I think marital monogamy (sexual exclusivity) has never been the norm and won’t suddenly start being the norm – even devout Christians cheat. So no, I don’t think your system is more workable. It is premised on abstinence before marriage (which may be the case by default if people wed at sexual maturity but I wouldn’t bet on it) and then sexual exclusivity after that, and that is a pipe dream. It doesn’t seem that Africans are staying loyal and neither are north americans – I forget the exact numbers and am too lazy to go find the articles but if I remember correctly cheating (as defined by extramarital intercourse) is something like 60% for women and 70% for men. In any case it’s very, very common and cuts across religious stance.

There is nothing unpalatable to me about abstaining before marriage or staying loyal once in it – I think that’s a fine choice. But it just one of many. It is also a fine choice to enjoy one’s sexuality before marriage, in a committed relationship between unmarried people, or in any other arrangement where, as you say, adults consent. The unpalatable part is religious people trying to push their morals on others. That’s not your business. If you want to abstain before marriage, great, go for it. I support you 100%. But I don’t share your religion or your religious rule about abstaining before marriage – so what gives you the right to try to make me? (I use “you” here in the general sense, not you in particular.)

But you are correct, if everyone got married heterosexually, was a virgin at the time, and never ever cheated, STI rates would, I am guessing, plummet. I just can’t accept the premises. Some because they can never work in the real world (pure sexual exclusivity), some because they’re arbitrary (marriage? why do people need a ceremony to commit to loving someone?), some because they are based in a religion I don’t accept (abstain before marriage).

The Pope is simply advocating one cultural sexual paradigm over another.

The Judeo-Christian paradigm is abstinence prior to marriage and then monogamous marriage. If followed correctly, this has essentially 100% efficacy of preventing the spread of HIV.

If one wanted to sketch a “Western-Secular” cultural position in broad strokes it might be something like “Each individual owns his or her own sexuality, and whatever occurs between consenting adults is acceptable. Ideally one should use safer practices as opposed to less safe practices.”
If condoms are consistently used, HIV infection rates seem to drop about 80%. http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab003255.html

The Traditional African position seems to be (again, extremely broad strokes) “Open to polygamy, and multiple partners, little to no use of condoms.” This of course has a terribly high HIV transmission rate.

Both Christian and secular positions require cultural shifts amongst Africans to be effective. You seem to be of the opinion that it’s easier or more likely for Africans to make the shift from “don’t use condoms” to “consistent condom use” (we’ll also need very good condom distribution networks as well), then to make the shift to “Monogamy, and pre-marital abstinence.”

But my aforementioned Uganda drives which you have yet to comment on, as well as the idea that condoms can contribute to more risky behaviors, at least give some evidence that my position is workable, if unpalatable to you.

And it’s not particularly honest to respond to a position by means of misrepresentation. When you say..

“…people will not stop having sex. Ever. Any solution that relies on not having sex to work won’t work and can therefore be discounted.”

It isn’t a fair representation of the position. The Pope’s position has never been “don’t have sex” it’s been, have sex within a certain context, monogamous marriage. So, again, unless you think marital monogamy is doomed, then your misrepresented / misdirected criticism seems to fall flat. You’re attacking a position that the other side doesn’t hold. You may say “but I’ve still got pre-marital sex!” However the marriage age in Africa is drastically lower than the west. It’s very common in Africa for people to get married very near the beginning of their sexually mature life, as opposed to the much later age for marriage in North America.

Which makes my system all the more workable.

Judeo-Christianity to the rescue!

~I.

~I

The pope’s problem is that he (like so many people) thinks of his moral program as not only workable but actually “right,” which means that any other program is wrong. Advocating chastity and advocating condom use are two different tactics for reducing AIDS, each with its own advantages and disadvantages. What the pope can’t admit is that a tactic other than his own might have something to recommend it, so he needs to fudge the facts in order to leave his tactic (chastity) not only his favored tactic but (in his head) the only workable one.

Humans didn’t evolve to be right about complicated social issues. We evolved to advance our own agendas. The pope’s just doing what we’ve been doing for a million years: believing false facts when doing so suits our social agendas.

-Jonathan Tweet (he’s unable to post for some reason and emailed this in – I am posting on his behalf)

~I.

When I said I was not interested in blaming I think what I was reacting to is the punitive tone in your messages. Absolutely, if no one ever had sex until marriage and then never strayed, HIV would be a much less significant problem (maybe a nonexistent one). But given that that is not reality, now what? Your position seems to be, Now we point fingers and say “It’s your own fault so this is your punishment: Enjoy your AIDS!” I find this disgusting for the reasons in my previous response.

It’s also seems to establish the premise that everyone has the responsibility to take preventive steps to protect themselves from any bad outcome, which you hint at again in the last comment. Don’t get in a car because you might have a car crash! Don’t eat fatty foods because you might have a heart attack! Don’t drop out of university or you might end up unable to get a good job! And if you do, don’t come crying to us for help because you brought it on yourself!

I picked these examples because the are good analogies to sex and HIV – each is a voluntary activity that carries risks. All of them are exceedingly common where we live. And in each case we could just wash our hands of the individuals concerned – hey, I have a healthy diet and a secure income, what’s it to me if you don’t?

This is incredibly arrogant. None of us is above making mistakes. Is it really okay to let people die if they make a mistake? This is the position of the Pope: your mistake is having sex outside of marriage, so anything that happens to you as a result is your just desserts. The pope does evil when he tells people who are already doing it and will continue to do it to avoid using a condom which could save their lives. Preach abstinence, that’s fine by me. But while you’re at it, don’t say condoms increase the problem. That is a lie. It is wrong. The problem isn’t condoms, it’s improper use of condoms. The solution is education. (Look, I am blaming again.)

And I agree you should be free to choose to help or not. But if you choose not to, you should also choose not to accept the help of others yourself (consistency, you know). And what’s more, you should truly remain uninvolved – just not help – and avoid hindering the efforts of those of us who have enough moral sense to try and help. Which, frustratingly enough, people like you will indirectly benefit from… but that’s okay, my altruism can include you too.

Do you advocate providing helmets to every homeless person with a bike?
It would reduce brain injuries. I believe people should be free to make a decision to help, or not help those whose behaviors put them in a bad position. Which is why I’d happily charge extra MSP fees for smokers with lung cancer, and obese people with heart disease.

It’s not that I don’t think people matter, it that I’m an advocate for changing poor behavior patterns, rather than trying to find a technological solution for what amounts to an easy fix with behavioral change. Are you unwilling to admit that my proposed way (abstinence) is more effective than your position of (condoms), if both ways are followed as seriously?

And not to be indelicate, but I think you’re being a little hypocritical in saying you are “…interested in solutions, not finger-pointing.”

“So, is the Pope horribly irresponsible and wrong?”
[he's advocating] “…a position that will cause people to die. The violation is against a principle of access to life, a violation of the most basic right all people have…”

Sure sounds like finger-pointing and blame assigning to me.

Or does the religious hierarchy get judged by different standards in your ethical paradigm?

~I.