Pope: condoms for male prostitutes OK

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 20, 2010 10:05 PM GMT
    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AJ1CC20101120The pope says that the "sheer fixation on the condom implies a canalization [sic]of sexuality" where sexuality is no longer an expression of love "but only a sort of drug that people administer to themselves."

    After the pope first mentions that the use of condoms could be justified in certain limited cases, such as by prostitutes, Seewald asks: "Are you saying, then, that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?"

    The pope answers: "She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more humane way, of living sexuality."


    OK, so it's not a "real" or moral solution. But it works. Statistics trump ideology.
    And if he were to be believed, it's only good for male prostitutes. Let's all be prostitutes.icon_twisted.gif
    What if you're a married couple with discordant HIV status? icon_eek.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 20, 2010 10:26 PM GMT
    Where does he specify "male" prostitutes?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 20, 2010 11:29 PM GMT
    Um the female condom is still not perfected yet. And I don't think female prostitutes have the power in their dealings with their clients to insist on condoms 100% of the time.
    But, hey, while we're at it, let's get all women to be prostitutes too if they want to have protection in this twisted logic.icon_twisted.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 21, 2010 12:43 AM GMT
    There's too much "intention" in his solutions. It doesn't matter what the intention of sex is--what really matters is that the transmission rate of HIV can be cut by the use of condoms. Sex is sex. People are going to have it no matter what their marital status is or what their HIV status is. Pragmatism is needed. I completely agree with him that more needs to be done, and moralizing isn't one of those things.

    This is the same misguided and outdated reasoning behind why federal funding for needle exchange programs are still banned by the US federal government.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 21, 2010 1:14 AM GMT
    q1w2e3 saidUm the female condom is still not perfected yet. And I don't think female prostitutes have the power in their dealings with their clients to insist on condoms 100% of the time.
    But, hey, while we're at it, let's get all women to be prostitutes too if they want to have protection in this twisted logic.icon_twisted.gif


    The female condom has about aa 95% success rate, and the conventional male one has about 98%.

    A female prostitute has as much power as any male prostitute to demand a condom is worn. They are the one providing the sex act on their terms; they have the bargaining power as to whether the punter has to wear protection, or else they can simply refuse the service.



    icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 21, 2010 1:32 AM GMT
    The female condom is nowhere as easily worn, as cheap, or as available than the male condom.
    Having said that, Africa seems to be the place where it's most available:
    http://www.avert.org/female-condom.htmThe female condom is used in public health programmes in more than 90 countries and is commercially marketed directly to consumers in ten countries.3 It is quite widely used in some places where it is actively promoted, such as South Africa, Zimbabwe and Brazil. However in many parts of the world it is hardly available at all.
    ...Altogether, female condoms account for only around 0.2% of global condom use.
    In 2005, nearly two thirds of all female condoms were used in Africa, while the next largest shares went to North America and Europe. Asia accounted for less than 1% of the global total in 2005, though figures for later years may be higher due to growth in India.


    And this study suggests that 100% condom use is still very far off:
    http://sti.bmj.com/content/84/3/202.abstract

    Anyway, in his own words the pope specifically stated male prostitutes (see Draper's post).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 21, 2010 1:35 AM GMT
    icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 21, 2010 1:36 AM GMT
    Once more the man proves that he is a homophobe.
    It's not so that aids can be prevented in general... it's so that male prostitutes will stop the spread.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 21, 2010 1:37 AM GMT
    He must have gotten sick of kissing the "ugly" babies and thought to himself... "I gotta stop this shit" icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 21, 2010 1:41 AM GMT
    Draper saidI think what he's trying to say is that condoms aren't a cure all. Even when they're available, they're still not being used all of the time, so it's more of a human behavioral flaw. If they had been used faithfully, the AIDS crisis wouldn't be where it's at today. If you abstain from sex, obviously you're not going to get HIV. And if both partners are faithful, you're not going to get HIV either. But many people are relying on the third option and seeing where it goes, "the sheer fixation on the condom implies a banalization of sexuality", more or less reducing sex to a piece of latex.
    I think the comment about the male prostitute is just a way of saying that anyone using a condom is using it because they're unsure if the other person has HIV, so it could have some affect on making the person think about why he's using a condom and possibly lead him to some better choices. The Catholic church has done more for AIDS than most, but they're also doing it on their own terms.


