|
28 Apr 11 - 05:43 PM (#3144350) Subject: BS: Why Not...Condoms?? From: saulgoldie I hear so often in the news, and I see so often in movies, TV shows, and youtube posts about people having sex and being...surprized?? that a pregnancy or transmission of an STD results. Why, in this day and age do more people not use condoms??? It is not as if condoms are some kind of "state secret" and no one has ever heard of them. Relatively reliable condoms (used properly) have been around since at least the early 1900s. Use of condoms was even recommended by the government to (American) WWII soldiers to protect themselves from STDs, nevermind unwanted pregnancies. Are so many people living in caves? Do they possibly subconsciously want to create a pregnancy or acquire an STD? I honestly do not understand. Condoms cannot even be accused of "killing" a "baby." They PREVENT conception. All I can say is, "WTF??" Saul |
|
28 Apr 11 - 06:01 PM (#3144365) Subject: RE: BS: Why Not...Condoms?? From: Ed T I see no holes in this pro condom case.But, what's with all the pregnancy ads above this thread? Coincidence, or planned parenthood? |
|
28 Apr 11 - 06:02 PM (#3144367) Subject: RE: BS: Why Not...Condoms?? From: Ed T Oops, the pregnancy ads seem to have shot away? |
|
28 Apr 11 - 06:18 PM (#3144380) Subject: RE: BS: Why Not...Condoms?? From: saulgoldie The ads are outside of my control. I cannot explain them. Saul |
|
28 Apr 11 - 07:23 PM (#3144411) Subject: RE: BS: Why Not...Condoms?? From: jacqui.c Unfortunately there are some men who don't want to lose the full sensation of intercourse and so refuse to wear condoms, in spite of the risks. I know this from experience. Nowadays I think that it is really up to women to carry condoms and insist that any sexual partner wears one, or no sex. That would be the responsible path to take. With young people responsibility can so easily be overridden by physical urges (again, I'm talking from experience). IMHO there should be mandatory sex education in schools and easy access to condoms for youngsters. If they are going to be sexually active they will be, so make sure that they are prepared for that eventuality. |
|
28 Apr 11 - 07:30 PM (#3144414) Subject: RE: BS: Why Not...Condoms?? From: Richard Bridge Not long after my late wife died, now 8 years ago, my daughter gave me a little talk on the facts of life - "You know Dad, back in the 60s I've been told there was only the fear of pregnancy. STDs were limited to things penicillin could treat. Well, it's different now. There are symptomless (in men) STDs. There are incurable STDs. So even if you are nearly 60 and any women you sleep with are probably too old to get pregnant, wear a condom". Thanks, sprog, I said. And I meant it. |
|
28 Apr 11 - 07:38 PM (#3144418) Subject: RE: BS: Why Not...Condoms?? From: Ed T Consumer reports |
|
28 Apr 11 - 07:43 PM (#3144419) Subject: RE: BS: Why Not...Condoms?? From: gnu I would go a step further jac... in those classes, teach youth that true "sex" is not just about intercourse as the "ultimate" act of love or sexual gratification. Perhaps actually teach them that physical and mental and spiritual intimacy is not defined by same. Teach them that other "acts", far more toned down, so to speak, are far more intimate at least UNTIL married and that intercourse is for procreation when appropriate... that the "ultimate" sex is when one has dotted all the Is and crossed all the Ts. Although, of course, fucking is good fun eh. Kinda hard to tell a teenager not to do what feels good. Wish someone hadda told me. |
|
28 Apr 11 - 07:48 PM (#3144425) Subject: RE: BS: Why Not...Condoms?? From: Jim Carroll Perhaps somebody should have a quick word with the Pope Jim Carroll |
|
28 Apr 11 - 07:56 PM (#3144436) Subject: RE: BS: Why Not...Condoms?? From: GUEST,Alan Whittle 'Perhaps somebody should have a quick word with the Pope' Perhaps someone should pass on this cautionary tale:- http://www.bigalwhittle.co.uk/id27.html |
|
28 Apr 11 - 07:57 PM (#3144437) Subject: RE: BS: Why Not...Condoms?? From: DougR "I wish someone hadda told me." Would it really have made a difference, gnu? :>) DougR |
|
29 Apr 11 - 02:46 PM (#3144854) Subject: RE: BS: Why Not...Condoms?? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity DougR: "Would it really have made a difference, gnu? :>)" YES, and it matched my innermost feelings about it!.....I went with it...and it proved to be right! GfS |
