* * *
An excerpt from "More Sex is Safer Sex" by Steven E. Lansburg (offered to the reading public by the New York Times...no surprise.)
CHAPTER ONE
It's true: AIDS is nature's awful retribution for our tolerance of immoderate and socially irresponsible sexual behavior. The epidemic is the price of our permissive attitudes toward monogamy, chastity, and other forms of extreme sexual conservatism.
You've read elsewhere about the sin of promiscuity. Let me tell you about the sin of self-restraint.
Consider Martin, a charming and generally prudent young man with a limited sexual history, who has been gently flirting with his coworker Joan. As last week's office party approached, both Joan and Martin silently and separately entertained the prospect that they just might be going home together. Unfortunately, Fate, through its agents at the Centers for Disease Control, intervened. The morning of the party, Martin happened to notice one of those CDC-sponsored subway ads touting the virtues of abstinence. Chastened, he decided to stay home. In Martin's absence, Joan hooked up with the equally charming but considerably less prudent Maxwell - and Joan got AIDS.
When the cautious Martin withdraws from the mating game, he makes it easier for the reckless Maxwell to prey on the hapless Joan. If those subway ads are more effective against Martin than against Maxwell, they are a threat to Joan's safety. This is especially so when they displace Calvin Klein ads, which might have put Martin in a more socially beneficent mood.
If the Martins of the world would loosen up a little, we could slow the spread of AIDS. Of course, we wouldn't want to push this too far: if Martin loosens up too much, he becomes as dangerous as Maxwell. But when sexual conservatives increase their activity by moderate amounts, they do the rest of us a lot of good. Harvard professor Michael Kremer estimates that the spread of AIDS in England could plausibly be retarded if everyone with fewer than about 2.25 partners per year were to take additional partners more frequently. That would apply to three-fourths of all British heterosexuals between the ages of 18 and 45.
***
This fella has a death wish...fer the whole world. 
Plain truth is that with AIDS ravaging much of the world and significant portions of our own population, this topic ain't no laughin' matter.
22 comments:
true enough, gal.
Can't say as if anyone I know personally has it, but, y'know what I think the real truth is...
I DO know someone who has it, just like most folks do, but, whoever it is that has it ain't spilling it fer the trouble they'll have if'n their friends knew.
I do bring it up at group gatherin's and such, but, only as a catalyst t'get conversation growin' on responsible sex.
Oh, but, wait. The hard end right says that's as terrible as not telling nothin.
Dang!
Thinks I that we should all leave the hard right and the hard left hard BEHIND us, and get on down the road before they figure out we've gone!
SMILE... Amen, Sugar pie....Boneman, I'se wif' ya on that.
I doan have no trouble giving a real- truth-about-sex yak to folks young and not-so-young...but I does have an objection to using soft porn ter do it...no need fer that.
But on AIDS, as in ever'thing, the Sexual Left (yep--the hard left what is so manic fer utopian agenda and won't stand fer no facts messin' up they utopia)pushes lies on the vulnerable--condoms fer instance.
Looky, condoms can hep stop makin' babies, nad fer most STDs it is a good preventative. BUT NOT FOR AIDS. THe AIDS virus is so small it can git through the microscopic perforations in condoms that have not been stored at cool temps. AN' that would be most of 'em.
Mayhap some of ya'll has seen the horror story on how African nations has sued the UN's WHO because the UN shipped Africa a million defective condoms. And those is jes' the ones they inspected.
Chastity and fidelity works--but folks hate ter hear it because they think only religious folks is saying that. But medically it is true. It works. SO, in a world whar' AIDS is epidemic, what have all the "tolerant" nd "compassionate" people got against a method that works to keep people alive?
I can see why you are upset with the tenets of this book, but this doesn't come from a leftist perspective. It comes from a corporate point of view using cost-effect analysis. Also, the book advocates racial profiling and a host of things that the left simply would condemn, probably more ardently than you.
X. Naw, puddin' I ain't upset wif' the book--I'se mightily amused by such silliness...except that AIDS is serious bidness.
OH, and X. ? Iffin' youse curios about another conspiracy--check out the post immediately afore this one--the Hellish Hegemony one.
The Globalization efforts are a bit too open to be a conspiracy. It's definitely problematic, and we've already seen the loss of national soverignty in the US with NAFTA and other treaties (did you catch Bill Moyer's specials on that?).
