Do they answer to ANYONE? [Archive] - Straight Dope Message Board

View Full Version : Do they answer to ANYONE?

Satan

10-12-1999, 10:09 AM

Okay, so I got one of those infamous Chick tracts in the office a while ago. This one, called The Crazy Guy, tells the story of a virginal girl who gets a date with a stud who proceeds to inflict her with gonorrheah AND the AIDS virus the first time she has sex, while using a condom.

Now then, the tract goes on to have the doctor make a couple of statements that fly in the face of conventional wisdom, which is even more offensive than his flat "You're dying and there's no cure." revelation:

(a) "Susan, there's a horrible lie being pushed today. Experts are claiming that you can have "safe sex" if you use a condom. But the truth is, the AIDS virus is so small, it can pass right through a doctor's surgical gloves." *

(b) "Researchers have found holes in surgical gloves big enough to allow 10 AIDS viruses to pass through them side by side."

(c) "And most condoms are made of the same latex rubber!"

(d) "At a recent meeting of 800sexologists, not a single one said they would trust a condom... to protect them if they had sex with a known HIV infected person" *

(e) When Susan claims it's horrible since at school they are passing condoms out like candy, the doctor somberly concludes, "Yes, Susan, and I believe millions of young people like you will die because of this!"

So... Millions of young people will die BECAUSE of condoms?!?

The passages above marked with an asterisk (*) are actually cited in the strip - from the Focus On The Family Newsletter, 2/13/92, Pg. 2. Needless to say, I also doubt this as a serious reference for impartial scientific knowledge.

Anyway, the questions I have from this are as follows:

(1) This shit can't be true. Okay, that isn't a question, and if this were Jeopardy I would have been scolded by Alex Trebec. So, let me rephrase - SOMEONE please tell me this shit isn't true?

(2) Does Chick Publications have any obligation to print the truth, especially when it goes against scientific principals and could endanger lives? I realize that the message here is "don't have sex," but it could easily be interpreted as "don't need condoms."

(3) Can Chick Publications (or any similar company printing lies as facts) be held accountable for this should their disinformation harm someone?

For the record, the story has a nice happy ending - the doctor converts her to Jesus Christ so she won't go to "that dark, horrible, unspeakable place." What a caring physician!

NOTE: I think this belongs under GQ because I ask three General Questions here. The fact it is about religion is only an example - all the questions can easily be applied to less "hot button" topics.

------------------
Yer pal,
Satan

RealityChuck

10-12-1999, 10:24 AM

You expect Jack Chick to stick to the truth? He's dealing the TRUTH, so the mere truth is never a concern.

Anyone can publish whatever lies they want. If they're libelous, the publisher can be sued. If someone gets hurt by the information, they can also sue the publisher/author.

Missy2U

10-12-1999, 10:26 AM

Satan:

I can't answer 1 and I can't answer 3 for sure (and I'm really battin 1000 here ain't I?) but, as to number 2, I would think it would fall under "freedom of speech".

Now, should printing these lies harm anyone, I would THINK, based on successful lawsuits against tabloids in the recent future, yes, they could be held accountable.

And that concludes my idiotic input for the day. I'll go away now.

Missy...experiencing a Monday, the Sequel...

Bluepony

10-12-1999, 10:26 AM

I suppose you have a question of civil liability. I've read some Chick comics and I am still in utter amazement on how much more idiotic they can become.

It would be in the same way that the beef industry sued Oprah for her remarks. They didn't get their judgement against Oprah. I always thought poetic justice would be Oprah getting stampeded to death by a thousand head of longhorn.

I guess the Trojan company could take Chick and his pinheads to court on a civil suit and bring out scientific evidence of condom use being an important factor in bringing down the STD rate. Realistically, the pharmacutical companies probably wouldn't even dignify a response to this maniac. That would be my response since I believe there are more educated people in this country than there are pinheads that actually believe in that trash that Chick prints out.

------------------
"...send lawyers, guns, and money..."

Warren Zevon

Missy2U

10-12-1999, 10:27 AM

Oh Good GOD! Recent FUTURE????

Recent Past.

I need a drink....

kellibelli

10-12-1999, 10:28 AM

If AIDS can pass through the doctors gloves...wouldnt it stand to reason the doctors would be aware of this, then by extension of that awareness refuse to treat the infected?

Doctors in emergency medicine routinely come in contact with the blood of the infected...and I havent seen any news reports about them going to the dark unspeakable place!

Gees...and people think porn is the worst thing the kids can find on the bet...

