That said, [President] Clinton joined the majority of experts who say abstinence-only programs do not work. Better, he said, are programs that include abstinence counseling as part of a range of options.Programs featuring abstinence and marital fidelity as primary methods do work, as experience in Africa shows. That is, these programs succeed in curbing the spread of AIDS. To date they have not succeeded in gaining the attention of the mainstream media, which remains obsessed with condoms. Some additional points:
Other experts have noted that abstinence-only programs have little meaning in societies where young girls and women are forced into early marriage, forced to have sex [forced prostitution], or raped.
- Condoms are not foolproof. What’s foolproof is not having sex before you get married, not marrying someone with AIDS, and then being faithful to that person throughout your marriage.
- Condoms have little effect in societies where young girls and women are forced into early marriage or raped.
- Abstinence is always possible for those who are not being sexually coerced or assaulted. So what is the proposed audience for the condom campaign? Pederasts, pimps, sexual deviants, and rapists are not likely to listen to any such appeal
A US law [requires] HIV/AIDS organizations that want PEPFAR funding to pledge to oppose commercial sex work.This-- and a separate requirement that recipient organizations spend 33% of taxpayer funds on abstinence programs-- is viewed by critics as evidence of overweening moralism.
"I wish they would just amend the law and say 'we disapprove of prostitution but here's the money -- go save lives'," Clinton said.Right. And then we're back to the question of how one can save lives more effectively: by encouraging abstinence, or by handing out condoms to clients at brothels.
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a current donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: a son of Mary -
Dec. 18, 2010 1:30 PM ET USA
Every journalist I've ever met has been decrying the state of Journalism - it's been decaying for years. Formerly great papers, even medium sized city papers had foreign correspondents. Today there's just a few left. Nowadays the writing is terrible, little or no fact checking, and a lot of 3rd rate hacks bent on circulation not facts get into print these days.
Posted by: -
Nov. 23, 2010 5:40 PM ET USA
Since when was L’Osservatore Romano considered authoritative?
Posted by: -
Nov. 23, 2010 4:22 PM ET USA
Journalism, as we used to understand it, simply doesn't exist any more. No one in the main stream media takes the time to research anything, preferring instead to assume they know everything they need to know if they heard about it on Opera. The editors are so lacking in basic humanities backgrounds that they can't spot errors any more or even know what should be fact-checked.