Talk:Safe sex/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Why was the redirect to abstinence reverted

: This page was edited to redirect to abstinence, 

and someone rudely reverted it without justifying themselves. It seems logical to combine this page with the only proven means of safe sex, rather than base the page on misleading half-measures that aren't really safe sex at all.

current intro is a bit of a non sequitur

Safe sex, also called safer sex, is a set of practices designed to reduce the risk of sustaining or imparting sexually-transmitted infections (STIs) (also known as sexually-transmitted diseases or STDs). Conversely, unsafe sex refers to the participation in a sexual relationship without the benefit or use of any contraceptive or preventive measures against STIs.

This is a bit confusing, because it defines safe sex as practices designed to reduce the risk of sustaining or imparting STIs, but then includes not using contraceptives as part of the definition of unsafe sex. If the safe sex definition is as stated, then not using contraceptives is not part of unsafe sex; conversely, if unsafe sex is defined as stated, then safe sex includes practices designed to reduce the risk of pregnancy.

As far as I can tell, the term is used both ways, depending on who's using it. Therefore I'd propose first defining it as being prevention of STIs (and unsafe sex being not using prevantative measures), since everyone agrees that's part of it, and then in a subsequent sentence say that many people also include contraceptive measures in the definition. Thoughts? --Delirium 05:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

virginity pledge

here are some good reference sites for the failure of this type of program. ironhymen.something and sexisforfags.something if i recall correctly.(FRANKO)

Causal relationship between HIV and AIDS

An anon user posted that there is still debate over whether there is a caustive relationship between AIDS and HIV. I was under the impression that such debate did not exist and our articles on AIDS and HIV do not seem to indicate that either. I've moved it back to stating that AIDS is caused by HIV, rather than the suggested rewording that AIDS is thought to be caused by HIV, but if there is debate still, I admit I'm a nonexpert and would accept the less strong "thought to be caused by" statement. -SocratesJedi | Talk 10:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Virtually all legitimate scientists and scientific acadamies have accepted that there is a casuative relationship between HIV and AIDS. However, there are a small number of denailists out there who vehemently deny that such a connection exists. Raul654 14:12, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

(E.g, the whole thing is sort of akin to the evolution debate) Raul654 14:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

and one of them is editing this article right now, only this time it's a register user--64.12.116.5 21:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

The article needs to be rewritten to avoid second person. --Improv 05:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC) Periodically the AIDS virus fuses itself with a T cell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.56.150.108 (talk) 22:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Edits

I tend to explain my edits in the summarys so before reverting look them over, and make a post here. I will reply. Cheers, Chooserr 22:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Do not remove verifiable information from this article without a strong reason. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, HIV, alleged??--64.12.116.5 22:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say HIV is alleged if you'd bothered to read, I said it is alleged (because to the best of my knowledge it hasn't been proven how) that HIV is the precursor to AIDS. Many people can live with HIV for their whole life, and not contract full blown AIDs. Scientists don't know how it works yet, or there'd be a cure! Chooserr 22:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Uh, ... no, the reason there's no cure is because the capsid proteins incorporate components from the intracellular membranes of the host organism, leaving the receptors in a constant state flux from host to host, that's why there's no cure, the mechanism of infection is actually very well understood --64.12.116.5 22:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I was told that scientists hadn't found the link between HIV and AIDs, if you have please provide a reliable source and I will look it over. Chooserr 22:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia actually has some very well sourced, well written articles on the subject--64.12.116.5 22:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

As I was told by other wikipedians wikipedia isn't a source. It can be changed at any minute. I need a real source. Chooserr 22:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

That shows what? That the vast majority of scients believe HIV causes AIDS? Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Just my point the "vast majority of scients believe HIV causes AIDS". They just don't know *how* so it is a theory Chooserr 22:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[1]. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Uh...that doesn't seem very reliable nor conclusive because they aren't 3rd party, and on the link you provided it is saying it is a result of an HIV infection. But they don't say how it works, or if HIV = AIDs. HIV could weaken the patient to contract AIDs...I need something conclusive. Chooserr 22:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

What? The CDC isn't a reliable source?--64.12.116.5 22:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[2]. This article is not the right place to discuss the AIDS dissident movement. Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I still believe that it needs to be verified by other people. The CDC is...human. I think if you were to look into their History you will find they have made mistakes. And even if they on their own are 100% reliable there is still the fact that it doesn't explain in detail how it works. I can easily interpret the HIV softens up the victim for AIDS but isnt' the same disease from what they say. Chooserr 23:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Who are "they?" Cite sources. Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

By "they" I meant the people who work for the CDC, but if you want I can use "it" in the future to refere to the organisation itself. Chooserr 23:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to be rude, but I feel that you're asking me to jump through a lot of hoops here. I'm not going to do that. I believe the second link I gave, which reads "AIDS is caused by infection with a virus called human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)," is enough to write, IN THIS ARTICLE, that AIDS is caused by HIV. Obviously, for an article about the HIV AIDS connection, or an article about people who deny that connection, this would not be enough. This is an article about safe sex, in which the revisionist theories about HIV and AIDS are not appropriate. Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it probably isn't right to discus it all on this article, but I was just defending my actions to the audience *sweeps arm in broad circle*. Chooserr 23:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad we resolved this amicably! Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, well that is good. I just hope that people remember despite my views I am doing this in Good Faith and not to cause harm. Chooserr 23:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I promise you that I don't doubt for a second that you are trying to help the encyclopedia. Now, I don't promise you that I believe at all times that you ARE helping the encyclopedia, but I think that good-faith on both sides will make this workable. Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Well I understand the differences in your two example things, and I believe it's fair enough. Chooserr 23:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Obviously not, because you've just restored your origional version--64.12.116.5 00:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

No I've restored one of my version in which it is attempting neutrality instead of saying flat out "Use a Condom". Your revert is wrong, please self revert. Chooserr 00:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this is a form of trolling--64.12.116.5 00:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Should there really be a spot for masturbation on the safe sex page? Nightwindzero 06:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

"Controversy"

I believe the controversy statment (centred on the religious right in the US) is far too narrow, and only applies to a very small minority of readers. Instead of basing the controversy on opinion or "truthyness," it should be centred on academic studies portraying both the pros and cons of birth control. Not to mention it is offensive to give voice to the claim that condoms make people more slutty, but what is more offensive is that it is based on someones moral viewpoint. Anyways, hasn't that claim been debunked years ago? --Colle 03:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't claim any where on this article that people who use condoms are more slutty. I don't think I've claimed it anywhere infact because while I hate birth control I don't doubt that there are people out there who are slutty without birth control. All I was trying to do was make it more neutral. Chooserr 03:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, it's not neutral in any way.

Some conservatives object to the "safer sex" movement on the grounds that it promotes what they hold to be immoral and high-risk behavior, namely sex outside of marriage.

should be rewritten to:

Some Christian fundementalists object to efforts promoting safe sex. Their objection is based on the conservative opinions that only married heterosexual couples should engage in sex, and sex should be only for the sole purpose of procreation.

