Tuesday, July 13, 2004

Rape Victims Forcing Rapists To Wear Condoms

Flipping through the news for today, I ran across this little gem.

U.S. Congresswoman Barbara Lee, the only member of Congress to attend the week-long meeting, accused the Bush administration of using ideology, not science, to dictate policy.

She said the U.S. AIDS initiative requires that one-third of prevention funding go to "abstinence until marriage" programs.

"In an age where five million people are newly infected each year and women and girls too often do not have the choice to abstain, an abstinence until marriage program is not only irresponsible, it's really inhumane," Lee said.

"Abstaining from sex is oftentimes not a choice, and therefore their only hope in preventing HIV infection is the use of condoms," she added.
I had to read the above segment 3 times before moving on. It's the sort of idiotic nonsense that really makes you wonder how these individuals end up as our representatives in government bodies.

"Abstaining from sex is oftentimes not a choice, and therefore their only hope in preventing HIV infection is the use of condoms"

Does this make any sense? If she's talking about rape, what are the chances that some rapist is going to stop midstream to put on a condom? If she's talking sexual abuse by family member, what are the odds said family member will stop midstream? Does Congresswoman Lee advocate women carrying rubbers in their pockets in the off-chance someone decides to pull them aside and rape them?

If she's not talking about some sort of forced intercourse, rape or otherwise, then how does she arrive @ "abstaining from sex is oftentimes not a choice"? I know quite a few females who are quite adamant about their CHOICE to not partake in sexual relations. Perhaps Ms. Lee understands something of which I am unaware with regards to women not having a choice when it comes to sexual intercourse.

Quick comment on the rest of the article: Of course abstinence is the most effective way to reduce HIV transmission. Anyone who says otherwise is attempting to sell condoms. Are kids likely to remain abstinent, probably not. This does not mean programs should give up teaching abstinence in favor of the 'We know you're gonna fukk, so take a box of condoms and be safe' mantra so pervasive during the 90s. Uganda has the correct order: A(bstinence), B(eing Faithful), and C(ondoms). Even a toddler could understand the importance of that order.