Full Version: New CDC Guidlines for AIDS/HIV Programs
The Bush administration seems to have quietly scored a win for right wing religious groups on the subject of AIDS/HIV prevention. Here is a link to the proposed changes from the CDC website.
This whole thing is really a complete outrage as far as I'm concerned and will grossly endanger the country and especially young people by not giving them the best information concerning AIDS/HIV. First, the scope of the new regs:
Therefore, all organizations pretty much have to comply with these regulations or risk losing their funding.
Now lets look at a few of the gems from the new rules:
How in the world are we going to have AIDS/HIV education when simple drawings to illustrate protection methods are not allowed? You can't very well teach someone how to put on a condom without giving them some kind of picture demonstrating it.
This sounds familiar, is the Bush administration getting its marching orders from the pope now?
Furthermore, Bush has gutted funding for AIDS research by funding programs which are not effective, but cater to his religious right base:
Questions for debate:
1. Are you for or against these new CDC regulations? What are the reasons supporting your position?
2. Do you believe that this new program will set back AIDS/HIV prevention by taking power away from those on the front lines, handicapping proven methods and gutting funding OR is this a step in the right direction? Why or why not?
3. Is this a gross dereliction of duty on the part of the Bush administration in order to cater to special interests within the religious right?
This whole thing is really a complete outrage as far as I'm concerned and will grossly endanger the country and especially young people by not giving them the best information concerning AIDS/HIV. First, the scope of the new regs:
QUOTE
Published on June 16 in the Federal Register, the censorious new CDC guidelines will be mandatory for any organization that does HIV-prevention work and also receives federal funds — whether or not any federal money is directly spent on their programs designed to fight the spread of the epidemic.
<snip>
And nearly all of the some 3,800 AIDS service organizations (ASOs) that do the bulk of HIV-prevention education receive at least part of their budget from federal dollars. Without that money, they’d have to slash programs or even close their doors.
<snip>
And nearly all of the some 3,800 AIDS service organizations (ASOs) that do the bulk of HIV-prevention education receive at least part of their budget from federal dollars. Without that money, they’d have to slash programs or even close their doors.
Therefore, all organizations pretty much have to comply with these regulations or risk losing their funding.
Now lets look at a few of the gems from the new rules:
QUOTE
These new regs require the censoring of any “content” — including “pamphlets, brochures, fliers, curricula,” “audiovisual materials” and “pictorials (for example, posters and similar educational materials using photographs, slides, drawings or paintings),” as well as “advertising” and Web-based info. They require all such “content” to eliminate anything even vaguely “sexually suggestive” or “obscene” — like teaching how to use a condom correctly by putting it on a dildo, or even a cucumber.
How in the world are we going to have AIDS/HIV education when simple drawings to illustrate protection methods are not allowed? You can't very well teach someone how to put on a condom without giving them some kind of picture demonstrating it.
QUOTE
And they demand that all such materials include information on the “lack of effectiveness of condom use” in preventing the spread of HIV and other STDs.
<snip>
This demented exigency flies in the face of every competent medical body’s judgment that, in the absence of an HIV-preventing vaccine, the condom is the single most effective tool available to protect someone from getting or spreading the AIDS virus.
<snip>
This demented exigency flies in the face of every competent medical body’s judgment that, in the absence of an HIV-preventing vaccine, the condom is the single most effective tool available to protect someone from getting or spreading the AIDS virus.
This sounds familiar, is the Bush administration getting its marching orders from the pope now?
QUOTE
Under the new regs, it will be impossible even to track the spread of unsafe sexual practices — because the CDC’s politically inspired censorship includes “questionnaires and survey materials” and thus would forbid asking people if they engage in specific sexual acts without protection against HIV. For that too would be “obscene.”
QUOTE
Moreover, the CDC will now take the decisions on which AIDS-fighting educational materials actually work away from those on the frontlines of the combat against the epidemic, and hand them over to political appointees.
This is done by requiring that Policy Review Panels, which each group engaged in HIV prevention must have, can no longer be appointed by that group but must instead be named by state and local health departments. And those panels must then take a vote on every single flier or brochure or other “content” before it is issued.
This is done by requiring that Policy Review Panels, which each group engaged in HIV prevention must have, can no longer be appointed by that group but must instead be named by state and local health departments. And those panels must then take a vote on every single flier or brochure or other “content” before it is issued.
Furthermore, Bush has gutted funding for AIDS research by funding programs which are not effective, but cater to his religious right base:
QUOTE
A third of all federal HIV-education money — some $270 million more in Bush’s latest budget — now goes to abstinence-only programs
Questions for debate:
1. Are you for or against these new CDC regulations? What are the reasons supporting your position?
2. Do you believe that this new program will set back AIDS/HIV prevention by taking power away from those on the front lines, handicapping proven methods and gutting funding OR is this a step in the right direction? Why or why not?
3. Is this a gross dereliction of duty on the part of the Bush administration in order to cater to special interests within the religious right?
Only one thing to say on this whole subject.
Abstinence, is the only sure way to make sure Aids is not transmitted sexually.