The first one violates neutrality in many ways. First, calling efforts for safe sex the "'safer sex' movement" is biased language. Second, the sentance uses wild language to acnowlege the conservatives feelings, but only backs the rhetoric up with the idea of promoting "what they hold.." I would argue that safe sex and family planning was only a "controvesy" in the 50's. As I said before, centering a section on this fringe view is compleatly out of place here.--Colle 04:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Well I must say that I don't understand what you are getting at. If you say we should adopt the latter form though I will oppose you, because I'm not a "Christian Fundamentalist". And I never-ever attempted to put safer-sex in quotes. Only "safe sex" which is misleading. Chooserr 04:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure, lets switch fundementalist with conservative. ..This is not about you in any way. I simply copied the text from the article --safer sex is in quotes. What is there not to understand? I'm only pointing out that the extensive "controversy" section is based on emotional rhetoric, not scientific study and fact (as it should be).--Colle 08:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Should we place the views of every group we can think of under "Controversy"? (I'm not trying to start a fight here, but maybe this should be removed?)Nightwindzero 06:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I have merged this section into the abstinence section which I have split out of the precautions section. It seems to make more sense this way. Not driving is not a safe-driving precaution and there is currently no other controversy on the page than abstinence. --Simon Speed 14:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Idea

Well I'm not sure what good it will do, but I think I've devised a fair way to express the fact that using a condom will help protect against STIs without saying "Use a Condom" which seems too much like Wikipedia is endorsing the product. It can be found with a few other revisions at User:Chooserr/"safe sex". I also rewrote the "Focus on Aids" section so it makes more sense, and replaced the weaselly worded "without benefit of birth control" to "without the use of birth control". Chooserr 03:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok. For one, referring to masturbation as "semi-safe" is going to get that edit shot down with prejudice, regardless of what the rest says. Replacing "risk" with "chance" is a little too POV for my tastes. Adding "saliva" to the list of bodily fluids to avoid exchanging is highly questionable. The whole "Focus on AIDS" section made much more sense before you edited it -- leave it alone. "Many religions prohibit" -- I don't think that's accurate, so I'd need to see a cite.--SarekOfVulcan 04:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I added saliva because I was told that some times oral sex preformed by someone with an STD infection can spread through the saliva. The semi-safe part can be change if need be, but I still don't believe it is safe after hearing about the bonding chemicals which I tried to write about in casual sex. Whatever you see while engaging in a sexual act - even masturbation - you bond to, or that's how it was explained to me. Looking over the religious section on the condom page is where I got man prohibit ---- the reason I changed the section on Focusing on AIDs isn't because I found the information or its formatting offesive, but because the opening "Much attention" sounded strange to me. My rewrite was to make it clearer... Chooserr 04:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Saliva -- could be, but your edit as it stands makes French kissing sound like unsafe sex. I'm leaning toward that bonding stuff being junk science, without more cites. Even if not, don't knock masturbation, it's sex with someone I love. :-) I certainly haven't bonded to... err, never mind. --SarekOfVulcan 04:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you may be right about the connontation of saying Saliva and will remove it if necessary, but I do want to tell you that I highly doubt that the bonding chemicals that shoot into your brain during masturbation are "Junk Science". Also according to the Church masturbation is a Mortal sin. I've written a little about it on the masturbation page. Chooserr 04:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

According to the Church use of contraceptives and missing Mass are also mortal sins, but I don't see a lot of scientific evidence that either results in any physical damage. There's nothing wrong with saying that the Chirch disapproves, but that is vastly different from introducing some unsourced pseudo-scientific rationalisation. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 20:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not introducing pseudo-scientific rationalisation by expressing concerns about bonding chemicals which while not proven has not been disproven - scientifically speaking. And my comments about a masturbation being a Mortal sin had nothing to do with science - it was a reply to SarekOfVulcan's comments. Chooserr 22:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Neither proven nor disproven = conjecture = not alowed, per WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NOT and probaly other policies too. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 23:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

(I haven't looked at any of your changes) but i agree that the "use condoms" wording needs to go. I think that whole section should be reworked, as I don't see why it's a numbered list (the items don't appear to be in any meaningful order). Either bullets or normal paragraphs would make more sense. I don't care for the wording with some of the bullets/numbers being items (such as for female condoms), while others are sentences (such as outercourse). Either they should all have single keywords, or none should. Mairi 04:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I've taken a swipe at it, and addressed some of Mairi's concerns above. If my edits need serious changing, I would appreciate if we could stick to some kind of consistent formatting, rather than reverting to the previous mess. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

"Bonding chemicals"

Someone please explain what the heck these "bonding chemicals" are referred to Chooserr in the previous section. I've never heard of such a thing, and I'm always eager for new information. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 07:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• found it--64.12.116.5 16:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• Any reliable sources? Most of that lot looks like either post-hoc rationalisation or dumbed-down speak for pheremones to me. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 18:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Looks like pure hooey. Not even well disseminated hooey. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
    • It does look that way when you trust anon users - here is a link that talks a little about it. I'll get another in just a second. Chooserr 06:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Oxytocin will tell you a bit more, and has a few links. Chooserr 06:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
        • If Oxytocin builds trust in people, and if trust is confidence, and if oxytocin is released in orgasms, then it follows, logically, that masturbation is a way to build self-confidence. Ruby 06:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
          • Sorry that is flawed logic, although many people who have low self esteem are drawn to the habit. It builds trust in your partner, which is lost after breaking up... Chooserr 06:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
            • What I meant to say is "It builds trust in your partner" as in reference to yourself. And a solitary sexual act such as masturbation wouldn't fit into the procedure because you'd have nothing but your hand to place trust in which wouldn't build confidence or self esteem, but probably make you feel isolated if you haven't engaged in sexual acts with other people as well. Chooserr 06:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
              • That's awfully speculative. From the link you posted to the Economist article, just saying "Oxytocin=bonding" is an oversimplification. Then to say that "you'd have nothing but your hand" overlooks the psychological aspects of orgasm. Also, it seems likely that any bonding mechanism would require the presence of another person - nobody there, no bonding. In any case, unless there's something more substantial to go on, the bonding argument doesn't belong in the article. FreplySpang (talk) 06:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
                • I'm not sure I agree with that, but as I said early while I don't want to remove the "semi-safe" change I will. I just want to get the more opinionated sections out of this article...look at my version, and suggest anything you want. I'll take it into consideration, and try to work this whole thing out. Chooserr 06:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• Whoa there. You have yet to provide a single reliable source for this theory. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 19:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

From what I have heard about the positive/bonding effects of sex on women, masturbation does not have the same effect. The same hormones are not released. The body knows that it is different and reacts differently. Inkwell 08:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Gratuitous links

Masturbation is sufficiently unambiguous that the links to phone sex and cybersex seem to me to be gratuitous. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 11:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

