Originally Posted By jonvn "Why would they listen to that info?" Whether they listen to it or not, that becomes their own problem. The government should be in the business of providing the best source of information available. If members of the public choose to ignore that, that is their own problem. But, the government should not be making a "don't have sex at all" comment and certainly should be giving information out to adults as to how to best protect themselves. It is beyond belief that the government is trying to tell people what they are saying. It is their job to protect the public health the best way they can. And you don't do that by not giving out the complete set of information, nor telling people to not engage in normal human behavior. It simply is yet one more disgrace to add to the litany we are seeing coming out of Washington. "I think like most people, they feel AIDS is something that only is a problem for someone else." Then that money NEEDS to be funneled into a program that educates older people that they can get AIDS, too. It's not just for young people. They need to be told to use condoms, and do whatever else is necessary to avoid disease. Not "just say no," and not just to 20 year olds. That advice is worthless, and if what you say is correct, targeted at the wrong group in the first place. Thanks for mentioning the situation is even worse than I had previous thought.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan The 40 and 50 year olds now ignoring safe sex practices now are the same 20-somethings that ignored C. Everett Koop back in the 1987 when he said the best way of avoiding the disease barring abstinence, was the use of a condom. Will they be more receptive now to the info, or even more jaded and laugh it off as they did back then? I agree, the information -- all the information -- obviously needs to be put out there in a creative, compelling way. I don't agree with abstinence-only, but at the same time, the simple fact of the matter is that abstinence truly is the only 100% sure-fire way to avoid unwanted pregnancy/STDs.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Will they be more receptive now to the info, or even more jaded and laugh it off as they did back then?" Again, that is their problem. They likely didn't listen in the 80s because things were a lot different then. That's when only gay people got the disease, and STDs were easily cured with anti-biotics. I don't know if they will be more receptive to the information now. But the government needs to supply it properly, and in a manner that is realistic to the people they are speaking to. Not in a lecturing and pendantic manner, but from grown up to grown up. The world isn't a kiddy show. People have sex. People do all sorts of things. Sex isn't a bad thing. It shouldn't be hidden, and it can't be denied. And abstinence is NOT a 100% sure fire way of avoiding an STD. People can get AIDS by sharing a needle, or being bitten or some other thing. It happens. You can even have the disease for a few months and not even know it. Yet, the government does not want to pass on life saving information to people because it is against their moral principles? They have no right to dictate such things. However, they do have the responsibility to public health, a responsibility they have shirked.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan And abstinence is NOT a 100% sure fire way of avoiding an STD. People can get AIDS by sharing a needle, or being bitten or some other thing. It happens.<< I'm going to go way out on a limb and assume that junkies aren't thinking a lot about abstinence of any kind, so my point stands.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I'm going to go way out on a limb and assume that junkies aren't thinking a lot about abstinence of any kind, so my point stands." You don't have to be a junkie, although that was my example. You can accidentally have gotten a re-used needle. You can get a bad batch of blood. And so on. It's simply not 100% sure fire, as you state. There are situations where abstinence does not prevent disease. What does prevent disease, however, is if you do have sex, you use condoms. This is not 100% effective, either. But it is as close as you're going to get if you engage in sexual activity which is everyone. Except maybe one or two people I see here.
Originally Posted By peeaanuut <<The government should be in the business of providing the best source of information available.>> The is probably the most optomistic thought regarding the govt I have ever heard. It would be great if that happened, but in my adult life I dont think that this has ever happened.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan But it is as close as you're going to get if you engage in sexual activity which is everyone.<< Yes. IF you engage in sexual activity. In other words, barring abstinence (or getting stuck by an infected needle or some other bizarre occurance), the best way to prevent the spread of teh disease is by using a condom properly. I'm gonna leave it at that. We're on the verge of lecturing and pendantic at this point.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I'm sorry I had to go to WDW and miss the rest of this discussion. Interesting points brought up by some folks. The good news? I'm an adult with two children so I've been abstaining (not by choice) for some time now.
