Condoms are a good thing

Feb 202002
Authors: keith CHRISTIANSEN

I hate MTV.

I hate the “music” that is popular because Carson Daly plays it, I hate that it is a major contributor to the stupification of ours and younger generations, and I hate that I don’t have to worry about getting hate mail from MTV lovers because they don’t read.

However, recently one positive aspect of Mind-numbing TeleVision has been in the media spotlight. A week ago, Colin Powell fielded questions from young people around the world on MTV. This never would have come to my attention except for the controversial answer he gave to an Italian Roman Catholic girl, who asked how he felt about her church’s stance on condom use.

Powell replied that he respected the Pope’s view but, “condoms are a way to prevent infection, and therefore, I not only support their use, I encourage their use among people who are sexually active.” Obviously, who wouldn’t?

Well, apparently there are some people. Ken Connor, president of Family Research Council, said that his remarks were “reckless and irresponsible- a slap in the face” to the president’s constituency.

“Reckless and irresponsible?” I would like to know why advocating the use of the most effective preventative measure we have against the spread of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections is reckless, and on what planet does this hold true?

When used correctly, latex condoms are 97-98% effective against the spread of STD’s. Now I’m not talking about the free condoms at the health center which have caused panic for many CSU consummators, I know, but reliable condoms that can handle the stress of good lovin’.

Ari Fleischer said Powell’s statement was in keeping with administration policy because he “limited his answer to people who are sexually active.”

So, the administration’s policy is: if you have had sex before, use a condom, if it is your first experience, don’t? Of course not, the Bush administration believes that nobody should have sex until they are married and ready to deal with a pregnancy.

But in a country with freedom of religion, shouldn’t people who don’t feel ashamed of their sexuality be encouraged to be responsible? Not everyone wants to waste his or her prime lovemaking years. When taking advantage of one’s premarital sexual freedom, one should have the encouragement to be safe, not shamed superciliously into conforming to our country’s prude moral standard.

Bush has never advocated condom use, touting instead abstinence-only teaching. His administration was very displeased when “Clinton-appointed” Surgeon General David Satcher’s report showed there was no evidence that abstinence-only teaching works. Satcher is no longer Surgeon General.

Advocating abstinence-only programs is exactly like saying that guns shouldn’t have safeties because nobody should own a gun. It’s impractically hazardous.

I can’t figure out why someone can hold the belief that condom use (and male masturbation for that matter) is equivalent to spiritual damning, yet is preferable to arrogantly putting the sexual health of these sinners at risk. Thus, condom use should be encouraged for any couple who is not 100% sure of each partner’s STD status.

I believe men and women fit together so perfectly for a reason. But, since right now I am making the sensual connection for recreational, not procreational reasons, I will use a condom and boldly encourage everyone else to be safe, smart and happy.

Keith Christensen is a senior majoring in English.

 Posted by at 5:00 pm

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.