Now, there is the matter of blood supply, shared needles ets. While condoms help prevent aids, it is not as affective as abstinence. Not going to happen, true. But also true that it will prevent aids.
Abstinence, is the only sure way to make sure Aids is not transmitted sexually.
Now, there is the matter of blood supply, shared needles ets. While condoms help prevent aids, it is not as affective as abstinence. Not going to happen, true. But also true that it will prevent aids.
This move must be in keeping with the whole "bad choices are your problem, not society's" outlook. Just when I think Kerry is a hypocrite Bush dwarfs him.
Are you for or against these new CDC regulations? What are the reasons supporting your position?
Against. Ignorance is not bliss.
Is this a gross dereliction of duty on the part of the Bush administration in order to cater to special interests within the religious right?
It's an abuse of power. The reasons I believe are two-pronged: cater to social conservatives and this is one way to phase out social programs.
Are you for or against these new CDC regulations? What are the reasons supporting your position?
Against. Ignorance is not bliss.
Is this a gross dereliction of duty on the part of the Bush administration in order to cater to special interests within the religious right?
It's an abuse of power. The reasons I believe are two-pronged: cater to social conservatives and this is one way to phase out social programs.
1. Are you for or against these new CDC regulations? What are the reasons supporting your position?
Lesly hit the nail on the head. If we think that sticking our head in the sand will make problems like HIV go away, we'll have a repeat of the Reagan era where he wouldn't even utter the word. Education absolutely must be part of our approach in talking disease control in general. These regulations seem to run contrary to CDC's mission in that regard.
2. Do you believe that this new program will set back AIDS/HIV prevention by taking power away from those on the front lines, handicapping proven methods and gutting funding OR is this a step in the right direction? Why or why not?
It will probably have the same effect Bush did on the environment, unraveling 20+ years of progress.
3. Is this a gross dereliction of duty on the part of the Bush administration in order to cater to special interests within the religious right?
Of course. He has to preserve his "base". Though admittedly this opinion likely rests on whether you share the opinions of the policymakers. I personally think these proposed regulations are irresponsible and fly in the face of reality as it relates to proven methods to combat STD's. But then, since when do the facts ever get play in this administration?
Doc
Lesly hit the nail on the head. If we think that sticking our head in the sand will make problems like HIV go away, we'll have a repeat of the Reagan era where he wouldn't even utter the word. Education absolutely must be part of our approach in talking disease control in general. These regulations seem to run contrary to CDC's mission in that regard.
2. Do you believe that this new program will set back AIDS/HIV prevention by taking power away from those on the front lines, handicapping proven methods and gutting funding OR is this a step in the right direction? Why or why not?
It will probably have the same effect Bush did on the environment, unraveling 20+ years of progress.
3. Is this a gross dereliction of duty on the part of the Bush administration in order to cater to special interests within the religious right?
Of course. He has to preserve his "base". Though admittedly this opinion likely rests on whether you share the opinions of the policymakers. I personally think these proposed regulations are irresponsible and fly in the face of reality as it relates to proven methods to combat STD's. But then, since when do the facts ever get play in this administration?
Doc
Questions for debate:
1.)I'm opposed to the changes for several reasons. In looking at the revisions, I find the following to be quite troublesome:
This is too vague to be effective. What can't be described as being something tha "promotes" or "encourages" sexual activity? I guess that ends Biblical (faith) based programs, since it can be argued that a number of figures in it "promoted" sex.
I also have a big problem with this:
O.K., "obscene" to who?? Obscene to John Ashcroft or the people who it's presented to? Are they too stupid to know what obscenity is that we need some modern day Cotton Mather to guide us? Relating to the above point, there go faith-based programs.
On a different line of thought....
Why couldn't the Bush administration actually follow a "state's rights" approach on this, and let local groups and agencies determine the needs and unique ways that people are to be taught in certain areas is best for them? A San Francisco presentation might be different than what would occur in my state. Is a one-size-fits-all approach necessarily the best way to go on this?
Lastly, what AMA research study says that there needs to be a change in policy in the first place?
Fixed quotes. -Amlord
QUOTE
1. Are you for or against these new CDC regulations? What are the reasons supporting your position?
2. Do you believe that this new program will set back AIDS/HIV prevention by taking power away from those on the front lines, handicapping proven methods and gutting funding OR is this a step in the right direction? Why or why not?
2. Do you believe that this new program will set back AIDS/HIV prevention by taking power away from those on the front lines, handicapping proven methods and gutting funding OR is this a step in the right direction? Why or why not?
1.)I'm opposed to the changes for several reasons. In looking at the revisions, I find the following to be quite troublesome:
QUOTE
None of the funds appropriated to carry out this title may be used to provide education or information designed to promote or encourage, directly, homosexual or heterosexual sexual activity or intravenous substance abuse.
This is too vague to be effective. What can't be described as being something tha "promotes" or "encourages" sexual activity? I guess that ends Biblical (faith) based programs, since it can be argued that a number of figures in it "promoted" sex.