|
29 Apr 11 - 02:49 PM (#3144855) Subject: RE: BS: Why Not...Condoms?? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Oh, I wasn't referring to condoms...I was referring to not being promiscuous!....then neither one of use are denied ANY sensation...Physical, mental, emotional or spiritual.....it's been a good ride..... GfS |
|
29 Apr 11 - 03:47 PM (#3144890) Subject: RE: BS: Why Not...Condoms?? From: frogprince I'm not sure of the exact implications of part of that post, GFS, though that's not unusual. But I understand you to say that you were true to your own feelings, and I would hope no one would want to belittle that. But, in terms of the actions of people in general, what is your definition of promiscuity? Any sex outside marriage? Sex without any serious bond of affection? or? |
|
29 Apr 11 - 04:13 PM (#3144905) Subject: RE: BS: Why Not...Condoms?? From: MGM·Lion Semantic Drift ~ just because such things interest me ~~ When & why, did VD suddenly turn into STD?? {which used innocently to mean Subscriber Trunk Dialling when direct dialling came in with the new 0+ phone #s about 30-40 years ago*} ~~ ~M~ *still does, indeed; e.g. "One area with a long STD code retains four-digit local numbers" - Wikipedia} |
|
29 Apr 11 - 04:19 PM (#3144912) Subject: RE: BS: Why Not...Condoms?? From: catspaw49 The first time I heard "STD" I thought they said "STP" and I wondered what the hell an oil additive had to do with fucking. Condoms are an subject that are time honored on the 'Cat.......go clicky here....... Spaw |
|
29 Apr 11 - 04:49 PM (#3144939) Subject: RE: BS: Why Not...Condoms?? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Froggers, People can do what ever they want...including short changing themselves and/or their partners. i tend to be loyal to myself,, and my partner...even for life......any animal, such as a dog or a cat, can roam from partner to partner...but I think it takes two, real lovers, to love each other through good and bad times, and keep on loving! As far as other people, they can just do what they want...but...I tend not to trust people who can't keep their word....but that's just me, I guess... GfS |
|
29 Apr 11 - 05:24 PM (#3144963) Subject: RE: BS: Why Not...Condoms?? From: Ed T Scotland attitudes Canada Norwegian youth lax with condoms October 6, 2010 Norwegian teenagers scored the worst in a new survey on condom use among young Europeans, and they seem to blame their lack of responsibility on alcohol. The new international survey indicates that nearly half of Norwegian boys aged 15 to 19 years had sex with a new partner without using a condom, reports newspaper Aftenposten. In Sweden, the number was 37 percent while the average in Europe was 36 percent. The survey, conducted by the Swedish sex education group RFSU, showed that Norwegian girls were more responsible, with around 40 percent having sex without using any protection. That compared to nearly 50 percent of Swedish girls. The Norwegians blamed alcohol, with 29 percent responding that they had been drinking before having sex and "forgot" to protect themselves. That compared to only 6 percent of Italian youth and 11 percent of French youth. A total of 5,250 youth took part in the survey, including 200 Norwegian teens. |
|
29 Apr 11 - 05:31 PM (#3144970) Subject: RE: BS: Why Not...Condoms?? From: Ed T Disclaimer: In the Canadian statistics, any similarity with any of Gnu's posts (or implied views) towards teenage sex (pro or con), are unintentional, "or somewhat", coincidental :) |
|
29 Apr 11 - 05:41 PM (#3144972) Subject: RE: BS: Why Not...Condoms?? From: Georgiansilver During my Child Care career I met a child who became pregnant through not wearing a condom.... because her mother had told her that having sex with a condom is like trying to eat a sweet with the wrapper still on it!!!!! The mother had a whole brood of children.. most of which was in the care of the local authority not surprisingly.... and so it perpetuates I guess! |
|
