Is Ginkgo Tea Is Safe

What's in a condom? God and sex

The enthusiastic promotion of condoms by some means to promote a particular view of sexuality and sexual behavior standards. This necessitates a reflection on the philosophy of condoms. Do not be surprised, because a condom, like most things in life, has its philosophy, which explains their deeper.

Condoms product

an ideology about sexuality

completely separating sex from love.

The condom is really old. He never had great success, due not only to her discomfort, but especially to their low levels of efficiency.

its invention is attributed to a Dr. Condom, who had been alarmed by the numerous illegitimate offspring of Charles II of England. The earliest description of condoms was made by the anatomist Gabriel Fallopius in 1564. The first condom was made from animal intestines. When Charles Goodyear discovered the vulcanization process gum in 1839 began to use condoms with somewhat more successful as a contraceptive.

With the advent of hormonal contraceptives to the 60 twentieth century, perhaps many have thought that the condom will become a museum piece, because modern contraception seeks above all to the safety of pregnancy impossible ... (which On the other hand is something they can not get ... nor tubal ligation ...).

Even the most enthusiastic promoters of the sexual revolution may have suspected that in a few years become a condom bedet. This is because the sexual revolution unleashed an epidemic of disease transmission sexual unprecedented in history. Currently in USA one in five adults has an incurable STD. Have reappeared almost defeated diseases (such as syphilis, who walks with infection levels similar to those that existed before the invention of penicillin) and appeared many new ones: the number of STDs has increased tenfold! The epidemic was open and notorious in the 80's with the onset of AIDS.

In those consequences of the sexual revolution, along with the rise in teenage pregnancies and extra-marital sex, abortion, infertility, sexual violence, incest, rape, child abuse, pornography, marriage decline, growth divorce, homosexuality, prostitution, etc .-, their mentors were launched to search for a solution to further disseminate its sexual ideology with less risk for physical health. Then, they rediscovered the condom as a new messiah. This "ally" is both a disseminator of ideology itself.

In recent years we have worked hard to give condoms a "honor" that he never had, considering the savior of humanity against the STD epidemic. And I want to convert the overnight star in the prevention campaigns of the same.

The condom always had extra-marital connotations, and since the onset of AIDS, it has been conceptually united more than ever to promiscuity and STDs. Although he wants to look good, do not.

The condom is associated with a type of sex divorced from love. Usually people see sex and love as two realities that should be inseparable. But if you think in terms of condoms, love is out of the question, because one sex involving condoms which must "take care" without love. And this is almost by definition.

Here: Condoms

• assume promiscuity. By definition, if we are trying to avoid getting STD's because one of the two, or two, are promiscuous. At the same time, assume a non-permanent. When you hear talk about condoms, we automatically relate to casual sex. Therefore, it advertised as something you have to have on hand ... by the occasion arises to use it ...
• means promoting condoms promote a mindset very dangerous for society and individuals. The awareness that the only concern when sex is no STDs or procreate. Reduce sex to a recreational activity: a game of pleasure. The consequences of this mindset are evident. Condoms
• assume infidelity by definition, have sex with a stranger / a. Condoms do not seem to promote love, but rather its opposite, infidelity.
• presuppose a degradation of sexuality. Sex "preserved" is sex without commitment, sex without love, sex for pleasure. It promotes a kind of sex education reduced to mere sexual hygiene technique ... the results are paradoxically an increase of STDs ...
• Condoms assume lack of confidence. Moreover, they promote it. One of the latest announcements promoting condoms, warning of the need not to trust: the message was that the trust does not rid you of AIDS and condoms yes. If I use a condom or requiring its use, basically because I guess the other person has frequent sexual encounters with other casual partners. So I try to avoid acquiring, through him / her, sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) than their other partners may have. Condoms
• presuppose a selfish sexuality as it is a sexuality that does not unite, but ensures that those who join remain "separate" .. Condoms
• assume that the other person: "you're dangerous to me." "Let me use your body but do not ask me to trust you or love you." I shall preserve, protect me, but from whom? Protect me the person who theoretically should want. Assume that I have to defend myself from my partner (of their fertility and disease).
• Condoms are a new version of love. Instead of saying "I love you forever, till death do us part", say "I love you as long as there is a piece of rubber separating us."

Condom promotion is a dishonest and frivolous philosophy
campaigns with lies, half truths and hidden truths

• Why people lie ensuring that there is security? How can it be that condoms protect you against AIDS when it is not effective or as a contraceptive (has "failure rate (failure rate) of 10-15%). But the AIDS virus is 450 times smaller than a sperm ... is irresponsible not a campaign that not telling the whole truth in a matter so important? If cigarette packets is required to alert the smoker that smoking is injurious to health ... why not noticed how bad it is promiscuity? Why not be concluded that even using condoms can spread person? Why the fear that people know that condoms are not the ultimate solution?
• Why hide the fact that condoms do not provide absolute protection against AIDS? It is true that lower the risk of infection when you have sex with a person who has AIDS ... because if you do not have sex or have someone who does not have AIDS ... the risk is zero. So would not it be logical to recommend that healthy young people do not have sex, at least not have them with someone who has AIDS? Because in that case there is no risk of contagion at all. It seems clear that to get AIDS you have to look ... and that just can not come. Do not forget to reduce the risk of transmission is not the same as avoiding it altogether.
• If you promote the use of condoms 're promoting promiscuity. The most basic statistic shows that if you multiply the events, the probability of obtaining a result ends up becoming a certainty. An example will help understand this better. If you roll a dice, the probability that 2 is one in six. But if you throw the given twenty times, the probability of getting a 2 is very high, and if you throw 60, it is almost certain. This shows that promoting condom use to stop the spread of AIDS involves the long term, spread it more because you are encouraging the very means of transmission. This logic does not seem so difficult to understand.
• A tough paradox: some will not get AIDS through the use of condoms. Others will contract precisely because the security falsely attributed to condoms led them to have sex.
• When it comes to condom protection levels, we talk about people using it forever (and this is stressed because there are few who, unfaithful to their partners, are as true to the condom) and as appropriate ( Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Federal agency of the United States has a long list of instructions on how to use a condom to work). This makes the values \u200b\u200battributed to the condom efficacy trials, studies, etc. are far from being valid for the man in the street. In fact, studies on the effectiveness of condoms have the highest values \u200b\u200bamong prostitutes, who just happen to be the experts on the subject, how could it be otherwise. It seems that to achieve these levels of efficiency, which is never total, will have to acquire practice and experience of these ladies ... they are the best users. But ... be good to achieve such mastery and skill in the art?
• Why not say that, sometimes, the condom is useless? When the condom is presented as the great savior of mankind, the new Messiah who will protect against STDs, the problem is not just percentages efficiency, as this varies by type of STD. And there are some incurable STD for which the condom provides virtually no protection. The case of herpes, HPV, and some others. It never says ... funny huh?