What's to be done

Well now that we've discussed this can we if not implement my version (with certian changes such as puting "safe" behind masturbation) at least get rid of some of the more biased words throughout the article and work on the list so it is more neutral. Chooserr 00:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Pages aren't supposed to be protected forever, so the soon we can fix the problems on the article the better it will be and the sooner we can remove the template. Can we please do something. Chooserr 18:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a consensus behind your version at this point. Evidence of such? - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 20:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand that, but just because there isn't a vote saying we "have to do this" or we "want to do this" doesn't mean that we can use POV phrases, and make comments like "Use a Condom". A lot of people disagree with me, and I'm fine with that, but it doesn't mean that we should scrap any good ideas I have...and we should unprotect the page simply because unless we do come to a decision it would be an endorsement of the current design of the page. Chooserr 22:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it's not Wikipedia's place to say "use condoms". Wikipedia is neither a how-to guide, nor an advice column. There's a lot of inappropriate second-person language in this article, making it read like an instruction manual for safe-sex. As for the whole bonding chemicals issue, that needs further discussion in the context of an article about psychology and sexuality, which AFAIK doesn't currently exist. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Chooserr, you seem to be labouring under a misapprehension here: NPOV means neutral point of view. In Wikipedia terms, that means giving appropriate weight to competing points of view. In this case the Roman Catholic church is seen even by many Christian denominations as being badly out of line in not allowing use of contraception within marriage, and even more so where HIV/AIDS is involved. Most consider that the precautionary principle applies: the consequence of being wrong about the HIV/AIDS link are much lower if you assume it exists and use condomas, than if you assume it doesn't and don't. The business of "bonding chemicals" remains to be verified from reliable sources - the religious sites asserting it simply asserting it, you have yet to demonstrate any medical source drawing the inference you wish to draw. Everything you want to say can be covered without giving it undue weight by sayiong that the RC church (like every Christian denomination) advocates abstinence outside of marriage and (unusually) forbids use of contraceptives within marriage - and actually even that probably doesn't need to be said as such, because it is common knowledge, but it does explain the RC church's issues with some HIV/AIDS programs so I would say include it. The text you advocate is original research and giuves undue weight to a minority view based on dogma not science. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 09:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

That was a spelling error, just like "giuves". What I meant was POV, and have since corrected it to read as such.

As for how other Christians see the Church there is little I can do about that. They all seemed to follow exactly the same beliefs only a few years ago.

I'm not really intent upon persuing the issue on Bonding Chemcials here though, because my main problems are not what isn't in this article but what is. The text is biased, and makes Wikipedia look bad. Correcting it so it is neutral should be our first concern.

One thing I would like to say about my so called "original research" is that you are way off. I wrote what some christian groups believe about bonding chemicals, and added scientific sources so the reader could determine for his self if he believe there was a grain of truth in what they said. Chooserr 23:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

No, you wrote what some believe about bonding chemicals as fact, based on the use of the term in some cited text, but there was no medical source cited which draws the inference they (and you) drew. In the absence of any reliable sources drawing that inference it sounds like post-hoc rationalisation to support a pre-existing conclusion. I don't know of any significant medical authority which currently supports the idea that masturbation is problematic, at least in moderation. You know what they say: 95% of men admit they masturbate, and the other 5% are lying :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 09:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

JzG, I wrote what I said I wrote - an article on the theory of some Christian Groups, and scientific sources on the bonding chemicals. So the reader can draw their own conclusion if that isn't up to Wikipedia standards and we can report something only after there has been a battle over it fine....I don't mind. I'll play by the rules. Chooserr 02:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Unprotection

I see a request has been made for unprotection. Is there agreement among the editors here? AnnH ^(talk) 00:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

There has been an agreement by a few that it needs rewording...no consenus on what is to be done, but it is vital we atleast attempt to make it neutral. The sooner the better. Chooserr 00:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Eh. There are some points of agreement, but other points where I don't think that Chooserr has internalized our concerns, and I suspect there will be some more edit warring while we straighten things out. I continue to be concerned about Chooserr's idea of "neutral", as demonstrated on pretty much ever single one of his edits on birth control topics. He has stated above that he "hates birth control", and I am not convinced that someone with this POV can maintain an appropriate tone.--SarekOfVulcan 00:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I can't keep an "appropriate tone" on my own, but I didn't say it had to be me. I trust GTBacchus' idea of neutral - or atleast think I do, and any edits on the article I make can be fixed up to be neutral. But over all I don't think that my edits on Birth Control subjects are all that bad...they are firmly grounded, and not just made up. Also on edits I've made recently all you really did was fix typos, which shows that I am being Neutral. Chooserr 00:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, when exactly did I say "hates birth control" (and if I was talking about myself I'd assume it would be Hate right?) Chooserr 00:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Right about here.--SarekOfVulcan 00:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a perverse view. The Roman Catholic Church officially teaches birth control, they just don't approve of medical contraceptives. And most of the married RCs I know quietly ignore that anyway. I have no problem with counselling abstinence and fidelity as a way of controlling STDs, but we live in the real world and I'd rather we recognised the reality of what is going to happen than formulated health policy based on an idealised view of what should happen. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 09:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

JzG, if those are the Roman Catholics you know fine. I can't do anything about their actions, but one thing I think is stupid is that they would join a religion and ignore what it teaches you. I think an Atheist would have a better chance of getting into heaven than most of these Cafeteria Catholics...

As for the second part of your comment wikipedia isn't forming health policies. If that is what you are here to do I suggest that you get out now or prepare to be disappointed in the future. We are supposed to provide information - and whether you agree with my contributions or not all I've done since getting here was add information. 02:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I have unprotected, as SarekOfVulcan seemed to agree (on WP:RFPP) that it had been protected for long enough, even if there's still some doubt about consensus. AnnH ^(talk) 00:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Another way to avoid contact with blood and semen is outercourse (non-penetrative sex), or forms of penetration that do not involve a penis, such as the use of dildos (when cleaned or covered with condoms), especially strap-on dildos when thrusting is desired.

I think the above is too detailed, to the point that I think whoever wrote it, is having a laugh at wikipedia's expense: "strap-on dildos when thrusting is required" - is that really neccessary for an article about safe sex? Helzagood 02:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I spy porncruft. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 16:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreeing with the above, I went ahead and removed the last part of that sentence, the bit about strap-ons. Incidentally, did you know that "strap on," spelled backwards, is "no parts"? -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

No kidding, the dental dam is weird too, this might as well advise to "encase your partner in plastic and prod him/her with a 10-foot pole (don't froget rubber gloves and a gas mask)". Its hillarious, but...--Colle 22:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

controversy

I want to change this section to be less about feelings, and more about actual facts. I think the controversy section should be more along the lines of "opposition to safe sex practices", for that is what it is. The first paragraph is overly simplistic, especially with the phrase "proponents of the safer sex movement." What movement? I was unaware you were an activist if you used condoms... The second paragraph is just ridiculous, I have never heard of such a thing as a "virginity pledge," but I'm assuming it is a US christian conservative campaign (Heritige Foundation link). If I am correct, it goes without saying that fringe campaigns are out of place in this supposedly world-view encyclopedia article. And the third paragraph is even more absurd. Condoms "ineffective against HIV transmission." Wow, are we trying to kill people? Or just scare them enough not to have (gay) sex. I have deleted that paragraph, and I will work to fix the rest.

While I'm at it, I think the next expansion of this article should be in including Africa, where this is a bit of a bigger deal than in the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia.--Colle 08:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I am quite tired, I didn't mean for that to sound overly critical. Thanks!