I also have a big problem with this:
QUOTE
to provide accurate information about various means to reduce an individual's risk of exposure to, or to transmission of, the etiologic agent for acquired immune deficiency syndrome, provided that any informational materials used are not obscene ."
O.K., "obscene" to who?? Obscene to John Ashcroft or the people who it's presented to? Are they too stupid to know what obscenity is that we need some modern day Cotton Mather to guide us? Relating to the above point, there go faith-based programs.
On a different line of thought....
QUOTE
Messages provided to young people in schools and in other settings should be guided by the principles contained in "Guidelines for Effective School Health Education to Prevent the Spread of AIDS" (MMWR 1988;37 [suppl. no. S-2]).
Why couldn't the Bush administration actually follow a "state's rights" approach on this, and let local groups and agencies determine the needs and unique ways that people are to be taught in certain areas is best for them? A San Francisco presentation might be different than what would occur in my state. Is a one-size-fits-all approach necessarily the best way to go on this?
Lastly, what AMA research study says that there needs to be a change in policy in the first place?
Fixed quotes. -Amlord
The government has established a practice of determining what is "obscene".
For example, the FCC uses a three prong definition: OBSCENE, PROFANE & INDECENT BROADCASTS
The problem here, of course, is that the descriptions are supposed to be scientific in nature. It seems to be splitting hairs, I guess.
There are common sense approaches to what is obscene, and the definition doesn't come from John Ashcroft.
I don't see that huge of a change with this revision. Is there sexually explicit instructions on the CDC website now? If there isn't, this simply codifies the policy.
For example, the FCC uses a three prong definition: OBSCENE, PROFANE & INDECENT BROADCASTS
QUOTE
Obscene speech is not protected by the First Amendment and cannot be broadcast at any time. To be obscene, material must meet a three-prong test: (1) an average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the material, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (2) the material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law; and (3) the material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. See Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973).
The problem here, of course, is that the descriptions are supposed to be scientific in nature. It seems to be splitting hairs, I guess.
There are common sense approaches to what is obscene, and the definition doesn't come from John Ashcroft.
I don't see that huge of a change with this revision. Is there sexually explicit instructions on the CDC website now? If there isn't, this simply codifies the policy.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Jul 2 2004, 08:55 AM)
There are common sense approaches to what is obscene, and the definition doesn't come from John Ashcroft.
I don't see that huge of a change with this revision. Is there sexually explicit instructions on the CDC website now? If there isn't, this simply codifies the policy.
I don't see that huge of a change with this revision. Is there sexually explicit instructions on the CDC website now? If there isn't, this simply codifies the policy.
The problem is that this new proposal also creates a committee of politicians to determine what is obscene and what is not. Given that Republicans hold a majority everywhere there is a pretty good chance we end up with people on a moral high horse like John Ashcroft on the committee.
Everything I have read about this subject seems to confirm that this will be used to handicap any kind of education about condoms. You can't exactly teach someone how to use one unless you show them, describing it verbally doesn't work.
Here is something off planned parenthood which would likely be banned because it shows a "penis"... gee showing that in demonstrating how to put on a condom, I never would have expected it.
I would not consider anything in that brochure "pornographic", it is simply education about our bodies done in a clean and scientific manner.
I like the FCC standard, especially the part about "community standards" Such an approach would definitely be better than this "Mayberry only community standard" that the Bush folks are shoving down the throats of sex education educators and experts. What single, young, gay men in San Francisco expect in a program will definitely be different than say, the "community standards" in my state or Kansas.
QUOTE(Lethalletha @ Jul 1 2004, 08:36 PM)
Only one thing to say on this whole subject.
Abstinence, is the only sure way to make sure Aids is not transmitted sexually.
Abstinence, is the only sure way to make sure Aids is not transmitted sexually.
In theory maybe, in practice it is an entirely different matter. Suggesting that teenagers or young adults not engage in sex before marriage is a tired concept that went out of style sometime back in the 50's. Society is changed, how we view sexuality has changed, and if we are to realistically combat this problem we have to work in reality, not some moral religious fantasy land of yesteryear.
The reality is that a good majority of people will have sex, some may choose absitence. If you do not promote condom use then the group of people that chooses to have sex will be put at an increased risk of getting AIDS or some other STD. Condoms are not perfect, but they are a lot better than preaching abstinence and then not using a condom when you do have sex.
There have been numerous articles written citing the ineffectiveness of abstinence programs, the article I initially linked happens to cite some statistics.
QUOTE
Even more alarming, a study by Columbia University Department of Sociology chairman Peter Bearman of the sex lives of 12,000 adolescents from 12 to 18 years old over a five-year period found unsafe sex much greater among youth who’d signed pledges to abstain from sex until (heterosexual) marriage (a key component of most abstinence only–based education programs, which leave gay kids, who can’t get married in 49 states, to face a lifetime of chastity).
