A Public Service Anouncement

April 9th, 2009 by EC

Note from skippy

I actually had a pretty decent post prepared for this week, but I felt that the following needed to take priority.

You see, last week one of my readers expressed some opinions about condoms and AIDS in the comments section. And I had some doubts as to the accuracy of these ideas.

And even though I feel that most people are smart enough to not take medical advice from the comments section of a humor blog, I decided that I would feel bad if even one person did.

Heck, I would feel bad if the person who posted the questionable comment suffered due to a misunderstanding. And so I let my friend EC, who is a RN, issue some corrections.

As a licensed Registered Nurse, there are some serious flaws in your opinion of the efficacy of condoms in relation to the transmission of HIV.

First, latex condoms are, in fact, 99.9% effective in preventing the transmission of the HIV virus OR the Hepatitis B virus (a much more destructive sexually transmitted disease). Sheep or lambskin condoms are approximately 85% effective. These are not “ballooned statistics” made up by condom companies. They are well-researched facts that are available to anyone – in the U.S. you can access the CDC (Centers for Disease Control) or the NIH (National Institute of Health). Both of these organizations are part of the Federal Government. You can also look for information from the Office of the Surgeon General.

You may be getting information backwards. Condoms, alone, are 97% effective in preventing PREGNANCY. That is a lower number than preventing the transmission of HIV.

HIV is, in fact, a virus. It is not a “particle.” A virus is a very small organism, smaller than the average bacteria, that carries certain genetic material. Now, just because a virus carries genetic material does not mean it can reproduce. There are two types of “genetic material” required for reproduction, DNA and RNA. Most viruses only carry one type (pick a type, any type). The virus then triggers the host cell to use its genetic material to produce “viral cells,” or cells with mutations (these mutations are what cause illness). Most viruses have to transmit their material into the host cell, usually through something that looks similar to a proboscis or “spike.” But I digress.

Your information regarding gender as a basis for the rate of infection is also false. In fact, women are much less likely to transmit or transfer the virus to a partner. I am not saying that it doesn’t happen. HIV is transmitted through body fluids – blood and semen. Women do not produce semen, but some vaginal secretions may have the HIV virus. So this really becomes a very simple math equation – the amount of semen produced and ejaculated is 3-400% more than secretions produced in the vaginal canal. So, in fact, a woman is at a much higher risk for infection. Cialis online for sale at https://www.fortissurgicalhospital.com/cialis-20-mg/ cheap prices for Cialis 20 mg, 10 mg, 5 mg.

No matter how much secretion the female puts out, there is one small detail that also needs to be in place. There must be a mode of “entry” through the skin. In other words, the head or shaft of the penis, or the testicular sac, must have some type of open wound, one that exposes the capillary bed (hence the blood) through the skin. However tender you may believe the skin on your penis is, the vaginal canal is a mucous membrane and is much more fragile than skin. It is similar in cellular make-up, but is more like the tissue on the back of your throat. A simple tortilla chip and, well, you get the picture. Before anyone panics – HIV is difficult to transmit orally. Saliva has acids and enzymes that can break the virus down before it has a chance, much less acids produced in the stomach.

You may be thinking of contact sexually transmitted diseases, particularly Herpes. I say this if you are speaking only of surface area contacted (I will refrain from sexual education in terms of positions, etc., here as that is not my task). Herpes is spread by contact skin to skin, and could be transmitted from the outer genitalia if there is an active sore. But again I digress.

That is the biology/anatomy/microbiology/virology lesson for the day. I do, however, have one thing to add.

I do not produce latex, nor am I an expert in the production of latex. It is produced in sheets, however, and does not “breathe.” What I mean is that it does not allow the transmission of oxygen through the sheet. Oxygen is considerably smaller than the HIV virus, so your analogy of the ping-pong ball and the basketball hoop is also false. Latex does not have “micropores.”

One question, however. You state that every 1 in 400 condoms “will be allowed to leak water” prior to leaving the factory. Have you, in your lifetime, been employed as a condom inspector? Condom manufacturers make their money through the success of their product. I find it poor logic that a company would put itself in a position to lose that much money by allowing a faulty product to be sold.

I hope that in the future you are able to use this information.

EC also recommends But You Don’t Look Sick.

ButYouDontLookSick.com magazine is about living life to the fullest with any disability, invisible disease, or chronic pain and features a collection of articles, personal stories, book and product reviews, health resources and an active message board for the disabled, or those living with chronic pain or illness.

Subscribe to Comments for Skippy's List

This entry was posted on Thursday, April 9th, 2009 at 9:15 pm and is filed under News, Smackdown, Soapbox. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

SPC Hyle Says:
April 9th, 2009 at 9:36 pm

Daaaaayyyyyyuuuuummmmm!!

She just called you a bitch!