29 Apr 11 - 07:15 PM (#3145011) Subject: RE: BS: Why Not...Condoms?? From: jacqui.c Interesting point - maybe one partner has abstained from sex until they meet the 'right' partner. Problem is, if that partner has had even one other sexual relationship then the other person may be at risk for STDs because who knows how many partners that previous lover had, or how many lovers their previous partner had, and so it goes on. Now, some people may be able abstain until marriage but there are a lot of people out there who might long to be loved for what maybe the wrong reasons - bad homelife, no loving parents, whatever the reason. In order to keep what they see as loving attention it is possible that they might be coerced into a sexual relationship - the old 'if you loved me....'. Promiscuity is not always just because a person is sex mad, trust me. |
|
30 Apr 11 - 12:25 AM (#3145094) Subject: RE: BS: Why Not...Condoms?? From: MarkS If you want to abstain, be practical and abstain from marriage. Cheaper in the long run. OK - Grump mode off. Mark |
|
30 Apr 11 - 02:05 AM (#3145115) Subject: RE: BS: Why Not...Condoms?? From: Richard Bridge Oh dear me. I really thought that the "keep your hand on your ha'penny" brigade was extinct. |
|
30 Apr 11 - 04:49 AM (#3145160) Subject: RE: BS: Why Not...Condoms?? From: Georgiansilver Well of course when you consider that marriage is the cause of 100% of divorces!!! |
|
30 Apr 11 - 07:52 AM (#3145222) Subject: RE: BS: Why Not...Condoms?? From: Bonzo3legs The pope is a wanker!! I used Johnnies!!!! |
|
30 Apr 11 - 08:23 AM (#3145233) Subject: RE: BS: Why Not...Condoms?? From: GUEST,Eliza The most wicked thing the present Pope has said is that condoms do NOT protect against the HIV virus, and that it's still a sin to use them even if a husband is HIV positive and needs to protect his wife (or vice versa) I believe he maintained that the virus (and other STDs) passes across the rubber membrane through tiny holes, an idea totally unsubstantiated by scientific research. I think this monstrous distortion of fact was later retracted, but millions of Catholics throughout the world (especially in Africa, in which I'm particularly interested) must have accepted this ruling and risk their lives daily because of it. If the 'Rhythm Method' is acceptable, why not condoms, which are likewise contraceptive, and NOT abortive? |
|
30 Apr 11 - 09:16 AM (#3145257) Subject: RE: BS: Why Not...Condoms?? From: GUEST,Alan Whittle the condom-ed man ate a hearty meal..... |
|
30 Apr 11 - 10:46 AM (#3145302) Subject: RE: BS: Why Not...Condoms?? From: GUEST,Rapparee Back in my (Catholic) high school days we used steel piping with one end welded shut (BEFORE use). It cut down on sensation a bit, but it was 100% effective against everything -- including making a "home run" with the young lady. |
|
30 Apr 11 - 10:52 AM (#3145305) Subject: RE: BS: Why Not...Condoms?? From: frogprince So that's where the expression "laying pipe" came from! |
|
30 Apr 11 - 03:09 PM (#3145399) Subject: RE: BS: Why Not...Condoms?? From: MarkS "If the 'Rhythm Method' is acceptable, why not condoms, which are likewise contraceptive, and NOT abortive? " Because condoms make intercourse possible during periods in which the rhythm method mandates intercourse not take place. This means a couple might "enjoy" each other during a wider span of time. "Enjoy" is the operative word here. From St. Paul through several of the early church fathers, enjoyment of sex was thought to be giving in to your animalistic instincts, and harming you spiritually. So while the "rhythm method" grugingly allows the gate of hell to be open during a short period of time, condoms allow it to be open almost all the time. Gosh - we just cannot have that. Give people the ability to make their own choices? Encourage animal behavior? Herasy! Next thing you know people might use reason to think for themselves instead of relying on "us" to tell them how to live and what to believe. |
|
30 Apr 11 - 03:27 PM (#3145405) Subject: RE: BS: Why Not...Condoms?? From: GUEST,Eliza MarkS, sadly I believe all you say. But nowadays, people in the West do not use reason to think for themselves, and thus don't protect against unwanted pregnancy or disease. |
|
30 Apr 11 - 04:39 PM (#3145427) Subject: RE: BS: Why Not...Condoms?? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity jacqui.c: "Interesting point - maybe one partner has abstained from sex until they meet the 'right' partner." Why not???...Ya' might even end up with someone who's got their shit together!!!...instead of a bunch of bad guessing flakes! GfS |
|
30 Apr 11 - 04:39 PM (#3145428) Subject: RE: BS: Why Not...Condoms?? From: Rapparee Because, in the long run, the solution is too damned simple, that's why. |
