‘Safe Sex’ is a misnomer, ‘Safer Sex’ is worse

I have said this countless of times on this blog. I am going to say it again. When your good old grandma told you to behave yourself, she was right. Good old abstinence worked during her time and for generations before her. The moment liberal sex was introduced as the norm, all hell broke loose.

Liberals who campaign for safe sex got it wrong. There’s nothing safe about promiscuity. Even with the condom. Some liberals try to address the risk factor of condoms by renaming it “safer sex”, hopefully to sound more politically correct because technically, sex without condom is worse than sex with one. But there lies the stupidity. It infers that sex without condom is safe, while with one, it is safer!

Here’s a report telling you what dentists say. Yep, it looks like good old gram’s words are still haunting these liberal sex propagandists. Btw, the title is misleading. It should read “Dentists warn: [Illicit] Oral sex [with multiple partners] can lead to oral cancer”.

Dentists warn: Oral sex can lead to oral cancer

Oral sex could lead to cancer of the mouth more than smoking and drinking, doctors say.

At the joint conference of the Philippine Medical Association and the Philippine Dental Association, doctors and dentists cited a study in the New England Journal of Medicine suggesting that people who have more than five oral-sex partners are nine times more at risk of contracting cancer of the tonsils, tongue or throat.
Vic Fileo Chua, convener of the Movement for the Early Detection of Cancer, says “unprotected oral sex” can lead to various infections of the oral cavity. The Human Papilloma Virus, which causes genital warts, has been positively linked to cervical cancer in women.
“This same virus can cause oral cancers in both men and women engaged in oral sex,” Chua said.

“Sexually transmitted infections like Herpes, Gonorrhea, Chlamydia and others can also cause serious irritations of the buccal cavity, and the repeated infections through oral sex can lead to cancers of the mouth.”

A study by the University of the Philippines Population Institute says more than four million young Filipinos have already engaged in sex, including oral sex. But only 20 percent of them protect themselves.

Anne Camus, president of the Manila chapter of the Philippine Dental Association, says the incidence of oral lesions among Manila’s residents is 15 percent. Any lesion of the mouth should be taken seriously, she says, because it can always develop into cancer.

“Dentists are usually the first to see lesions in the mouth of patients, she said.
“At this early point, if the lesion turns out to be malignant, then chances are it is still curable.”

Liberals will cry, “But abstinence won’t work!”

Really? It worked for good old grams and generations before her for centuries. “Safe Sex” on the other hand became the fashion last century during the Woodstock Era. And it has shown that’s the one that doesn’t work.

The same liberals will claim that in Third World countries, the rate of HIV and STD cases are higher, when there’s no safe sex practised. Yep, neither do these people practise abstinence either. So what’s with the over elation displayed and false claim these liberals make that “safe sex” works better than abstinence?

In fact, these cases in Third World countries reinforce the fact that abstinence is the only real safe way even more. Prostitution in these countries are unregulated. Many young girls driven by poverty are made into sex slaves. Isn’t this illicit sex with multiple partners?

In the more developed countries, condoms are sold like sanitary pads or cigarettes openly. To say that our young adults do not know about the use of condom when it is displayed in full view is rubbish.

It is about time that the young in society be told that they have a choice. Abstinence is one of them. To claim that abstinence does not work, when it is safe sex that’s been advertised the last 50 years, is to place the blame on abstinence when it is shown safe sex is the one that doesn’t work – for the last 50 years!

Of late, MOE is reintroducing abstinence as part of Sexuality Education. As usual the liberals, mainly made up of Feminist groups and LGBTs, are up in arms on that. They are of the opinion that their brand of “safe sex”, or should it be “safer sex”, is safe enough.

What a fatal mistake.

Abstinence IS part of Sex Education

Liberals are making a big hooha, claiming it is a step backwards when MOE decides to include abstinence as part of Sexual Education Programmes. See links below.

MOE’s revision of sexuality education

Sex Ed: More than going beyond second base

Is MOE Encouraging the Spread of STD?

It seems strange to me that so many bloggers who are younger than I am, appear to be saying that they have been taught “abstinence” in schools and that doesn’t work. I was born in the sixties era and I recall being taught sex ed stuff in the 1970s. The stress was definitely about “safe sex” rather than “abstinence”. And that was topped up by the fact that I was from a Christian mission school too!

