It was amusing to read the usual stat-warping Christian-hating nonsense by the knee-jerk minority who froth at the mouth when they hear the "a" word (abstinence).

I just emerged from a public high school where I was taught that "everyone else is doing it, you should too, and here's how to do it safely."

Little did I know that almost no-one else was doing it (although they were too scared to admit this). Little did I know that condoms frequently failed and didn't protect against HPV which causes cervical cancer. Little did I know that abortion, the offered solution when contraception fails (and it will fail), can psychologically scar girls for life. But teenagers will move with the (fictional) crowd because they want to be in the majority.

On the basis of this sex-ed and a hyper-sexed culture, teenage boys called girls "frigid" if they didn't "give out", and teased those confessing to be virgins.

On the same basis my generation will have STDs leading to infertility, "crisis" pregnancies ending in abortion, messed-up relationships, cervical cancer, and probably other stuff.

But I get the feeling that the knee-jerkers love the theory that teenagers are animals with no self-control, because it justifies their own behaviour. Those who think sex is about as meaningful and special as plunging a toilet, only safer, might have spent their best years in shallow relationships. "everyone else is doing it" probably makes them feel a bit better.

Luckily there are still some who know, and dare to say, that it's always better to wait - abstinence is not just one of many good options (the nerdy one). Wish I'd heard it sooner.

And of course to Brian Haill - remember that the ABC campaign in Uganda is the only success story in the AIDS epidemic. Also the WHO's conclusions that condoms are only 80% effective at BEST to protect against HIV.

I dont have any trouble with Harradine. But abstinence has its place if that's what you like. I am concerned though when people get unduly worried about a conservative approach to sex.

The rather vitriolic responses amongst some of the more measured replies reminded me of the war of war of words that was washed up on the shore of public discourse after they announced that, "Surfs Up!" to our North.

Soon after the tsunami religious leaders urged people not to lose faith - not a great measure of confidence in ones flock I would have thought - no sooner had the ink dried on those opinion pieces - than the responses came flowing from the other side. We were told that prayer was a waste of time and resources. Those opppsed to a theist approach to reconciling this tragedy told people that they should get on with the job and stop all this prayer.The speed of response was as if those opposed to religion and any role it may play in the aftermath of the big wet were laying in wait for some hapless theist to stick his or her head over the parapets and get hammered.

The whole discussion was waste of time. The bothersome priests seemed a bit defensive and those opposing them seemed too upset over bugger all.

Harradines comments like that. He'd probably like abstinence to be compulsory - He will not come out and say that though. BUT! If someone approached for advice on sex, abstinence would be jokeying for a position in the stable of ideas along with use of condoms, minimising your exposure to high risk situations, awareness of disease transmission, responsibiltiy to wards partners - then the lucky punter makes a choice.

All too often we've seen a conservative orthodoxy over thrown only to be replaced by a new more radical dogma - equally oppressive, equally demeaning and equally dangerous - let them abstain, let people recommend abstinence. Let's not fall about in some civil libertarian panic because some ageieg fading political icon has a view that is a bit silly

For abstinence to really work you would have to advocate abstaining from sex after marriage. I can't imagine Brian Harradine doing this but it is really the only way to prevent STD transmission. After all, you cannot really know if your spouse was a virgin prior to marriage unless you have psychic abilities. And many people would dearly love to refrain from sexual activity but unfortunately in some situations it is all but compulsory. I am thinking of countries where women particularly are in no position to refuse their husbands sexual favours or in the sex industry where if they don't work they starve.

Also, it is the type of sex rather sex per se which risks STD transmission. Penetrative homosexual and heterosexual sex are both risks re: HIV and other STDs. But non-penetrative sexual practices avoid such risks. This is something both the gay community and wider society hasn't quite taken in. We eulogise penetrative sex as "sex". Every other sexual practice is considered second rate.

If you are serious about preventing HIV transmission you are going to have to be serious about changing the second class status of women in society - especially in regard to both prostitution and marriage. And think outside the square vis a vis sexual technique.

Doncha just love statistics.

Aslan's "Even using condoms, one still has a 1 in 6 chance of contracting AIDS. Russian roulette anyone?", followed closely by "Yes, I guess having 1 bullet in your 6-shooter when you put it to your head and pull the trigger" had me in stitches.

On this basis, I am a statistical miracle, having "put the gun to my head" on many thousands of occasions over the years. Not even the tiniest hint of an STD, let alone the big A.

If that wasn't bad enough, he prefaced the remarks with "Some facts for Mr Moodie (and others):"

Facts? You call those facts?

Pericles said
"On this basis, I am a statistical miracle, having "put the gun to my head" on many thousands of occasions over the years. Not even the tiniest hint of an STD, let alone the big A."

Wow...You have had sex with thousands of different people who all had std's like aids?

Or perhaps you may have missed the point.

"Facts? You call those facts?"
I would. Whether they are accurate or not I don't know yet, but at least Aslan has provided references to back up what he said. What have you provided?

For Grace, the research you cited only interviewed people, it did not actually determine success rates..

For all others, there is significant research out there that shows abstinence only education working. Strangely enough, Senator Harradine mentioned all this, and linked to a few resources. Yet people here don't seem to care whether that is true or not, they just want to conitnue living in their own little world

Biran Haill seems to want only people who agree with his views on the HIV/AIDS Advisory Subcommittee. Very balanced indeed...

For Bob and Rob, there is significant research out there that shows premarital sex is hazardous to you health, whether you use condoms or not. http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/wm615.cfm discusses some of the increased risks of suicide involved. I would say the comparison of Sex and Smoking education is quite valid.

I'm hoping to address some of the points made earlier here by Ruby, who pointed out, correctly, that condoms do fail. They do fail...in the same way that cars crash and kill in the hands of inexperienced drivers. Condoms will fail if they are not fitted correctly.(And, let's be reasonable..production standards in impovershed countries don't match those in developed nations..and whose fault is that?)

Sexual disease..and the hand in hand threat to infertility..is rampant across Australia because of the lack of uniform, comprehensive programs.

If you are able to embrace abstinence then that's to your credit and no it's not a "nerdy" option..it's just that not everyone can do it.

Some may well assert that condoms provide 80% cover at best...surely that beats risking your life and someone else's

What angers me..and please ponder this..are those situations in marriage where one spouse is HIV infected and churchmen stand by and allow the uninfected to remain at risk of infection by allowing them to think that the use of condoms would prove an obstacle to winning a place in heaven. We've publicly condemned Uganda's Cardinal Wamala for that attitude and urged Australia's Cardinal Pell to speak up in meaningful terms. In most lands, it's the women IN MARRIAGE who are the most at risk of being infected by their husbands!

Ruby, you mentioned that Uganda's abstinence record made it the solitary stand-out nation in regard to battling HIV/AIDS. Sadly, just today, that's come under question. The 12th Conference on Retroviruses in the US has been told that abstinence and sexual fidelity have played virtually no role in the much decline of AIDS rates in Uganda.
It's been the deaths of previously infected people, not a dramatic change in human behaviour that reduced the prevalence of AIDS in southern Uganda over the past decade. But Uganda's President played a key awareness role when he was first warned by Cuba's President Castro that Uganda's soldiers were HIV infected so many years ago!

Visit our website at www.aids.net.au for more info.

Regards,
Brian Haill,
The Australian AIDS Fund Inc., Melbourne.