Condoms and Africa

To the Concerned over Africa,
    When I listen to people debating over the nature of contraception, there are a few words generally spoken by proponents of contraception with hatred. "The outbreak of AIDS in Africa is because of no access to condoms." Now I'm not an expert on AIDS and Sexually Transmitted Diseases, but I am under the impression the hatred is still in the wrong place. If my understanding is wrong, then please correct me.
    Here is what I have gathered about the nature of AIDS. It mutated from a monkey disease that somehow got transmitted to humans. Its origins are unknown and some people think it was from hunting and blood somehow infected humans. Another theory is that some guy actually tried having sex with an infected monkey, after all, it's an STD. However, it also gets transmitted through contact with contaminated blood or needle.
    This is what I found on the Aids.gov website on June 26, 2016

In the United States, HIV is spread mainly by:

• Having anal or vaginal sex with someone who has HIV without using a condom or taking medicines to prevent or treat HIV.
  • Anal sex is the highest-risk sexual behavior. For the HIV-negative partner, receptive anal sex (“bottoming”) is riskier than insertive anal sex (“topping”).
  • Vaginal sex is the second highest-risk sexual behavior.
• Sharing needles or syringes, rinse water, or other equipment (“works”) used to prepare injection drugs with someone who has HIV. HIV can live in a used needle up to 42 days depending on temperature and other factors."

So proponents of condoms argue that that condoms will prevent the transmission of the disease. That's most likely as true as that condoms guarantee no pregnancy. However, the issue here is that it treats the symptoms, not the disease. Also, it creates more problems.

If you recall how it's transferred, and how the condom debate is concerned, it's through sex. It's rapid spread is not because of people having sex though, it's people having sex with multiple people. If a person who had the disease had sex only with one person, and that person only had sex with that other person, it would not spread like it did. Now consider who is ultimately advocating condoms. They are the people who view that sex is for pleasure, and are using the negative consequences of that view to attack those who don't hold that opinion. That is unjust. Instead, those who see sex as a responsibility are trying to address the disease, not the symptom.

I mentioned there are other issues with the condom debate. One is that it does not limit sexual promiscuity, which is how the disease thrives. Two, those infected with AIDS are not going to use condoms when they want to have children. Three, condoms will cost the Africans so much money. If these people are in poverty, can they afford another necessity? Possibly four since I don't know much about the manufacturing process, the production of condoms in Africa would taint the little water supply they do have. 

Question: Does encouraging Sexual Promiscuity aid or inhibit your ability to love others?

You have to admit that the abundance in condoms only increase sexual promiscuity. However, since sexual promiscuity is the actual cause of the outbreak of HIV, they won't help in reality. The real help is to being sexually responsible. Of course, the culture today refuses that for a few reasons.

One is the sex industry worth a lot of money. By encouraging sex for pleasure, it allows businesses to operate prostitution, pornography, and make money off sex toys and contraception. Since it's worth money, they try to encourage promiscuity by creating a need that necessarily did not exist. Advocacy for responsible sex does not result in sexual crimes such as rape or cheating, but promoting sexual promiscuity does. This is because sex is no longer an act of true love, but of selfishness. The purpose of sex becomes to fulfill your passionate desires, not to increase your love for someone else.

The second reason why culture does not want to advocate sexual responsibility is because of contradiction. This is a reality. These people have accepted that sex is for pleasure and therefore do not wish to promote anything that is naturally opposed to the selfish desire. People want to do what they believe is right, but to oppose condoms would naturally condemn their opinion that sex is not supposed to be for pleasure, but instead that pleasure is a side-effect.

I hold that sex is a good thing, but it must be taken responsibly. If my wife is feeling sick, I must endure my passion and wait until she's feeling well again. This not only shows actual love toward my wife, but strengthens my spirit. If we have sex every day for pleasure, it's going to make it hard to stay faithful when we cannot do that. Therefore, the best thing to do is to advocate being responsible and oppose anything that threatens it.

To take another perspective, in an area that isn't sexually promiscuous, I don't need to worry about my wife being raped or seduced. That's a big deal and certainly an ideal. I hope this post certainly diminishes any hatred you might have for some people's opinions. We might consider them to be crazy, but they are actually thinking on a much deeper level. Also note that even if they fail to live up to the ideal, that does not mean the ideal is invalid.

With Love,

N. D. Moharo

P. S. You can technically consider this a sequel to my previous post about identifying the root of the homosexual debate. There I described both sides and what they naturally mean, as well as list some concerns. Here I examine the consequences a bit more.

Now for those who are worried about getting HIV, I also found this picture on the same website.

To my understanding, as long as there is no blood contact or mixing, you are okay