As for the UN's role, I would doubt it. In roles where they have fostered the needs of globalization (e.g. Kosovo), they did it with strong pressure from the G8. Otherwise, I would look more to the Bilderbergers (I'm not sure if Ted Turner of CNN is one, but it wouldn't surprise me--either that or that he and Murdoch probably have some connections with the group), or other international globalist think tanks.
I agree with you wholeheartedly, though, that the ramifications of this multinational corporate alliance is rather frightening. After all, if we're the citizens of a democracy, we have some say so through voting, activism etc. We have considerably less influence upon big business.
X.Dell, the BBs are the UN's puppet masters. This is so they can pretend t hat "civil society" chose to be enslaved under the rubric of international harmony.
if God meant AIDS to be a punishment on mankind, he was sloppy about it... what about all those poor kids born with it? and those evil recipients of blood transfusions? I'd think an omnipotent diety could "focus" his vengeance a bit better...
Ok. Im at the back porch.
Omnipotent deity alright.
Spiteful, revenge filled my way or the highway deity you mean.
Huh??
Bawgs-- I doan git yore meaning? The post don't talk about God at all--and Aunty ain't saying AIDS is punsihment on mankind--whar'd ya git THAT??? Most of the post is a quote from the NYimes--- not AB.
WHat is ya tryin' ter tell me?
Mara--same thang, sugar? What is ya bringin' God into it fer? THis post doan mention God.
Hey Belle!!! Thanks for stopping by. Summer has been going great with me and my youngin'.
Back to your article AB.
Isn't this typical New York Times trash ?
my comments about God were in reference to this:
"It's true: AIDS is nature's awful retribution for our tolerance of immoderate and socially irresponsible sexual behavior."
just replace nature with God here... I am disagreeing with the writer of the piece...
BAwgs, thanks fer the clarification--but, well, that author an you is on the same page, mebbe--see, he is saying that tolerance of ABSTINEnce is wrong--he says we need more indiscriminate sex to save the world from AIDS.... this bird says that "socially irresponsible" is failure to party wildly and with yore clean self save some other person from makin' it with an infected sort. His logic is iffin' you'd jes' make a clean Bawgs available, then amorous folks would not go to the AIDS carriers....of curse this idiocy is exactly why I posted that NYTImes chapter--to show how dangerously silly the sexual left can be--fer Pete's sake!
QUALITY vs QUANTITY..
I'd take quality any day....
I must admit that article is promoting promiscuity - well to a point it is.
But again, what do you expect from the New York Times. I thought this type of stuff (from them )was just par for the course.
Quality wins the day ...
Can anyone write a book these days? I’d like to write a book called, “Steven E. Lansburg Deserves To Be Tenderly Beaten With A Spiked Club Soaked In The Blood Of A Thousand AIDS-Infected Sodomites—Nine Hundred And Ninety-Nine Just Won’t Do.”
First of all: It’s not Martin’s fault that Joan is a slut. Joan, despite her flirtations with Martin, and whatever the intimations they shared about going home together the night of office party, apparently had no qualms about hitching her wagon to Maxwell’s studly star in Martin’s sudden absence. Of course, whereas I say she’s a “slut,” Lansburg says she’s just being responsible by not tolerating immoderate sexual behavior, from herself or others. So why should Lansburg assume that “hapless” (but never humpless) Joan, following his good advice, and Martin, having overcome his CDC-sponsored impotence, won’t make the beast with two backs at the earliest possible opportunity, which could indeed be well before she learns that she’s contracted the Big One from Maxwell? “More Sex is Safer Sex” demands it! Everyone gets AIDS you nitwit.
Um, Maxwell may well be a better deal than Martin.
Anybody thought of that.
Civilian, Darlin--Aunty B eeded that laugh! I'd publish yore book , assumin' there's amusin' art work too?
Oh, an I gotta say--the book is quite simply a prime example of left-think: do whatever ya' wanna do, and make somebody else clean up yore mess. No matter what, never take responsibility for yore undisciplined life.
Civilian, Darlin--Aunty B eeded that laugh!
Funny and DEADLY SERIOUS.
I'd publish yore book , assumin' there's amusin' art work too?
What? You don't think my artwork is already is amusing? I tell you: In exactly three illustrations Death himself will be making an appearance--and he always has a sense of humor about him.
Oh? Grim Reaper with a grin? Cain't wait!
Post a Comment