The Columbia study, released last March and financed in part by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, showed that while 59 percent of teenage males who did not pledge abstinence used a condom during sex, only 40 percent of abstinence-pledging boys used a condom. As Bearman told The New York Times, telling teens “to ‘just say no,’ without understanding risk or how to protect oneself from risk, turns out to create greater risk” of HIV and other STDs. In his study, 88 percent of those who’d pledged chastity reported having sex before marriage. The large Bearman study confirms one published in the American Journal of Sociology in 2001, which showed that pent-up sexual desire and failure to realize risk exposure among students in abstinence-only programs made them a third less likely to use condoms than others, even if, on average, they began having sex a year and half later.
The Columbia study, released last March and financed in part by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, showed that while 59 percent of teenage males who did not pledge abstinence used a condom during sex, only 40 percent of abstinence-pledging boys used a condom. As Bearman told The New York Times, telling teens “to ‘just say no,’ without understanding risk or how to protect oneself from risk, turns out to create greater risk” of HIV and other STDs. In his study, 88 percent of those who’d pledged chastity reported having sex before marriage. The large Bearman study confirms one published in the American Journal of Sociology in 2001, which showed that pent-up sexual desire and failure to realize risk exposure among students in abstinence-only programs made them a third less likely to use condoms than others, even if, on average, they began having sex a year and half later.
This particular study does a good job of quantifying why I just wrote.
I think this administration has gone WAY overboard on their definitions of what is "obscene".
I have no problem with them speaking about the risks of using a condom, however, I think that most of the risks associated with condom usage are the result of incorrect condom usage.
The action they have taken is a step in the wrong direction.
I have no problem with them speaking about the risks of using a condom, however, I think that most of the risks associated with condom usage are the result of incorrect condom usage.
The action they have taken is a step in the wrong direction.
1. Are you for or against these new CDC regulations? What are the reasons supporting your position?
Very much against. Anything that opposes knowledge is obscene in my book. The government has no right to muzzle a SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATION from educating the public how to prevent sexually transmitted diseases. The CDC’s mission is stated as “To promote health and quality of life by preventing and controlling disease, injury, and disability.” CDC Website How can the CDC accomplish that mission when the federal government censors what it can and cannot say? Asinine…and dangerous.
2. Do you believe that this new program will set back AIDS/HIV prevention by taking power away from those on the front lines, handicapping proven methods and gutting funding OR is this a step in the right direction? Why or why not?
Yes. By stigmatizing HIV/AIDS prevention again as a "gay" disease and demonizing homosexuals, characterizing sex in general as something shameful to be hidden away behind righteous puritanism, and banning educational materials, rates of HIV and AIDS as well as other STDs will undoubtedly increase. Condoms are the best defense against STDs of many types, and abstinence as a strategy is just ridiculous. And it's interesting to note that the fastest rising group of HIV/AIDS cases are among drug users and heterosexual women.
3. Is this a gross dereliction of duty on the part of the Bush administration in order to cater to special interests within the religious right?
Emphatically yes. Keeping those most at risk (young people) ignorant because a bunch of tight-a$$ old religious fanatics think that by not educating kids about sex, especially safe sex, they won't have sex is mind-bogglingly STUPID! Risking people's lives to impose this admistration's theocratic goals is beyond stupid, it's criminal.
Man, this kind of stuff makes me so..............MAD!!!!!!!
Very much against. Anything that opposes knowledge is obscene in my book. The government has no right to muzzle a SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATION from educating the public how to prevent sexually transmitted diseases. The CDC’s mission is stated as “To promote health and quality of life by preventing and controlling disease, injury, and disability.” CDC Website How can the CDC accomplish that mission when the federal government censors what it can and cannot say? Asinine…and dangerous.
QUOTE
We therefore are deeply concerned about publicly-funded sexuality education programs that restrict students' access to information and limit learning to one "approved" message about human sexuality. While the stated goals of the program, reducing non-marital sexual activity and teen pregnancy, may appeal to some, such goals can be better achieved through educational programs that do not resort to government censorship, but respect freedom of speech and access to information. National Coalition Against Censorship
2. Do you believe that this new program will set back AIDS/HIV prevention by taking power away from those on the front lines, handicapping proven methods and gutting funding OR is this a step in the right direction? Why or why not?
Yes. By stigmatizing HIV/AIDS prevention again as a "gay" disease and demonizing homosexuals, characterizing sex in general as something shameful to be hidden away behind righteous puritanism, and banning educational materials, rates of HIV and AIDS as well as other STDs will undoubtedly increase. Condoms are the best defense against STDs of many types, and abstinence as a strategy is just ridiculous. And it's interesting to note that the fastest rising group of HIV/AIDS cases are among drug users and heterosexual women.
QUOTE
In several Western European countries a larger proportion of new HIV diagnoses (59% more, overall, between 1997 and 2001) is occurring through heterosexual intercourse. In the United Kingdom, in 2001, more than half of the 4279 newly diagnosed HIV infections resulted from heterosexual sex, compared to 33% of new infections in 1998. In Ireland, a similar trend is visible, with the number of heterosexually transmitted HIV infections increasing fourfold between 1998 and 2001.