|
30 Apr 11 - 07:17 PM (#3145495) Subject: RE: BS: Why Not...Condoms?? From: GUEST, Bad Bob Don't know what Rapparee means by that, but Sanity, sounds more right to me. |
|
30 Apr 11 - 08:51 PM (#3145525) Subject: RE: BS: Why Not...Condoms?? From: GUEST,Alan Whittle I suppose its a bit like smoking. The public has to be informed, educated and change its habits.. I think what has made the problem worse in this country has been the destruction of mining and manafacturing industries. A lot of these people that you see on the Jeremy Kyle show come from communities where there was never a tradition of working class kids being educated, They got well paid jobs, married early bought houses. fitted carpets. etc. Yhe teachers i knew told me that they were wasting their time with most kids past the age of forteen - they knew they could make more than their teachers down the pit. And the girls knew they would try and marry a miner. The habits and attitudes of the pre-Thatcher era are still with us, and to be fair to the people she did little to tell them their way of life had to change. Other than tell them to get on their bikes. The social repercussions of great changes in economic policyneed to be better thought out. Social planning perhaps. |
|
30 Apr 11 - 10:43 PM (#3145555) Subject: RE: BS: Why Not...Condoms?? From: Joe_F To put on a condom, the man has to be sexually aroused. It is well known that sexual arousal, especially among men, is a proximate occasion, if not of sin, then at any rate of foolishness. In that respect, the female condom (Reality, etc.) has a lot to be said for it. It can be installed in advance, lessening the nuisance & thus increasing the likelihood that it will be used. On top of that, it puts control in the hands of the partner who is at greater risk. |
|
01 May 11 - 01:27 AM (#3145605) Subject: RE: BS: Why Not...Condoms?? From: Joe Offer The Pope still opposes the use of condoms for birth control. I disagree with him on that, but not with his right to say it. For the first few years of his papacy, Benedict really didn't say much about condoms, except for a one-line reply to a question a reporter asked on an airplane. Then a few months ago, he did give a more lengthy statement, agreeing that condoms can be effective against AIDS. He said that there are situations of HIV risk where the use of a condom may be the appropriate choice. However, this was a reasoned statement that took up a few paragraphs, and didn't fit into a sound bite. As a result, nobody noticed that he said something that was a significant departure from what was said by his predecessors. No, it was not a blanket approval of condoms - but it was a reasonable compromise. -Joe- |
|
01 May 11 - 03:28 AM (#3145623) Subject: RE: BS: Why Not...Condoms?? From: GUEST,Eliza Thank you Joe for explaining the truth about the Pope's statement. It often happens, doesn't it, that a person is misquoted, or quoted out of context, and one gets a totally wrong impression. |
|
01 May 11 - 07:16 AM (#3145712) Subject: RE: BS: Why Not...Condoms?? From: jacqui.c GFS - read the whole of my post, don't just use a soundbite. You obviously did not get what I was saying - even a virgin can pick up an STD if their partner (male or female) has had a previous sexual partner who may not have been quite so careful about who they were having sex with. |
|
01 May 11 - 11:36 AM (#3145821) Subject: RE: BS: Why Not...Condoms?? From: Rapparee I meant that they are easily available and don't cost all that much. Back in the day, if you were going to the village outside the base you could pick up condoms from a bowl in the Orderly Room at the same time you picked up your pass to go into town. I understand that condoms were originally issued with the pass but that the chaplains objected -- after all, the troops would only want to go to town to attend church ice cream socials, right? I think the only answer is poison-tipped chastity belts for men. "If it gets stiff so do you!" Men, take responsibility for your actions! |
|