The only time abstinence was taught was during Moral Ed (that time it was known as Civics) classes. But when it comes to sex awareness, be it from the MOE or MOH viewpoint, it had always been about “safe sex”.

So who are these guys, younger than I am, to claim that abstinence was taught over safe sex in the 1980s and 1990s, when already in the 1970s, it had always been safe sex over abstinence?

Abstinence is part of sex education. Safe sex is also, but it is a misnomer because it gives people the idea that it is safe.

Some creative goons suggest that we replace the term “safe sex” with “safer sex” to address the misconception. But aren’t these goons showing their gooney side, because it would mean that if you just have sex, it is safe, but if you practise “safer sex”, it is safer?

Huh? Wazzat again?

Let’s face it. Safe sex has been taught, drilled, hyped up over and over again since he 1970s. If at all, it is the safe sex ed approach that doesn’t work.

After four decades of drilling of safe sex, even adults still don’t practise it because most still don’t care. Condoms are sold like sanitary pads and cigarettes at convenient stores. Are you trying to say that these highly sexed people don’t know condoms exist, or don’t know where to get them?

Come on! The only true safe sex is abstinence or being faithful to your spouse. He/she must also be faithful to you, of course.

Any other way, including the (un)safe sex way, is no guarantee. That’s because not only the HIV virus is able to pass through the latex, but more importantly, after 4 decades of teaching safe sex, many people just don’t care.

Stopping educators from teaching abstinence as an alternative is denying the truth that is the only true and safe method.

‘Modern Day’ sex ed just doesn’t work

To all liberals who think that the good old abstinence programme doesn’t work on youngsters who “experiment sex” (or on adults who are just as sexually active), what makes you think “Modern Day” Sex Ed programmes work any better?

After decades, yes, decades and not just a few years, of drilling from all sides of society that you need to be careful, all sorts of people just don’t listen and the instances of STD, HIV and unwanted babies just doesn’t seem to relent.

Liberal sexual lifestyle became an in thing, a cool thing and a way of living half a century ago, at the start of the Woodstock Era. That’s the time where single motherhood, co-habitation and drugs were seen as the things the young do, compared to the conservative lifestyle the oldies lead.

There isn’t really anything new about liberal sexual lifestyle today, if you were to look at it carefully, is there?

So if the so called “Modern Day” sex ed programme is the way, why is it not working on society?

Girls having abortions are getting younger

The number of teen abortions has been falling steadily in recent years but medical counsellors say the girls undergoing abortions are getting younger.

Some of them are as young as 16 years of age.

The counsellors say it could be due to girls falling in love earlier, not having enough communication with their parents or not knowing enough about sex.

I was born in the sixties and I can tell you that in the last 4 decades that I can recall as a kid and youth, is that argument above has been around for as long as I can remember. Yep, not enough communication and not enough knowledge about sex.

So the liberals of the day forty years ago that I can recall, decided to educate the “modern way” (ie “safe sex”), and at the same time ditching the “old fashion way” (ie is abstinence).

Fast forward 40 years later and it seems this so called “modern day” sex ed programme approach, which purports to teach about “safe sex”, still isn’t working.

Come on. It is about time society faced the truth. It is not that info is not readily available. Many adults (not just youngsters) in spite of the knowledge of the risks of liberal sex, just don’t give two hoots about “safe sex”. That’s why the number of cases of STD and Aids go up, on top of the number of abortions.

Condoms are sold like sanitary pads openly. You mean to say that these people who engage in liberal sex don’t know that such items exist? Huh?

There is so much talk about sex, sex, sex and their repercussion on the internet. You mean these youngsters don’t know anything about it, while they beat adults hands down on techie stuff on the internet?

Let’s face it. So called “modern day” and liberal sex ed programmes are just not working. It hasn’t the last half century or so.

>Sex Ed must be all inclusive, not secular

>There is a mistaken notion that secularism is all inclusive. Secularism is actually very exclusive – more so than the very religions it tries “to teach” that they should be inclusive.

Isn’t secularism the separation of state and religion, to the point that any decision is made, religious ideals are kept out, EXCEPT secular ideals itself? Hey, by definition, doesn’t that make secularism exclusive?

