And if you think about it, it is not so far fetched. Commonly in situations where risk is mitigated by some factor, people will often counteract this by acting in more risky ways. Because they feel safer their tolerance of risk increases. This is seen everywhere, not just in the AIDS epidemic.
Looking at the data on what is going on in Africa, multiple sexual partners is a huge factor in the spread of AIDS. Some people limit the number of sexual partners they have for fear of catching AIDS. Groups that advocate condoms promote them as a “safe” solution to sex. Therefore people feel more at ease engaging in risky or promiscuous sexual behaviour because they think that the condoms protect them. And overall the increase in promiscuity may not be mitigated by the using of condoms.
There is also another side to this, in that it appears what is happening is that people are not getting AIDS through one night stands or prostitutes, a lot of people are getting AIDS through sex with people they are in reasonably committed, but not exclusive relationships with. This, more than things like prostitution are contributors to the AIDS pandemic. Groups promoting condoms tend to focus their use in “risky” sexual encounters, but that is not really where the problem is. Condoms, given current sexual practices in heavily affected countries, need almost 100% usage rate to be effective. I don’t think that this is really realistic, especially given all of the issues of using condoms in committed relationships. It is easy to get a prostitute to accept that you want to wear a condom. It is much more difficult to convince your wife that you need to wear a condom, because if neither of you are sleeping around, then what’s the point.
The studies show that in many countries a focus on condoms does not work in reducing AIDS infection rates. Continuing what we know already to be ineffective is in a real sense making the problem worse because while we are doing useless things the problem continues. It also takes effort away from doing truly effective things like efforts to encourage monogamy. In that sense I think that the Pope is correct in saying that a continued focus on condoms makes the problem worse.
I think you are going to have to do better than that if your charge of the Pope spreading “misinformation” is going to stick.
I realize that it is a favorite theme of one or two posters that all of AIDS in Africa is the direct result of Catholic rules about contraception. Unfortunately, their position is mostly nonsense. There are a few bishops in Africa who have echoed the silly positions of Cardinal Trujillo in the Vatican regarding condoms and HIV, however, that is not generally the position of the people actually working in the countries described, who tend to be rather more realistic. Everyone attacking the church likes to to quote Trujillo’s idiotic claim that HIV will travel through tiny holes in condoms. The same sources appear to be pretty careful to avoid mentioning the remarks of Cardinal Barragán that a woman whose husband has contracted HIV should protect herself by using a condom or the remarks of Cardinals Daneels and Murphy-O’Connor that characterize condom use as a moral obligation or note that when the president of Uganda claimed that condoms had only a minor effect in reducing the HIV rates in his country, it was the Catholic Agency for Overseas Development that contradicted him, pointing out that condom use was an important part of the program.
Beyond that, of course, there is the “minor” problem with the scenario that few countries in Africa have a substantial Catholic population. The numbers vary widely from Zambia (supporting Catholic bashing position with a 16.5% HIV rate and a 62.5% Catholic population) to Sao Tome & Principe which has only a 1.5% (possibly underreported) HIV rate for a 70.3% Catholic population. Benin and Mali each have a 1.9% HIV prevalence, but Benin is over 27% Catholic and Mali is only 1% Christian, including all denominations. Uganda has a 4.1% HIV rate with almost 42% of the population Catholic while Burkina Faso has a 4.2% HIV rate while only 10% of the population is Catholic. The two hardest hit countries by HIV are Zwaziland (38.8%) and Botswana, (37.3%), yet Swaziland is only 20% Catholic and Botswana 5%. There is simply no correlation between the prevalence of Catholics and the prevalence of HIV, so the idea that Catholic prohibitions on condoms is a major source of HIV infections in Africa is nothing but projected prejudices unsupported by facts.
Then there is the matter of how closely any Cathoics, in or out of Africa, actually follow the dictates of Rome. There is no secret to the fact that a majority of American Catholics, (and large pluralities or majorities of Catholics in other countries), disagree with the Vatican stance on birth control and routinely reject it. How likely is it that Africans are more dutifully following church teachings on condoms when the church has failed in Africa to curb polygyny or the practice of waiting until a couple has produced a healthy child before they marry?
One may, of course, continue to condemn the position of the church, but it would be nice if posters, here, would stop propagating the baseless rumors that were started around the time of John Paul II’s death that the church has successfully spread AIDS across the face of Africa.