    I completely agree with you, but the Catholic Church has been consistently against any forms of contraception, and condoms are a major form of contraception. which is why the Church has been against condoms until now! To say that its use is only justified in male prostitutes is saying that the intent, more than the act of sex, counts in its use. (He's arguing that it's justified because the male prostitute does not have procreation as a goal usually. What if the male prostitute wanted children?) Whereas, in the majority of cases where condoms can be used, they are used for both STD prevention and contraception.

    And his message doesn't promote routine condom use at all, even when they are available. In fact it encourages condom use as a last resort, when it should be the first thing in mind when sex is going to happen.
  • Mepark

    Posts: 806

    Nov 21, 2010 1:50 AM GMT
    I don't understand his logic here. What about female prostitutes? Don't they need a male partner? Shouldn't he recommend condoms to those men as well if he wants to prevent the spread of disease?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 21, 2010 1:56 AM GMT
    q1w2e3 saidUm the female condom is still not perfected yet. And I don't think female prostitutes have the power in their dealings with their clients to insist on condoms 100% of the time.
    But, hey, while we're at it, let's get all women to be prostitutes too if they want to have protection in this twisted logic.icon_twisted.gif
    Yeah, female prostitutes can be picky about condoms. It might mean less business, but it's still a choice.
    And I like twisted logic, in case you didn't notice. icon_twisted.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 21, 2010 2:03 AM GMT
    His hands are tied--somebody made dogma and he can't contradict them. And he would be caving in to those pesky Protestants.

    wiki ion contraception/ChristianityFamily planning proponent Stephen D. Mumford has argued that the primary motivation behind the Church's continued opposition to contraceptive use is the Church's fear of losing papal authority if the pope were to contradict the dogma of papal infallibility.[35] Mumford gives as an example the citation made by August Bernhard Hasler of a comment by Pope John Paul II prior to his papacy:

    If it should be declared that contraception is not evil in itself, then we should have to concede frankly that the Holy Spirit had been on the side of the Protestant churches in 1930 (when the encyclical Casti Connubii was promulgated), in 1951 (Pius XII's address to the midwives), and in 1958 (the address delivered before the Society of Hematologists in the year the pope died). It should likewise have to be admitted that for a half century the Spirit failed to protect Pius XI, Pius XII, and a large part of the Catholic hierarchy from a very serious error. This would mean that the leaders of the Church, acting with extreme imprudence, had condemned thousands of innocent human acts, forbidding, under pain of eternal damnation, a practice which would now be sanctioned. The fact can neither be denied nor ignored that these same acts would now be declared licit on the grounds of principles cited by the Protestants, which popes and bishops have either condemned or at least not approved.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 21, 2010 2:05 AM GMT
    [quote]
    Sage_Humour said

    A female prostitute has as much power as any male prostitute to demand a condom is worn. They are the one providing the sex act on their terms; they have the bargaining power as to whether the punter has to wear protection, or else they can simply refuse the service.


    [cite]Draper said[/cite]
    Right. And like people who make porn, they sometimes chuck the condoms and make more money. [/quote]

    True, that is always a choice of the person providing sex for money. However, what has that got to do with gender/psuedo power inequalities bewteen male/female prostitutes demanding comdoms being worn? Nothing.

    A female prostitute doesn't have to be wearing a female condom to stay protected, she can demand her punter wear one as a condition for business just as easily as a male (e.g. bottom/top) prostitute (whether they do in fact choose to insist on this is another debate entirely).