Polycarp

10-12-1999, 10:55 AM

Missy...that's what comes of watching "Early Edition." ;)

10-12-1999, 11:15 AM

I think this comes under the same reason why Britain's royal family never sues: it would simply draw attention to the original source.

Only the incredibly stupid and/or complete religious fanatics take Chick seriously, everyone else laughs their heads off or shudders in horror. But I think I'd be safe in saying that 99% of the world's population has never even heard of Chick. So if Trojan sued them, they'd just be handing over a huge lot of free publicity--I think that's why no one bothers suing them.

Sake Samurai

10-12-1999, 11:35 AM

1. It's not true as far I know. The HIV virus is kind of big and can not fit through the latex molecules of condoms (at least 99.something percent of the time). They are certainly spreading misinformation which brings us to

2. They, like most religious groups, have absolutly NO obligation to teach the truth. Just look at Kansas and their blatant dismissal of the scientific FACT of evolution.

3. If someone could prove that their specific misinformation harmed someone I think they would be held liable. You're right that their message could be interpreted as "Hey kids, don't accept those crazy free condoms (one of the few GREAT social programs high schools & colleges engage in - saved me a ton of money.) and have hours of crazy, experimental latex-free sex. Just say NO. . .to condoms!" But I don't know, If a guy's parents tried to sue them because junior got the HIV virus from having hot gay sex with the star of the chess team, I really don't think a judge would hold Chick Publications responsible.

Sake Samurai

10-12-1999, 11:35 AM

Sake Samurai

10-12-1999, 11:38 AM

Bill Gates made me do that.

Cardinal

10-12-1999, 11:45 AM

Ahhh... Jack Chick.

Ever have someone you couldn't get to quit claiming he was a member of your club?

Jack is famous for believing everything. He's a great example of a pet peeve of mine, Christians who would rather believe something that they think might support their larger point, regardless of its veracity. "Frozen mammoths show a world-wide flood and freeze." "The AIDS virus is not stopped by latex." And shame on Dr. Dobson for propagating that one.

FYI, in case anyone has not heard the rebuttal to that one, yes, the virus is very small, like all viruses, but it's more or less trapped in the fluids, which can't fit in the pores of the latex. So it pretty much doesn't migrate.

I'm against promiscuity, and I don't have to stoop to bad science to do it. Argghhh... bad science.

It seems to me that IIRC, libel involves proving that the person publicized untrue things, *knowing they were false.* Hence, many flatly untrue things, like a whole bunch of what Jack says, and what MS says about competitors, etc, never get prosecuted, because they say things that are true in themselves, but fail to really prove the point they were implying that they were making, or it's very hard to prove they were doing out of malice.

Sofa King

10-12-1999, 11:51 AM

It was noted in the late 80s/early 90s that lambskin condoms do in fact have microscopic openings that could potentially allow passage of the HIV virus.

But that's not latex, and who really wants to knock boots with a dead sheep on your nob, anyway?

Polycarp

10-12-1999, 01:05 PM

Greg, orangecakes' homepage has one typo in it...it's actually at http://www.homestead.com/abbie4ever/index1.html -- she didn't really have a html page showing her "insex." I don't think!

beefymeg

10-12-1999, 01:16 PM

Rewind - WHERE WAS THE MEETING OF THE 800 SEXOLOGISTS? And is that an annual thing???

------------------
Sucks to your assmar.

beefymeg

10-12-1999, 01:19 PM

Seriously, I just read (oh, but I can't remember where! Damn. I do remember thinking it was a reliable source) that the chances of getting HIV from having unprotected sex once with an HIV+ partner, were like only 1 in 100. So WITH a properly-used condom you would think it would be nearly impossible.

------------------
Sucks to your assmar.

10-12-1999, 01:30 PM

Satan, wouldn't it be possible to wear a skin condom underneath/inside a latex condom, one for comfort/contraception, the other for maximum protection? Of course, if you're in a monogamous relationship, the protection hardly matters

kellibelli

10-12-1999, 01:54 PM

Oh yeah Dif...two layers of condoms...now there is a pleasurable experience!

Satan, my bro& sis-in-law have to use the sheepy ones too...she is DEATHLY allergic to latex.....BUT I have been told that the sheep ones dont have any stretch to them...how can that be comfortable? You would have to be EXACTLY the same size as the condom. Give us more info. Dont they fall off & stuff?

Curiously yours,
Kelli

Bluepony

10-12-1999, 02:05 PM

...of course, if all else fails, there's always the thumb of your old softball mitt.

