just about as much about sex as himself (other than to do it better) and you get rampant disease. You get situations like Africa and America in the 70’s or there abouts with bathhouses and alleys where people numbering in the teens and maybe more passed needles around to one another.
As far as the Pope being just a figurehead. That’s not as true in the Third World as it is here or in the UK. I don’t know, but they tend to take the words of their priests as law, and the word of the priests come from the Pope; correct, thus his word is law tot hem. He’s being irresponsible if he’s acting in any other way than “they hang on my every word”. He needs to practice some intellectual prose when speaking to the public. “Condoms exacerbate the problem” is not intelligent in that situation.
Speaking to slavery…I need to research that a little bit more thoroughly before I open my mouth about it. I am aware that chattel slavery is legal in some places. I am not aware of to what extent that is driven by sex. To me slavery is about control, sex is a tertiary idea to controlling other people. This was true in the South when slavery was going on in America, and at first blush that seems to be true of slavery anywhere else. Are you saying that these people began slavery based on the idea of “I can have sex with those I enslave as much as I want!!! Let’s start enslaving people!” Or would it be more accurate to say that slavery was legal, it was/is practiced and a symptom of that legal enslavement is people began to be sold for sex slaves? I would be more akin to believe the latter, it’s about control sex slavery is a symptom of slavery in general. How many House Masters began sleeping with their house niggers? I couldn’t say but does that mean slavery in America was driven by sex? I don’t think so.
March 21, 2009 9:44 am, March 21, 2009 9:44 amGary Baker says:
I’m pretty sure that slavery in the US and in most countries that were developing (a not exactly right word, but the best I have right now) was driven by economics. Slavery was faster and cheaper than development of machinery and factories. I think that sex control was considered a discreet fringe benefit.
In countries that were less developed, I believe there was more of a tie to sexual domination because of the status attached to more possessions, children, etc. Today, sexual slavery is a thriving business in many locations. It will probably be the last type of slavery to go simply because it is easier to get some type of machine or process going to fill other needs or wants. All of this is beside the point that I was attempting to make:
My basic understanding of your thesis is that there is no moral component to sex. I disagree simply because for humans, there is such a broad spectrum of what sex means and what it entails. For example, one person might consider sex not just as physical congress and release but as total domination and ownership of the other. Suppose that his entire society was built on that. Or make it even more basic, consider it in basic animal terms. Generally, in the animal kingdom the strong survive because they ensure that they reproduce preferentially. If we say that there is no moral component, that people just have sex because it feels good, then I would have no reason for outrage if my wife decided that she would live with me, but still wanted a “more fit” man to parent her children. And neither you nor society should be outraged if I and an underage daughter of mine decided that we would enjoy sex together. Absent moral restraint, sex becomes a free-for-all.
Now, you also say that the people in third world nations pretty much take the Pope’s word as law. If that were the case, there would be no problem, because the Pope also advocates no sex before marriage and a monogamous life style after marriage. So if you he had the power to stop people from using condoms, then he would also have the power to stop them from having illicit sex. What it comes down to is this: People want to have sex. We agree on this. People don’t want to use condoms. You can blame the Pope, or Catholic schools, or the monster under the bed if you like, but it simply comes down to actions having consequences. We live in an age where people hate being told they cannot or should not do anything, but at the same time they don’t want the consequences. They blame others. As powerful as the sex drive is, we all have a choice.
March 21, 2009 2:26 pm, March 21, 2009 2:26 pmGary Baker says:
You might find this link interesting:
http://www.crosswalk.com/news/commentary/11601422/
“Here is one part that is particularly relevant.
Soon after the story broke, Kathryn Jean Lopez, editor of National Review Online, released an interview with Edward C. Green, director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies. Here’s what Green had to say:
We have found no consistent associations between condom use and lower HIV-infection rates, which, 25 years into the pandemic, we should be seeing if this intervention was working.
The pope is correct, or put it a better way, the best evidence we have supports the pope’s comments. He stresses that condoms have been proven to not be effective at the level of population. There is a consistent association shown by our best studies, including the US-funded Demographic Health Surveys, between greater availability and use of condoms and higher (not lower) HIV-infection rates. ”
Sometimes, the Dark Ages return via those who are convinced of their own enlightenment.
March 26, 2009 7:22 pm, March 26, 2009 7:22 pmprata says:
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/factsheet/fscondom.htm
http://www.scribd.com/doc/4312989/The-Disparity-Between-Condom-Use-and-HIV-Rates
The thing to remember good sir, is that large swaths of the African population are relatively uneducated and that condoms must be used _consistently_ and correctly (which even in places such as rural China this was hard to start and continue at first).