[In the US] The proportion of women with AIDS has increased steadily, and the proportion infected heterosexually has also increased, surpassing (in 1994) the proportion infected through injecting drug use. AVERT
[In the US] The proportion of women with AIDS has increased steadily, and the proportion infected heterosexually has also increased, surpassing (in 1994) the proportion infected through injecting drug use. AVERT
QUOTE
Latex condoms, when used consistently and correctly, are highly effective in preventing transmission of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. In addition, correct and consistent use of latex condoms can reduce the risk of other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including discharge and genital ulcer diseases. While the effect of condoms in preventing human papillomavirus (HPV) infection is unknown, condom use has been associated with a lower rate of cervical cancer, an HPV-associated disease. CDC
3. Is this a gross dereliction of duty on the part of the Bush administration in order to cater to special interests within the religious right?
Emphatically yes. Keeping those most at risk (young people) ignorant because a bunch of tight-a$$ old religious fanatics think that by not educating kids about sex, especially safe sex, they won't have sex is mind-bogglingly STUPID! Risking people's lives to impose this admistration's theocratic goals is beyond stupid, it's criminal.
QUOTE
Like efforts to discourage the teaching of evolution, abstinence-only education is promoted by religious groups and individuals in an attempt to impose their own beliefs on all students in public schools. The curricula used in many abstinence-only programs were developed by religious groups whose views on sexual orientation, non-marital sex, contraception, and abortion are not shared by other religions and non-religious people. Parents may be unaware that their children are being indoctrinated into beliefs to which they do not subscribe and which are presented as facts. The Constitution forbids the promotion or preference of any religious perspective in a public institution, and public schools must address the educational needs of all students. Source: NCAC
Man, this kind of stuff makes me so..............MAD!!!!!!!
1. Are you for or against these new CDC regulations?
Absolutely against.
What are the reasons supporting your position?
Unlike the Bush administration, I feel that organizations like the CDC should be more concerned with preventing lethal illnesses than with spreading lethal illnesses.
2. Do you believe that this new program will set back AIDS/HIV prevention by taking power away from those on the front lines, handicapping proven methods and gutting funding OR is this a step in the right direction?
This new program will undeniably set back AIDS/HIV prevention by taking power away from those on the front lines, handicapping proven methods, and gutting funding.
Why or why not?
Because that, in my opinion, is what it is intended to do. If this is not part of an insidious campaign to eliminate undesirables through the spread of AIDS, it is a denial of reality tantamount to psychosis. I'm not sure which is worse, but either way there is no excuse for such astronomically irresponsible stupidity. Whether it's a matter of incomptence or malice, it is still evil. Just when you think this administration couldn't possibly get any worse...
3. Is this a gross dereliction of duty on the part of the Bush administration in order to cater to special interests within the religious right?
Duh.
Absolutely against.
What are the reasons supporting your position?
Unlike the Bush administration, I feel that organizations like the CDC should be more concerned with preventing lethal illnesses than with spreading lethal illnesses.
2. Do you believe that this new program will set back AIDS/HIV prevention by taking power away from those on the front lines, handicapping proven methods and gutting funding OR is this a step in the right direction?
This new program will undeniably set back AIDS/HIV prevention by taking power away from those on the front lines, handicapping proven methods, and gutting funding.
Why or why not?
Because that, in my opinion, is what it is intended to do. If this is not part of an insidious campaign to eliminate undesirables through the spread of AIDS, it is a denial of reality tantamount to psychosis. I'm not sure which is worse, but either way there is no excuse for such astronomically irresponsible stupidity. Whether it's a matter of incomptence or malice, it is still evil. Just when you think this administration couldn't possibly get any worse...
3. Is this a gross dereliction of duty on the part of the Bush administration in order to cater to special interests within the religious right?
Duh.
QUOTE
1. Are you for or against these new CDC regulations? What are the reasons supporting your position?
I'm in favor of it because it makes a lot more sense the publishing explicit instructional material that is just plain unnecessary. With a box of condoms you will get detailed instructions complete with illustrations. Consider this, if I were to quote from these instructions how do you think the moderators would react? Most likely it would be 'censored' and for good reason, its vulgar, offensive and simply unnecessary.
QUOTE
2. Do you believe that this new program will set back AIDS/HIV prevention by taking power away from those on the front lines, handicapping proven methods and gutting funding OR is this a step in the right direction? Why or why not?
No and I dare say it won't make a difference one way or the other. In fact it will encourage people to consider the only known, 100% effective way of preventing the spread of this horrible disease, abstinence. Anyone so senseless and mindless that they have no clue that there is such thing as a condom or can't figure out how to use one probably wouldn't benefit from one of these publications anyway. People don't fail to use condoms because the government is remiss in it's duty to educate them in the proper way to use a condom, they just don't like condoms.
QUOTE
3. Is this a gross dereliction of duty on the part of the Bush administration in order to cater to special interests within the religious right?
