political foo: Monogamy, not condoms

[alpharaposa]

“There is,” Green adds, “a consistent association shown by our best studies, including the U.S.-funded ‘Demographic Health Surveys,’ between greater availability and use of condoms and higher (not lower) HIV-infection rates."

The best condoms still have a 5% failure rate, even when used properly. Or to put it another way, one out of 20.

And yet, to advocate abstinence or monogamy as a way to stay uninfected is backwards. We are told that sex with anybody, anytime we want is fine, it's just all those icky viruses and bacteria and pregnancies that are the problem. Hand out condoms, and people have more sex. They're protected, after all. Why worry? But condoms can't protect people from the banalization of sex. They can't protect people from messy relationships and broken promises. They can't give sex meaning again.

The truth is that sex with anybody we want, any time, is the problem. We take one of the closest bonds that can be established between two people and treat it like another amusement, no more interesting or important than the latest video game.

Comments

[haikujaguar.livejournal.com]

*nods agreement*

[eric-hinkle.livejournal.com]

I agree with you and Haiku.

And pardon me for saying this, but I'm stunned there isn't a horde of pro-screw everything trolls here denouncing you both for being "repressive, anti-sex fascists".

[stryck.livejournal.com]

I already had that fight a few years back over gay marriage and its ramifications. The people who used to be on my friends list left it, and I'm not big enough (or verbose enough) to attract trolls I don't know.

[haikujaguar.livejournal.com]

People already call me a repressive, anti-sex fascist! I'm used to it.

[zeeth_kyrah]

Where abstinence is taught, it is taught without reference to "protection", and sexual activity continues regardless, unprotected. Monogamy is apparently only taught where abstinence is taught, or in Africa, so I have no information on it.

What of "serial monogamists", people who stick to one lover until the relationship ends, then pick up another and repeat the cycle?

The problem is more about the banality of sex, I would think. When it's "nothing special", despite that it's a primary disease transfer mechanism as well as bound up in the deepest limbic connections.

[stryck.livejournal.com]

Y'know, growing up I had exposure to lots of different sex education methods, as you did. I recall one year getting both one person speaking up for abstinence, and then a month later, guys who extolled the virtues of condoms.

The meme that abstinence education is "abstinence only" is not something I've actually seen borne out in practice. Now, granted, you and I went to public school. Maybe there are some private schools that don't tell kids anything about condoms or birth control pills.

But somehow, I doubt it. Even if it's only to mention them so as to show how they're inadequate, I rather think they get mentioned.

[zeeth_kyrah]

The sex ed I remember focused primarily on the endocrine system and mechanical function, not on sexual behavior, although one or two films on not making fun of people were shown in class. Condoms were mentioned (rarely), abstinence was not. Anatomy of the region was covered, barely and briefly, and its function described.

This was at Chauncey Rose Jr High; you probably had those classes elsewhere.