This article contains graphic, no punches pulled illustrations and speech. Our desire is not to offend but to educate using real facts and real language.
This is a subject which deserves honest discussion giving all the facts in frank and straightforward terms. So with that in mind we present the following.
Making Sex Safe
Condoms, Agendas, and the Truth
By Tony and Pamela Dean
Liberals advocating an ‘anything goes’ attitude toward sexuality in general will often counter arguments from their detractors by drawing them into a religious debate. They do this because it is a convenient way of dodging the issue, because of their distain for all things absolute and because they see derision of all things ‘moral’ as something of a weapon to be used against anyone opposing their ever changing ethics and opinions. While it is true Christianity espouses moral virtue especially when it comes to sexuality, it does so more in the context of consequential warning rather than blind allegiance to a set of ancient ethics. True to biblical insistence these liberals thinking themselves wise have indeed become fools. In reality, the debate goes far beyond ‘Christian morality’, there are immutable scientific facts which cannot be denied, and it is from this stand we base this article.
I [Tony] heard a radio interview the other day on 5AA with Amanda Blair. Both she and her guest [someone involved in AIDS research] were touting the apparent ‘virtues’ of condom use as a means for making sex ‘safe’ – for the prevention of not only pregnancy, but also for the 28 known sexually transmitted diseases not the least of which being the deadly HIV AIDS virus, and some which are now at epidemic proportions. During that interview a great deal of misinformation was presented and a liberal, permissive ideology clearly expressed. Abstinence was never mentioned as a viable ‘safe sex’ method but was by implication subtly ridiculed. As the ill-informed propaganda ensued I thought to myself, what utter rubbish! What arrogant, ignorant poppy cock. How foolish are those who believe that a micro-thin piece of latex could ever be the heroic barrier which will not only make sex ‘safe’ but will also prevent one from suffering the terrible viral consequences of making foolish and often impulsive decisions regarding sexual activity.
Let’s begin with the idiocracy that typifies all liberal agendas – in this case the agenda of pro-homosexual, pro-abortionist, anti-traditional family, feminazis and family planning / planned parenthood wackos who impose upon society not only their warped views and agendas, but also their values [or lack thereof] and beliefs. It is fair to say that many if not most of these cultural “Frankenstein’s” will never stand personally accountable, nor will they be around to pick up the pieces left from legislatively inflicting their ideological diatribe on an unsuspecting society. They simply skulk back into the bureaucracies from whence they first slithered, undetected, unremembered, and unrepentant. It tends to make one feel somewhat like a lab rat – a social experiment, for that is precisely what we are to them.
Perhaps one of the most insulting things I have heard from the ‘pro anything’ lobby is the absurd argument that, “Kids are going to have sex anyway so the least we can do is make it safe for them’. What an incredibly asinine and subjective assumption. This simplistic train of thought is known variously as ‘Harm Minimisation’ and is a convenient way of appearing to deal with a problem while not actually dealing with it at all. It is a, ‘have the cake and eat it too’ kind of reasoning which has been embraced by every chip on the shoulder, political lesbian from Tok to Timbuktu and is about as credible as the belief that the moon is made of Swiss cheese.
To assert that abstinence is not achievable or even practical when it comes to raising children in the 21st century is simply absurd. Both my wife and I have raised 6 children between us, two of whom are still in our home and under the age of 18. We can testify that abstinence is not only teachable, it is achievable and we might add, gratefully appreciated by our children. To assume the contrary is to deny children the opportunity to have a life free from not only the dangers of promiscuity (i.e. STD’s) from a physiological perspective, but a future married and family life free from the guilt’s and jealousies that inevitably enter relationships after having lived a youth driven by the sowing of wild oats, so to say. This is not mere speculation and conjecture, this is verifiable fact, unlike the verbiage we hear from the uninformed talking heads in the liberal media. In case you are naďve enough to believe there is no longer any such thing as media propaganda, here are some statistical facts for you to consider.
