![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Other People.
Jan. 6th, 2007 06:11 pmMaybe I'm just a condescending bitch, but honestly, sometimes the comments people leave on blogs make me absolutely despair for the mass intelligence of humanity. I like to think of excuses for it, like that all of the people who understand the issue don't feel a need to share their perspective. I'm hoping. Or there's the case of YouTube comment strings, where I guess the content is meaningless enough to forgo efforts at standard grammar. That's fair. And there are sometimes virulent trolls, and sometimes it's maybe just a case of humor that didn't make it.
The ones that scare me though, are the well-written posts made completely in earnest, with a healthy sentiment that's just one frightening element shy of making sense. Take, oh, take this TIME.com blog for example. It's just an interesting tidbit pointing out the development of liquid condoms, which actually are not condoms at all, rather microbicidal gel inserted into the vagina and activated by semen to attack HIV. It is a possible rescuer for the AIDS crisis in Africa--condoms are often taboo or neglected at the man's discretion, and rape is scarily not uncommon. The microbicide would help give women some kind of control over their protection, even with effectiveness rates of (it looks like) 50-60%. So, good idea.
The blog only had a few comments. Comment #1:
The first written record of it in the Kahun Papyrus, 1850 BCE. (thank you for fueling my better-researched-than-thou, Wikipedia). That would make it a development of approximately 4,000 years ago. This is the future where sex is common and meaningless! Blame the Egyptians.
Although... I'm not sure where that would put our roots. Perhaps cave men and women treated sex with due respect.
Comment #2:
Irresponsible? What part of this is irresponsible? Putting the fact that this is aimed at helping Africa aside, what is irresponsible about trying to protect oneself from AIDS? Or is HIV the just dessert of people who have recreational sex? I'd guess that maybe AIDS is supposed to be, like the Catholic view of conception, something bestowed at God's discretion and so should not be prevented, except it's not fair to "devoted couples." And people who were truly accidentally infected--which I guess means they didn't get the virus through intercourse. Nice.
I have a problem with people who think that AIDS isn't so tragic if it was acquired through Sinful Behavior. It's cold-hearted, sanctimonious, and hypocritical. And basically mean. I don't know anything that excuses that point of view, and it chills me to the heart that people could honestly believe that.
The ones that scare me though, are the well-written posts made completely in earnest, with a healthy sentiment that's just one frightening element shy of making sense. Take, oh, take this TIME.com blog for example. It's just an interesting tidbit pointing out the development of liquid condoms, which actually are not condoms at all, rather microbicidal gel inserted into the vagina and activated by semen to attack HIV. It is a possible rescuer for the AIDS crisis in Africa--condoms are often taboo or neglected at the man's discretion, and rape is scarily not uncommon. The microbicide would help give women some kind of control over their protection, even with effectiveness rates of (it looks like) 50-60%. So, good idea.
The blog only had a few comments. Comment #1:
I think it's intriguing what the human mind comes up with nowadays. Liquid condoms are a fascinating invention; however, this new contraceptive will lead us into a future where sex is common and meaningless. It is good to use condoms to prevent unwanted pregnancies, but it's causing many teenages to partake in sex (which is not good). We have to go back to our roots and to our conservative ways where sex was highly `valued.Obviously, commenter didn't really read the article? Maybe he simply had some internal reflex tripped by the written word "condom," that would take off and air his views on contraceptives in general. Well, just to clarify, this particular "liquid condom" is not, as far as I can tell, a contraceptive. What you are thinking of, sir, is the substance known as Spermicide.
The first written record of it in the Kahun Papyrus, 1850 BCE. (thank you for fueling my better-researched-than-thou, Wikipedia). That would make it a development of approximately 4,000 years ago. This is the future where sex is common and meaningless! Blame the Egyptians.
Although... I'm not sure where that would put our roots. Perhaps cave men and women treated sex with due respect.
Comment #2:
Intriguing, and thankfully something I'll never have to worry with. This seems both amazing and irresponsible. On the one hand, drunk, high people often don't take safety or precaution to mind when they feel like hopping into bed with someone. However, this could be a godsend to devoted couples stricken with disease caused by a bad transfusion from the past, or some other truly accidental infection.
Irresponsible? What part of this is irresponsible? Putting the fact that this is aimed at helping Africa aside, what is irresponsible about trying to protect oneself from AIDS? Or is HIV the just dessert of people who have recreational sex? I'd guess that maybe AIDS is supposed to be, like the Catholic view of conception, something bestowed at God's discretion and so should not be prevented, except it's not fair to "devoted couples." And people who were truly accidentally infected--which I guess means they didn't get the virus through intercourse. Nice.
I have a problem with people who think that AIDS isn't so tragic if it was acquired through Sinful Behavior. It's cold-hearted, sanctimonious, and hypocritical. And basically mean. I don't know anything that excuses that point of view, and it chills me to the heart that people could honestly believe that.