Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Student Global AIDS Campaign: give love, give health!

Tomorrow, the Student Global AIDS campaign is selling Valentine's Day present packs at Frist. There are several different packages, and the choices are:

Condom + AIDS Ribbon + Candy + Message
Condom + Candy + Message,
or Candy + Message.

All proceeds will go to Partners in Health, an organization that provides healthcare to the poorest of the world's poor. Check out today's Daily Princetonian article on the project here, and enjoy the bit where the anti-sex lunatic claims that handing out condoms won't stop the spread of STIs. Except that, um, it will. That is one of the things that condoms do. I bet he also doesn't think that candy is delicious. Except that, um, it is. That is one of the things that candy is.


At February 11, 2009 at 9:32 PM , Anonymous Emily said...

I got pretty angry at the Prince article for presenting the work of the Global AIDS Campaign and the, as you said, anti-sex lunatic as having opinions of equal weight. That's simply not true--one is factually accurate and the other is not--and even the student media should know better than to pretend it's the case.

At February 12, 2009 at 7:13 PM , Anonymous Dan said...

I wish you wouldn't be so quick to label someone (ie. "anti-sex lunatic"), especially when you:
(a) misprepresent what he said
(b) claim that the statement you attributed to him is not factually accurate, when in fact it is...

Distributing condoms will most certainly *not* stop the spread of STIs. It *may* under some circumstances slow it down. But it may also, under some other circumtances, speed it up. That is because condoms have a notoriously high failure rate, especially for AIDS. If the failure rate is 20%, you are saving 80% of those who have sex with an infected partner. But, if the process of handing out condoms leads more people to have sex with infected partners, that diminishes the benefit. If the number of such sexual encounters increases by a factor of 5, you've negated all of the benefit of handing out condoms, and if it exceeds a factor of 5, you are actully increasing the rate of infection by handing out condoms.

At February 12, 2009 at 10:19 PM , Anonymous Chloe Angyal said...

If condoms are 80% effective (and the CDC says they're "highly effective," which probably means more than 80%), we should be handing out as many as we can. And as for the logic that "the process of handing out condoms leads more people to have sex with infected partners": even if that were true (doubtful), it's no reason to stop encouraging the use of condoms. Because sex happens. We can hand out condoms that explain that abstinence is the only foolproof way to prevent STDs, but sex is going to be had anyway, and if condoms are highly effective against STDs (not to mention pregnancy), you can't possible argue that the sex should be had without a condom.
And I'm sorry I was so quick to label McGinley "anti-sex." He's not anti-sex. He's totally pro-sex, as long as that sex fits into his narrow, sexist, heteronormative definition of what's acceptable.

At February 13, 2009 at 11:01 AM , Anonymous Dan said...

The actual percentage effectiveness is not really the issue here. We could argue all day about the logic of handing out condoms. The more significant issue here is that you resort to name calling instead of rational discourse. You used the word "lunatic" and, quite frankly,
you owe McGinley a sincere apology.

At February 13, 2009 at 3:09 PM , Anonymous Chloe Angyal said...

The actual percentage of effectiveness IS the issue here: condoms are highly effective, and to suggest that we stop handing them out is lunacy. Ergo, McGinley is a lunatic. I'm perfectly happy to participate in rational discourse; I started a gender issues blog for that very reason. But I'm also perfectly happy to point out the extreme idiocy of the argument that because condoms don't fully protect us from all STDs (or from emotional pain, as the Anscombe Society is so fond of reminding us), they should be done away with all together. That argument is lunatic, as well as ignorant and dangerous.


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home