They may well be guilty of being reactionary if in fact all material expunges any reference to condoms. That would be a little extreme and since I have no idea what the new publications actually say I'll have to say no. Personally I think condoms are a part of any substantive discussion pertaining to the prevention of the spread of HIV/AIDS but so is abstinence. Dereliction of duty? Special interests of the religious right? The question sounds rhetorical. Let me answer it with one of my own. What would be the reaction if I posted the explicit material of the supposedly, censored, instructions on how to properly apply and use of a condom?
QUOTE(phaedrus @ Jul 3 2004, 01:10 PM)
I'm in favor of it because it makes a lot more sense the publishing explicit instructional material that is just plain unnecessary. With a box of condoms you will get detailed instructions complete with illustrations. Consider this, if I were to quote from these instructions how do you think the moderators would react? Most likely it would be 'censored' and for good reason, its vulgar, offensive and simply unnecessary.
Would you then have condoms come without instructions, since you find them "vulgar"? There is a time and a place when detailed descriptions are necessary, and describing safer sex practices requires some degree of explicit description.QUOTE
No and I dare say it won't make a difference one way or the other. In fact it will encourage people to consider the only known, 100% effective way of preventing the spread of this horrible disease, abstinence. Anyone so senseless and mindless that they have no clue that there is such thing as a condom or can't figure out how to use one probably wouldn't benefit from one of these publications anyway. People don't fail to use condoms because the government is remiss in it's duty to educate them in the proper way to use a condom, they just don't like condoms.
So it's to be all or nothing? You wouldn't encourage those who are sexually active to practice safer sex?Isn't that blaming the victim?
It isn't your decision to make, what someone else does with their body. Basic human decency, though, would require that if someone is doing something and you know that they could be doing it in a safer way you should tell them. It isn't just about condoms: certain lubes can break down the latex in condoms, people need to be educated to know that certain non-penetrative sex acts can still present a danger of infection, that pre-ejaculate can carry the HIV virus...
You see a lot of proponents of "abstinence" here and in other threads, which surprises me.
Does anyone really think that no one is going to have sex, ever? And that sex education somehow magically "happens" by osmosis and everyone suddenly knows about condoms and how to use them? To rip off Dr. Phil, get real!
QUOTE(Phaedrus)
No and I dare say it won't make a difference one way or the other. In fact it will encourage people to consider the only known, 100% effective way of preventing the spread of this horrible disease, abstinence.
QUOTE(Lethalletha)
Abstinence, is the only sure way to make sure Aids is not transmitted sexually.
Does anyone really think that no one is going to have sex, ever? And that sex education somehow magically "happens" by osmosis and everyone suddenly knows about condoms and how to use them? To rip off Dr. Phil, get real!
QUOTE(DaffyGrl)
Does anyone really think that no one is going to have sex, ever? And that sex education somehow magically "happens" by osmosis and everyone suddenly knows about condoms and how to use them? To rip off Dr. Phil, get real!
What I said was that "abstinence" should be a part of sex education and we don't need to teach people how to use condoms since they come with instructions. Abstinence works 100% of the time, condoms don't.
Abstinence untill you are in a monagamous relationship is not universal celibacy. Sexual promiscuity is the leading cause of AIDS and to rip off Paul, you will reap what you sow.
QUOTE(Grendel72)
Would you then have condoms come without instructions, since you find them "vulgar"? There is a time and a place when detailed descriptions are necessary, and describing safer sex practices requires some degree of explicit description.
I don't have a problem with it if its inside the box and my point was that its not the governments duty to instruct people on how they work. It's a simple procedure.
QUOTE
So it's to be all or nothing? You wouldn't encourage those who are sexually active to practice safer sex?
Isn't that blaming the victim?
Isn't that blaming the victim?
This is what I said and I am convinced that this is the most balanced way of educating people on how to prevent AIDS.
QUOTE(Phaedrus)
Personally I think condoms are a part of any substantive discussion pertaining to the prevention of the spread of HIV/AIDS but so is abstinence.
"Public health officials are hailing Uganda as a model for AIDS prevention. Rates of HIV infection among adults have dropped from a peak of 30 percent to 6 percent. Many credit President Yoweri Museveni for his emphasis on condom use, others credit religious groups for their message of abstinence and monogamy."
HIV rate drops in Uganda
The presumption would seem to be that people will indulge in sexual promiscuity so we might as well give them explicit detailed instructions because they are too stupid to read the box. I'm not buying it. People don't fail to use condoms because they don't know how they work, they don't use them because they don't like them.
QUOTE(phaedrus)
What I said was that "abstinence" should be a part of sex education and we don't need to teach people how to use condoms since they come with instructions. Abstinence works 100% of the time, condoms don't.
I'm currently looking at a box of Trojans, and the instructions are printed on the inside of the box, meaning that you have to dismantle the box in order to read them. They have three badly drawn images, and instructions that may not be descriptive enough for an inexperienced person to understand. There is no substitute for being shown how to use a condom, and I find it rather sad that people are willing to deprive their children of knowledge that could potentially save their lives or help to prevent unwanted pregnancy.