In 1993 Dr. James Dobson (Focus on the Family) made a series of videos
for young people entitled ‘Life on the Edge’ in an effort to turn the tide from
liberal gibberish and hearsay being the order of the day, to statistical facts
and moral truth. In video six of the series, Dr. Dobson enlisted the help of
Dr. Joe McIlhaney of
From the informational web page ‘Reproductive Health and STD’s’ published
for the students attending
Venereal Disease (VD) or STDs, as they are commonly called, are very contagious diseases which are passed from one person to another, usually through various forms of sexual contact. The eight most common STDs are Chlamydia, Genital Herpes, Genital Warts, Gonorrhoea, Hepatitis B, HIV AIDS, Syphilis, and Trichomoniasis. Ten to fifteen million Americans will contract an STD each year. Seventy five percent of these will be people between 15 and 24 years of age. Every year the number of reported cases rises significantly. It is said that one out of every 20 Americans will contract an STD this year.
If you are sexually active or are considering becoming sexually active, you need to learn all there is to know about STD’s in order to protect yourself and those you care about.
Most STD’s are treatable and curable. Others may have long lasting effects or cause permanent damage to reproductive organs. Others can affect your ability to have children in the future. Some are recurrent, some may even lead to death… but all are preventable.
There are now 28 known sexually transmitted diseases, many of which were not known until just a few years ago. The HIV AIDS virus was only diagnosed as a sexually transmitted disease in the 1980’s. Chlamydia was first recognized in the 1950's. In the years to come we will likely see others surface that we are not aware of now.
1. A person may have more than one STD at a time.
2. You may have an STD, be contagious, and not have any symptoms. Many STD’s cause no immediate symptoms and therefore a person may be passing it on to a partner without realizing that they are infected. That’s why it is important, if you are sexually active, to get regular checkups, to be honest with your health care provider and to request STD screenings.
3. You can never develop immunity to an STD, no matter how many times you may have it.
4. If you have any untreated STD, your risk of being infected by the HIV AIDS virus is increased.
5. Even if you are having sex with one person, you are at risk of being exposed to the undiagnosed and untreated STD’s of that person’s prior sexual partners.
6. Women experience the most serious consequences of STDs, with the exception of HIV AIDS. Because of the possibility of permanent damage to reproductive organs, STD’s can affect your ability in the future to have children, even if you are treated.
7. If you become pregnant, it is important to let your doctor. know of any past history of STDs. Some STDs, such as genital warts or genital herpes, if actively present at the time of delivery may affect the birth or the health of the baby, so the physician needs to be made aware of this before the time of delivery.
Notably the above discourse made no mention of the use of condoms which is not surprising. They were about giving solid advice to unwary travellers, not worthless snake oil potions. You will hear a lot of ‘facts’ concerning the effectiveness of condoms, each tainted in some way by the agenda or worldview of the offerer. We have sought the knowledge of medical practitioners in the field, men and women intimately associated with the realities which many liberals seem intent on dodging.
So here are the facts about condoms like them or not . . .
Question: Are condoms a failsafe prevention for pregnancy?
Question: Are condoms an effective barrier against STD’s?
Answer: Absolutely NOT!
If the truth be known, condom proponents are simply casting a wide net. As said, their logic assumes that all children will engage in risky sexual behaviour, therefore when the vigorous promotion of condom use is spread, some will be saved from becoming pregnant or contracting STD’s. It is not about individual lives but logic based upon statistical assumptions. Not only is their reasoning inaccurate it is fatally flawed given the condom’s known ineffectiveness. Proponents of condom use are now beginning to use the term ‘safer sex’ rather than ‘safe sex’ when in reality there is no safety assured in condom usage.
Listen to what these professionals in the field of sexual heath have to say about the effectiveness of condoms:
· Gayle Ruzicka, spokesperson for the Utah Eagle Forum said: "Of course, [the condom suppliers] are not bothering to tell them [children] that the majority of the [STDs] out there have nothing to do with whether you do or do not use a condom." 1.