    That was merely the point I was making.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 21, 2010 2:37 AM GMT
    Power comes in many forms--physical, cultural, financial.
    Am I saying that female prostitutes are powerless? No, but they certainly have less power than their clients.
    This is an anthropological study into the female prostitutes in South Africa.
    http://users.aims.ac.za/~kgross/discussion/wojcicki.pdf
    In the section on condom use:

    pp109-110
    The informants in this study confirmed that men do not want to wear condoms and argued that they demand flesh-to-flesh sex. This background is important to understand the cultural pressures that women face in
    sexual decision-making. Most of the women interviewed reported using
    condoms regularly, however many of the same women argued that if they were offered more money from clients (or boyfriends), then they would not use condoms. This was the most common reason given for choosing not to use condoms.
    ...
    The lure of not using condoms is great. Those women who do not use condoms get the most clients.
    ...
    So although women complained about poverty and difficulties with clients, they do take advantage of clients’ desires to have unsafe sex by raising the price for condomless sex. Bargaining is part of a power struggle between sex-workers and clients and part of this power struggle involves the use of condoms and price.
    ...
    The possibility of a condom being unreliable and the threat of violence from clients and security contribute to a willingness to have unsafe sex with clients who offer more money, in part because sex-workers reason that their lives are risky and difficult enough already. Having unsafe sex with one client may not necessarily transmit HIV (he could be HIV-) and who’s to say that the condom wouldn’t break anyway?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 21, 2010 2:45 AM GMT
    Anyway, somebody at Huffpost made this comment:
    "I hope he teaches his priests to wear condoms when they molest the children..."
    Very insensitive, but perfectly in line with the Pope's comment (with which I completely agree, in this case):

    Draper's quoteThere may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility, on the way toward recovering an awareness that not everything is allowed and that one cannot do whatever one wants.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 21, 2010 2:53 AM GMT
    q1w2e3 saidPower comes in many forms--physical, cultural, financial.
    Am I saying that female prostitutes are powerless? No, but they certainly have less power than their clients.
    This is an anthropological study into the female prostitutes in South Africa.
    http://users.aims.ac.za/~kgross/discussion/wojcicki.pdf
    In the section on condom use:

    pp109-110
    The informants in this study confirmed that men do not want to wear condoms and argued that they demand flesh-to-flesh sex. This background is important to understand the cultural pressures that women face in
    sexual decision-making. Most of the women interviewed reported using
    condoms regularly, however many of the same women argued that if they were offered more money from clients (or boyfriends), then they would not use condoms. This was the most common reason given for choosing not to use condoms.
    ...
    The lure of not using condoms is great. Those women who do not use condoms get the most clients.
    ...
    So although women complained about poverty and difficulties with clients, they do take advantage of clients’ desires to have unsafe sex by raising the price for condomless sex. Bargaining is part of a power struggle between sex-workers and clients and part of this power struggle involves the use of condoms and price.
    ...
    The possibility of a condom being unreliable and the threat of violence from clients and security contribute to a willingness to have unsafe sex with clients who offer more money, in part because sex-workers reason that their lives are risky and difficult enough already. Having unsafe sex with one client may not necessarily transmit HIV (he could be HIV-) and who’s to say that the condom wouldn’t break anyway?





    These anecdotes suggest that the female prostitutes feel pressure to choose to engage in sex without a condom. The client has no choice at all. He can only request/bribe/pressure. However, the power lies with the person with the power to choose- the prostitute. A lot of poeple assume they are powerless victims but this is hardly the case (unless we are referrring to sex slaves).

    The following scenario is rare, but If the male client physically forces himself upon the prostitute into intercourse without a condom, logic dictates that it is no longer a form of capitalistic sexual intercourse, but rape. Only then has the power of choice been removed.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 21, 2010 3:09 PM GMT
    The Pope's statement to me, is yet another example of just how out of touch and rediculous the traditions and dogma of the Catholic Church really is. How can people actually believe that this "representative" of "God on earth" really has any rightful "authority" over peoples private reproductive business. This to me makes him and his church look really laughable, call me sacreligious but he in reality is no closer to a God than any other living person on earth. People who buy into his everyword and opinion on such issues are truely duped and must be willfully ignorant.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 21, 2010 3:26 PM GMT
    q1w2e3 said
    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AJ1CC20101120The pope says that the "sheer fixation on the condom implies a canalization [sic]of sexuality" where sexuality is no longer an expression of love "but only a sort of drug that people administer to themselves."