------------------
"...send lawyers, guns, and money..."

Warren Zevon

kellibelli

10-12-1999, 02:31 PM

Y'know...there just HAS to be a condom history website somewhere...if there is a history of the tampon museum...there has to be a condom one too!

(going to search for site now..)

lvick

10-12-1999, 02:32 PM

Well Kelli, I can't give you specifics, but I'm in agreement with the dark lord, I've used both and the lambskin are much superior in terms of pleasure, not just for me, but my girlfriend at the time agreed.

As far as the OP goes I believe unca cece did it awhile back, but can add a couple of thoughts. First, latex gloves are the same material as condoms, but not the process or thickness etc. They are also designed to protect the pt not the surgeon, in high risk situations people often double glove, and change them during procedures.

As far as Jack chick goes, he knows, or the lawyers he works with know that nothing in your post is strickly inaccurate just the conclusions are grossly distorted, the doctor only says he "believes" millions will die, and they know that suing will only bring publicity, plus they have nothing to lose as they're target audience is people who disregard evidence that doesn't support the conclusions they want,
larry

JillGat

10-12-1999, 02:40 PM

Regarding holes in condoms (aren't we past this yet??)
http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/prevention/ask/2098.3e9c.html
http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/topics/condoms/2098.441c.html
http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/topics/basics/2098.3e78.html
[urlhttp://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/prevention/ask/2098.3dd4.html[/url]
http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/topics/condoms/2098.32ca.html

If anyone still believes it, they're on their own. I personally don't think you should wear helmets or seatbelts either, because, you know, they aren't 100% safe.

JillGat

10-12-1999, 02:42 PM

http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/prevention/ask/2098.3dd4.html
(the one I messed up. just like using condoms though, it was human failure, not the technology)

Satan

10-12-1999, 04:01 PM

kellibelli:

Q) What did the salesclerk in the condom store ask his customer?

A) "Would you like to see something in a condom?"

Now then, to answer your question, you are correct in your assumption about the elasticity of latex being greater than that of lambskin. But I think that is a reason that I loathe latex so - I feel like I am squeezed into a balloon. Maybe I could try Magnums, but just buying those reeks of arrogence!

But the main thing is that a lambskin is an actual membrane, i.e. real skin. The feeling is thus more of a natural skin-on-skin feel than even the thinnest latex can provide. In addition, lambskins are far more receptive to staying moist, whereas after a short time - say 20 minutes - of friction, a latex condom dries out. A lambskin remains wet and does a better job of "soaking up" the moisture the woman produces.

Any more details on the subject and I fear C#3 will get on my case for flirting, but suffice it to say the thought of two condoms makes me want to cry.

BoBettie

10-12-1999, 05:32 PM

I'm sorry to interject this, but I must. My ex-husband was completely thrilled because one day while shopping with a friend, I stopped and picked up some condoms- the extra big ones. Now, he wasn't exactly huge, but smaller ones were too tight and...caused....well, problems. Anyway, he was just strutting around like a peacock for weeks after that..

RE: OP, Jack Chick is a complete idiot- his comics scare me- even the drawings are bizarre. Lets hope most people know he's nuts and disregard his garbage..

------------------
Some mornings it just doesn't seem worth it to gnaw through the leather straps.
http://www.angelfire.com/ny3/zettecity/index.html

Alphagene

10-12-1999, 07:40 PM

a lambskin is an actual membrane, i.e. real skin

Actually they are made of intestine. That's a natural skin-on-sheep-entrails sensation. :)

Anyone ever give polyurethane a shot? Protects you from disease while it weatherproofs your dipstick.

------------------
"The world ends when I die. And as far as I'm concerned, the rest of the universe might as well call it a day too." -- Matt Groening

voguevixen

10-12-1999, 10:17 PM

My pal Satan -- I'm reminded of an old Dennis Miller bit where he boldly stated that he wore two condoms at all times, until it was time to have sex, that is, when he would rip one off and feel free as a bird!

Satan

10-13-1999, 12:04 AM

Actually, Sofa King, I use lambskins exclusively. Simply put, I feel like I am fucking a balloon with even the thinnest, most lubed latex jobs and - to put it simply - climax is impossible.

There are also folks allergic to latex who have to rely on membranes as well.

I am tested and not really the promiscuous type, so since my main concern is pregnancy, I'm okay with it. But I know and understand the ramifications of my choice, and not from reading a Chick tract.