· James Dobson, president and founder of Focus on the Family severely criticized former Secretary of State Colin Powell for his recommendation to youth on an MTV program that if they are sexually active, they should use condoms. Dobson commented: "Colin Powell is the secretary of state, not the secretary of health. He is talking about a subject he doesn't understand. He clearly doesn't understand the science regarding condom efficacy... 2,3
· Ken Conner, president of the Family Research Council (FRC),
stated that Powell's comments were "reckless and irresponsible."
· Heritage House's "AbortionFacts.com" states that: "In one test, 33% (1/3) of the latex condoms leaked HIV sized particles!" Also, "...the breakage and slip off rate during use is so high [that] it makes condoms ineffective for protection against HIV." 8
· Dr. Robert Renfield, chief of retro-viral research, Walter Reed Army Institute: "Simply put, condoms fail. And condoms fail at a rate unacceptable for me as a physician to endorse them as a strategy to be promoted as meaningful AIDS protection."
· Dr. Andre Lafrance, Canadian physician and researcher: "Relying on condoms for 'protection' can mean lifelong disease, suffering, and even death for you or for someone you love."
· Dr. Teresa Crenshaw, member of the U.S. Presidential AIDS Commission and past president of the American Association of Sex Educators: "Saying that the use of condoms is 'safe sex' is in fact playing Russian roulette. A lot of people will die in this dangerous game." 9
Dr. Joe McIlhaney
[mentioned above] stated that
· Dr. James Dobson, when asked if he would recommend the use of condoms as a protective measure for teens responded:
I would not, because that approach has an unintended consequence. By recommending condom usage to teenagers, we inevitably convey five dangerous ideas: (1) that "safe sex" is achievable; (2) that everybody is doing it; (3) that responsible adults expect them to do it; (4) that it's a good thing; and (5) that their peers know they know these things, breeding promiscuity. Those are very destructive messages to give our kids.
Furthermore, Planned Parenthood's own data shows that the number one reason teenagers engage in intercourse is peer pressure! 10 Therefore, anything we do to imply that "everybody is doing it" results in more -- not fewer -- teens who give the game a try. What I'm saying is that our condom-distribution programs do not reduce the number of kids exposed to disease -- they radically increase it!
Since the Planned Parenthood-type programs began in 1970, unwed pregnancies have increased 87 percent among 15- to 19-year-olds.11 Likewise, abortions among teens rose 67 percent;12 unwed births went up 83.8 percent.13 And venereal disease has infected a generation of young people. The statistics speak for themselves.
And consider this: Research
indicates that where disease prevention is concerned, the failure rate of
condoms is incredibly high, perhaps 50 percent or greater.14
Condoms also fail to protect against some STDs that are transmitted from areas
not covered (the base of the male genitalia, for example). After 25 years
of teaching safe-sex ideology, and more than 2 billion federal dollars invested
in selling this notion, we have a medical disaster on our hands. More than
500,000 cases of herpes occur annually,15 and
the number of reported cases of Chlamydia has risen 281 percent since 1987.
Forty-six percent of Chlamydia cases occur in teenage girls ages 15 to
Having acknowledged these problems, why in the world would I recommend this so-called solution to my son or daughter? Look at it this way. Suppose my kids were sky divers whose parachutes had been demonstrated to fail 50 percent of the time. Would I suggest that they simply buckle the chutes tighter? Certainly not. I would say, "Please don't jump. Your life is at stake!" How could I, as a loving father, do less?
I should add that, despite the popular myth to the contrary, teens can understand, accept, and implement the abstinence message. It's not true that young people are sexual robots, hopelessly incapable of controlling their own behaviour. As a matter of fact, almost 50 percent of all high school students are virgins today,18 even though hardly anybody has told them it is a good thing. These kids desperately need to be affirmed in their decision and held up as positive examples for others. None of this will be accomplished by pushing condoms.
But there is another reason for talking to teens about abstinence rather than "safe sex." It is even more important than the life-and-death issue cited above. I'm referring, of course, to the Creator's design, God's expressed will for human sexuality. "Protected promiscuity" has no part in that plan. Sex within the context for which it was intended - lifelong, monogamous heterosexual marriage - is always safe. This is the message our kids need to hear from the earliest days of childhood! Anything less is worse than third-rate!
