Abstinence

[meenu]

I would like to clarify before I even begin writing that by no means I am a Bush/Republican supporter. I hate him on many aspects (Iraq, Health Care, Social Security.....) but I fail to understand why his "abstinence-only" programs are often blamed as the cause of rising HIV infections in the country. Lets face it, abstinence remains the ONLY 100% guranteed way of preventing HIV infection. Every other activity has some degree of risk involved and that is what the message is in these programs. These programs DO say using condoms "reduces" the risk of getting HIV which for all practical purposes is TRUE but is also NOT a guranteed way of preventing infection as many people have learnt the hard way. They may break and what not.

The fact that HIV infection rates are climbing can not be solely blamed on these programs. I think it is a direct result of human nature of wanting to have sex at any opportunity more than anything else and lets face it unprotected sex is WAY more enjoyable than the protected version. These programs tend to address this by seeking abstinence. More than 25 years into this epidemic, people ALL OVER THE WORLD are still getting infected even in countries where "sex-education" is more pronounced; in spite of information everywhere about how HIV is/is not transmitted. Except for the innocent child who gets it from the infected mom or the unforunate health care worker, every other infection was preventable and yet the person chose to take risks. To blame this fallacy of human nature on "abstinence-only" programs I guess is not fair.

Another issue on which the Bush administration gets a lot of flak on is the way it treats HIV-positive foreigners in their immigration policy. Although it is shameful, it should be noted that the current policy was made into a law under Bill Clinton's presidency.

These are just my thoughts and I could be wrong and if I am, I would like to know where. I hope this is the appropriate forum to post given that I am not HIV-positive.

thanks,
Meenu

PS: I have read a lot of posts by Tim Horn lately and I must say that I really admire his knowledge. If possible, can Tim provide his views on this?

[Dachshund]

I see you wandered over from Am I infected. Why didn't abstinence only work for you?

[meenu]

I see you wandered over from Am I infected. Why didn't abstinence only work for you?

When I talked about human nature about sex, I certainly did not exclude myself from the mass. I did make a bad choice maybe because of the same impulse i am talking about. When i was growing up, there was virtually no sex education, atleast there is something now. Even with my example, it just shows that HIV infection (or exposure with thankfully no infection as in my case) is just a result of human nature no matter what sort of education is out there abstinence-only or otherwise.

[Dachshund]

I did make a bad choice maybe because of the same impulse i am talking about.

...and that my friend is why abstinence only programs don't work. I would suggest you do your own research comparing rates of infection in countries that don't have an abstinence only policy to the United States. Countries that promote needle exchange, etc. I'm going to bow out of this discussion, because I know where it is leading and it's too early for me to get cranky.

[pozattitude]

...and that my friend is why abstinence only programs don't work.

THANK YOU....can I have an AMEN!!!!

until this country can talk about sex and be HONEST about it, we are not going to see any decline on new infection rates.

[Mouse]

From my direct experience in health classes in highschool in the past couple years, I can honestly say the health education students are given is shit. It's utterly disturbing. If you guys knew half of the misinformation that was spread in health classrooms you'd probably all have a heart attack.

I remember in 10th grade health 2 years ago, being taught that a condom isn't effective against HIV because the virus can slip through it. I swear to god. Imagine how that must sound to a bunch of horny teenagers. "Oh well. I might as well not use one then. It won't make a difference."

They barely stressed anything other than pregnancy and HIV the entire time. And I had to take two health classes because when I went from 9th grade to 10th grade they switched health class from freshmen to sophomores that same year, so I took it twice. My teacher was also the gym teacher, and he was just a mess. He knew nothing. The amount of times I corrected him on information was just embarrassing.

The entire time we were just told, "Well, you can use a condom... I guess... BUT REALLY. JUST DON'T HAVE SEX AT ALL." Which is just unrealistic. We're talking about 14 to 18 year old kids here. Wtf? And everyone in the class, I remember, was convinced that you can always trace HIV back to gays. As in: Oh? A woman has it? Her boyfriend must have slept with another guy.

[jack]

If you really wanted to end HIV you should round up all the HIV positive people and ship us off to spend our last days on Maui or the Big Island. If a policy like this had been instituted back in early 90s imagine all the people who have HIV now who would not have it. Since we won't abstain and won't wear rubbers I see no other solution but the perfect solution.
 Abstinence doesnt work for the same reason rubbers haven't prevented the spread of HIV.
Lack of individual responsibility.

[Matty the Damned]

If you really wanted to end HIV you should round up all the HIV positive people and ship us off to spend our last days on Maui or the Big Island. If a policy like this had been instituted back in early 90s imagine all the people who have HIV now who would not have it. Since we won't abstain and won't wear rubbers I see no other solution but the perfect solution.
 Abstinence doesnt work for the same reason rubbers haven't prevented the spread of HIV.
Lack of individual responsibility.