QUOTE
I'm currently looking at a box of Trojans, and the instructions are printed on the inside of the box, meaning that you have to dismantle the box in order to read them. They have three badly drawn images, and instructions that may not be descriptive enough for an inexperienced person to understand. There is no substitute for being shown how to use a condom, and I find it rather sad that people are willing to deprive their children of knowledge that could potentially save their lives or help to prevent unwanted pregnancy.
I'm rather disturbing that you would want to show children this at all. Its rather sad that people think that children need to know this. Anyone with a reasonable amount of intelligence can figure it out. I have never heard of anyone contracting AIDS because they couldn't understand the instructions on a box of Trojans. It would be far more effective to teach them to have more respect for their bodies then to expose themselves to the inherent dangers of sexual promiscuity. Morality is still the strongest deterrent to unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease. Why not teach them about the dangers of sexual promiscuity and let them consider whether or not its worth the risk?
QUOTE(phaedrus)
I'm rather disturbing that you would want to show children this at all. Its rather sad that people think that children need to know this.
If they are at an age where they are going to be experimenting with sexuality, they need to know this. Each individual matures at their own pace, and as a parent, you don't get to decide how fast your children are going to mature. You can provide them with a moral foundation, but they will ultimately decide when they feel that they are physically and emotionally ready.
QUOTE(phaedrus)
Anyone with a reasonable amount of intelligence can figure it out.
Thanks for the veiled attack on my intelligence, phaedrus.
I have a different viewpoint from yours. It doesn't mean that I'm stupid.QUOTE(phaedrus)
I have never heard of anyone contracting AIDS because they couldn't understand the instructions on a box of Trojans.
But you have heard of them contracting AIDS because of condom failure, correct? This is often because people do not know how to use them correctly. Whether you are in a monogamous relationship or not, it's important to know how to effectively protect yourself from disease and unwanted pregnancy.
QUOTE(phaedrus)
It would be far more effective to teach them to have more respect for their bodies then to expose themselves to the inherent dangers of sexual promiscuity.
Yes, I agree that they should be taught to have respect for their bodies, but where we depart company is that I believe that having protected sex as opposed to having unprotected sex is a part of having more respect for your body. Providing information on how to be safe is not synonymous with encouraging sexual promiscuity.
QUOTE(phaedrus)
Morality is still the strongest deterrent to unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease. Why not teach them about the dangers of sexual promiscuity and let them consider whether or not its worth the risk?
I agree. Give them as much knowledge as possible about how to protect themselves including information about birth control, condoms, and abstinence, and then let them decide which direction that they want to take, which they will do anyhow. If they choose to have sexual relations, at least they will have the information that they need in order to maximize their safety.
QUOTE(Phaedrus)
What I said was that "abstinence" should be a part of sex education and we don't need to teach people how to use condoms since they come with instructions. Abstinence works 100% of the time, condoms don't.
No, that’s not what you said. What you said was:
QUOTE(Phaedrus)
No and I dare say it won't make a difference one way or the other. In fact it will encourage people to consider the only known, 100% effective way of preventing the spread of this horrible disease, abstinence.
My dictionary defines abstinence as “The act or practice of refraining from indulgence in an appetite, as for certain foods, drink, alcoholic beverages, drugs, or sex.”
I won’t argue the fact that abstinence works better than condoms. Unrealistic, though. And I've always found putting a condom on a man to be an awkward experience at best...and I'm not a teenager. What is so wrong about educating people about their use???
K N O W L E D G E cannot harm. Sex is natural. It’s a crying shame that HIV/AIDs exists, but it does, and being sexual shouldn’t mean risking death.
QUOTE(Cyan)
Thanks for the veiled attack on my intelligence, phaedrus. I have a different viewpoint from yours. It doesn't mean that I'm stupid
First off I never meant to imply that you are stupid, I was making the point that its not that complicated...that is all.
QUOTE(DaffyGrl)
I won’t argue the fact that abstinence works better than condoms. Unrealistic, though. And I've always found putting a condom on a man to be an awkward experience at best...and I'm not a teenager. What is so wrong about educating people about their use???
I strongly suggest that you check out the link to the reduction of reported AIDS cases in Uganda. It was an effective way to stem the tide of the deadly AIDS virus because they taught both about abstinence and condoms. Look all I am saying is that explicit demonstrations do not help anything. I am willing to concede that teaching people the proper use of a condom is helpfull, but morality is the key.
I am opposed to abstinence-only-until-marriage that excludes condom and contraception education. OK? There I came out and said it. However, I am not confortable with children being given explicit demonstrations. Even though I have strong feelings about this issue I am a father of two teenage daughters and if they asked me about condoms I would refer them to their mother. Now if I found out that demonstrations were being conducted at school I would hit the roof. I'm trying to be open minded but morality that gives people a descent respect for their bodies is crucial.
QUOTE(Washington Times)
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has begun to pursue holistic health policies for youth, said Dr. Julie Gerberding, agency director.
"In many cases, the same teens who are struggling with sexuality and sexual decisions are also struggling with issues" such as tobacco, obesity or drunk driving, Dr. Gerberding said. The CDC supports youth programs that understand how these issues are connected and work with youth "in a holistic manner," she said.