Avery Says:
April 9th, 2009 at 10:24 pm

Y’know, I laughed even harder at this (because it really was like bitch-slapping a feisty kitten) than I did at the papal pederasty humor…

Sgt. Spooky Says:
April 10th, 2009 at 2:05 am

I believe the common human vernacular(english) of ‘damn, you just got told’ is applicable here.

Stickfodder Says:
April 10th, 2009 at 4:39 am

Ooh now that’s a burn! That has got to be the best response to a comment like that I have ever seen.

SFC TC Says:
April 10th, 2009 at 5:04 am

To start with, I think Chris had a few confusions going on. But our RN put out some information that isn’t entirely correct, at lest according to the CDC, FDA, NIH, and the National Academy of Science. Chris is alos basing alot of hithought pattern on a “fact sheet” sent out byu the Vatican awhile back. Some of it was correct, some a bit of a stretch, and some was misapplied.

First – “Chris” wrote so loosely as to be laughable. The sentences could be read multiple ways leading to different conclusions depending on the context. Was 80% about HIV or pregnancy? When he meant 1 in 400 are allowed to leave leaking water did he mean they are passed at inspection or a measure of simple failure rate? Its vague and poorly written. Any reply to him on these points could be told “You misunderstood me” blah blah blah.

Second – As a registered nurse you are no doubt aware that they are called virus particles yes? But that is a relatively minor point though, it would be petty to go after someone who only used one-half of the term if both are often used in academia:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14107961
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/84/4/1005
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/88/8/3195
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/citation/38/8/747
or even:
http://jvi.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/67/4/2285
It isn’t like he actually called them virus particles, he must have obviously said HIV is caused by particles. Wait, he actually said HIV particles, or Human Immunodeficiency virus particles when written out. Damn, he actually used it properly and within accepted context. In other words attack his ideas, not his method of speaking since you managed to get that wrong.

Third – Condom effectiveness is not 99.9%. Some studies show 100% against HIV, other 98%, others all the way down to 80%.

If you want the laboratory testing rate they are probably 99.9%, but things do not work the same in the real world as they do in the lab, and allowing, or leading, people to think the rates are the same is unethical since it is basically a lie of omission.

The problem here isn’t the effectiveness of latex (It’s REALLY good) the problem is people. People tear things, misuse them, keep them past their expiration date etc. This is why the numbers have been consistently high, but still the occasional infection.
98% effective – http://oversight.house.gov/Documents/20040817143856-95300.pdf
90-95% effective – http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(96)00258-4
80% effective – http://www.sieccan.org/pdf/McKay_CJHS2007_Condom%20Effectiveness.pdf

Fourth – International convention allows failure rates of 1 in 400 during condom lot testing in the water leak test. So he is correct in this assertion, most companies beat this standard and only have about 1 in 4,000 fail.
http://books.google.com/books?id=BZQ9LqUHDWYC&pg=PA151&lpg=PA151&dq=condoms+leak+water+1+in+400&source=bl&ots=r6DIl7COe7&sig=6ZJPX4PfMf8oNe-BCoiO3_4sfaE&hl=en&ei=VC3fSaXlM93flQfo-azgDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panorama/3845011.stm
(A draft of an update to the current test)
http://www.fda.gov/ora/compliance_ref/cpg/cpgdev/cpg345-100_draft.html

Fifth – Again Chris is an idiot. Women are MUCH less likely to spread HIV. The risk is anywhere from 20 times less to only twice as less likely.

Male to Female transmission rates:
About 2 to one. A woman has about a two fold increase in risk.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/408827_2
About 20 to 1
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/266/12/1664
The odds ratio comparing male-to-female with female-to-male transmission (adjusting for number of contacts) is 12.31 (95% exact CI=1.9-519.9). This difference remained significant after controlling for other known risk factors (p=.004).
http://www.aegis.com/conferences/iac/1990/ThC101.html

Sixth – So how big of a break does there have to be in the males skin to allow HIV transmission? The use of the term open wound is a bit of a mischaracterization, an exposure of the capillary bed can result in blood flow that is too small to be noticed while still allowing for transmission of HIV. Calling this an open wound would be laughable, but still technically correct, even though it isn’t what an audience of laypeople would picture.

tsukinofaerii Says:
April 10th, 2009 at 5:22 am

ILU both! Skippy, you rock for the PSA, and EC, you rock for giving it.

TeratoMarty Says:
April 10th, 2009 at 6:17 am

Woooo, Skippy! Woooooo EC! Strike a blow for good science and good sex.

Raven Prometheus Says:
April 10th, 2009 at 6:25 am

VERY good post, EC. You presented the information in such a way as to be educational, but not patronizing, and I think that 99% of the readers will understand and appreciate your comments.