I'd pay to have you shipped off to Easter Island, old man.

MtD

[keyite]

That all seems a bit bleeding-heart liberal, Jack. How about gassing or shooting the lot of us? You know, a bit like during WWII?

 

[pozattitude]

If you really wanted to end HIV you should round up all the HIV positive people and ship us off to spend our last days on Maui or the Big Island.

I really hope you were trying to be sarcastic here, which by the way didn't work.  Otherwise I think you should ship yourself to Antarctica or some other completely isolated part or the world where you won't have any contact with the human race.

[Dachshund]

Lack of individual responsibility.

You knew the risks when you became infected. Where exactly was your individual responsibility? It's very easy to moralize after the fact and I'm glad you continue to point out endlessly to everyone on AidsMeds their lack of moral fiber.

[Matty the Damned]

Jakey does this all the time. It amuses him to say dumb things and watch people get upset. He has very little else in his life.

There's a term for it, but I can't remember what it is.

MtD

[komnaes]

..but I fail to understand why his "abstinence-only" programs are often blamed as the cause of rising HIV infections in the country.

Meenu, you forgot to mention that a lot of those abstinence programs are being placed to exclude the distribution of free condoms and education on their proper uses. I do see some benefits of including abstinence in the package, but NOT to the exclusion of others which are demonstratedly proven to be more effective, especially when the advocating of "personal responsibility" over all else is completely ideologically driven.

[Basquo]

If you really wanted to end HIV you should round up all the HIV positive people and ship us off to spend our last days on Maui or the Big Island. If a policy like this had been instituted back in early 90s imagine all the people who have HIV now who would not have it. Since we won't abstain and won't wear rubbers I see no other solution but the perfect solution.
 Abstinence doesnt work for the same reason rubbers haven't prevented the spread of HIV.
Lack of individual responsibility.

Jack this is the second thread in which you've suggested this in recent days; do you realize how much money that would cost?  How long it would take? How much of public funds it would take to get this pushed through the courts and the legislature?  How much it would take to sell the idea to the people of a free country and damage-control the backlash?  That's nowhere near perfect.

Now if you channeled all that time and money in a positive direction, instead of a negative direction, you might get the real perfect solution: a cure.  Or at least a vaccine.

Sorry your glass is always half-empty, but my solution is way more perfect than yours.

[leatherman]

Jack this is the second thread in which you've suggested this in recent days; do you realize how much money that would cost?  How long it would take? How much of public funds it would take to get this pushed through the courts and the legislature?  How much it would take to sell the idea to the people of a free country and damage-control the backlash?

What is scarey though is how possible Jack's "solution" could be. We Americans already interred Japenese-Americans when they were thought to just be possible war criminals. And I remember quite a bit being floated around about rounding up the HIVers in the late 80s. My own father, and several area churches, thought it was a great idea. (needless to say he wasn't one of the first people I disclosed to when I was poz in 92).

The thing you should consider is that while this idea may not be economical, logical or practical, if enough fear can be mongered**, the general populace can and will lose rights to (seemingly) protect their safety. (Consider those interment camps, along with the recent flap over the warrant-LESS wire-tapping in America.)

(**On a side note, I think we'll always have to deal with stigma and fear of HIV. It's a biological imperative to flee/avoid life-threatening situations and illnesses. As long as AIDS is killing people, people will be afraid of it and the people that carry it.)

As to the actual topic here of abstinence, my thoughts are that it should be one of things taught. It is the only 100% way to not get STDs, pregnant, or HIV. However, I also think that condom-usage should be taught too, because another biological imperative comes into play here as people are going to want to have sex regardless of the "fear factor". BOTH methods are correct. All options should be on the table when we're discussing how to protect the health and well-being of people. If there were more ways (besides abstinence or condoms) to prevent HIV I'd advocate those being taught too. 

I would suggest that to find the right message to teach, both ideas need to incorporated. Plus I would suggest that you also look to what teaching methods Planned-Parenthood, etc. use. Obviously they've had as hard a time getting the right message out as teen-agers are still getting pregnant. Every one of those pregnancies could have been an STD or HIV infection, since all involve unprotected sex.

[komnaes]

Guys and gals, if we go on Jack will be deemed successful in hiJACKing yet another thread.. sometimes I wonder if he's actually Ann Coulter..

[Basquo]

Sorry for taking the bait on a hijack, but in both threads people have talked about what works and doesn't, and none of the solutions offered included: a cure. 

[AIDS2HIV]

Abstinence Only Until Marriage

Abstinence is the rotten core of the HIV apple in this day and age. To receive any kind of federal funding for HIV, you are required to stress "Abstinence Only - Until marriage" Usually that is where the message starts and ends, today we are going to look at the whole picture. And try to provide you with why this message fails, why this message is unrealistic.