Changes in sexual behaviour that reduce the number of new HIV infections will not become apparent through changes in HIV prevalence until some time after the behaviour change takes place, since HIV is a long term disease.
http://www.mombu.com/medicine/allergies/t-condom-efficacy-condoms-trichomoniasis-gonorrhea-pregnancy-ejaculation-2212905.html
So yah, perhaps we’re not seeing a marked decline related to condoms _yet_ in Africa…but if the population (especially sex workers) consistently and correctly use condoms every single time, you will see a decline in HIV transmission from sexual behavior. You may _not_ see a decline in certain types of drug users though.
March 30, 2009 7:25 am, March 30, 2009 7:25 amGary Baker says:
“The thing to remember good sir, is that large swaths of the African population are relatively uneducated and that condoms must be used _consistently_ and correctly”
So, what it sounds like you are saying is that condoms are going to be impractical in Africa for the foreseeable future because the people are uneducated, unwilling to change their sexually risky behavior, and neither of those are going to change in the foreseeable future. So, since that is the case, it seems as though far from being harmful, the Pope’s suggestion is the only way that there is likely to be any kind of reduction in AIDS or other STDs for this generation. So, I guess that means that your line about condemning people to misery is really more appropriately applied to those pushing unrealistic solutions.
March 30, 2009 2:44 pm, March 30, 2009 2:44 pmGary Baker says:
You know, this kind of highlights a particular attitude in your writing that I’ve noticed before. Now, I certainly have no wish to unfairly characterize you, and would eagerly accept correction if you feel that my evaluation is wrong (though I would want to know specifics).
It occurs to me that when Christianity promotes an idea or concept that you don’t like or consider unrealistic, then it indicates a flaw with Christianity as a religion or philosophy. Example: You feel that regulation of sex or association with emotion is unnatural, therefore Christianity or Christian leaders are wrong to try to instill such an association. (This leads me back to an earlier question as to how you would feel if your spouse took that attitude as a reason to take multiple partners. I would still like to hear some comment on that, but that is a different side issue.)
On the other hand, when a philosophy such as Communism (and the label is not important; call it a religion, economic theory, or whatever you will) fails repeatedly in trial after trial, you do not express the idea that Communism is flawed or evil, even though the root of the failure is basically the same: Both Christianity and Communism require people to act in ways that go against their basic (selfish) nature to be successful. At least one major difference is that Christianity can be practiced by any size group, or single, but Communism requires a sizable group to even be attempted.
To me, this looks like a considerable inconsistency/double standard. Can you give me a good reason why it is not?
March 30, 2009 3:15 pm, March 30, 2009 3:15 pmGary Baker says:
Well, I’ve pretty much given up on hearing any type of reply to any of my comments or questions. Disappointing. Nevertheless, I’ll bring up one more point which shows the futility of the strategy that you are advocating.
I’ve checked the literature you linked. According to that, they estimate (a key word, since it’s not like they can really do trials) that condoms for males are 80% to 95% effective at preventing transmission of STD’s. Sounds impressive, doesn’t it? Well it isn’t.
I’m assuming that you have had probability as part of your math education. That being the case, consider just how fast that probability drops with repeated action. Assume an effectivity of 90%. You’re not going to get that this century, but let’s assume it. Based on cumulative probability, by the time the man has intercourse with an infected person 11 times, his chances of contracting STDs becomes 90%. And that’s assuming fully correct use of condoms in each case.
For females, the effectivity of condom use was estimated at 99%. Frankly, I’m skeptical of the claim, but let’s go with it. How often do you think female sex workers have sex in a lot of the areas? Four times a day? Eight?
Assume four times a day, which is probably low. Forget that the men they service are not going to put up with them wearing a condom and they probably couldn’t afford them anyway. We’ll say they use one all the time. That means intercourse about 120 times a month. In an area with a 25% infection rate, that means 30 occurrences of sex with an infected man. That means their probability of contracting STDs after the first month is about 26%. After two months, it is 44%, and after 4 months, it goes up to around 70%. By the end of the year, you’re pretty much looking at a sure thing.
Condoms have some value for disease prevention when used in areas where sexual tendencies are under at least moderate control. In the situation you describe, where sex is employed with gleeful abandon, they are practically worthless. The only hope for the people is to adopt a controlled lifestyle. You say that is not natural? Neither is sex with a condom. But unlike condoms, a controlled lifestyle will protect you long term.
April 6, 2009 3:18 pm, April 6, 2009 3:18 pmprata says:
I’m not ignoring you. I and my child have been ill. I will address your comments in the near future. Closer to the end of the week.
April 6, 2009 3:57 pm, April 6, 2009 3:57 pm