01 May 11 - 12:19 PM (#3145839) Subject: RE: BS: Why Not...Condoms?? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity jacqui.c: "GFS - read the whole of my post, don't just use a soundbite." jacqui.c,-read the whole of my post, don't just use a soundbite." By the way, I think a virgin, isn't a virgin, if they engage in just having sex, for the fuck of it! It's NOT just a matter of 'to fuck, or not to fuck'...but rather using the time during one's virginity, to develop at least SOME sense of 'intuition'!!!..Don't you think? So many whining people yak on, about 'how betrayed' they feel, when they finally find out the hard way, that their 'partner' has become 'unfaithful' to them.....but fail to take responsibility, for their own bullshit, that they reaped, from compromising their own values..whether it is marriage, or 'recreational(?) sex'.....or do you need to have the difference pointed out to you? GfS |
|
01 May 11 - 12:51 PM (#3145853) Subject: RE: BS: Why Not...Condoms?? From: saulgoldie MarkS, I think you nailed it. For whatever reason, there are many religious tenets against enjoying sex. So, if you are not supposed to enjoy it, then something that allows you to have sex relatively without physical consequences, must necessarily be "bad." Now, why religions continue to stick with that admonition and why so many followers follow it, is another whole issue. Interesting to note, though, that there is evidence that many people who are against contraception in principle (principal?) are more likely to get STDs or pregnant from unprotected sex. T'is the truth that "sex happens." And if we are at prepared for it, the outcomes will most likely be far less harsh. Honest education about and access to contraception are the cure. Saul |
|
01 May 11 - 01:01 PM (#3145867) Subject: RE: BS: Why Not...Condoms?? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Gosh, Saul..What if you have sex, enjoy sex, and it doesn't have to have 'bad consequences', and believe in God...all at the same time???? Gosh, you could even conceive a child, while ALL those things are at play, and raise him or her right....only to bump into someone, who says that it can't be done!!!!! Now, who of all those people, is having sexual troubles?????? Having sex does not preclude 'mandatory' problems and heartache. Irresponsibility does, though!...in any activity!! GfS |
|
01 May 11 - 04:33 PM (#3145984) Subject: RE: BS: Why Not...Condoms?? From: frogprince "What if you have sex, enjoy sex, and it doesn't have to have 'bad consequences', and believe in God...all at the same time???? Gosh, you could even conceive a child, while ALL those things are at play, and raise him or her right....only to bump into someone, who says that it can't be done!!!!!" Somewhere, sometime, you might meet someone in real life who would say "it can't be done", but you might be looking a long time to find that rare a fool. And if you think that that is typical of the avowed liberals here whom you caricature cluelessly on a regular basis, your imagination is way out of hand. "Irresponsibility does preclude 'mandatory'problems and heartache, though!" I know that's not what you meant, but it's a legitimate rearranging of what you wrote. It might help if you slowed down your rant enough to notice what you're actually saying. |
|
01 May 11 - 08:22 PM (#3146098) Subject: RE: BS: Why Not...Condoms?? From: GUEST,Alan Whittle Problems aren't mandatory - but with one in three marriages and probably as committed relationships failing - well you're really pretty stupid, if you can't see the odds ain't great for success. That's not counting all the relationships where they stay together, but its miserable as sin for everyone involved. If you've got a happy relationship - don't talk too loud and proud. As long as you're both above ground, the wheel is still in spin. Don't take anything you've got for granted - we're all from the same clay. Its so easy to end up in a room with the two of you swimming through a mass of home truths, and as TS Eliot remarked, humankind cannot bear very much reality. |
|
01 May 11 - 08:28 PM (#3146102) Subject: RE: BS: Why Not...Condoms?? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Froggie, I wasn't alluding to 'liberals' exclusively..but funny, YOU seemed to have made that connection! I don't imagine, people in bed,(or wherever) engaged in the throws of hot sex, stopping to discuss politics!..or how 'intelligent' one regards the other...."Oh baby, Your are S-O-O-O HOT, I like you for your intellect..by the way, what are you conclusions on Global Warming?"..???...But then, you never know about them there 'libbies'!!!...or..." Baby baby, give it to me, and I hope I'm...I'm going to...ahh, yes baby, I can't wait for an abortion" Maybe you folks say that, but then YOU might be one of the 'rare fools' of which you speak!!! But then, again, you might be really attracted to sexual spastics! wink! GfS |