However, the sad thing is, the original poster of the comment in question is probably not even listening (reading), and even if s/he is, will probably just say that all of these facts are just made up to make the Catholic Church look wrong/bad. That’s just how people are: they are right and you are wrong, regardless of who you are, your experience/education, and any facts you might have to support your statistic.

Minty reply on April 10th, 2009 9:07 am:

Actually, I had a similar thought when EC pointed out all the federal agencies that have studied condoms. I.e.–“I bet the OP of that comment is thinking about how all those federal agencies sold their souls to Trojan, so unfortunately, nothing here is going to convince them.”

It’s shit like that which allows the talking heads to push “abstinence-only” as the only viable sex-ed in schools.

And I’m going to stop right there before I really get going.

Arcanum Says:
April 10th, 2009 at 6:27 am

Pwned.

I wonder if that guy will come back with some of bizarre conspiracy theory about the medical industry working with the condom manufacturers and university researchers to falsify the research on condom efficiency.

Stonewolf reply on April 10th, 2009 10:48 am:

Of course they are. Any idiot can see that. They want people to have lots of sex with condoms that don’t work as well as they are advertised. That way more babies will be born. These babies will then grow up to be patients, or may start off as such. More patients means more money for the medical industry. They can sell their over-expensive drugs and procedures that nobody really needs. Medical development should have stopped with snake oil. It cures everything. The Church is trying valiantly to save us from these shysters, but modern man is too boneheaded to listen to 2000 years of Talmudic tradition. Abstinece is 100% efficient at preventing pregnancy and spread of STDs. Why can’t you people see that!

Now, can you imagine if anybody actually believed that?

SFC TC reply on April 10th, 2009 12:16 pm:

Well yeah I can.

If you got HIV because you were having promiscuous sex people might just maybe say, I’m sorry your going to die but you did go out and catch this when you could have avoided it.

People who bitched about how a lack of sex ed in school was the reason they were pregnant would be rightfully laughed at. It isn’t the lack of condom education that get young teenage girls pregnant, its sex.

On the flip side it might just get some of the Christian to maybe think for a second about how exactly Mary got pregnant.

Now if you meant imagine if people believed the other stuff the sad fact is a lot of people do. The other sad fact there seem to be a lot of people who don’t, or maybe only don’t want to, believe the last part.

Stonewolf reply on April 10th, 2009 1:02 pm:

Interesting point. I was just going for the amusing conspiracy nut angle.

steelcobra reply on April 11th, 2009 8:30 am:

“People who bitched about how a lack of sex ed in school was the reason they were pregnant would be rightfully laughed at. It isn’t the lack of condom education that get young teenage girls pregnant, its sex.”

Yes, but in countries with mandatory, comprehensive sex ed, the rate of both STDs and unplanned pregnancies is significantly lower. Humans don’t automatically know these things, they have to be taught in order to do the right thing.

SFC TC reply on April 11th, 2009 4:14 pm:

To Steel:

I was actually going to argue this, then I remembered the original post was in jest, so was mine (to a point). But in the spirit of trolling people who wish to beat a dead horse. I offer the following.

Allow me to elucidate you on exactly what you are saying.

“Yes, but…”
Yes, abstinence is the only 100% effective form of birth control and STD (in the most literal interpretation) prevention.

“…in countries with mandatory, comprehensive sex ed, the rate of both STDs and unplanned pregnancies is significantly lower.”
Some people will ignore the previous fact and take chances (by definition if it is not 100% there is a chance).

“Humans don’t automatically know these things, they have to be taught in order to do the right thing.”
Humans have to have knowledge in order to make informed decisions, we agree on that 100%. Assuming a person is taught our original fact they actually have all of the information they need to make the best possible choice.

A person does not “need” to have sex, they “want” it. Given the risk of death, unplanned pregnancy, etc wouldn’t the best possible choice be abstinence?

If you disagree with that please explain how abstinence is not the best possible choice.

Now there are ways to lower the risk of people who wish to engage in the “risky” behavior regardless of the best possible choice. So we should teach ways to protect themself, makes sense to a point. But at what point do we draw a line saying our responsibility to protect you from your own poor choices is done?

Is this a objective stance of subjective. For instance. Heroin can be bad, you can become addicited to it, you can die from an overdose. How much more education does a person need? Perhaps some repitition would be good to make ure the person understood but what else does a lay person “need” to know about heroin in order to expect them to avoid it. Okay, lets make posters, and commercials, and more posters, and tri-fold pamphlets, and free clinics, and state sponsored rehabilitation programs. If we do all of this can we finally just let the junkies die in the street who have willfully ignored the literally TONS of material that has been put out about it?

Of course not, it makes little baby Jesus cry.

If a person is truly dumb enough to engage in conduct, that they have been told is dangerous, or has consequences, that individual has the responsibility to know what they are getting into.