Here is an article by Ng E-Jay on Sex Ed.
Sexuality education must remain secular

I read with alarm the ST article ‘Call to tweak sexuality education’ (26 Jan) which revealed that some Catholic church authorities have been lobbying MOE officials to change the content of sexuality education programmes to better conform to their religious beliefs.

In particular, Archbishop Nicholas Chia implied in a recent letter to school leaders that teaching students to use condoms might encourage promiscuity.

Ms Wendy Louis, executive director of the Archdiocesan Commission for Catholic Schools, also offered her view that teaching students how to use condoms was an instance of a ‘compromised message’.

I find this attitude irresponsible and misguided. Educating students on condom use is intended to prepare them for life as adults, not an excuse for them to become promiscuous minors. To refraining from teaching students about condom use would contradict the goals of sexuality education, which is to ensure students grow up to be responsible and informed adults.

Certainly, I agree that all segments of society including religious leaders must be consulted with regards to the syllabus content of sexuality programmes in schools. But at the same time, sexuality education must not become hostage to religious doctrine.

Sexuality education must remain secular because we live in a secular society and because a secular programme best serves the interests of students who will become future stewards of society. To dilute their education by denying them much needed knowledge would be doing them a grave injustice.

To be truly all inclusive, the only way is to allow the various schools of ideas to be taught. Tbat includes religious AND secular ideals. Parents can then CHOOSE which set of programmes they want for their children.

To say that we must be secular, purporting that we should not be exclusive, is like saying that we should not discriminate others based on sex, race, religion, language or culture – then proceed to do exactly just that.

In other words, stop using the “secular argument” to stem religious ideals, then say we need to be “all inclusive”.

>Cervical Cancer Jab – The Downside

>Some months back, Mdm Halimah Yacob, Trade Unionist and MP, suggested that the Medisave be used to pay for the cancer cervical jab.

Halimah Yacob urges Medisave use for cervical cancer vaccination

SINGAPORE : Trade unionist Halimah Yacob is urging the authorities to allow the use of Medisave to pay for cervical cancer vaccination.

She highlighted this at the launch of a cervical cancer bloggers’ public education campaign on Thursday.

Young girls and women are encouraged to go for pap smear screening and vaccination to prevent cervical cancer. It seems early sexual activity and smoking puts them at a higher risk.

In fact, about 200 women are detected with cervical cancer each year, and half of them die from it.

Chinese women are more likely to get cervical cancer, with an incidence rate of 11.5 per 100,000 women each year, followed by the Malays at 7.4 and Indians at 6.1 per 100,000 women.

Halimah Yacob, deputy secretary general of NTUC and director of NTUC Women’s Development Secretariat, said: “Vaccination is meant for prevention.

Mdm Halimah is a trained lawyer. She is not a medically trained person. I give her the benefit of the doubt that she is unaware of the medical health perils that is tied to it.

Here is an article that highlights the downside.

Two thousand schoolgirls suffer suspected ill-effects from cervical cancer vaccine

Thousands of schoolgirls have suffered suspected adverse reactions to a controversial cervical cancer vaccine introduced by the Government.

Doctors’ reports show that girls of 12 and 13 have experienced convulsions, fever and paralysis after being given the vaccine, which is now administered in schools as part of efforts to prevent women developing cancer.

Others suffered nausea, muscle weakness, dizziness and blurred vision, according to a special report drawn up by drug safety watchdogs.

A support group says it has received dozens of calls from parents who believe their daughters have been damaged by the vaccine.

The parents of one teenage girl given the jab last autumn believe it was to blame for repeated seizures which have left her with brain damage and psychosis.

The immunisation programme for teenage girls is controversial because it protects them from the sexually transmitted human papillomavirus which causes 70 per cent of cervical tumours.

When the Government introduced the Cervarix vaccination programme last year, some campaigners dubbed it a “promiscuity jab”.

Campaigners and families said the new figures showed the vaccination should not have been introduced via a mass programme.

More than one million girls have already been given the jab, which is offered to all as they enter their teens.

Until 2011 it will also be administered to older girls, so that all female teens below the age of 18 will be covered by the programme.

Ministers say that ultimately the scheme will save 700 lives a year, while drug safety experts insist the number of suspected reactions are outweighed by the benefits from the jab.