The director also said it's time to "get over the dichotomization" of sex education — "that you're either for abstinence or you're against it, either you're for condoms or you're against it."
"In many cases, the same teens who are struggling with sexuality and sexual decisions are also struggling with issues" such as tobacco, obesity or drunk driving, Dr. Gerberding said. The CDC supports youth programs that understand how these issues are connected and work with youth "in a holistic manner," she said.
The director also said it's time to "get over the dichotomization" of sex education — "that you're either for abstinence or you're against it, either you're for condoms or you're against it."
Changes urged to sex education
This is dated June 21, 2004, it sounds like the CDC is doing a great job education people on how to prevent the spread of AIDS.
QUOTE(phaedrus @ Jul 3 2004, 07:41 PM)
I am opposed to abstinence-only-until-marriage that excludes condom and contraception education. OK? There I came out and said it.
Then you are opposed to the changes in the guidelines.
It isn't all about condoms, though. The new guidelines would force agencies to withhold information on safer sex practices rather than offend a bunch of uptight prigs by acknowledging that people have sex.
I went to school in a very backwards religious area, and what sex education we had was worthless because of the abstinence only bias. It's not always obvious that what teenagers think of as just fooling around can carry a danger of infection, after all they aren't having sex... That's one reason I mentioned that pre-ejaculate can carry the HIV virus, by the time that I was able to get ahold of some real information about HIV I was surprised (being that I was at the time a virgin) to find that I had done some unsafe things. That is the kind of information that needs to be available before kids are having sex.
I don't know that I am opposed to the new regulations since I have had no indication that the new guidelines are an abstinence-only-until-marriage mandate. I read the article linked in the OP and it was alarmist with few specifics. On my own I did a little looking around and found that CDC is not only focused on educating people on abstinence and condoms but are confronted with misconceptions of the general public. They in fact have expressed the concerted opinion that the two are not mutually exclusive and it is crucial to educate people of that fact. In other words one of the goals of the CDC is to clear up the misconception that it is either condoms or abstinence since both are essential.
I see nothing of substance to indicate that funding will be cut if they teach people about condoms. I saw one exerpt from the new regulations and all it said was that the states had to match one dollar for every four from the federal budget. If condoms are being censored out of the publications then I can't find an ounce of substantive evidence to that effect. In fact, back in January I read something about the unveiling of the new regulations and if memory serves condoms were part of it.
I see nothing of substance to indicate that funding will be cut if they teach people about condoms. I saw one exerpt from the new regulations and all it said was that the states had to match one dollar for every four from the federal budget. If condoms are being censored out of the publications then I can't find an ounce of substantive evidence to that effect. In fact, back in January I read something about the unveiling of the new regulations and if memory serves condoms were part of it.
The other problem with the CDC changes is that abstinence only programs aren't any more reliable than the comprehensive model of sex education which includes abstinence as well as information about birth control.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...0221EDT0439.DTL
Putting all our eggs in a program of dubious promise is not a good approach in my opinion.
QUOTE
The report found the programs offer teens a variety of activities, although they also have trouble getting parents and local schools involved.
It also found that, despite claims by advocates, no reliable evidence exists whether the programs work.
"Most studies of abstinence education programs have methodological flaws that prevent them from generating reliable estimates of program impacts," the report said.
It also found that, despite claims by advocates, no reliable evidence exists whether the programs work.
"Most studies of abstinence education programs have methodological flaws that prevent them from generating reliable estimates of program impacts," the report said.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...0221EDT0439.DTL
Putting all our eggs in a program of dubious promise is not a good approach in my opinion.
QUOTE(phaedrus @ Jul 3 2004, 01:35 PM)
What I said was that "abstinence" should be a part of sex education and we don't need to teach people how to use condoms since they come with instructions. Abstinence works 100% of the time, condoms don't.
The theory that abstinence works 100% of the time is severely misleading. What this method fails to address is reality, the majority of teenagers and young adults do not have the will power to not have sex until they are married.
By putting all of your eggs in this basket, you are left without protection when the policy fails thereby increasing the risk of contracting AIDS or some other STD.
If these same teenagers and young adults were educated on the proper way to use a condom, they would be much better off in the final analysis. Statistics from multiple studies, some already posted here, prove that fact out.
QUOTE
I'm rather disturbing that you would want to show children this at all. Its rather sad that people think that children need to know this. Anyone with a reasonable amount of intelligence can figure it out. I have never heard of anyone contracting AIDS because they couldn't understand the instructions on a box of Trojans.
I would hardly consider teenagers and young adults "children". If they are old enough to have sex then they are old enough to take some responsibility for their sexual health. No one is proposing handing out condom boxes to 8 year olds.
The incorrect use of condoms is one of the biggest problems with their effectiveness. People don't stop in the heat of passion to read the directions, they need to be informed of how to use them properly before they get into that situation. Some more common mistakes a lot of younger people make - Not checking expiration dates, not storing them in a cool and dry place (i.e carrying one in your pocket or wallet everywhere destroys its effectiveness).
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.