That is what personal responsibility means. It isn’t some BS way to get God in school, or get people out of paying taxes. It means if you do something, that you have been warned about, then you are responsible to make an informed decision. If you fail to become informed before making that decision it is still yours to make.

Now in those cases of rape, or child molestation, or even say two extremely young children experimenting and accidentally discovering sex on their own. Those children/adults (cases of rape) I feel sorry for and agree we need methods in place to support and assist them. But if your over the age of 15 in the USA and haven’t spent the last decade locked in a basement (or perhaps certain church communities) I don’t feel sorry for you if you have somehow managed to remain willfully ignorant and be blind to the reality that pregnancy is caused by sex and that any method other than abstinence does have some level of risk to it.

TheShadowCat Says:
April 10th, 2009 at 6:31 am

Now that was one hell of a smack down. Good job Skippy and EC.

CAPTCHA – Jacinta 12-1 – Jacinta will be out to lunch between 12-1.

Billy Says:
April 10th, 2009 at 6:51 am

And thus proves, that what is supposed to be the least mature guy here (skippy) is in actuality the most mature, due to the fact that instead of looking up random crap to oppose whoever on the internet, he got a person who actually knew what they were talking about and made the dolt who began the stupidity shut up. And reading the comments, I feel like I’m in high school again, but with people who don’t run for the hills when I talk about explosives.

captcha: Borough Nat’l, is that some kind of new Stargate race now?

Minty reply on April 10th, 2009 9:09 am:

Can I light the fuse? I mean, with appropriate supervision and everything, since I’ve never done it before. But, um, can I? Pretty, pretty please?

Stonewolf reply on April 10th, 2009 10:56 am:

Boom=happy. Big boom=happier. Everyone always roots for the crust cracker.

Raven Prometheus reply on April 10th, 2009 2:11 pm:

“appropriate supervision” Do I count? I got the education and experience, so I can cover the “supervision” part, but would I be appropriate? Everyone knows one of the scariest things that can be heard by modern man is an EOD tech saying, “Hey, ya’ll, watch this! I saw it once when I was in *** (*** could be anywhere from Vietnam to Iraq to, well, you get the picture)!”

If I do count, I’d definitely let you. Heaven knows I’ve done it myself enough times….

Minty reply on April 10th, 2009 3:43 pm:

I was envisioning “appropriate supervision” to be someone standing over me and pointing out what I’m supposed to do. For example:

“First you want to do this, and then do that, and if you really want to see something cool, do this last thing–you don’t care about losing your eyebrows, do you? No, I didn’t think so. Now stand back and push the button.”

Stickfodder reply on April 10th, 2009 8:59 pm:

Oh well I guess that would be me.

SPC Randall reply on April 10th, 2009 10:27 pm:

if you ever say that around me raven. my first instinc is to run as far and as fast as i can away form you. E.O.D. guys are the number one guys you dont want to hear say that. N.B.C. guys come second on that point.

Sgt. Spooky reply on April 12th, 2009 8:33 pm:

I have to disagree. the SCARIEST thing to hear an EOD tech say is “oh shit…..”

captcha- country taste. What does the country taste like? dirt and cow shit.

paula reply on April 10th, 2009 5:01 pm:

explosives? we gets explosives? COOL! I’ll bring some beer if you let me blow up something!

Speed Says:
April 10th, 2009 at 7:32 am

Everybody needs to have an RN friend. I met mine in kindergarten and she’s my wife’s best friend too. Thanks to Skippy for having the foresight to bring a guest “lecturer.” Now, if I could only find a way to apply this to a CLEP test…

notsomuchactually Says:
April 10th, 2009 at 7:36 am

Thanks to EC for a really cogent discussion of the use of condoms in dramatically reducing the transmission of aids; and thanks to Skippy for publishing it. The trolls comments were truly frightening in their ignorance. I saw EC’s post as less of a smack down than as a “teaching opportunity”. The information probably won’t convince him because he is willfully ignorant, but it will almost certainly provide important and helpful information to thinking people who read this site.

GBlair Says:
April 10th, 2009 at 7:49 am

Oh you just got burned! Burned dude, burned. FEEL THE BUR…ok I’ll stop now.

Captcha: points barrier – stops me getting the highscore every time.

Shadowydreamer Says:
April 10th, 2009 at 8:38 am

Me Mummy’s a nurse. Well, retired now. She told the story of an OB GYN who wouldn’t deliever an emergency c-section because the mother had aids. My mother was quoted to have said (so said a co-worker) “And you went to university for eight years and didn’t manage to learn the properties of latex?”

Ignorance isn’t limited to any type of humanity, fortunately, neither is overcoming it. Here’s hoping our commenter DOES read and pay attention.

Captcha : Society Pembroke.. I don’t know if there’s much society in Pembroke, but there’s some hella fun parties.