   In the schools of the United States, the laws state that schools are not REQUIRED to teach sexual education, let alone HIV education. However, it goes on to say, that if a school does decide to teach these things it MUST stress this message as the ONLY sure way to prevent HIV. Unprotected sex is the number one cause of the spread of HIV. Right behind that in the number 2 spot are I.V. drug users. This class of people doesn’t get HIV from their sexual encounters, but there drug practices. So already we see that Abstinence don’t stop HIV for the second biggest risk group in the world. Everyday children are born with HIV. They too, aren’t covered under the Abstinence Only plan.

   All we get told is Abstinence Only - Until marriage, is the ONLY sure way to prevent the spread of HIV. But is it really? According to our World Leaders, simply refraining from having sex until you get married will prevent the spread of HIV. Enter the realm of "Sex on the 'down-low' " What is "sex on the down-low”? Sex on the down-low, is the fastest growing cause of HIV infection among heterosexual women. Sex on the "down-low" is when a married/committed man portrays his heterosexuality to everyone, EXCEPT his gay lover. That's right...The loyal, faithful wife who abstained from sex until marriage, gets infected with HIV because the man in her life secretly sneaks around, having sexual contact with other men. Here again, Abstinence Only doesn’t work.

   To make Abstinence Only work, one must not just refrain from having sex, they must refrain from EVERYTHING that could trigger it. Human Nature makes this task IMPOSSIBLE Asking anyone to teach their kids to control something that they actually have no form of control over, is UNREALISTIC If we had the ability to control our hormones, the women wouldn’t have the dreaded P.M.S. and our teens would grow up and not think for themselves, but instead they would do as we, the parents, say. 

   In today’s world, Sex is used to sell our products, promote our events, and even to start a celebrity or political scandal. Imagine if you will, that for one hour each day, we preached, taught, and drilled into our children, abstinence only. The other 23 hours are filled with Sex messages. It comes from all areas: TV, music, peers, etc. How does one even expect to argue that Abstinence-Only is affective, in a world such as the one we presently live in? In many countries, it is considered a highly regarded insult for a woman to ask a man to wear a simple condom. Imagine what it is like to tell them they have to abstain from having sex.

   The truth is Abstinence-Only Until Marriage only works for a very select few, as an affective way to prevent HIV. Even to those select few, HIV can be a threat. Abstinence is NOT safe sex, its NO SEX. Even the followers of the most published book, The Bible, know that even God's own creation, Eve, couldn’t resist temptation of sex. Perhaps we should abstain from Apples? Teaching anyone to abstain from sex is like trying to teach the body to not go to the bathroom.

   The solution is simple. As a society, worldwide, we must first admit to our fellow citizens that HIV is in fact, a threat to each of us. The second thing we, as a society, NEED to do is to remove ALL the personal politics from HIV. Without these 2 factors, all curriculum will fail when it comes to fighting the HIV virus.


copyright © 2007 Cochise Cooper


In addition our nation's capitol, Washington DC has highest prevelance of new HIV infections in the Nation. Did they call on their own programs trustworthiness to curb the spread? Hell No, they didnt, the TROJAN company donated 350,000 CONDOMS.....that speaks VOLUMES about their trust in their own program*

[thunter34]

Abstinence Only Until Marriage

Abstinence is the rotten core of the HIV apple in this day and age. To receive any kind of federal funding for HIV, you are required to stress "Abstinence Only - Until marriage"

   In the schools of the United States, the laws state that schools are not REQUIRED to teach sexual education, let alone HIV education. However, it goes on to say, that if a school does decide to teach these things it MUST stress this message as the ONLY sure way to prevent HIV. Unprotected sex is the number one cause of the spread of HIV. Right behind that in the number 2 spot are I.V. drug users. This class of people doesn’t get HIV from their sexual encounters, but there drug practices. So already we see that Abstinence don’t stop HIV for the second biggest risk group in the world.    

Oh, but we already have "Just Say No" in place to take care of them.   

I've been wanting to post for days:  Abstinence Only Until Marriage automatically shuts out people in relationships that, um...you know...aren't allowed to marry.   People like homosexuals, for example...who are known to be among the most at risk of becoming infected. 

And that little example works well to illustrate how the moralistic overtones of this program cast a shadow of further stigma about sexual behavior to kids across the board.  Anyone whose orientation or bahaviors don't gel with this limited and idealized standard is sort of cast in the light of "failing" or "not measuring up".  When people are placed in that position, I believe it further impairs crucial communication.  People just don't open up and come forth with their questions and concerns as easily.  They may not get critical answers they need because of the fear of bringing up topics that "good people don't talk about".