Lastly, here is the root of the criticism, I would like to add something like it into the article. "A small number of Christian conservative organisations object to efforts promoting safe sex. Their objection is based on the a belief structure that states only married heterosexual couples should engage in sex, and sex should be only for the sole purpose of procreation."--Colle 09:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Minor critique: Putting "heterosexual" in there is unnecessary, since it's implied by "married" and "Christian conservative". But is it restricted to Christian organizations? Are there, for example, conservative Jewish organizations in the mix (there usually are)? Probably some Islamic organizations are there too. I'd also omit "a small number"; may as well say just "some" because it imparts the same precision. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's a small number, given that the Roman Catholic Church opposes education about condoms. Alienus 16:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay! I made the edit, took advice into account. Although I disagree that heterosexual can go without saying. Many people have no idea what religious conservatives stand for.--Colle||Talk-- 22:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

That section could do with a citation at this point. I agree with globalizing the perspective, but you lost the references. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I removed the Heritage and WEBmd references, one of them refers to virginity pledges, and the others pov. I'll try to find something better.--Colle||Talk-- 23:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Perfect, I added geographic example with reference.--Colle||Talk-- 23:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Abstinence and STIs

I'm not sure about saying that the only other ways to contract an STI are needle sharing and dirty transfusions. It's a bit dodgy to say that you've really thought of every way that something can happen. Besides, not all STIs require exchange of blood or other fluids. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree (though I did add "rape" as another means of infection), and I don't think that contracting STIs through needle sharing or transfusions is really relevant to an article on safer sex, anyway. Catamorphism 07:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

By definition, if you don't have voluntary sex, you can't get any diseases due to voluntary sex; not even diseases that could be transmitted more casually, such as the common cold. This is painfully obvious. Just as painfully obvious is the fact that anything that can be transmitted by sex can also be transmitted by cutting open your skin and injecting fluids or cells from infected people. In short, the whole section seems rather redundant. Alienus 17:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and removed as irrelevant the sentence on other ways of getting STIs. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Reversion of my edits

I have explained why my edits are necessary above, and given a few weeks room for comment. Please explain why they now should be undone.--Colle||Talk-- 23:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty rich to say "revert warring is unproductive" in the edit summary of a revert. If you believe what you say, you would not say it while engaging in said unproductive behavior. It turns out that revert warring is unproductive even if you're right. If someone reverts your edits, talk to them without reverting back. It's a wonderful display of good faith, and it sets a good example. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, but I did make my point with my edit summaries. Sometimes I find using an individuals talk page incites a negative response. I tend to only do that when the other user is ignorant of the process. Chooser has been here much, much, longer than myself, and most certainly knows more than I do of about the customs of the place! Also note that I requested he talk it over on this talk page (in the edit summaries, and my posted request above).--Colle||Talk-- 00:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes you were right in asking me to discuss my revert. I'm sorry I didn't sooner, but I decided that it might be best just to reword it a bit. I kept your last section which I found rather good, but tweaked it a bit, and added a section about Uganda which is able to control AIDs better than most African countries due to their abstinence only program.

For the first section I took some useful sentences of yours and conjoined them with the previous version. Chooserr 00:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I would of liked it if you talked about your changes before you started reverting. I gave a few weeks for people to comment on my proposed changes.

First of all, your statement that Uganda has an abstinance only program is factually incorrect. Uganda has a comprehensive safe sex policy, condoms included. Its success is due to the Ugandan government recognising and reacting to the dangers of sexually transmitted disease in the 80's, when other African leaders thought it was just a embarrasing phase.
Secondly, the version you prefer misrepresents the real situation. When your verion says "immoral behaviour" my version states exactly why they oppose it. This follows WP:NPOV policy. Your version refers to a "'safe sex' movement" --That too is POV. I changed it to "proponents of safe sex programs". Lastly, your version turns the proponents into a straw man. --Colle||Talk-- 00:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Well I don't know too much about Uganda, but I do know that they've been supporting an abstinence only or atleast primarily abstinence based campaign against STD. I don't think "safe sex movement" is overly POV, in fact I find it neutral. I believe there is a sentence with the same words near the head of the article but I may be wrong.... Also I don't see how I turn the proponents of safe sex programs into straw men. Can you please clarify the last bit so I can see where you are coming from. Chooserr 00:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that your definition of what they see as immoral behaviour should be included, but it would disrupt the end of the sentence, just as my sentence on the remaining way of catching AIDs/HIV was...If you can find a way to make it flow I will have no problem including that in the article...infact I'm working towards that myself. Chooserr 00:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, this is ridiculous. Perhaps next time we can sort this stuff out before the edit war? If you want to see how you made a straw man agrument, compare your version to mine. You make it look like they are non-dedicated abstinance promoters.... I can't do this. Put in whatever version you like.Colle

Maybe edit warring isn't the best way to do it, but I don't think you should just give up. I do want to make this article better...I just need to see where you are coming from. I don't think I make them into straw men at all, if you'd just explain maybe we can get somewhere. Chooserr 00:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Removed sentence about Uganda's abstinence program

It's weaselly to imply that this contradicts criticisms of moralism on the part of religious aid organizations, and this is an article mainly about safe sex, not abstinence education, so I removed the sentence about Uganda. It certainly deserves mentioning in an article on abstinence or sex education, but not here. Catamorphism 01:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It is blatant nonsense.--Colle||Talk-- 02:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Abstinence goes without saying in any article of this type, like safe driving for example. --Her girlfriend 23:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Virginity Pledges

I believe that the addition of the text on virginity pledges (even if the information is accurate) doesn't belong here. If it discussed thouroughly the AIDS rate, or such of these people and not their weak commitment it might make a valuable addition. I suggest if we want to keep it we move it to a more appropriate article. Chooserr 05:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Abstinence pledges are highly relevant to the issue of safe sex. Alienus 07:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Please explain your how you disagree. Chooserr 07:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I just did. What part was unclear? Alienus 07:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

All you said was "abstinence pledges are highly relevant to the issue of safe sex" how is that appropriate for the "controversy" section or the article in General. It isn't talking about birth control, or about AIDS. Chooserr 07:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a controversy over whether virginity pledges reduce rates of sex, pregnancy, and/or STI transmission among teens. Hence, the subject is relevant to the "Controversy" section. We could rename the section to "Controversies related to safe sex" to be more clear, but isn't it already obvious that a section called "Controversy" in an article called "Safe sex" will be about controversies related to safe sex? Catamorphism 07:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

There's no controversy about it - they simply don't. "...there is no evidence that lessons in abstinence, either alone or accompanied by a fuller complement of sexuality and health information actually hold teens off from sexual intercourse more than a matter of months" (Harmful to Minors, 93) "In a recent analysis of the massive National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, Columbia University sociologist Peter Bearman looked at the success of 'chastity pledges'... In the end, such pledges are counterproductive, to developing habits of lifetime sexual responsibility. When they broke the promise, as almost all did, these fallen angels were less effective contraceptors than their peers who had become active earlier. The study of Philadelphia middle schoolers reported in the JAMA educed thes ame results." (Harmful to Minors, 113) Raul654 08:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, but we do need to represent all points of view (without necessarily endorsing those points of view). Some people believe that abstinence pledges work, as evinced by Chooserr's comments, and we need to say that, just like we need to say that some people believe in intelligent design. Catamorphism 08:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Alienus. The question of whether abstinence pledges are effective is pertinent to the question of whether educating people about safer sex techniques is effective. If you have citable sources that mention AIDS rates among people who have and haven't made virginity pledges, or whatever else you feel should be added, feel free to cite them in the article. Catamorphism 07:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Catamorphism, I don't have to cite sources though. The people who are in favour of this section have to because otherwise these are unsubstantiated claims. Chooserr 07:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Your comment confuses me. The passage on virginity pledges already cites sources. I'm saying that if you want to add in information about AIDS to that passage, you can; you would just have to cite sources for it. Catamorphism 07:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Your right it does...sorry. As for your edits on high risk behaviour, I would like to implore you to revert them because the term encompasses more than just non procreative sex. Chooserr 07:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It's fairly unarguable that conservatives oppose safe sex education because they think it promotes sex. If you know about citable sources where conservatives say they oppose safe sex education because it promotes other things, like drug use, feel free to edit that section and include your sources. Catamorphism 07:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind that these 'virginity pledges' are an über fringe USA (bible belt?) thing, and this is an article that applies worldwide.--Colle||Talk-- 09:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't refer to it as über fringe; it's pretty normal in the South. That said, all that information is repeated at Virginity pledge, so since we're linking to that, let's not repeat it here. It's not really about "safe sex" as such. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

It can't be normal, that is really weird. Anyways, good work.--Colle||Talk-- 04:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't underestimate what's considered "normal" in the political climate of the US, which has been extremely skewed towards the religious right since the 1980s. Catamorphism 10:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Extremely skewed means the conservative president wins by a margin of 500 votes in Florida? --Her girlfriend 15:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, because in almost any other developed nation, someone like Bush would never have had a chance. Catamorphism 21:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Section with no source

I'm not too sure about the following:

Condom Failure

Condoms provide considerably less protection against sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) than they do against pregnancy. Women can only get pregnant during ovulation, two to three days each month, but STDs can be transmitted at any time of the month.

