ddicffe
|
posted on July 30, 2001 06:10:30 PM new
I had not seen this posted yet, so I figured I may as well do it. Someone else can link it, since I am never able to get it to work:
http://www.pointofview.net/ar_cdcresign.html
Enjoy the "safety' people have always thought condums provided.
Rick
In the begining, God created the heavens and the earth.
|
ddicffe
|
posted on July 30, 2001 06:18:36 PM new
Here is FOTF information:
http://www.fotf.org/cforum/feature/a0016988.html
Rick
In the begining, God created the heavens and the earth.
|
gravid
|
posted on July 30, 2001 06:19:57 PM new
Here ya go -
http://www.pointofview.net/ar_cdcresign.html
Surprise 85% safe - that is almost exactly how safe Russian Roulette is.
What me worry? - Think I will make that my sig file.
|
Borillar
|
posted on July 30, 2001 06:20:46 PM new
http://www.pointofview.net/ar_cdcresign.html
An interesting quote from the article:
A group of physicians yesterday called for the resignation of the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention because the agency has failed to tell "the whole truth" about condoms. Yet the CDC has chosen to rely on "unproven theoretical models and unrealistic laboratory testing" to maintain its claims that condoms can protect against most sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), said Rep. Dave Weldon, Florida Republican and former Rep. Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican, both practicing physicians who support the consortium's efforts.
Yah. Right.
And just as soon as these two republicans manage to pressure the existing director out of there, they can put their own in there -- someone who is more "accepting" of the republican agenda.
|
snowyegret
|
posted on July 30, 2001 06:31:18 PM new
The politics of sex. More funding for abstinance education.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28795-2001Jul20.html
A recent study
So health care workers no longer should use latex gloves while dealing with body fluids?
I'll stick with universal precautions, thank you.
[*url*][*/url*] take out the asterisks for a link
|
KatyD
|
posted on July 30, 2001 06:31:20 PM new
So theoretically, condoms do not work 15% of the time. So what's the answer? Let me guess. Just say no. Right? Yeah, right.
KatyD
|
deuce
|
posted on July 30, 2001 06:58:12 PM new
How about double the protection...wear two!
|
MrsSantaClaus
|
posted on July 30, 2001 07:01:34 PM new
There goes Trojan's stock ...
|
rawbunzel
|
posted on July 30, 2001 07:08:58 PM new
What kind of stupidity is this?
I prefer to think that my kids, my family,my friends and anyone else that has sex will be 85% safe rather than 100% unsafe.
|
gravid
|
posted on July 30, 2001 07:11:58 PM new
I think we need spray on protection in a can!
Back to my secret labratory for some experiments!!! I'll start with tool dip as a base. maybe a little nonslip grit.
|
snowyegret
|
posted on July 30, 2001 07:15:32 PM new
I wonder if Dr. Weldon and Dr. Coburn wear gloves when in contact with a patient's body fluids?
edited to add  to gravid's post. I'm working on my aluminum foil and copper Brillo pad hat. 
[ edited by snowyegret on Jul 30, 2001 07:18 PM ]
|
ddicffe
|
posted on July 30, 2001 07:34:44 PM new
No one seems to comprehend the information, I guess. For DECADES we all have been told condums are 90%-98% safe when used properly for everything. Now 85% is a peak precentage. Let me put it this way; if you knew you only had an 85% chance of walking out of a shopping store alive(which is what sex is what most people equate with; quick, simple, enjoyable and accesable to all) would you do it? Would you allow your kids, family and signifigant others? Or what if, not neccessarly death but dibilitation, or humiliation, or other odds? I like the russian roulette idea; stick a condom to your hear; if it pops, your part of the 15% that now has an STD. Republicans, democrats, indipendents; it should not matter. This is serious, folks. It is like the lie about smoking; a little puff won't hurt you. A little condum will not hurt you; it may dibilitate you, humiliate you, destroy you. Hurt you, never.
Just say NO.
Rick
In the begining, God created the heavens and the earth.
|
rawbunzel
|
posted on July 30, 2001 07:41:21 PM new
I don't see this as as serious a problem as you do . It doesn't matter one bit if it is 50% ,85% or 99% if yours is the one that breaks.
This new knowledge isn't going to change any current statistics . Scare tactics do not make people quit having sex. Nothing does. Better be as safe as possible than not safe at all.
|
jamesoblivion
|
posted on July 30, 2001 07:41:37 PM new
Rick, the statistic is speaking of having sex with a person infected with an STD. Since most people still don't have STDs wearing a condom does not mean that you have a 15% chance of getting an STD when you have sex with someone.
|
snowyegret
|
posted on July 30, 2001 07:42:30 PM new
Aha! Look for the money.
For the current fiscal year, Congress approved a $20 million increase in funding for abstinence-only programs. Next year, funding would rise by $30 million. Bush administration officials say their goal is to spend $135 million annually on abstinence education, which would match current spending for family planning. At the same time, the administration has proposed no increase in spending for traditional family planning programs.