SFC TC reply on April 10th, 2009 8:53 am:

Woah, seriously? Wow, that is messed up.

Captcha:
Elections and

revolutions???

Freiheit reply on April 10th, 2009 9:43 am:

“emergency c-section because the mother had aids”

Is it possible that he wouldn’t do that not from ignorance but because a C-section is an invasive procedure and doing even minor surgery on a patient with an immune deficiency is very dangerous to the patient?

SFC TC reply on April 10th, 2009 9:55 am:

Gernally speaking they don’t do “emergency c-sections” unless death is fairly likely.

So it is something like if we don’t do the surgery someone is gonna die.

If we do the surgery they might get an infection and later maybe die if they fail to respond to the antibiotics.

Shadowydreamer reply on April 10th, 2009 11:50 am:

It’s my understanding of the situation that death was on the line .. the choice between mother *may* die and baby *would* die.. and mother chose her own life over baby’s but OB said no-way he’s not risking the AIDs.

Blue_Cat reply on April 11th, 2009 2:01 pm:

Hmm, I am going to try look this up but I think a vaginal birth has a greater chance of mother-infant transmission of the virus due to birth trauma than c-section …

*googles* http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/317/7150/11

British Medical Journal extract “Pregnant women who are HIV positive can dramatically reduce the likelihood of transmission of disease to their newborns by having an elective caesarean delivery while undergoing treatment with the antiretroviral drug zidovudine, according to a French study. ”
BMJ is the British equivalent to the New England Journal of Medicine, aka The Best.

Maybe this was part of the reason?

Matt Says:
April 10th, 2009 at 9:02 am

Great Post Skippy and EC. I’ve never worried about AIDS although I’ve spent way to much time around people that might have it and in places where it is common. I am generally more worried about sucking chest-wounds and/or loss of blood from horrible gashes than catching AIDS. As a preventative, I don’t do IV drugs, share needles of any-kind (as far as I know) and don’t poke my pecker in places it don’t belong.

Sabra reply on April 10th, 2009 12:22 pm:

But we’re not supposed to expect people to not put their pecker where it doesn’t belong.

The truth is, if you truly followed the Catholic church’s mandates about sex–all of them–then your chances of contracting HIV would be next to nil. This is because you would have stayed a virgin til your wedding night and married someone who did the same. Very low risk, that, and it’s entirely possible though increasingly less common these days.

That said, the Church needs to wake up & realize that a large portion of its flock only takes to heart those portions of its teachings which please them. Morals are a fine and wonderful thing, but some appreciation of reality has to play in there too.

paula reply on April 10th, 2009 5:30 pm:

Rather the Catholic Church needs to wake up and realize that the promotion of certain sexual values and rules by an officially-celibate and totally paternalistic clergy is FAR out of touch with the real world.

The Catholic Church really needs to reconsider their deeply-entrenched holier-than-thou attitudes, which are combined with no actual real-life knowledge of what they feel qualified to lecture people about. They especially need to consider how the Catholic Church views women, because the Church is apparently convinced all women are automatically 1. stupid, 2. unable to manage without a man’s wisdom and guidance, 3. evil temptresses willfully trying to lead men astray.)

Shadowydreamer reply on April 10th, 2009 5:35 pm:

But i *AM* an evil temptress trying to lead all men astray..

Captcha $20.20 .. Apparently I’m a CHEAP evil temptress..

Sicarius reply on April 11th, 2009 9:13 pm:

Don’t label all of us the same! I’m Catholic and not completely retarded.

paula reply on April 12th, 2009 3:21 am:

Sicarius: please note I specify the ‘Catholic Church’, NOT individual Catholics! The problem, as I see it, is an institutional demand that we all, Catholic or not, live by the Church’s insistance on antique, paternalistic laws. Anyone who wishes to live that way is welcome to, but I demand equal freedom to choose my own way.

Ditto to any OTHER social group/religion or cult/whatever: I am NOT picking on the Catholic Church, I object to ANYONE with that kind of mindset.

Former Spc. 19K reply on April 12th, 2009 8:45 am:

evil temptresses? of course! Lillith, Eve, Delilah… see? all leading men to their DOOOOOOOM!!!

something to be said for Evil Temptresses, though. They’re often smart enough not to let themselves get nasty and diseased.

not to mention, they’re so sexy.

mn reply on April 10th, 2009 5:35 pm:

Actually, there are other ways than sex to contract HIV.
Although recently-reused dirty injection needles are not a likely problem for me either.

(HIV doesn’t stay viable nearly as long as some of the other nasty stuff on those, either, but still…)

For me, the most significant HIV (and hepatitis and whatever) risk is probably from the barber shop. Plenty of their implements may penetrate to the capillary bed without anyone noticing much. Although, these years, they all do know enough to use desinfectant on those.