Women can get pregnant a lot more than on two or three days per month. Sperm can live for up to 5 days in the body, which is why the "rhythm" method is only 80% or so effective.Inkwell 09:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

STDs are frequently passed through "skin to skin" contact even when condoms are used. This can happen because the bacterial or viral germs that cause many serious STDs (such as human papillomavirus, chlamydia, herpes, and syphilis) do not infect just one place on your body. They may infect anywhere in the male or female genital areas. Example, a condom wearing male, is having sex with a female, his testicles are repeatedly hitting her genitalia.

Oral sex might be a better example here. Even so, it is important to point out that unprotected penetration is still the main form of transmission of STDs. I take issue with the word "frequently".Inkwell 09:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

So, even if the virus or bacteria isn't passed through tears or holes in the condom itself, you can still get diseases because condoms don't cover or protect all areas of the genital region. That means condoms don't prevent many of the STD infections that take place during sexual contact.

Many professionals have likened wearing a condom for protection during sex, to wearing a raincoat as body armour on a battlefield.

The rate of condom failure, is roughly equivalent to the concept of Russian Roulette, the practice of inserting one bullet in a gun and randomly roatating the cylinder, pulling the trigger.

In fact the odds of are better with the gun, if the cylinder is rotated randomly between shots.

This sounds like the kind of ridiculous nonsense spouted by absitinance only educators. The rate of STD transmission even without condoms isn't as high as 1 in 6. In one study, 121 people who were having regular sex with an HIV positive partner over 2 years, none of them were infected. A similar group who did not always use condoms, 10% were infected.Inkwell 09:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I think, if we can find sources for it, then it should be restored to the article, in some form, but it's out for now, -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

This isn't merely unsourced, it's false and partisan. I think it needs to go into the bit bucket. Alienus 06:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The only part of that that seems worth mentioning in the article is that there are STDs that are passed by skin-to-skin contact (such as pubic lice) that obviously [partial] barrier methods are ineffective against. It'd be nice if we could find statistics about frequencies of ones based by skin-to-skin contact, versus ones that aren't, tho. Mairi 07:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. Alienus 07:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Statistics showing the risks of infection with condom use are very very difficult to find. It is hard enough to find reliable statistics on the risks of unprotected oral sex. All I could find is that risks of STDs passed through skin to skin contact are greatly reduced when condoms are used. With the exception of parasites such as scabies and pubic lice, which are both no more serious than nits. A place like this (http://www.dph.sf.ca.us/sfcityclinic/stdbasics/stdchart.asp) lists the possible risks of different sexual acts, but not how barrier methods might reduce them.

I do think this should be discussed on the main page, however.Inkwell 10:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Regarding so-called "microwave-safe" plastics: "Plastic wrap ... found effective in preventing the transmission of virus-sized particles, although "microwave-safe" wrap may be ineffective [citation needed]. There is no difference in the structure of so-called "microwave-safe" plastics. Specifically they are considered "microwave-safe" because of chemical food safety, and not because they are porous. If plastic is non-porous, it should be a good barrier to viruses.

Chooserr

GTBacchus, I didn't revert his changes because I think Wikipedia should be giving advice. I reverted it because it was sloppy and muddled. After I did, he reverted it back and a third party did their best to clean up Chooserr's mess. Then you came along and wiped the whole thing out, which pretty much makes this convo moot. :-) Alienus 00:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how my sentence is sloppy. I personally like the flow of my writing opposed the the grammatic letter for letter style that could easily fit in at the Simple English version. Oh I'm not saying its perfect. I don't always remember where the comma should go or spell words right. But it isn't as sloppy or muddled as you seem to think. Chooserr 00:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Your edits were so sloppy that you were missing words. Look at "Another ways of practicing safe, aside from total abstinence or a monogamous relationship, would be...". Safe what?

Don't blame me if I revert large, sloppy changes by you. Alienus 00:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

There was some funny stuff going on - that whole section was majorly rewritten a couple of weeks ago, and then just over the last couple of days, the >2 week old version managed to sneak back in, which went unnoticed until just now, I guess. Anyway, "I reverted it because it was sloppy and muddled" isn't very cool. That's not a reason to revert Chooserr's edit, it's a reason to improve it, while allowing for the valid point he was making - that we don't use the imperative voice in articles. When we find ways to "split the difference" instead of reverting each other, Wikipedia works better. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I work based on reputation and effort, as well as the specific text. Chooserr has a reputation for bad edits, and he took no effort to make sure that a large change was reasonably clean. Therefore, I'd rather just revert it and let him try again, this time taking some care. If he had a problem with the imperative, he should have restricted his edit to that, instead of making a mess. Alienus 00:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

So I make mistakes - I'm human, but it doesn't mean that I deserve to be reverted by some pop-up thing. A better way to go about it than reverting me entirely would have been to add the second word - I'm not sure you couldn't have figured it out if you'd tried. Any ways the bottom line is that it is impolite and if we are meant to be contributing and working together to build an encyclopedia a certain amount of courtesy is necessary. I'm trying to do this - why not you? Chooserr 00:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah and Alienus you don't know what steps I took to make sure it was alright. You really don't. Maybe it was missing something, but after being told a while back to spell check I did. Chooserr 00:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

We all make mistakens, and I'm pretty sure we're all human. However, we're also all responsible for our mistakes and for doing our best to avoid them. The edit that I reverted had more wrong with it than a missing word, and the current version is much better, so let's just leave it at that. Alienus 03:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I stand by my claim that it's not very cool. Reverting good-faith edits is discouraged here, especially using pop-ups or the rollback button, because, as Chooserr points out, other editors are human beings and deserve the courtesy of an edit summary at least. You're free to do what you like, of course; it just seems silly to me to work against someone when you could work with them. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not my goal to piss Chooserr (or you) off, but he genuinely has a poor track record with me. Many of his edits have shown significant bias as well as serious language problems, and not all of them are worth salvaging. Sometimes, a revert is the most merciful thing to do. amd using the pop-up is not only faster, but gives me no opportunity to leave harsh words, which makes it easier to remain civil. If there's any doubt about why I made the change, anyone can ask and I'll answer. In general, though, Chooserr knows that my policy is to revert unsalvageable edits. Alienus 03:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, as the poet said, whatever floats your boat. Somewhere in the balance, an encyclopedia gets written. If everyone were just like me, we'd get bored. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Just trying to explain myself. The more we understand each other's motives, the easier it is for us to cooperate. Alienus 04:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Chooser the big bad censorer