[ edited by snowyegret on Jul 30, 2001 07:43 PM ]
|
gravid
|
posted on July 30, 2001 08:04:16 PM new
Just remember you heard it here first.
When they develop a drug that removes sexual desire they will make the kids take it just like Ritalin in school.
With the Human Genome sequenced all sorts of new drugs and treatments will be coming the nest few decades.
|
spazmodeus
|
posted on July 30, 2001 08:23:55 PM new
Think they'll have one for pessimism, gravid?
|
ZiLvY
|
posted on July 30, 2001 08:43:38 PM new
Safe Sex Motto:
If you drink don't park!
Accidents cause PEOPLE!!
|
donny
|
posted on July 30, 2001 08:47:22 PM new
There's always someone yapping about abstinence.
Newsflash:
People have been having sex from the beginning of time. They're going to keep on having sex. They're having sex right now! Yes, they're having more sex than you are, and better sex besides.
|
hepburn
|
posted on July 30, 2001 08:48:15 PM new
Hmmm. Seems I said this once before in another thread....pants up, legs closed. Isnt that the same as JUST SAY NO?
Hey, that rhymed.
|
hepburn
|
posted on July 30, 2001 08:49:23 PM new
Perfect timing, eh? I just yapped.
I think Im depressed. Yes, someone is having sex RIGHT NOW. It dam sure aint me
|
KatyD
|
posted on July 30, 2001 08:52:06 PM new
LOL @ hepburn! 
KatyD
|
ZiLvY
|
posted on July 30, 2001 08:53:47 PM new
So donny, whatcha doin???
|
donny
|
posted on July 30, 2001 08:56:51 PM new
"So donny, whatcha doin???"
Oh, I'm doing what everyone else in the world is doing, thinking about all those other people having lots of great sex. Geez, I hate those b______s.
|
hepburn
|
posted on July 30, 2001 09:00:59 PM new
Speaking of...I was in Rite Aide recently, and some older ladies were in line discussing the street work going on in town and how difficult it is for drivers to get down the road. Well, I piped up and said "yeah, but think of all those tan, buffed guys with no shirts...flexing and sweating and flexing and sweating...and we get to drive oh-so-slow since they are flexing and sweating right in front of our car hoods...wonderful, aint it?" and they just looked at me, then guffawed and said YES! YES YES YES!
edited for spelling because I got all excited thinking about those tan buffed.....
[ edited by hepburn on Jul 30, 2001 09:02 PM ]
|
krs
|
posted on July 30, 2001 09:04:33 PM new
"If the world were perfect, it wouldn't be."
- Yogi Berra
|
Borillar
|
posted on July 30, 2001 09:58:56 PM new
dup.
[ edited by Borillar on Jul 30, 2001 09:59 PM ]
|
Borillar
|
posted on July 30, 2001 09:59:06 PM new
"When they develop a drug that removes sexual desire they will make the kids take it just like Ritalin in school."
Give'm enough Prozac or Paxil and not only will they feel good about themselves, but it won't be any good when they feel themselves.
|
Baduizm
|
posted on July 30, 2001 11:05:08 PM new
Abstinence-based messages are fine for children. But studies show they are ineffective if not combined with safe-sex messages, i.e. how a teen can protect themselves from unwanted pregnancy or STD's. This past March, I wrote a story on this subject.
I am troubled by a presidential administration that seems to ignore funding for a dual message and only harps "Don't Have Sex! Don't Have Sex!" unless you are married.
It's silly.
If an idea is presented in such a way to teens, well.... curiosity and all that....
Also, there is no real concrete data that abstinence-only models in schools have prevented teen premarital sex. If the teen birth rate is down, it's largely due to more teens using birth control, not refraining from sex.
There are statistics to support this thesis.
Of course Dumbya and his buddies will disavow any of this.
Abstinence programs are great, but only when taught with more medically accurate information.
I could go on and on here, but I won't.
|
bunnicula
|
posted on July 30, 2001 11:24:16 PM new
Of course, once the genie is out of the bottle it is mighty difficult to get it back in again. But...
it wasn't all *that* long ago that that teens *weren't* mating like rabbits the minute they *hit* their teen years. And there wasn't a loud, vocal campaign to "just say no."
Something has changed radically in our society in the last 30-odd years. Yes, of course, there were teens having sex--but nowhere near in the numbers of today. And, yes, some girls got pregnant--but nowhere near the numbers of today. When I was in high school sex was not a prime focus...kids made out, sure, but it wasn't automatically assumed that sex would be forthcoming. I can't think of a single girl in my class who became pregnant--and that's something kids are going to talk about if it happens.
What has changed is society's attitude--it is accepted, permitted & condoned that teens should have sex.
People tend to rewrite history to suit themselves--because we allow teens to act this way today it follows that it has always been this way...not. What is done by the majority today was done by a small minority in the past--because there were severe social consequences for doing so.
|