Alphagene

10-13-1999, 12:16 AM

Ramifications? :D

GregAtlanta

10-13-1999, 12:25 AM

A, B, and C are essentially true, but misleading.
Studies have shown that some latex gloves and condoms have holes large enough for the virus to pass, but that doesn't mean all condoms and gloves, and it doesn't mean that the risk is significantly increased for any one user. And other studies have refuted those initial findings anyway.
I wrote about this issue quite a bit when I specialized in AIDS reporting in the late '80s, and I remember that these studies did exist and that people immediately used them to their advantage. It's a classic case of citing the bare facts (i.e. a study said this) and implying much more meaning than is reasonable. That's a very useful tool for an outfit like Chick.
As for D and E, I don't know. D sounds plausible, and E is just some comic book character spouting off an opinion.
Thanks to our constitution, you're allowed to say anything like this you want, no matter how inflammatory. And on the flip side, plenty of organizations are free to insist that you can safely fuck your brains out with anybody on the planet as long as you use a condom. They're wrong, too.
-- Greg, Atlanta

10-13-1999, 12:26 AM

CONDOMS KILL VIRGINS! :D I think any lawsuits would fail because Chick would just say this was to state the message that you shouldn't have sex until marriage.Sortof an exagerration to prove a point. I had sex with my former husband 8 times while he had AIDS.I am healthy.no,no condoms,we were trying for pregnancy. Obviously,it worked.(see my homepage). Wouldn't Stan's child be cute? Theres already a movie about it Satan's Child!

------------------
"Do I Look like an idiot?"-Ronald Reagan.

GregAtlanta

10-13-1999, 12:43 AM

Temujin

10-13-1999, 03:32 AM

I think it's hilarious that a discussion about Chick publications has evolved into a discussion about condoms.

Getting back to the OP, for what it's worth, Chick also attacks Christian beliefs.

At least, that's the perspective of this website: http://net2.netacc.net/~mafg/jtchick/jtc02.html

DougC

10-13-1999, 05:01 AM

- - - A few months back a customer was coming into the store where I work and laying tracts all over the place. Now and then these were from a nearby church, but most of the time they were 'generic' tracts not particular to anywhere. One (very smart but rather odd) co-worker got the idea of using his computer and graphics setup to, uh, change the message somewhat, while leaving the familiar pictures (and the originating addresses!) untouched. That fellow got a technical degree and moved on to bigger and better things, but I have considered continuing the cause - I already have 3 different tracts and I can currently change text in a snap - but no more tracts have been left in quite some time. We guess that whoever was leaving them found one of the "counterfeit" tracts. - MC
-
-
- Excerpt:"What do you have to be thankful for? You're ugly, you're poor and you're probably going to get some horrible disease, if you haven't already. God hates you. Get into Sin - Sin Rocks!"

10-13-1999, 08:37 AM

GregAtlanta, Yes.I knew my former husband had AIDS.Yes,no one should ever try this. I don't know where my mind was;we wanted a child. Yes,we beat the odds. I don't know exactly what the odds were.?

------------------
"Do I Look like an idiot?"-Ronald Reagan.

10-15-1999, 11:40 PM

Orangecakes:
Your home page link didn't work.
Surely you don't mean that you knowingly had unprotected sex with someone who has AIDS to try to get pregnant. You just didn't know he had HIV at the time, right?
I'm very happy for you if everything worked out fine, but let's not leave the impression that it would be fine to do that intentionally. One happy outcome doesn't change the statistical likelihood of a tragedy.
-- Greg, Atlanta

Greg, actually with the current anti-HIV drugs available today, this is not as unthinkable as it sounds. Many patients with long-standing infections have no detectable viral particles in their blood, and are unlikely to transmit their infction. For many reasons (unknown effects of drugs on sperm quantitiy & quality, potential to spread the virus to an uninfected partner and the baby, and the very real possibility that the HIV-infected will not always be there), this should be attempted with close medical follow-up. But in the 20-40 year old population who carry much of the HIV burden in this country, once the acute threat to survival seems under control, the urge to procreate and be "normal" is very strong.

Not all doctors agree with this and this is not appropriate for all couples; if you are considering this, talk to your doctor...

------------------
Sue from El Paso
members.aol.com/majormd/index.html (http://members.aol.com/majormd/index.html)

SterlingNorth

10-16-1999, 06:49 PM

Not to be a pinkydink, but the website said that Jack Chick attacks Catholicism.

It's par for course for many extremist Christian (Protestant, Baptist, etc.) groups to attack Catholics.