Well I've been accused wrongly of censorship by Catamorphism a form of slander, but just so this won't happen again I'll try to elaborate as to why I am not censoring, but instead trying to fix wikipedia so it isn't so disjointed. I am trying to tell people in the controversy section 1) that both sides have been criticized and are criticizing eachother 2) that the U.N. as a government like body is advocating condoms and has been criticized in particular. I don't really care if we say Condom supporters have criticized religions that don't supply condoms, religions that don't supply condoms have criticized organizations that are funded by the government and violate their religious beliefs along with quite possibly putting people at risk for contracting AIDS/HIV through their pro-birth control programmes" but I don't want it to be disjointed. This is a major, project and I believe we should present both sides fairly. Chooserr 07:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Also while I haven't a problem removing some of the more fantastic language I do believe that my version wasn't wrong in its assesment of the current non-procreative bias. And it should be stated that the Conservatives aren't imagining this, along with why they dislike non-procreative sex. Chooserr 07:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I rarely have any idea what you are talking about, but in this case, you removed information without giving any reason (the part about AIDS in Africa) and you didn't present any evidence that anyone actually criticized the UN for distributing condoms. Catamorphism 07:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I cited a source by a pro-life organisation that criticized an program of the UN. I thought that was enough. As bit about africa and aids that was an example as I remember it, and not an elaborate essay which I removed. If you want to re-add it. I don't mind, but we'll need to rewrite the section so it is fair to both sides. If you'd start it off - as fair as you can - I'll try to make sure it is fair from my point of view, and you can from yours. Chooserr 08:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Nonencyclopedic paragraph

"Many forms of safe sex used to prevent STDs or STIs might not be advisable for those wishing to have a child or many other people depending on their religion, because of it's non-procreative in nature. Certain guidelines can be followed such as checking to make sure that your husband or wife are not carriers, or if you or your partner has HIV/AIDs consult a doctor about an antiretroviral drug. " -- Chooserr is continually re-adding this section

To me, this seems completely unencyclopedic and inappropriate. I'm not reverting it right now since I don't want to get into an edit war. Instead, I'm posting it here to say: does anyone besides Chooserr think this is an appropriate part of an article on safe sex? Catamorphism

It looks quite inappropriate and irrelevant. It's obvious that the precautions that avoid transmitting an STI would also prevent the sperm from reaching the egg. In other words, safe sex is safe from procreation, not just disease, so this entire paragraph is mostly an OR argument against safe sex and contraception. I'm sure it'd please the Pope, but why should we include it here? Alienus 08:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe this section is accurate, and should remain, because it tells you ways to have "safe sex" where you are safe from the transmittion of the disease, but not safe from having children. The information about antiretroviral drugs is relevant and unaddressed elsewhere in the article. That is why I made the comment should only sterile people be safe. There must be other means to prevent STD transmition without stopping the sperm, and we should address them. If anything this paragraph is only a lead in, and we should have a whole section on it. Chooserr 08:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

That's not what safe sex is. Alienus 08:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Alienus, you do know don't you that you just said everything the World Health Organisations expound on is BS, and that they supply condoms to africa not just to save people physical pain but to trick africans into a form of sterilisation using STDs as nothing more than a scare tactic. Chooserr 08:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that people who use condoms as part of safer sex are well aware that these are contraceptives. As for your paranoid theories about racist conspiracies, I think you need to stick to reality. For the purposes of Wikipedia, you need to stick to what's verifiable.

In any case, I'm cutting that paragraph. If safer sex is taken to mean the measures to prevent fluid exchange, then it necessarily follows that semen will also be blocked, so your paragraph is irrelevant. If, on the other hand, it is taken to include such things as monogamy, then your paragraph is irrelevant. No matter how you slice it, it's irrelevant, so I'm slicing it good. Alienus 08:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

You can't cut it without a consensus, and I don't care for conspiracies. I was just pointing out how illogical your statement is and what it would mean. I will re instate the article until such a time as there has been a consensus by more than two radicals. I'd especially like the comments of GTBacchus because he usually maintains a fair NPOV attitude. Chooserr 23:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks like 4 editors support removing the paragraph and one (you) supports keeping it. I probably don't need to remind you about WP:3RR, but you may also wish to review the idea of debating articles, not people. Whether anybody is a "radical" is irrelevant to this. Catamorphism 00:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, Chooserr, I'm convinced that its not quackery. However, in the opening, I think it would be better to sum this up with all types of safe/non-contraceptive sex. So, find a way to include it that way and I'll support it. Then add a section that can be used for all such safe-sex approaches, not just the one you seem to be focusing on.--Pro-Lick 23:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll throw my opinion in. Wikipedia is not an advice column, and the introduction to the safe sex article doesn't need procreation advice, in the same way oral contraception doesn't say in the introduction that it's useless against STDs. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying Jpgordon, but all I'm trying to do is add a section on other ways to prevent AIDs infectiosn (half the point of "Safe Sex") while not necessarily preventing procreation. I know there must be drugs which keep HIV in check allowing people to live healthy happy lives, and have children - why not talk about them. If it prevents HIV/AIDs transmitions from partner to partner should we withhold that information just to follow the party line? Should we endanger the lives of those who don't want to use condoms for one reason or another? Chooserr 00:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The job of a Wikipedia article isn't to save people's lives. It's to provide basic information and provide a starting point for further research. Catamorphism 00:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is the link to the AIDS/HIV site where I my information. I'm not sure if their are other was to prevent the spread of STDs but not limit yourself to non-procreative sex - either way this should be included in the paragraph somewhere. Chooserr 00:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying that there have to be other ways, just that the framework for it should allow for other ways to be added. If the approach you've described is the only way now, fine. Just less detail in the opening section, than add a section dedicated to it and any others that happen to come along, so to speak.--Pro-Lick 00:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Well then Pro-lick exactly what would like to include and how to frame it. I take it that you found my previous paragraph inappropriate and that is alright with me so long as we work to make a better paragraph. Maybe more information as to how these drugs work - an excerpt from their wikipedia article would be benificial? Chooserr 00:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Just remember not to use the 2nd person in encyclopedic articles.--Andrew c 06:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

reworded version

I've reworded it and posted it on the page. I don't see any reason why it should be removed - especially since I spent all that time fixing it as Pro-lick requested. I even took Andrew C's advice about 2nd person. It pertains to stopping HIVs transmittions which is "safe sex" or at least one of the main components that is used to justify the use of condoms. Chooserr 03:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• No consensus. You have to redefine "safe sex" to only mean HIV for this to work; that's not what the article is about. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Anal as Safe Sex

Should we have an entry for that here or should I put that in the contraceptive article?--Pro-Lick 23:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it should go under contraception, not safe sex, since anal sex prevents pregnancy but isn't particularly better than other forms of sex at preventing STIs. Catamorphism

I don't think it is safe sex either, but it hardly belongs under contraception, because it is natural impossible to lead to conception. It seems a bit like stating the obvious, you might as well add that if you get along with your dog really well you also won't have children. Chooserr 00:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Um, that wasn't obvious to me, but I guess in some places farm animals are an obvious option too.--Pro-Lick 00:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Pro-lick, Did you think that dog and men could breed? Its non procreative just like anal sex, and is just as obvious. What I'm getting at is if you put anal sex under contraceptives. You might as well outline sex with animals and plants. Chooserr 00:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, other than sharing needles with or getting a blood transfusion from someone with an infection, unprotected anal sex is the best (most effecient) way of transferring STDs. Calling it "safe sex" is simply wrong. Raul654 00:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not necessary the most efficient way of transferring *all* STIs (it's not particularly more effective than vaginal sex for transmitting crabs, f'rex), but I agree with you that it's not "safe sex". Catamorphism 00:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• This is a really stupid conversation. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

And again...

