What is the Pope's rationale for concluding that condoms would makes the spread of STD's more prevalent?

Most religious arguments tend to be if you make it safer, more people will do it, and things will spread.

It doesn’t make any fucking sense.

Perhaps he doesn’t understand the concept of a condom.

Because nothing is 100% guaranteed to prevent STDs, including condoms. You can use a condom and still catch an STD. I assume what he is saying is that when more people think they are safe just because they use condoms, there will actually end up being more people (who might not of had sex if they werent told it was ok with a condom) getting diseases.
I’m not saying I agree with him, I’m just saying that’s how I see his arguement. I dont think it’s statistically realistic, but when has the pope ever been realistic?

But using a condom greatly reduces the chance of getting an std.

Well yeah, that’s common sense. But the key words are “reduce” and “if used properly”. So like I said, nothing is 100%.
I don’t support the pope’s views, I’m just giving my opinion on what his theory is.

The pope’s theory relies on the assumption that the availability of condoms translates to a dramatic increase in people having sex.

This assumption, of course, is ridiculously unfounded. The availability of condoms translates to a dramatic increase in people having safe sex.

In a sense the Pope may be right, (but some supporting statistics would be helpful). Preventives, like condoms and even the cervical cancer vaccine (!!!) according to him, encourage people to have sex, who otherwise might not. Well, there are two answers to this. People who are going to have sex may be deterred by many things, but the absence of condoms is not one of them. I think statistics may support me here. The other is convenience. When I paid my first visit to family planning and they explained the how and why of condoms: not to go into details, in a country where sex education is an oxymoron, how do you introduce such a thing into the encounter?

A Hindu woman told me once that in conservative Hindu families, girls did not go into marriage blind: they were taught beforehand by their mothers and older female relatives. You can be taught about sex, you know, without practical hands on experience. This may explain why Hindu marriages last so long in Trinidad.

I suppose it depends on the population, their education and the supply of prophylactics. If they have inadequate supply and actually attempt to reuse them, then it could in fact spread the disease further.

Because if you teach only abstinence, then people will not have sex. (I didn’t say it was a great theory.)

If condoms are provided, then sex is “okay” and people will go have wild orgies, instead of being good and chaste.

Doesn’t work that way in reality, but I guess some things about the Catholic Church are not as evidence-based as one might want to believe.

@laureth
You know the thing is that it’s human nature that as soon as we say you can’t have it we must have it. You say, “No cookie junior”, and junior wants a cookie. Is it any wonder that the sexiest fantasy to red blooded American male is a “Catholic Girl” in her plaid skirt?

Indeed! And some non-Catholic girls know very well how to exploit that, too! ;)

@laureth Theoretically speaking abstinence is 100% effective.
However telling an entire continent of people not to have sex because it makes Jesus cry is not realistic. People are going to have sex. I think that’s where the Pope is way off base.

@The_Compassionate_Heretic – which is why I made the point about the effectivenes of teaching abstinence, instead of abstinence itself. ;)

@laureth An important point indeed. heh heh
Funny how the Catholic Church just assumes everyone abstain from sex without anything going wrong at some point.

I think his miter is too tight.

The Pope (a supposedly celibate man that has never even seen a picture of a condom) knows almost as much about STD as the HIV virus would know about the Acts of the Apostles, chapter 21.

Actually I think it’s more like saying people who swim with swimmies are more likely to drown.

I don’t think what the Pope is saying is
“don’t have sex” wasn’t this an argument about him saying that condoms used for sex doesn’t prevent the spread of std’s? It even says on each condom box that it doesn’t prevent the spread of std’s and is only 86% effective in preventing pregnancy. A little education that gets understated I think.

Disease and condom use statistics.

This is from the Ceneter For Disease Control and Prevention:

“Condoms can be expected to provide different levels of protection for various STDs, depending on differences in how the diseases or infections are transmitted. Male condoms may not cover all infected areas or areas that could become infected. Thus, they are likely to provide greater protection against STDs that are transmitted only by genital fluids (STDs such as gonorrhea, chlamydia, trichomoniasis, and HIV infection) than against infections that are transmitted primarily by skin-to-skin contact, which may or may not infect areas covered by a condom (STDs such as genital herpes, human papillomavirus [HPV] infection, syphilis, and chancroid).”

Really how often in the heat of the moment do we check to make sure all of his shaft is covered, or if it breaks inside does he really stop mid thrust to get a new one on quickly enough that you don’t have his skin on yours at all. I mean please, it’s sex, by the time we are in that moment how many of us are really that meticulous?

So, it’s not the fault of the condom, but the fault of the user. Used correctly, condoms are quite effective at preventing diseases and pregnancy.

Is there a perfect condom out there that a guy can buy that guarantees coverage all of his shaft all the time with every thrust, never moves at all during sex or breaks? I don’t think so.

That sounds like a personal problem.

Are you saying that since nothing is perfect, nothing should be used?

That would seem to be a slippery slope to a lot of unintended consequences.

Not saying that, just saying that, it does protect from disease spread from sperm (if it doesn’t break inside)like A.I.D.S. BUT you have to know you take a risk with catching another type of treatable std. All sex has risk unless you wear a body rubber…very provocative :-)

These are true, although I think condom breakage has happened to me pretty darn rarely in comparison to how many times I’ve used a condom successfully.

People who read and are aware of the world around them usually know that condoms (and everything else in the world) are not perfect, but they’re a darn sight better than nothing. This sex advice from the Pope is repetitive at best, and at worst it encourages followers to avoid them because “they don’t do any good anyway.”

I think the argument originated from the question of whether or not condom use protects against the spread of std’s not whether or not one should use them at all.

Looking up, the question is, “What is the Pope’s rationale for concluding that condoms would makes the spread of STD’s more prevalent?”

One presumes that the spread of STDs using condoms could, at the very, positively worst, with every condom breaking, be approximately equal to the spread of STDs in cases where condoms are not used. I fail to see how using a condom could get one more diseased than not using one, though.

I agree with you completely, I thought the subject was whether or not using a condom can still spread std’s, my appoligies.

I guess the point critter makes is in a way a valid one. What the Pope is saying is that, with the existance of condoms, we have a false sense of security, and therefore have more sex, which statistically could lead to unwanted pregnancies and diseases. As opposed to complete abstinence and the Church’s “no sex before marriage” rule.

But of course in the modern world, people are going to have sex anyway. In fact, there are more people who practise non-safe sex than there are virgins. So instead of waving a finger, the Pope should be realistic and offer an alternative (special pills? new positions? his tiara?). It’s not a “Jesus vs Unsafe Condoms” debate. It’s “Condoms vs Abortion and Death from AIDS”. So, whose side is the Vatican on?