rock_nog wrote:Kinda like how not driving is a lot safer than wearing a seatbelt. But you're not gonna demand that all seatbelts be removed from cars or anything to encourage people to walk.
Bad analogy. Seat belts stop you from flying out of the car, a common cause of death in accidents. One could argue that some deaths are caused by becoming entangled in seat belts, but that's nitpicking.
Let's make the easy comparison and see if it was a good analogy:
Seat belt: prevents death or severe injury in the most common accidents.
Condom: Prevents a few STDs and usually prevents pregnancy.
The Pill: Does nothing for STDs and rarely fails.
Morning-after: Does nothing for STDs and I have no idea on its failure rate.
Pulling out early: Does nothing for most STDs and can fail for various reasons
Celibacy: Pregnancy is impossible barring divine intervention or if you are in a Michael Crichton book; STDs are only possible via other bodily fluid contact.
Abstinence: Pregnancy happens when you expect it. STDs can spread slowly but hopefully we select away from infected individuals.
Seat belts make a decent analogy to condoms, but when we consider other means of birth control seat belts fall flat.
Well yes, but primarily, I'm referring to condoms, because they prevent the spread of STDs. And for the record, I was not "incensed" by your comparison of Beldaran to Dr. Breen. You were taking me way too seriously. Though I do fail to see what was wrong with Breen's basic message, that magical thinking is bad.
I guess the answer to whether magical thinking is bad or not depends on if you are David Blaine or something.
Still, your belief in condoms is troubling.
http://www.cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/latex.htm
The surest way to avoid transmission of sexually transmitted diseases is to abstain from sexual intercourse, or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with a partner who has been tested and you know is uninfected.
[...]
Epidemiologic studies that compare infection rates among condom users and nonusers provide evidence that latex condoms can protect against the transmission of chlamydia, gonorrhea and trichomoniasis. However, some other epidemiologic studies show little or no protection against these infections. Many of the available epidemiologic studies were not designed or conducted in ways that allow for accurate measurement of condom effectiveness against the discharge diseases. More research is needed to assess the degree of protection latex condoms provide for discharge diseases, other than HIV.
[...]
A number of studies, however, do show an association between condom use and a reduced risk of HPV-associated diseases, including genital warts, cervical dysplasia and cervical cancer. The reason for lower rates of cervical cancer among condom users observed in some studies is unknown.
They do their best to make sure you know using a condom is a good idea, but for everything except HIV the wording is carefully chosen because the research is conflicting and they don't want to say either way until they're sure.
It's more accurate to say condom's probably prevent the spread of STDs. In general, it's not wise to encourage those with STDs to have sex, because accidents happen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_thinking
And look, I'm just saying, sex with a condom is a risk, yes, but a reasonable risk. We face all kinds of risks in our daily lives that we simply accept. I mean, every time I eat a hamburger, I run the risk of food poisoning, especially if it's a burger I didn't cook myself, and yet that doesn't discourage me from eating hamburgers. Let's face it, the fact that the risk involved with sex is such a thorny issue is not because the risks are so much greater than the risks associated with other activities that we regularly engage in, but because sex outside of the context of marriage is considered taboo.