December 17th, 2009 | 
Author: 
The Myth of Safe Sex / Condoms Are Not The Answer by Rosemary Vivianne. Credits at the end of the video.
NIH Report on the Scientific Evidence on Condom Effectiveness for Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) Prevention.
Workshop Summary: Scientific Evidence on Condom Effectiveness for STD Prevention. www.niaid.nih.gov
See also: Sex, Condoms and STDs: What We Now Know. Safer sex isnt almost innocuous enough, The Medical Institute for Sexual Health, 2002.
The Church instructs that the use of condoms for purposes of artificial birth control violates natural law, is immoral and offensive to God — and is harmful to the well being of the husband, wife and their marital relationship.
Today, many people use the term, safe-sex, as if they are experts on a topic that is suppose to have a scientific basis. Experts they are not, and the term “safe-sex” is not based on sound science or morality.
The word innocuous means free from harm, danger or risk. Safe-sex is defined as using a male latex condom during sexual activity where there is exposure to genitals and sexual fluids. Health officials, sex educators, motion picture stars and other public personalities tell the public that they can have sex with anyone they want anytime they want and often as they want — as long as the male wears a latex condom, then no harm or danger will come to the people engaging in sexual activity. According to the latest research on condoms and their effectiveness in preventing sexually transmitted diseases, condoms have been found to be anything but — safe-sex.
The Condom Effectiveness Conference which was led by the National Institutes of Health, reviewed published scientific evidence on condom effectiveness as of June 2000.
Based on the conference findings, here is how condoms stack up against some common sexually transmitted diseases:
Human Papilloma Virus. Also called genital warts. Condoms offer tiny to no endorsement even if used 100% of the time.
Trichomonas. No endorsement even if condoms are used 100% of the time.
Syphilis. Condoms reduce the risk of transmission by 2950% if they are used 100% of the time.
Gonorrhea. Condoms reduce the risk of transmission by 50% if they are used 100% of the time.
Chlamydia. Condoms reduce the risk of transmission by 50% if they are used 100% of the time.
Genital herpes. Condoms reduce the risk of transmission by 40% if they are used at least 65% of the time. One study showed condoms reduced transmission risk for women by 25% but men were still at risk.
HIVAids. Condoms reduce the risk of transmission by 85 to 87% if they are used 100% of the time.
If so-called innocuous sex were truly safe, condoms would eliminate the risk of STD transmission but the NIH study reveals that condoms only offer risk reduction.
Read the back of any box of condoms and see that even condom manufacturers state that when condoms are used properly, they might help reduce the risk of catching or spreading many STDs. Realize also, that correct use of condoms means using a condom with each act of sex with no forgetting and that the five to seven steps for putting on and removing a condom must be followed since you can not make mistakes or you lose the benefit of the condom. And even if you use them correctly, condoms only reduce the risk of STDs, so youre still at risk.
Two things that condoms cant protect are the heart and mind. Condoms cant prevent the emotional, physical, mental and spiritual bonds that form when two people have sex and condoms cant reduce the risk and pain of heartbreak when relationships end. Condoms dont protect against unwanted memories and connections to past sexual partners long after those bonds are broken.
Condoms are not the answer. The answer is sexual self-control by developing the virtues of chastity, which is the virtue which excludes or moderates the indulgence of the sexual appetite.
Duration : 0:4:20
Doe shot in Jaw lived for 4 days in suffering
Posted in effectiveness of birth control methods | 
Tags: abstain, abstinence, AIDS, artificial, birth, catholic, chastity, chlamydia, church, condom, condoms, control, Danger, dangerous, dangers, diseases, effective, effectiveness, genital, gonorrhea, herpes, HIV, HPV, human, immoral, ineffective, intercourse, law, lies, marital, marriage, morality, myths, natural, papilloma, premarital, protected, protection, re-marital, relations, relationship, relationships, safe, safe sex, safer, science, sex, sexual, sexually, stds, syphilis, transmitted, trichomonas, unprotected, VD, venereal, virus, warts
“condoms or aborted …
“condoms or aborted babies?”
But don’t you see, potterfile, they want neither. They fully expect that they can use religious guilt and dogma to create a world in which people have sex ONLY when they want to have a child and ONLY when married (although STIs could still spread that way) – a completely unrealistic view of the world. They are completely naive in this belief, they know it, but they will continue to place people in harm’s way, rather than stop forcing their morals on others.
As for preventing …
As for preventing pregnancy, I find it highly hypocritical and frightening that the people opposing birth control use and education are the same people who oppose abortion. Yet, when defending their anti-choice beliefs, claim that a woman should have protected herself if she did not want to get pregnant.
How illogical and hypocritical is that?
Also, please explain how birth control is harmful to the well-being of the husband and marital relationship, as claimed at the beginning of the video?
Do you really think …
Do you really think it’s responsible to post a video criticizing the use of condoms? The study cited in the video – which can be found by Googling “Workshop Summary:
Scientific Evidence on Condom Effectiveness for Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) Prevention” – explains that failure rates are more common when people do not know how to properly use a condom. Yet, many would have this component of sexual health education removed from schools, further exacerbating the problem. Great solution.
What is the point …
What is the point of this video? To argue against an opinion held by the ignorant? Only the ignorant would believe that condoms prevent 100% of STIs in 100% of cases. No one is claiming that they do; this is why any reputable sexual health organisation refers to it as ’safer sex’ now. This does not invalidate the fact that condoms are an important method of protecting oneself when having sex, as the study cited in the video stated itself.
im not gonna lie
i …
im not gonna lie
i laughed at this really really hard.
i appreciate you standing up for your beliefs
but which would you prefer?
condoms or aborted babies?
Freedaaa, you are …
Freedaaa, you are welcome!