While possibly not considered safe sex by all options such as antiretroviral drugs can be used by HIV patients to prevent the transfer of STDs to their partner, along with lessening the symptoms for themselves. This form of safe sex might be favourable to religious people because is also open to procreation.

"Possibly not considered safe sex"? It's not safe sex. It's like banging someone's head on the wall and saying it's OK because you've given them an aspirin. What authorities consider this to fall under the rubric "safe sex"? You don't get a "vote", Chooserr. You seek consensus. You have no support whatsoever for this insertion. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Also agreed. Keep in mind that taking anti-virals is not sufficient to constitute safe sex. At best, it reduces the risk of HIV transmittal, but it doesn't stop other diseases and it definitely doesn't allow for medically safe pregnancy. Alienus 03:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I put in that clause because I knew you people wouldn't agree that a device which would prevent someone from getting or transmitting HIV us safe sex. You act as if safe sex can only be defined as sex "safe" from the "disease" of children. Millions are spent on condoms so people can prevent STDs or that was at least the grounds on which many tried to change the Vatican's policy on condoms... I really don't see what the controversy is about. Also while I don't know Locke to well. I wouldn't think Alienus would agree with me if I said the sky is blue. Chooserr 07:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I also must state for Alienus that many forms of safe sex, including spermicides and whatever else are quite a bit away from being 100% or even 90% effective at preventing the spread of STDs - some are much lower than that. So why shouldn't an anti-viral treatment with the same or maybe slightly better effectiveness be excluded? Chooserr 07:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Please cite the research that verifies your opinion that the definition we are using in the first sentence of safe sex, a set of practices designed to reduce the risk of transmitting sexually-transmitted infections (STIs), in incorrect and should be expanded to include the practices you are suggesting. Spermicides? That results in the definition of pregnancy being a sexually transmitted infection, which, though a rather amusing viewpoint (especially to the committed childless), is at best a fringe viewpoint. Spermicides are not considered safe sex -- they are considered an adjunct to safe sex, something to use along with condoms, suspenders to go along with a belt. Now, if you want to discuss adding antiretrovirals to the fluid-exchange-prevention strategies, that's appropriate, but doesn't particularly work in the introduction. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I did a brief google search, and then a pubmed search for any information about antiretroviral drugs and safe sex. I didn't find anything at all that promoted this practice, and no science behind it even being an effective method. Furthermore, I found this study [3] that shows there is small trend among HIV positive injection drug users to engage in unsafe sexual activities after beginning antiretroviral treatment. Here is another study[4] that shows HIV+ individuals undergoing antiretroviral treatment are more likely to engage in unsafe sexual activities. Here is a study [5] showing "Antiretroviral drugs not foolproof in preventing HIV infection via sex." --Andrew c 22:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Sperm in pre-ejaculate

I'm concerned about our claim that there is no sperm in pre-ejaculate. The studies cited are from 1993 and 2003 and I am curious as to why the results of these studies have not become common knowledge in a decades time if these results have been confirmed given the frequency of the counterclaim that pre-ejaculate does contain sperm.

I realize this is an emperical question so it would be nice to be able to site some more studies on the issue or at least be cautious regarding the issue until resounding confirmation is given. Further, from the 1993 study, it seemed that the claim is not so much that sperm is absent, but that whatever sperm is present is present in small quantities and is in non-motile.

Suggestions on wording and how the issue should be approached would be welcomed. -SocratesJedi | Talk 09:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

On the lack of viable sperm in pre-e not being common knowledge: Fertility awareness has existed since the 1960s, and yet popular opinion still says it is the same thing as the Rhythm Method. The Pill has existed since the 1960s, and only very recently have studies been done addressing possible post-fertilization effects (and all so far have been ambiguous) - yet even medical textbooks say that the pill has been proven to prevent embryos from implanting. Popular opinion is that withdrawal is sanctioned as a birth control method by the Catholic Church, and yet Catholicism has always considered withdrawal to be a form of masturbation and a sin. Sometimes common knowledge never does catch up to reality. Lyrl 22:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Aye, I agree that common knowledge does not necessarily agree with reality. I am curious, however, whether other editors feel that the evidence in favor of the no-sperm claim is so strong as to warrent the previously-included claim that pre-ejaculate does not contain sperm or whether Wikipedia ought to say something like "Some studies suggest that..." and a less definitive way. -SocratesJedi | Talk 03:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I realize no one has discussed this in awhile, but I agree that this information should be edited. The sample size for the 2003 study was only 13 people which is extremely small in terms of external validity. This is not to mention that even if the studies are correct, the failure rate for the average user is around 19% (which is significantly higher than other methods). I think if this information is going to stay up it should be worded more cautiously; especially because teenagers who are often more concerned about pregnancy than HIV may mistake this for an "effective" method. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JJHeart (talk • contribs) 06:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

It is known however, that pre-ejaculate may not impregnate you. I've heard rumors (translation: Do not edit wikipedia) that it's sperm leftover from a previous ejaculation that does the trick. Strictly rumors, however. Anyways, it is not effective STI blocking, so you guys are right. Withdrawal is in the bible, by the way (Genesis 38:6-9). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MikedaSnipe (talk • contribs) 04:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

Changed wording for abstinence

Abstinence virtually eliminates the chance ...

I think completely works better in this case. Not sure, however.

Since "completely" is false, I changed it. Catamorphism 15:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The correct term is always... safer

The correct term is always... safer
There's never zero risk !
dsaklad@zurich.csail.mit.edu 07:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, let's move the page.--Sonjaaa 15:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The strategy. Get tested TOGETHER BEFORE having sex.

What public health officials, journalists have observed the
phenomenon of potential sex partners getting tested TOGETHER
BEFORE having sex?...
dsaklad@zurich.csail.mit.edu 07:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's a thought experiment...

The strategy.

Get tested TOGETHER for a VARIETY of sexually transmitted
infections, including human immunodeficiency virus and
share the results with your potential sex partner BEFORE having
sex.

A collaborative blog about
the strategy of let's get tested TOGETHER
BEFORE we have sex... for STDs
http://NotB4WeKnow.blogspot.com

Earlier edits at
http://zork.net/dsaklad/notb4weknow
http://www.seedwiki.com/wiki/not_b4_we_know

HIV nucleic acid testing

> Seattle is already using this test in limited environments and
> in concert with the rapid antibody test. The long return time
> for lab results makes the RNA test far less convenient for
> clients, who can get a same day result from the rapid test.
> Doing both tests also makes the conversation more complex--
> "your HIV test is negative, but this other test may still find
> HIV from a more recent exposure--" and in a culture that is
> moving away from HIV test counseling and informed consent, it's
> an odd time to add a potentially confusing variable.
> Nevertheless, it can be a great tool if someone is
> concerned about a particular recent exposure. In addition, I'm
> not sure that the RNA test is actually FDA approved as a
> diagnostic tool for HIV infection (and I mean that-- I'm not
> sure-- it may be at this point). In Seattle, it's more used as
> a mechanism for identifying people in early infection and
> getting them connected to care, where more comprehensive
> testing happens. Just some thoughts...