Question: What do you call a person who wears a condom for birth control?
Answer: A parent.
Question: What do you call a person who uses a condom for protection against HIV AIDS?
· HIV AIDS has an incubation period of anywhere between several months and 15 years. A person with HIV AIDS is infected for this ENTIRE period.
· Condoms have a known failure rate of approximately 50% 14. HIV AIDS is a 100% killer!
· A woman can conceive only once within a 24 hour period per month however, the HIV AIDS virus [HIV1] and ALL STD’s are active 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Considering that when couples use condoms for birth control and yet 20 percent of these women still fall pregnant, the expectation of condoms offering security against STD’s is patently ludicrous. Dr. McIlhaney also stated that while surgical gloves were manufactured for surgical perfection, they leak 10-15% of the time. Therefore it is now recommended that surgeons wear two sets of gloves; even so there remains a 7% leakage rate. Dr. McIlhaney stated that there remains the distinct possibility that he would die performing his duties because of the glove leakage rates. Consider that condoms [made of the same material only thinner] were initially designed to prevent the flow of semen. Considering also their known failure rate, it is an exercise in sobriety when one discovers that the HIV AIDS virus is 500 times smaller than a single sperm.
Think about it: If a condom cannot do the job it was designed to do effectively, how can it possibly be relied upon to do that which it was not designed to do?
· Of course while abstinence or monogamous heterosexual contact only within the confines of marriage – anathema to the liberal lefties - may sound old fashioned and seriously at odds with this generation’s permissive sexual obsession, it is still the safest protection against any and every sexually transmitted disease. Dr. McIlhaney says ‘If you choose to have sex there is no safe way to do it.”
· The average woman with AIDS has only had sex with 2 people. Consider this: In the book ’Fiction and Facts about Sex’ [Sylvanus M. Duvall – Reader’s Digest June 1960; pg. 128] comes this shocking reality. A girl who had sexual relations with only one boyfriend thought she was safe. She was terribly shocked when her doctor told her she was infected with PID (Pelvic Inflammatory Disease). An interview with the boy revealed that he had consorted with only one other girl. But this girl happened to have had relations with five other men, who in turn had been with nineteen women, some of them prostitutes. The girl, who thought her relationship had been limited to a single person, actually had venereally contacted at least ninety-two other men and women.
· So the reality here is that as far as STD’s are concerned, when one has sex with another person who has had sex before, they are effectually having sex with everyone that other person has had sex with – this is a shocking reality when you consider the numbers exponentially as well as the ineffectiveness of condom protection.
· What the naďve, loopy left fail to consider in their glorification of the condom is that penetration is not the only act in a sexual encounter. Not withstanding the use of ‘Dental Dams’ [condoms for the mouth – the existence of which most people are unaware] there is the reality of fellatio and cunnilingus in which condoms are obviously absent. But STD’s and HIV AIDS are not absent – they are an ever present threat.
· Physiologically speaking the only difference between a heterosexual and a homosexual is the way in which they engage in sexual activity. When sphincteric involvement [anal sex] is participated in, should the condom rupture, faecal material is then mixed with bodily fluid. Unlike the vagina the anus is extremely vascular and fragile. If there is any cut, scratch, or breach of any kind in either the anus or the penis, faecal bacteria present in the bowel can – and does - enter the blood stream. How anyone could possibly suggest that this is a viable, acceptable, alternative sexual practice is astounding. That any man would prefer to have sex in a sewer shows a high degree of moral and mental instability. Please note that we have no personal issue, nor axe to grind with the people involved in this lifestyle choice, our issue is with the behavior itself.
While the proponents
of liberal sexuality claim that HIV AIDS is not a homosexual disease they
continue to be conveniently ignorant to the reality that where HIV AIDS
infections increase, they are almost exclusively among the so-called
‘homosexual community’. In early 1982, only 159 cases of AIDS had been reported
· Practicing homosexuals are forbidden to donate blood because of their high risk sexual behaviour. Quote:
You should not give blood if you have AIDS or have ever had a positive HIV test, or if you have done something that puts you at risk for becoming infected with HIV.