Most of the more than 2,000 suspected reactions recorded by drug safety watchdog Medicines and Health care products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) were mild, with dozens of girls recording rashes, pain in the arm, and allergies.

But the report prepared by the MHRA earlier this month also discloses cases in which teens have suffered convulsions, eye rolling, muscle spasms, seizures and hyperventilation soon after being given the jab.

It has to be noted that this vaccine is only effective against human papillomavirus, a sexually transmitted disease. It is not effective against cancer of the cervix caused by other means.

Hence, this vaccine is also otherwise known as the “promiscuity jab”. A jab that hopefully prevents sexually transmitted cervical cancers. That being the case, isn’t the good old abstinence only method still the safest way?

Sure, go ahead and teach about the condoms. Go ahead and promote the cervix jab.

But for the good of everyone, please, pleeeeaaaaase, tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the (whole) truth.

Condoms do fail. And the cervix vaccine jab has medical ill side effects.

What is wrong about telling these teens and their parents those truths?

Drug experts are only willing to push their sales and profit up. That’s what’s wrong with telling teens and their parents the whole truth!

>Sex Education – what’s wrong with telling the WHOLE truth?

>It really appears that there is a fear to the point of denial amongst so called “safe sex” supporters. This denial exists in about every safe sex programme supporter. It appears they would rather die, than tell the WHOLE TRUTH. The piece of information these people leave out is that if the magic condom fails, it could mean Mother Nature may mete the death sentence.

What is wrong with telling the above? Why is this important fact always downplayed or even left out?

Before you think it is only Feminists, LBGTs and other “self-acclaimed less moralistic people” who are against the “religious” stance of “abstinence only” programmes, I will give you an example of how an educator also leaves that important fact out.

From the Forum of the Straits Times dated 31 Aug 2010

The writing’s on the wall for parents, schools

WE REFER to the report (‘St Patrick’s objects to condom video’; Aug 21). The Breaking Down Barriers (BDB) programme developed jointly by the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Education and the Health Promotion Board (HPB) aims to provide accurate and comprehensive information and skills on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and HIV infection.

We fully support abstinence and the building of strong moral and ethical values in teenagers as the main preventive measure against the risk of human immunodeficiency virus infection.

We cannot, however, ignore the findings of HPB’s Students’ Health Survey 2006 that young people in schools are engaging in sexual activity and in unprotected sex, resulting in STIs either in their youth, or later in their lives.

The survey showed that 4 per cent of youngsters in upper secondary schools had engaged in sexual activity and the median age of initiation is 15 years.

There has also been almost a threefold increase in STI notifications among young people aged 10-19 years – from 238 new cases in 2002 (45.7 per 100,000) to 681 new cases in 2009 (117.6 per 100,000).

Statistics also indicate that males are the main at-risk population for HIV infection in Singapore. They comprise 90 per cent of the 4,404 HIV cases diagnosed from 1985 to 2009.

Ignorance about protection against disease is not a strategy for controlling the growing HIV epidemic. Education is critical to improving awareness to enable youngsters to protect themselves.

The BDB programme, while promoting abstinence, also teaches condom usage so as to provide information and life skills in a controlled setting for protection against HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases.

We are mindful that parents may have different perspectives on sexuality education. However, we would strongly encourage parents to continue to opt into the BDB programme and for all schools and parents to continue to devote more time and resources towards developing in each child a strong moral compass that will guide his actions.

Lam Pin Woon
Chief Executive Officer
Health Promotion BoardM

So where is the part where it is mentioned that if the condom fails, you may face the “death sentence”? Why is that left out? In other words, why is the WHOLE TRUTH concealed?

Safe Sex propagators should listen and stop yakking. The irony is that they allege that Abstinence Only parties don’t listen! It is not that parents are against Safe Sex eduction per se. It is the overplay that the magic condom works wonderfully well, and the underplaying of the dangers if condoms fail. This concealment or underplaying of the death sentence is highly irresponsible on the part of Safe Sex supporters.

I am all for Sex Safe programmes which tells teens that the condom can reduce risk. Just tell them the WHOLE TRUTH that if the condom fails, they may face a life-threatening situation. Play that up and drill it into the teens over and over again.