|
01 May 11 - 08:42 PM (#3146109) Subject: RE: BS: Why Not...Condoms?? From: frogprince I got it! I got it! I got it!; the rambling, sometimes not entirely coherent, moralizing, and...wink!...wink!...wink!... GFS IS ACTUALLY SARAH PALIN!!! |
|
01 May 11 - 09:01 PM (#3146113) Subject: RE: BS: Why Not...Condoms?? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity What an ass. GfS |
|
01 May 11 - 09:35 PM (#3146123) Subject: RE: BS: Why Not...Condoms?? From: saulgoldie GfS, May I ask, can you construct an argument, support it with facts and reason, and not include unnecessary ad hominem comments? Can you do that? Do you think anyone will take you at all seriously if you do not? Just wondering... Saul |
|
17 May 11 - 08:27 AM (#3155652) Subject: RE: BS: Why Not...Condoms?? From: saulgoldie And Ahnold! http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20490341,00.html You mean to tell me that using a condom never occurred to him? WTF??!!! Saul |
|
17 May 11 - 08:52 AM (#3155664) Subject: RE: BS: Why Not...Condoms?? From: GUEST,Patsy I find it surprising that films and most soapoperas (although I try not to look at them) too have forgotten to mention any protection at all and it isn't just the younger generation even the more mature actors and actresses. They should set an example just to show that it isn't safe to be unprotected no-matter how old you are or create a storyline to emphasis this. |
|
17 May 11 - 12:14 PM (#3155768) Subject: RE: BS: Why Not...Condoms?? From: YorkshireYankee So far, no-one has mentioned what I think is the most common reason for girls/women not using/providing condoms, etc: If you are "prepared" (especially if it's only a first or second date), then it looks like you were "expecting" to have sex, which is a big no-no... Even today, it's not unusual for women to be concerned about looking "easy" or "slutty"; you may be afraid it will look like you're "too eager" if you have a condom easily to hand (so to speak). It also interferes with the fantasy (for both parties) of a "good girl" intending to "be a lady" but being overwhelmed by the irresistible charms of her young man -- powerful stuff (especially when you're young)! Note: I'm not saying I consider this a good thing -- just trying to respond to the OP's query, "Why?" |
|
17 May 11 - 01:19 PM (#3155800) Subject: RE: BS: Why Not...Condoms?? From: saulgoldie Aaaaahhhh. Thanks, Andy! Schwarzenegger: 'I Am the Sperminator' Former California Governor in Emotional Confession LOS ANGELES (The Borowitz Report) – Amid rumors that he fathered a child with a member of his household staff ten years ago, former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger made an emotional confession at a hastily called press conference today. "I am the Sperminator," Mr. Schwarzenegger told the room of stunned reporters. The former governor and film star said that he knew the child in question was his "after no one could understand a damn thing it was saying." He said that when he first learned he had fathered the child, he considered a variety of options to remedy the situation, including traveling back in time ten years and using a condom. According to Mr. Schwarzenegger, today's shocking revelation could end his political career, but he added, "On the plus side, I am now qualified to run the IMF." |
|
17 May 11 - 02:33 PM (#3155837) Subject: RE: BS: Why Not...Condoms?? From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie Sex without love is fun. Real good fun. Sex with love is the ultimate expereince. Full stop. So the debate re condoms is quite simple. Yes, many men go slightly flaccid when the condom is applied. I reckon this is psychological but dont mind putting it about that I am too big and they hurt...... No brainer all the same. A lifetime of problems just for one vinegar stroke is not worth thinking about although it is amazing how primeval instinct takes over at the time. Still, better than having an imaginary friend telling you fun is a sin. No wonder so many people are fucked up. Should be a law against God botherers interfering with your sense of enjoying yourself. |