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

[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.