Is that too much to ask from Safe Sex supporters?

>Free Sex is an Addiction – An Open Invitation to Yawning Bread to challenge my statement

>Let’s face the truth. Engaging in free liberal sex is an addiction. Those of you who disagree, take this test – give it up. You have a problem there? Good. Thanks for agreeing.

Now that we have come to a common platform it is an addiction, let’s look at the issues surrounding it.

Here are some general points common to all addiction:

- Need to engage in the activity. This refers to the need to engage in the addictive behaviour to satisfy the addict’s need. An alcoholic needs his regular dose of alcohol. A chain smoker needs his regular smoke. A porn addict needs his regular porn session. A computer game addict needs his regular session of games. A gambler needs his usual gambling session. A sex addict needs his regular sex session.

- Withdrawal Effect takes place if the addict does not engage in his regular addicted activity. This can be in the form of feeling uneasiness, discomfort, irritation and even violent behaviour.

- Lack of control in the addicted activity, especially in cutting it down. This is the vicious cycle of addiction. The more the addict engages in it, the more he needs to satisfy his addiction. Any cutting down of his activity may trigger his withdrawal symptoms.

- Social Life is affected. The addict will plan his social life with his addiction being the centre of his life. Hence, in all his plans and activities, his top priority will be activities that put his addiction in the number one spot. If the addict does not plan his social life, it is worse. The major bulk of his activities will then be centred on his addiction with all other activities sidelined. In extreme cases, even eating and sleeping is compromised.

So is Free Sex an addiction? Some will say no because they are able to control it. But then again, it can be argued that drinkers control their alcohol consumption. So why is drink driving so common then? Others say smokers can control too. Then why not give it up totally? Some gamblers say they can control themselves. Do I need to elaborate on that one?

Addiction has various levels. On the extreme end, we have addicts who cannot control their activities such that it takes over their lives. Others claim they are not addicted, but indulge it for “leisure”. This is where the problem starts. All addiction starts from small doses. And all addiction causes the addict to justify their addiction to the point they downplay the ills of that addiction.

Here are some tests to see if you are a free sex addict.

- It (free sex) controls your life and behaviour rather than you control it. It becomes the CENTRE OF YOUR LIFE.
- You cannot say no to it for long periods.
- If you don’t have it, you suffer “withdrawal” symptoms.
- You justify Free Sex even when you know the dangers (of free sex).
- It (free sex) has the potential to ruin your life (be it your marriage and/or your health).

I don’t wish to take the religious and/or moral stance here. That’s because Free Sex propagators will hammer religion and not discuss the dangers of Free Sex itself. The most irresponsible of all Free Sex Propagators are the ones who claim to help teens, when in fact they cover up the ills and dangers. Sad to say, Yawning Bread leads the pack in this area.

I find Alex of YB highly irresponsible, even having the gall to make it sound that he is “patching up” what trained sex educators (of St Patricks) have “failed to deliver”. Here is his article, which I have been subsequently barred from commenting, because he does not agree with my points.
St Patrick’s patch 1: How to use a condom

Note YB’s irresponsible reply to “Sexuality Researcher and Educator” in the comments section of the article above in this link.
Excerpt:

Also, one has to take into context that there are parties out there who go around making exactly that imputation – that condoms “fail” 15 percent of the time. They do this with the intention of making a big scare out of it, in order frighten people out of sex. The scientifically demonstrated result of their efforts however are that people continue to have sex but do so with LESS condom use, believing that condoms are “no use”.

We therefore have a moral responsibility in view of the layman’s tendency to interpret “85 percent” in a certain way, and in the context of parties making huge efforts to cement that wrong interpretation, to express the facts differently and in a way that is better understood.

Those other parties are NOT AS INTERESTED IN SAVING LIVES as they are in spreading their religiously-based ideas.

If there is anyone not interested in saving lives, it is Alex himself. He just wants teens to have fun, without emphasizing the danger of condoms failing.

Note that YB has not rebutted my point as shown in my last article here (Sex Education – Yawning Bread is lost for words”). My point is that even if we were to use his stats, we cannot be for sure how “safe” is the condom. That’s because the stats were taken from studies made from couples with one Aids victim, while in real life, we have people going round having sex with many partners, and we do not know which of those partners have Aids. That would then mean it is difficult to discount the risk factor – yet YB stoutly claims the risk is far less than what the studies showed!