    After the pope first mentions that the use of condoms could be justified in certain limited cases, such as by prostitutes, Seewald asks: "Are you saying, then, that the Catholic Church is actually not opposed in principle to the use of condoms?"

    The pope answers: "She of course does not regard it as a real or moral solution, but, in this or that case, there can be nonetheless, in the intention of reducing the risk of infection, a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more humane way, of living sexuality."


    OK, so it's not a "real" or moral solution. But it works. Statistics trump ideology.
    And if he were to be believed, it's only good for male prostitutes. Let's all be prostitutes.icon_twisted.gif
    What if you're a married couple with discordant HIV status? icon_eek.gif



    Who fucking cares what the fucking pope thinks, really now. Anyone who places this man and his associates in a position of importance or authority, is a complete fool. He needs to turn himself in to the police for obstructing and withholding evidence to child abuse cases
  • DanOmatic

    Posts: 1155

    Nov 21, 2010 3:29 PM GMT
    realifedad said The Pope's statement to me, is yet another example of just how out of touch and rediculous the traditions and dogma of the Catholic Church really is. How can people actually believe that this "representative" of "God on earth" really has any rightful "authority" over peoples private reproductive business. This to me makes him and his church look really laughable, call me sacreligious but he in reality is no closer to a God than any other living person on earth. People who buy into his everyword and opinion on such issues are truely duped and must be willfully ignorant.


    Exactly this. The Catholic Church still has one foot in the medieval world--it wasn't so long ago that the Church actually gave in and admitted that maybe heretics like Copernicus and Galileo were right about the earth revolving around the sun... How can anyone think that anything coming out of the Pope's mouth is anything but utter superstitious bullshit?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 21, 2010 4:05 PM GMT
    The Pope can say anything and it won't make a difference for ME.

    It's the millions of poor, uneducated or deluded souls that do listen to him and act on what he says which trouble me.

    Imagine you're a devout Catholic from an African country, and you hear from the infallible Pope that condoms are not allowed except for male prostitutes.

    That immediately conjures up negative connotations for the use of condoms (since prostitutes are shunned and treated poorly--see South Africa, for example). And, exactly, why just male prostitutes? Why not male clients of female prostitutes? Is it because of the (unspoken) assumption that some male prostitutes engage in homosexual sex? (And we all know how opposed to homosexuality the majority of African countries are)

    It would have been better if the Pope never spoke about condoms at all, especially not with his exceptions when condoms are allowed. Condom use would actually go DOWN if every Catholic in Africa heard his statement.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 21, 2010 4:09 PM GMT
    What he's trying to say is, "It's OK for male prostitutes to wear condoms because they're going to hell anyway."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 21, 2010 4:14 PM GMT
    False belief systems. What can you say? Sexuality was NEVER, and will NEVER, be an expression of love. It's one of the three primal needs for the ongoing continuance of the species: food, shelter, sex. Any 1'st year college student knows the difference. False belief systems continue to hold false beliefs (doh), and put forth false beliefs, with no basis in science, which is a huge disservice to man. Sexuality is NOT a function of emotion, but, rather, of functionality of the species and its continuance.

    What amazes me is how some folks (the religious nuts) can be so ignorant. Proof positive that the species has a LONG way to go.

    The way you fight cults, religion, false belief systems is by exposing, and repeating, facts. Ironically, most subscribers to false beliefs will "dig in" win they are confronted with truth.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 21, 2010 4:17 PM GMT
    I can only assume that the pope insists that all his male prostitutes wear condoms when they're fucking his droopy ass.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 21, 2010 4:30 PM GMT

    Will allowing this prevent some of the clergy from catching diseases?