Some questions and quite hypocritical

• do to be so condom promotion and no promotion of the only sure way to avoid all STDs, abstinence ? Will you have to do with it free ...? Why this fear to speak of chastity ... like a bad word? Would you be embarrassed or ideological motives behind it?
• Why such insistence on the use of condoms is not encouraged people to get tested to know if positive or not? Why the taboo to tell those who have the virus, "Please do not keep infecting people," and only recommend using condoms? The problem is the fear of the truth. Is it really better "cover" relatively risk to get or be spread to know if I have or if you have it (the virus course)?
• may seem discriminatory, but perhaps could be promoted something like: "if you want to avoid AIDS do not sleep with someone who does. "I do not think that is something discriminatory not going to bed with an HIV carrier.
• Who pays all the campaigns promoting condoms?" You may have money for this and not Medicare? Is it not because the condom is also a contraceptive? Could it be that condom promotion campaigns are also campaigns disguised contraception?
• "If you know you have to use it, what are you waiting for?". What more tender message ... Are they saying will also rapists? "If you do, be civilized ... do so with a condom and she will have no objection ... "
• lovers condom
  given as final argument realism. People say, can not avoid promiscuous sexual contacts. Then, at least, we must encourage do so in the least peligrosa.Pero the premise is not true. Who would accept to have sex with the most attractive person in the universe knows that he has AIDS? Nobody. So there will not be changing their tactics "and to two people are for having sex, rather than encourage them to go out and buy and use condoms, would not it be better and healthier to encourage them to sleep together before you make a analysis to know if they are free of STDs, so they can share the bed more quiet?

promote condom use implies:

• Promote this irresponsible sexuality. In seeking to remove all of the exercise of sexuality, sex itself is irresponsabiliza. Sex "presevatico are unaware of the painful emotional consequences, psychological, emotional, relational, etc. promiscuity.
• promote promiscuity. Encourage people to have sex indiscriminately. Condoms being sold a product when it is encouraged to promote people to increase their sexual activity (only way you need it). Selling condoms is a business that depends on the levels of promiscuity: the more promiscuous, more business for manufacturers, traders, etc. But while the more promiscuous, the greater the spread of HIV. Invite
• infected people having sex and thus increase the risk of contagion. It gives a false security. It is as if to say: "if you have AIDS do not sweat it, why not deprive you of sex. If you use a condom, you're very responsible, because you can not infect your partner." It promotes irresponsibility of those infected in a very dangerous.
• think that sex is a recreational activity. Reduce sex pleasure only, separate from love and any other responsibilities. Sex is just a fun game, the only responsibility regarding the issue is to prevent disease. Promoting condoms are telling "Andáte to bed with anyone you meet on the street as long as you 'responsible' using a condom."
• suggest that fidelity and abstinence are impossible and that infidelity is a good thing, or at least indifferent. The only bad thing is the possibility of pregnancy or infection (in fact for the promoters of condoms, pregnancy is the worst of diseases).
• despise, you are implicitly saying that you're an animal, you're not able to control yourself to yourself. Like the rest of the animals are determined by your sexual drive and you can only follow. Your very freedom is to use a condom.
• promote distrust in relationships. You are saying "do not trust your partner", he / she may be infected and be cheating. Use it / her to extract pleasure from him / her, but tené careful not infect you
• Promote your selfishness. You are saying, "Do not worry if he / she is sick, I just thought fun in you, use it / a. If you are sick, that's not your problem, your only concern is pleasure. "

The underlying problem

is not demonize condoms. For many, the issue of its use is out of the question for reasons other health eternal health: do not recommend or use them for his worst side effect is sent to hell because it is a mortal sin. But the truth is that since normally presuppose premarital sex or homosexual or infidel, from the point of view of sin, the truth is they do not add too much evil ... This is not where the problem lies.

Here we are not talking about eternal salvation, but a public health campaign funded with our money (the taxpayers have contributed) and promotion of behavior patterns.

I am not opposed to those who want, exercising their freedom to use condoms. Beyond them, everyone is master of his actions, and slave of its decisions (as we are not free to establish the consequences of our actions).

What does not seem logical that the State will become the champion of condoms and basic public health campaign to prevent STDs in something that does not prevent them. And he refuses to tell the truth: the only sure means of prevention is fidelity in monogamy. And that lie by attributing to condoms that do not have power.

So I do not trust condoms.
And ... please do not let them treat you like you're an idiot

By Paul Writes