I know YB has barred me from posting his site. Hence, I would appreciate if someone, (anyone) who could link his site to this article to alert that I have put up an open invitation to him to discuss the topic of Free Sex here. Not that I believe he would want to come here though. But it’s worth a try.

My point is that Free Sex is an addiction in itself. As such, propagators like YB can only come up with half-truths on the magic condom.

Note that those who have been abstaining, are able to abstain for long periods. And those who don’t abstain, once hooked, gets hooked for long periods.

Isn’t that a sign that Free Sex is addiction?

Come on Alex, let’s talk sense. Not telling teens lies that the magic condom works wonders.

>Sex Education – Yawning Bread is lost for words

>As expected, Alex of YB has decided not to approve my posts by blocking me in his comments section of this article.

The thrust of my point is that he is giving a false picture that the magic condom is safe. He in turn claims I am misrepresenting and hence my posts needs to be deleted because it gives schoolkids a wrong idea.

Ha, a gay person who promotes prostitution as a lifestyle trying to teach kids?

In any case, I have admitted I did make a mistake in an interpretation of his stats, and offered another view, which still shows that his view that the magic condom is not as safe as what he and his supporters claim.

That is where my posts keeps getting censored. It does appear he is lost when it comes to rebutting my points. This ain’t the first time he’s done that, you know.

So here is my post, which YB does not dare allow school kids (or anyone else) to see, because it exposes his argument that the condom really isn’t as safe as what he claims to be.

YB, of course I know my wife is faithful. You assume too much. It is not that she works in one company and I another. We do everything together. Work, outing with family and so on. Just as there is no chance for her to romp around, neither do I have that chance.

But it isn’t the lack of chance that’s keeping us faithful. It is our principles in life. We don’t cheat each other. That’s it.

As for what she did before marriage, trust me that I know her family well enough to know that she wouldn’t even dare do such a thing, just like I wouldn’t have dared doing such a thing. We come from ultra conservative families.

You mistrust conservatism as much as you overtrust your magic condom.

The following is a repost, because somehow my earlier post did not go through. Banned?

BK,

Look at my first post. The gist of my argument is the DOWNPLAYING of the risk factor in so called “safe sex” programmes. I acknowledge that safe sex programmes mention the risks – albeit too, far too mildly.

To the guy who thinks who he knows probability better than I do. Please read what I wrote about that topic here.
http://wherebearsroamfree.blogspot.com/2009/08/creation-vs-evolution-part-4-law-of.html

I have acknowledged that I mistook YB’s stats. Why are you and BK harping on something that is no longer an issue?

Note the problem here. On one hand, the stats is only from tests done with one infected partner and sex between the two partners occur regularly.

On the other hand, you are now extrapolating those stats on a real life situation where someone may have sex regularly with BOTH infected and uninfected partners, which the study does not cover.

So the claim that “it is safe” and far less than 1% is actually an opinion and it is not substantiated. Until we have a study done on people who have had sex with BOTH infected and uninfected partners or a regular basis, we cannot really say we have the stats to show “it is safe”.

For now, we can only say there is a 0.0009% risk each time you have sex with infected partner, when using a condom. And that risk increases by 0.0009% each time you have sex with an infected person.

Problem is, how do you know which of your partners are not infected, to make an accurate discount of that risk?

That’s my reply which YB dares not post because it rebuts his stats as “proof” the condom is “safe”.

Beast, I know you are reading this. It does appear that all LGBTs and their lackeys (you included) have the dirty habit of cutting off alternative views, don’t they?

Oh yes, I know that you think YB was right thinking I do not know if my wife is faithful. But I do.

On the other hand, I know that you are a porn addict (which means you probably ain’t faithful to your wife due to your sex addiction). You also unwittingly admitted your mom has had an STD related disease. That explains your romping, no? Because if your parents are that kind, you (their children) will be that kind too.

As for me, my parents and wife’s parents are/were highly conservative such that we would have been dead if we were caught romping. That’s why we (their children) are very conservative. Which then results in our children being very conservative too.