Thank you for …
Thank you for spreading the truth
well now this …
well now this preeches abstinence
Hey dyslexia!
Your …
Hey dyslexia!
Your comment basically said, just because there are other ways to get an STD that means it’s okay to use a condom because you could still get it anyway. At least that’s what it looked like you were saying.
Also, the scientific evidence that condoms are not really having all that much affect on preventing these STDs is present in this video.
That scientific info doesn’t even come from the Church but the National Institutes of Health. Which is definitely NOT a religious program.
But bocaj you …
But bocaj you missing the whole point of the video!!!!
It’s not about Teresa its about the truth behind the lie that sex can be safe.
And when I mean safe I mean that their is no “risk” of having a baby or catching an STD.
A baby shouldn’t be looked upon as a “risk” and as for STDs just don’t have sex out of marriage and then you should have no problem with this stuff.
“I think it is very …
“I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people.”
Bocaj, look beyond your own basic understanding of the English language and you would see that Mother Teresa was basically saying that the poor did not complain about their troubles though they were grievous.
Indeed, the sacrifices and simple humility that were made by the poor help show the world their errors.
Wait a second….
…
Wait a second….
Are you seriously implying that Mother Teresa was the THE main cause of poverty, filth, and unsanitary conditions in India and Africa???
Bocaj you are a complete MORON.
And btw the floors were swept and all material was cleaned via boiling water just as you said it could be. They had to do it that way because THAT WAS ALL THEY HAD!!!!!
And that was the …
And that was the consequence of what? Her existence. Her manufactured cult of personality. The conditions that were unsanitized, could have been sanitised with no cost whatsoever. Excrement could have been cleaned up from the floor, and syringes could have been boiled in water, rather than washed and reused.
“I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people.”
Oh, by the way …
Oh, by the way Bojac, one of the primary sources of her volunteers was the people whom Mother Teresa had helped to regain their health.
As her order grew so did the funds (from honest people) and eventually what Mother was doing gained the attention of the media and then even more funds came from all over the world. The result was even more hospices, schools, and help for those who had literally nothing.
As for other …
As for other financial problems. Mother Teresa was fooled by criminals who tricked her into taking fraudulent money that was stolen so that it could be concealed from the authorities.
Mother Teresa needed the money and although surprised at the volume of money which was given she didn’t have the means to look and see how it was acquired.
I suggest Bocaj that you look for other sources other than anti-Catholic ones.
As for the poor …
As for the poor quality of the shelters; Mother Teresa’s options were extremely limited in a country with 1 BILLION people.
All buildings in the cities which weren’t owned by wealthy people for their own business/personal use. Any other building was either uninhabitable or overrun by other sick and homeless people.
So Mother Teresa procured the best she could with what she had and then relied on God’s grace.
So since she had no …
So since she had no support except for a little money from the Church and a small group of volunteers, she purchased a space for her patients.
Then began to care for them any way she could with what she had; which was more than what was being done for them in the first place.
WOW
Bocaj you …
WOW
Bocaj you clearly have no idea of what Mother Teresa had to deal with.
Mother Teresa had practically no support from the government of India (which is where she started out) and as such the only way she could procure any medicine was by begging for it and even then it wasn’t always successful because even the hospitals in India were utterly overwhelmed.
I suggest you find …
I suggest you find Christopher Hitchens’ documentary on Teresa. On her actions, and the purpose she fulfilled. She helped no one. She helped her “patients” spiritually. To “repent of their sins” before death. Death of illnesses and conditions that could have easily been treated and cured, in the hospitals in the cities that were very close to hers.
The money that was …
The money that was given to Mother Teresa in the name of charity, that she claimed would be used to help the poor, was funded directly to the Roman Catholic Church. Her “patients” slept on floor beds, in squalor unsanitized conditions. Many of them died due to this. Many others died of the most basic and usually minor of illnesses and conditions that could have been cured with the most simple of medicine. She helped no one. She helped none of those of who she cared for to prevent dying.
Note also that the …
Note also that the Church condemns those who delight in someone catching an STD. The classic phrase of ‘hate the sin not the sinner’ is clear here.
And to those who condemn Mother Teresa as a “manipulative, opportunistic, genocidal fraud” I offer a challenge: produce evidence of this farce if you can……….which I doubt.
And to those who think that people should use condemns and such because they can’t control themselves…..
Everyone is capable of self-control it just takes willpower.
People seem to be …
People seem to be missing the point here.
For those who are religious the Church says that the use of condoms is wrong because it is not only ineffective it also gives the false appearance that sex outside of marriage is okay.
The only 100% foolproof method to prevent STDs is Chastity and Purity.
Consider to that pregnancy is one of the primary functions of sex. To try and prevent this natural occurrence by using a foreign object is not even natural much less moral.
according to …
according to christianity, although this beleif may apply to christians and if so theyshould follow it for the convictions of their releigion. but the the rest off us shouldnt be told not to have sex, because it is not a sin to us. diseases can spread anywhere.
Chastity and sexual …
Chastity and sexual continence are ideal.
For those that are lost in sexual sin, I hope and pray that they will use condoms and birth control. While not 100% effective, they reduce the chances of illness and pregnancy. While some take delight in a sexual sinner getting STDs, I do not, especially when there may be a baby involved.I pray that the sexual sinner repent and turn from his wicked ways and to the Lord.
We true believers must abstain from unlawful sex,condoms and birth control.
Your reasoning is …
Your reasoning is your complacent, unreasoned, consecrated dedication toward the subjective bigotry of religious doctrine. Your reasoning against contraception, is the identical reasoning of tribal Africans, the consequence indoctrination by Catholic missionaries such as Mother Teresa, that is fundamentally behind the AIDS epidemic in Africa that we see today. Mother Teresa, who I add, was a manipulative, opportunistic, genocidal fraud.