(Why, yes, I did stay a virgin til the wedding, my wife did too, and we’re not Catholics anyway…)

David Says:
April 10th, 2009 at 9:39 am

mass pwnage.

I had to go back to the original blog post and make sure that I wasn’t one of the idiots who just got schooled. Nope, I’m good.

thrust busy: we now return you to your regular busy thrusting action, already in progress.

Corp. Scurvy Says:
April 10th, 2009 at 10:33 am

*aplause*

Billy Says:
April 10th, 2009 at 11:33 am

This still doesn’t answer the question of how a disease that used to only affect apes managed to get into the human population. The idea that some guy decided to rape an ape brings to mind a sign I saw in Florida, “Please Do Not Molest The Alligators.”

SFC TC reply on April 10th, 2009 12:31 pm:

In all seriousness, hunting is most likely answer. Undercooked bush meat probably a second. I really hope you were serious.

I love the bestiality link, it really brings to mind the whole don’t feel bad for them, they have no one to blame but themselves spitefulness.

I can’t help but notice the same people don’t speak up every time swine flu breaks out, or a new strain of influenza.

Billy reply on April 10th, 2009 7:32 pm:

I mostly just enjoyed having something that rhymed with “rape”, and not have it be offensive. And, thinking only of the more common use of the term “molest” and not all the other interpretations, who in the right mind thinks to himself “thats one sexy alligator…” and acts on that impulse. I’ll bet he’s missing something by now…

captcha: more vincing, we can always use more of that.

Chris Says:
April 10th, 2009 at 7:45 pm

I know I may well regret this, but what the hey? I may as well take this with some dignity.

I wish to publicly retract my statements (yes, both of them: the condoms one and the pedo-jokes one) from my previous post. As regards the pedo-jokes, it was early morning, I hadn’t gotten much sleep, and I lost my cool. I apologize. I do admit to being offended by such jokes, but I have no right to tell others what they are or are not allowed to find amusing.

As regards the condoms statement(s), I take offense to being called an idiot, willfully ignorant, or the like. Although I suppose that I may be guilty of a form of willful ignorance. I have received a Catholic education for all of my life. This has colored my opinions on things, as anyone’s education will. However, when I was presented the (now admittedly flawed) ‘facts’ and statistics that I did, I was quoting what I had learned in my sex-ed and Bioethics classes. I did not look to verify them, as they were coming from a third-party (admittedly Christian if not Catholic) source for the sex-ed, and from a Harvard Ph.D. for my bioethics class. I believed the statistics reliable. I see now that I was wrong, and I will be asking my bioethics instructors about these discrepancies, using this article, its source, and the linked articles as evidence.

Now, on to clarification(s). I thank all those who said anything to the effect of, “Well, he’s not a total idiot.” It is comforting to know that not everyone on a humor blog that I enjoy thinks I’m a total moron. Yes, when I said “HIV particle” I meant the virus particles, as I believe that the virus organisms are called particles. If I am wrong, feel free to correct me, please.

Also, Billy, as regards how SIV (simian immunodeficiency virus) became HIV (human immuno- you know this one), viruses, like all organisms/lifeforms, are capable of mutation/evolution. That’s what happened. We went digging around in the Congo, stuck our noses where they didn’t belong, somebody probably got mauled by an infected ape, blood got mixed, virus mutates, he spreads the new virus without meaning to, BAM! New virus begins spreading. As for how it became the pandemic it is today (at least in Africa, I don’t think the US’ ~.3% infection rate counts as pandemic), got me. I don’t know, probably multiple SIV+ ape attacks leads to multiple identical mutations. Yeah okay, that makes less sense, anyone else have any ideas/knowledge?

Stickfodder reply on April 10th, 2009 9:59 pm:

Well I’m sure we’re all glad that you’re still here and willing to admit mistakes and learn from them.

As for the ape attacks leading to infections I’ve never really thought about that (and as anybody who watches as much “educational” tv as me[animal planet, discovery channels, national geographic, science channel, etc] knows how violent Chimps can be) so I guess it’s possible but as for me I’ve always thought Undercooked bush meat was the most reasonable reason it spreads as eating bush meat is very wide spread in Africa and not everybody always cooks meat all the way through.

Shadowydreamer reply on April 10th, 2009 11:21 pm:

Takes a big man (or woman!) to stand up and say “Well, I’m willing to listen and learn!” Yay! :)

Who knows how long it was bouncing around before people started dying. HIV has a wacky incubation period doesn’t it? And even then, they didn’t know a lot of the deaths were AIDS at first? I was born in the 70s, so I’m far from knowledgable, but it’s my understanding ‘free love’ meant ‘no glove’ .. and all it takes is one. Especially in multiple partner situations.