That’s three generations from both sides of the family, set as a living testimony that abstinence can work in today’s society. Unlike your generation where you unwittingly admitted your mom got hit, just within one generation! Safe sex you said?

Admit it, beast. Your magic condom doesn’t work. Being highly principled, conservative and abstaining till marriage (and sticking to just your spouse) works. I have three generations from both sides of my current family to prove it.

>The Problem with "Safe Sex" Education – Part 2

>As a continuation to Part 1 (The Problem with Safe Sex Education), I would like further emphasize in this post the lack of responsibility pro “safe sex” educators display when they push their agenda in schools.

I don’t have to go into the details of what is taught in the Safe Sex Programmes. We all know it is about how to use the condom correctly. What is alarmingly missing from the so called “safe sex” programme is that it hardly teaches students what to look out for, to see if you or your partner(s) have been infected with STD!

Imagine that! The programme is all about prevention (which is no guarantee anyway), yet hardly about the diseases that come along with free sex? What kind of programme is that?

Liberals who push their safe sex programme will ask if teens and students know how to put on the condom properly. They then attribute the high rate of STDs to the improper use of condoms. How they come to that conclusion is a mystery.

Let me take the same approach then. Let’s ask the following questions and see if teens and students who have gone through the so called safe sex programmes are able to answer them.

1. What are the different types of STDs. Can you name them?

2. How are these STDs spread?

3. What are the symptoms of these diseases?

4. What is their incubation period? This is important because they may have the disease, but not realize it until much later, meaning it would harder to be treated and worse, spreading it to others unknowingly.

5. What are the available treatments if you are infected?

6. More importantly, what are the effects if you leave it untreated?

7. Where do you go to for treatment? Do you know the institutions, their contact numbers etc?

8. How do you identify a high risk person? Yes, a high risk PERSON and not just high risk activity. Are you one yourself? Let’s forget about being politically correct and say do not link a person to the disease. I’d rather be truly safe than politically correct on this one.

9. Do you need to inform your partner(s) if you have contracted an STD so that he/she won’t pass it on to others?

Are the above taught in the Safe Sex Programmes?

If yes, why are so many teens and students unaware of the above – just like how liberals claim that teens do not know how to use condoms properly?

If no, it is not taught in Safe Sex Programmes, how can you call it “safe sex”? Isn’t this irresponsible on the part of the designers of the “safe sex” programmes?

My point is that the so called safe sex programme is nothing but a promotion of the false notion that if you cannot be good, it is OK to have free sex (never mind it can kill).

A true Comprehensive Sexual Education Programme is one that teaches the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. One that is written by responsible adults, teaching kids how to be responsible people. It shouldn’t be about glorifying sex, sex, sex, at the expense of your life or long term health.

>The Problem with Safe Sex Education

>If you read the ST and some pro-LGBT blogs, they are out in full force to promote their brand of “safe sex” in schools.

Let’s face the truth. The REAL truth. Not the pseudo truth pro-liberals or LGBTs try to promote about sex.

The truth is that there is only one guarantee in order to be free from STDs and other sexual related diseases – ie pure abstinence or sticking to your spouse faithfully. All other methods have a certain degree of risk and hence, the terms “safe sex” or “safer sex” are plain misnomers.

I am not going to argue along the moral platform or the you-can’t-teach-teens-to-abstain stance. I will argue on plain facts. The condom just isn’t a guarantee.

So what should we do? No sexual education for teens? Hey, did I say that? Sure, go ahead. Teach them about sexuality. But let’s get it straight.

Tell these teens that even the magic condom does not guarantee unwanted pregnancy, or worse, it does not prevent STDs and AIDs. Then proceed to teach these teens the harms of unwanted pregnancy, STDs and AIDs – including the death sentence these diseases mete out.

Why are these so called sexuality programmes only about how to use condoms, and at the same time, downplaying the disastrous life-changing diseases of STDs and AIDs?

Let’s face the stark truth. The problem with Sexual Education today, as preached by liberals, is their unwillingness to tell teens the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. In their programmes, they always downplay the fact that the magic condom does not guarantee them against life-threatening STDs and AIDs.

That is the problem with Safe Sex Education. Not the moral nor the conservative stance of moralists, religionists or parents.

===

Related link:
The Problem with Safe Sex Education