No techno-fix in Vancouver?

Condom promotion seems to have its limitations as a public health measure: more use correlates with more STDs. The result isn’t surprising. Nonjudgmental “safe sex” education says that sexual well-being is basically a matter of correct use of technology. The slightest attention to human experience would show that’s not so. If you want to live well, there’s no substitute for living well.

3 thoughts on “No techno-fix in Vancouver?”

  1. From the linked article:

    From the linked article:

    ” … [T]eenagers continue to be the most targeted group for the safe-sex message, which advocates condom use to prevent the spread of STDs, including HIV.”

    I believe teenagers are “the most targeted group for the safe-sex message” precisely because these campaigns OBVIOUSLY will have the effect of increasing sexual activity, and the leftist bureaucrats, political hacks, college professors, and heads of foundations who come up with them want fundamentally to increase sexual activity among teenagers particularly, as part of their program to radically change western society in the direction of ego-worshipping hedonistic degeneracy, the milieu in which degenerates and moral perverts such as themselves naturally feel most comfortable.

    “Unfortunately, new statistics and studies have concluded that ‘while condom usage has increased most among teens, STDs have also increased most among teens.’ ”

    This no-brainer of an inevitable outcome could have been predicted from the start, and probably was by ten-thousand different commentators. But as we all know, “Being a leftist means never having to say you’re sorry.” Forty-five percent of our teenagers are coming down every year with incurable STDs, a situation brought about by the leftists? Hey, whaddya want from me? Nobody’s perfect! Lighten up!

    ” … [S]tudies on sexual activity during adolescence also show increased percentages of depression and suicide, as well as an assortment of emotional problems including loss of self-respect, esteem, and trust among sexually active teens compared.”

    This clearly refers to teenage girls, not boys. So much for all the supposed tender regard and claimed protectiveness on the part of their elder sisters in women’s lib who push this sexual liberation crap on our adolescent and teenage girls. Next time I hear about women’s lib’s concern for the emotional well-being of young girls and the healthy development of their self-esteem I’ll be sure to remember to shed a few tears.

  2. That BrothersJudd link on
    That BrothersJudd link on this topic which Thrasy posted was interesting. Thanks for that, Thrasy.
    (A bit off the topic: in the comments thread at the link posted by Thrasy, notice how they now call Indians “aborigines” in the PSSRC [People’s Soviet Socialist Republic of Canuckistan]. Talk about PC weirdness! I wonder what they’ll call them after “aborigines” falls into disfavor—“Hottentots”? “South African Bushmen”? Hey guys, why not just stick with “Indians”?)

  3. A correspondent in Toronto
    A correspondent in Toronto signing as Tim MacNeil has written columnist Mark Steyn a letter about his Dec. 23rd piece on below-replacement birthrates of white populations in white countries. Steyn has chosen it as his “Letter of the Week,” here:

    In it, MacNeil points out a possible, plausible association between the federally-mandated drive (which is basically the same here and in Canada) to push teenagers into a sexually promiscuous lifestyle on the one hand, and STDs that lower the birthrate by contributing to female sterility or partial sterility on the other:

    “For example, we would also expect a country’s fertility rate to be a consequence of its infertility rate: i.e., a sexually promiscuous culture will have a lot of young women whose chlamydia-scarred fallopian tubes will reduce their personal fertility rate to zero, and so reduce the average fertility of the nation to which they belong.”

    (Steyn’s column is here: )


Leave a Comment