· are a male who has had sexual contact with another male, even once, since 1977
Source: American Red Cross
If you have any reason to believe you may have acquired an infection through unprotected sex, you should not donate.
Safe sex practices are vital to the prevention of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections. However protected sex' is not 100% effective and therefore the Australian Red Cross Blood Services guidelines relating to sexual activity are based on the prevalence of infection in certain population groups.
The following questions are asked in regard to sexual activity:
1. Have you ever thought you could be infected with HIV or have AIDS?
2. In the last 12 months have you engaged in sexual activity with someone who you think might answer yes to any of the questions on the use of drugs, partner with HIV, hepatitis B, hepatitis C or HTLV, or treatment with clotting factors?
3. Since your last donation or in the last 12 months have you had sexual activity with a new partner who currently lives or has previously lived overseas?
Within the past twelve months have you:
1. Had male to male sex?
2. Had sexual activity with a male who you think might be bisexual?
3. Been a male or female sex worker (eg received payment for sex in money, gifts or drugs?)
4. Engaged in sex with a male or female sex worker?
If the answer is yes' to any of the above questions, then a 12 month deferral is applied. The risk groups are based on information provided by the National Surveillance System for blood borne infections.
Source: Australian Red Cross
Notice the Australian Red Cross admits that ‘protected sex’ is NOT 100% effective. We remind our readers that HIV AIDS is a 100% killer!
The first homosexuals
afflicted with AIDS were particularly promiscuous, averaging over 1,200 sexual
partners each. Although AIDS is a very serious disease, other venereal diseases
are much more common in homosexuals. In the
We would like to pose the following scenario to those who believe [in spite of the facts] that condoms offer effective protection against any sexually transmitted disease:
Imagine attending a party and meeting a long lost friend for whom you had secretly lusted. Imagine after a few drinks as the inhibitions wain that the invitation to have sex is given. You go to the bedroom and just before you both engage in sex your beau casually says, “Oh, by the way – I have AIDS, but it’s ok, I have a condom”. Would you still have sex with them? Consider the question deeply.
If you still answer yes then I put it to you that you are either being intellectually dishonest or deliberately naďve.
Like it or not the truth remains . . . Condoms are not the answer – CONDUCT is!
In His Everlasting Embrace
Tony & Pamela Dean
1. Stuart Shepard, "Olympic Condom Giveaway Decried," Focus on the Family, 2002-FEB-11, at: http://www.family.org/cforum/fnif
2. Pete Winn, "Powell pushes condoms to youth," Focus on the Family, 2002-FEB-15, at: http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/
3. "Dobson Addresses Condom Effectiveness," 2002-FEB-24, Focus on the Family, at: http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0019748.html
4. "Powell backs condom comments," Associated Press, at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/
Connor, "Powell's Reckless Remarks Put Young Lives at Risk,"
Family Research Council's
Connor, "Safe-Sex "Pow-Wow!" Sends Mixed Messages to Public,"
Family Research Council's
Should Retract His Comments on Condoms," Concerned Women for
8. "Condoms - Do They Really Work?," AbortionFacts.com at: http://www.abortionfacts.com/literature/literature_9331cd.asp
Warnings -- Beware!!!: Doctors speak out about condom failures!,"
10. Tom Hess, "They Call This Abstinence?" Focus on the Family Citizen, May 1992, 1-4.
11. "Condom Roulette," Family Research Council, In Focus, 1992, 1.
12. Gilbert L. Crouse, Office of Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, t.i., 12 March 1992, based on data from Planned Parenthood's Alan Guttmacher Institute.
Vital Statistics Report,
Guttmacher Institute. Reported by Kim Painter in "Few Changes in Profile
of Women Getting Abortions,"
15. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control, 1991 Division of STD/HIV Prevention, Annual Report, 13.
17. Kay Stone, Sexually Transmitted Diseases Division, Centers for Disease Control, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, t.i., 20 March 1992.
18. “Condom Roulette”. 1