Ix reply on April 11th, 2009 2:04 am:

It does have a weird incubation period, yeah – I think it’s transmissible from the point where you start testing positive for it, but symptoms may not show up for anywhere up to a decade or more later if it’s untreated (until it mutates into full-blown AIDS, anyways).

And yes – up until the mid to late eighties (to the best of my recollection) AIDS wasn’t recognized as being serious, and HIV wasn’t recognized as causing AIDS.

(Captcha: P.M. Cedric — why does it want me to PM a Harry Potter character?)

Billy reply on April 12th, 2009 12:54 pm:

By the way, I did get that joke from some random comedian. I did not joke about the alligator signs though, I know how violent primates can be, an ape can kill you with a punch to the face, and chimps will rip you apart. I just wanted to make a joke for people to laugh at. And I know that the signs in florida mean more along the lines of “don’t piss off the alligators”, but, for the sake of comedy, the other meaning is more immediate for most people.

SFC TC reply on April 15th, 2009 4:24 am:

In fairness I did call you an idiot, and your behavior idiotic, harsh I’ll admit, I also called you willfully ignorant. But to blame it on having received a catholic education is a cop out.

Did you not know the catholic church has a history of suppressing information that challenges it’s teachings or authority? They have a history of demonizing their critics? That the intentional mis-characterization of science is not new to them?

If you knew those things and don’t question their teachings it is a form of willful ignorance. At least as far a a science education is concerned, theologically, hey no way to “prove or disprove” it so have at it.

On a postive side you were right on some things, and on those parts I did, and would back you up (virus particles, water leak test, condom not being 100% with studies showing 80-100%).

But if you are had knowledge of the church’s past, which I would be very surprised if you didn’t. And still bought their statements on HIV, sex, and/or condoms you are being foolish and very likely willfully ignorant. Foolishness alone, at the level you demonstrated, is being idiotic.

If you did not have a knowledge of the church’s history then I apologize here and now for having called you an idiot and/or willfully ignorant.

If you did know though it is a different matter entirely and blaming it on the your education, when you knew the church to lie with regularity to protect itself, well you can figure that out.

Minty reply on April 15th, 2009 9:15 am:

“Did you not know the catholic church has a history of suppressing information that challenges its teachings or authority?”

In all fairness, the Catholic Church isn’t the only bureaucracy that’s done this, and thousands (if not millions) of people throughout history have bought into that suppression even though they knew better. I guess it’s just human nature. . .

SFC TC reply on April 16th, 2009 3:24 am:

Your absolutely correct. I was only stating that in respect to the idea that one could blame the situation on their catholic education.

sandy Says:
April 11th, 2009 at 11:08 am

okay, having been to Africa and hearing/learning from some of the natives here’s my understanding…

There is one highway that runs the length of Africa – the Pan-African highway (I’ve driven on it, the potholes are outrageous!). The men who haul food and material to and from the ports, the mines, and to the interior countries all drive the same highway. The cities that have grown up around the highway and near the mines have active brothels. While the transmission female to male is low, these men are out for long periods of time and all use the same brothels, whether they are drivers or miners. (There is also a somewhat high rate of bi-sexuality while the men are working at the mines for a couple months before they can go home to their wives.) HIV spread the length of the highway first then out from there. Some of the countries have a HIV rate of 70%, when I was there the prediction was that within 20 years the average age for the head of household in Botswana would be 16 years old. Based on the number of men and women who have HIV and the number of children born with HIV.

Morgrim Says:
April 11th, 2009 at 9:41 pm

Many of the current stringent practises came about at the same time, as a result of several blood borne diseases becoming big issues at the same time (AIDS being one, but also the various forms of hepatitis and I’ll sure I’ll remember what the other one was 2 seconds after I hit submit). One of the reasonably significant early causes of transmission in the Western world was incorrectly screened donated blood. In Africa, even today there are cases of ineffective sterilisation of medical equipment, and many ‘bush remedies’ would be a risk as well. (Europe can be thankful that the practise of blood letting stopped before HIV evolved).

AIDS stayed under the radar for many years, until it reached a critical mass. Lots of small methods of transmition still build up to an epidemic once you cross a certain line.

Kat reply on April 11th, 2009 9:56 pm:

I’ve read that one of the “bush remidies” for curing AIDS in some parts of Africa is having sex with a virgin. That’s one of the (many many) reasons for the high incidents of rape in many parts of the continent.
Captcha: handled Birmingham: I most certainly did not!

paula reply on April 12th, 2009 3:28 am:

And not just any rape: a lot of it is CHILD rape, because chances that a two-year-old is a virgin are higher than that a twenty-something is.