- - - - -
> San Francisco City Clinic and Magnet(Gay men's health site)
> http://www.magnetsf.org
> use this state of the art testing. AIDS Health Project is to
> phase it in. Other sites aren't scheduled to get it and
> advocacy is needed.

- - - -
> Subject: [GayMensHealthSummit] RNA HIV test
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gaymenshealthsummit
>
> FYI.
> This is a new kind of HIV test that tests for RNA of the virus
> rather than antibodies. This means one can detect an HIV
> infection sooner. Baltimore is now using this. When will
> Philadelphia and other cities use this?
>
> Baltimore begins HIV nucleic acid testing
> http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid33674.asp

Move request

Can we move to safer sex please? Who agrees or disagrees?--Sonjaaa 15:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I very strongly disagree with this echoing concerns of another editor under the Controversy section of this page. "Safer sex" is biased language and is in usage primarily in the United States. Also a quick google query shows that "Safe Sex" yields about 7.7 million hits while "Safer sex" yields about 3.5. Safe sex is the most commonly used phrase for the topic in english so it should be used at the title per the Wikipedia Naming Conventions. -SocratesJedi | Talk 06:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

OXYMORON

seriously... 205.188.117.10 04:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Re-editing of page

I've tried to put the page in a reasonable order as it was a bit of a mess and make it a safe sex article rather than one that begins and ends with abstinence. I've also added some pictures. I'd welcome some discussion, rather than simple removal of material. Or perhaps pictures replaced with better ones. I also think the section on anal sex needs to be stronger: all the medical advice puts this right at the top of the danger list.--Simon Speed 09:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

While I like some of your changes, pictures such as the coffin only very tangentially have to do with "safe sex". Pictures for the sake of more pictures does not improve the article. Neitherday 15:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Relevant pictures that complement the text make it more readable and easier to understand. I used 2 pictures as icons (for what they symbolise), the AIDS ribbon next to the section on AIDS and the coffin next to the section on ineffective methods (I thought that was was quite drole). I thought the condom machine picture fitted well down the side of the text on barrier methods, used the shunga picture (traditional Japanese sex education) to illustrate masturbation (quite tastefully) and a Shinto ceremony to illustrate tradional marriage (monogamy). I used the temple frieze to sugest that safe sex can be varied and fun (though the latter may be POV). The problem with the remaining pictures (though they are both quite fun) is that they both illustrate condom use: current medical advice has condom use as an important part of safe sex but definitely not the whole picture. --Simon Speed 02:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I see no problem with the shunga picture, if a caption explaining what it is illustrating is added. The AIDS ribbon, however, is a political symbol and both it and the coffin do little but add POV to the article. I don't see how illustrating marriage adds to the article - just because monogomy is mentioned doesn't mean we need a picture of a marriage ceremony. There is much that article mentions, such as drug use, that is not significant enough to illustrate. Neitherday 02:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Clintons

The picture of the Clintons has nothing to do with the topic of safe sex, they never discussed safe sex as it related to their relationship. It's sole purpose is to make a political statement and I'm removing it. Neitherday 14:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Pity. If it's controversial I don't think the picture is that important. I think Bill is example of well documented good practise with regard to safe sex (personally though not in his lack of support for his surgeon general). What exactly is the political satement? Is it pro or anti Clinton? --Simon Speed 16:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It is thinly veiled reference to the Clinton sex scandals, which not only doesn't have anything to do with safe sex, actually has to do with the opposite. Note that Monica Lewinsky's famous blue dress was stained after she gave Bill Clinton a blow job, which would not have occurred if they were practicing safe sex. And within the confines of the Bill and Hillary's monogamous relationship, there has been never been references made as to whether or not they practice safe sex. Neitherday 17:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a reference to Bill's little affair. The only really scandalous things were Monica's laundry habits and the reaction of the media and the religious right. Bill called what he did "fooling around" and "not having sex", better terms would have been "safe sex" and "non-penetrative sex". (Safe sex does not prevent stained clothing, just fluid transfer between bodies). A big issue in societies where monogamy is relied on to prevent HIV infection is that the husband plays away, doesn't play safe and the wife suffers the consequences. Mr Clinton was human, but responsible, protecting himself, his family and his lover. --Simon Speed 22:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Marry a Vargin..

No a days it hard to believe in that concept. Who wants to marry a vargin? if you want to marry one you have to be one first otherwise donot bother. You break you Varginity before marriage; you are breaking the Lords command. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.193.194.56 (talk) 03:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Communication

The article on communication deals with the subject at its most general and abstract, including such things as information theory but nothing at all remotely like sex talk. Dirty talk may be an unfortunate name (though common usage thanks to the belief that sex=dirt), but it does refer to the act of explicitly talking about sex before doing it, using those Plain English taboo words that you understand rather than the Latin ones you find in books. It is a sort of foreplay, but can be anything else human conversation is capable of being, particularly negotiation. Read the safe sex websites: they're not asking peolpe to talk biology but to break the taboo and talk sex. --Simon Speed 19:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

"Dirty talk" is about discussing sex in a way to heighten sexual pleasure. Dirty talk does not necessarily involve a discussion of safe sex nor does a discussion about safe sex necessarily involve dirty talk. Therefore, dirty talk is an inaccurate redirection of the link. If you want to add dirty talk to the article as a safe sex technique I'm fine with that. Neitherday 23:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I see what you mean. But I don't think we can include this as a form of safe sex as it's usually a form of foreplay. Virtual sex is in the non-penetrative main article and phone sex has a mention elsewhere in this one. I'll let it mull and see if I think of anything. --Simon Speed 11:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Abstinence and tattoos

Is there some reason why this paragraph is in the "abstinence" section?:

Diseases classified as sexually transmitted diseases may also be transmitted through non-sexual means. Thus, abstinence from sexual behavior does not guarantee protection against STDs. For example, HIV may be transmitted through contaminated needles used in tattooing, body piercing, or injections. Health-care workers have acquired HIV through occupational exposure to accidental injuries with needles.

This may be true, but if so it applies equally to people using condoms or "outercourse" as it does to abstinence. You might as well say that "condoms do not guarantee protection against STDS because these diseases can also be transmitted through contaminated needles used in tattooing". Unless for some reason abstinent people are more likely than the sexually active to get tattoos! Fionah 20:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion by User:Superkevbo

I just reverted a deletion made by this user. the user has been reprimanded for the inclusion of links to commercial sites. I have no knowledge of that, but this last eletion did not appear to be delting commerical information. I have restored it, with apologies if this section should go (though I highly suspect it needs to stay ...... citations would be nice) LonelyBeacon 05:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

In regards to the safe sex article, the content I removed was content that I had added back in March. According to user TeaDrinker, wikipedia shouldn't be used as an 'instruction manual' and they disagreed with my use of references. As such I just removed the whole passage and will rewrite it later. Thanks and please let me know if this isn't ok.Superkevbo 05:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Content missing from this article

The article mentions getting regular medical checkups but it does not mention the many options for confidential or even completely anonymous testing for STDs, particularly for HIV. It also does not mention safe sex in the context of prostitution. This is a very important topic. In parts of the world where prostitution is legal, or illegal but widely accepted, there are public health services to monitor the sex workers for STDs and programs to help them avoid infection. Much of the literature on these programs is written in the context of HIV. --Una Smith (talk) 16:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

STD's versus Pregnancy

When the flame wars over abstinence are over, this section needs more editing to differentiate between safe sex to prevent the spread of STD's and safe sex to prevent pregnancy. The article needs to be more clear on this. Square126 (talk) 01:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)