This is supposed to be The Straight Dope message board, not The What Lurid, Fact Free Nonsense Can I Use To Promote My Prejudices? message board.
As well I wanted to add that I am not Catholic, and all things considered I think that condoms are useful tool in limiting the spread of AIDS. I am concerned however that promoting condom use, while failing to address the sexual attitudes of Africans that are leading to the AIDS pandemic will simply not work. What has been shown to work is promoting monogamy. I am not saying we should not give out condoms, but that it is too simplistic to say that condoms are the answer.
You mean the same way She does with murder, lying, theft, rape, etc.?
(my numbers)
They help a lot because a series of experts say that condoms are not a primary part of the solution for AIDS in Africa. The Pope said pretty much the same saying that condoms will not (and have not, by the way) solved the problem in Africa.
How many more condoms are needed?
Since I didn’t say sex isn’t a basic natural drive maybe you’re answering someone else’s post. I’ll repeat my actual questions and not the ones you wanted me to have asked: Are all basic natural drives morally neutral?
Can you give me examples of what you consider basic natural drives?
It’s not icky, it’s sinful. your ignorance as to the actual position of the RCC regarding sex is showing.
Of course. In medical / scientific issues let’s take the words of medics and scientists, like those whose papers I linked. “Elderly virgin”, you must feel so cool by saying it “look, I’m so edgy, i called the pope an elderly virgin”. You can put that on a t-shirt if it makes you feel even cooler.
shrug We disagree. We’ve both given cites the other found unconvincing, and I’m satisfied with leaving it there. I don’t see how I can answer your question as I disagree with the underlying premises.
Sex is a natural drive. Many, perhaps most things humans do involve moral decisions, and I can’t tell you how bored I am at the prospect of this discussion going much further. Sex is only sinful if you subscribe to church dogma, but I’ve known more than a few Catholics who also thought it was icky.
Again, we’ve both given cites already. As to the rest… You have me confused with someone who values your opinion. Pit me if you’d like - it’ll be my first.
In cases where AIDS is being spread through particular risky activities, like having sex with prostitutes, then I think condoms can have a significant impact. That is not really what is happening in Africa though. There AIDS is being spread mostly through everyday sexual activity, and therefore I don’t think condoms will ever be used enough to really combat the problem on their own.
When has this ever been shown to work?
[/QUOTE]
If you actually read the cites that Ají de Gallina provided, the “zero grazing” campaign in Uganda, a community based program based around advocating monogamy, is widely credited as being a major factor in Uganda’s low AIDS infection rate. The main question of course is how to translate this success in Uganda to other countries. Still it is simply wrong to assert that monogamy based programs cannot work or have never worked.
With your first point, looking back through the thread the only cite that I can see you producing is that Guardian article that is big on anti-Catholic rhetoric, but small on any concrete facts. Particularly it only has one or two sentences about what is going on in Africa. This is in comparison with Ají de Gallina named experts and studies, is woefully inadequate. Do you have any data that shows that condom distribution in Africa really is making a difference to AIDS infection rates, or is it just “common knowledge” that this should be the case.
Possibly, if it encourages people to act in a sexually safer way. The guy who sleeping with condoms is still at a greater risk than one that does not because he is worried about getting AIDS. It is not a zero sum game in the sense that promoting condoms also has effects on people’s behaviour that can lead to increased AIDS infection rates.
I hate to break it to you, but Africa is not a shining beacon of democracy. What country in Africa does live up to your ideals of a free state?
Besides there is no suggestion that the “zero grazing” campaign was only successful because of governmental tyranny. People in Africa don’t want to get AIDS. I think the campaign worked because when faced with the choice of having lots of sex or staying safe from AIDS, many chose to stay safe from AIDS. As I said before condoms do have practical problems in many of these situations.
Do you have any evidence that rank terrorism was a central part of this campaign?
Again… sorry, but we just disagree. I’ve read those links, re-read #4 in particular. UN AIDS Prevention Unit guy disagrees with Harvard guy, and explains a number of factors which seem to add up to “it’s not as simple as that”. The biologist later on in the piece agrees with the Harvard study, but still says she wishes the church would change it’s ban on condoms.
Since I haven’t done that maybe you’re refering to someone else.
Unless by equating you mean something else, like saying that in the US theft and genocide are equal because both get you in the slammer.
I think we can call it quits and get some hot dogs or ribs.