Former Spc. 19K Says:
April 12th, 2009 at 8:48 am

as far as some comments I’ve seen so far, I wonder… have you ever gone rock climbing? ridden a motorcycle? driven in a car? drank from a water fountain? Being a human involves risk, we find risky things fun. That’s why we invented the helmet. So, I will agree with the abstinence only policy of the church when they state that we are no longer allowed to do all of these other risky behaviours, because a helmet/seatbelt/safety harness/etc… isn’t 100% effective. makes about as much sense, right?

humans like doing stupid things, thus we invented the helmet, the condom, the parachute, and the seatbelt. we won’t stop doing stupid things. ever. it’s not like this is an unforseen series of events, right?

captcha:
belated artists
I mean really, when do they ever show up early?

SFC TC reply on April 15th, 2009 4:48 am:

You missed the point entirely. It isn’t that there is some level of risk, it is how much additional risk some people take on.

Secondly, there is a very big difference here.

The church has certain foundational teachings on sex, sexuality, marriage etc. You don’t have to agree with them on any of them, that’s your right. Hell, I’m glad we don’t have to, my life would be a lot more boring.

These teachings forbid the very practices that are oh so effective at spreading the disease. Okay maybe not about IV drug use, but you have to admit, not many folks were running around with hypos 2-6,000 years ago.

Anyways, I was getting distracted. The point is they base their present teachings on these theological principles and religious beliefs. They don’t have change them to suit you. And just like you said, you don’t have to consent to theirs.

But, in all fairness, if you crack your skull open because you are riding a motorcycle in a way that increases your risk, say by doing wheelies on the highway, I will laugh at you. I will use pictures of your ripped open skull to help demonstrate why doing wheelies down the highway is a bad idea. If you die from it I will feel bad for your family who grieve. I will not feel bad for you, you brought it on yourself.

Likewise, if someone is engaging in promiscuous sex, sex with iv drug users, using iv drugs themselves (dirty needles and all), having promiscuous sex with gay men, etc etc they are an object lesson just waiting to happen.

And before you even say it, yes I have a job which puts me in harms way. If I die while doing it, and I didn’t have to, then some people will use it as an object lesson for others. Fine by me, I have knowingly, consciously made the choice.

Of course you are right, these are foreseeable events, which is why ridiculing the people who commit the most grievous errors that result in their deaths is so common.

Former Spc. 19K reply on April 15th, 2009 2:51 pm:

but, in the instance that the motorcyclist is run off the road by someone? what then? What about the individual that is unaware that their spouse or significant other is not as loyal as they? I believe you have seen both my statements and the world as far too black and white.

SFC TC reply on April 16th, 2009 3:46 am:

Absolutely not.

All of my premises rely upon the individual having knowledge of the events. There are always those individuals who are out cheating or breaking agreements they’ve made. And in those cases I feel very sorry for those they hurt.

But would you honestly claim most people who turn up HIV positive are innocent victims who were in committed relationships? Okay, maybe most is a bad word, how about a significant percentage.

Did you really mean, with your comments about helmets, that you were discussing other poeple actions? That in we find risky hings fun you were talking about people running other people off the road? No you weren’t or it you were you have a very different concept of fun. I think at this point your trying to weasel it in there.

The only other option is your throwing up the exceptions to the rule, not the rule itself. If yours are the exceptions then what would the rule be?

In many, many, things the world is entirely black and white with absolutely no shade of gray. There can be opposing sides though with opposite answers to the same question though. I’ll give you one example:

A Soldier falls behind on rent and is going to get evicted, AER denies the Solder request for rent. The SQD LDR being a decent kind of person, loans the Soldier, oh say $300. As a human being, morally, I would say this was easily a good thing to do. However, according to the army’s ethics it was clearly wrong, no loaning money to subordinates (the rules are very clear on this). People who would call this a gray are confused, it isn’t gray, not at all. The purpose of the ethics rules are to keep people honest and moral, if the rule requires one to act immorally the rule can be ignored so long as the purpose of the rule is still fulfilled.

We do not live in a world of gray, especially in the legal world. Things are ultimately decided to have been right or wrong. Guilty or not guilty (although we’ve included a whole lot of nicer sounding words than these in our justice system). People are punished or let free (regardless of the phrasing used to get to that point). There is no gray within that world.

How about in character judgments rather than legal ones. There is trustworthy, and untrustworthy. Black or white. The phrase used to describe a gray area of this is “being questionable”, a nicer way of saying untrustworthy.

How about veracity, one can be honest or one can lie. Some may say certain things aren’t “really” lies, but would they meet the quality of being honest? I submit they do not.

So you bring up there are gray areas? Where are they? Are the gray area only going to be limited to when you have the unknown? As in you don’t know someone so you can’t judge them? Well no kidding, all of the preceding are based on having information. Not having information doesn’t make something gray (a mixture of right and wrong) it means it is unknown.

Captcha:
Resolute inquire

A Public Service Anouncement

63 Responses to “A Public Service Anouncement”

Leave a Reply