Safe Sex - Safer Sex - Saved Sex
In the early 1980s when HIV/AIDS reared its ugly head everyone, yes everyone, was encouraged to practice 'safe sex'. It didn't matter if a couple were married - they were still part of the 'everyone' that was being targeted. 'Everyone' was seen 'at risk' of catching or contracting HIV that would ultimately lead on to full blown AIDS. Adverts were everywhere. In the newspapers and magazines, on the TV, on billboards and even, if my memory serves me correctly, on sides of buses. Scenes of tombstones with HIV etched on them appeared overnight. And the purpose was to scare 'everyone' into practising 'safe sex'.
How therefore, was 'safe sex' practised? By the use of a condom. Yes, just by a simple piece of latex rubber 'everyone' was released from the fear of contracting HIV in the future. And it wasn't just in the UK that condoms needed to be promoted for 'safe sex'. It was worldwide. Rich developed countries would 'support' the promotion of condoms within the poor undeveloped countries whether that was their urgent need or not. Millions of dollars, pounds or whatever currency available was raised by charities as well as given by Governments to promote 'safe sex'. The condom manufacturers were laughing all the way to the bank.
But then the message changed. Only slightly, but subtley it changed from 'safe sex' to 'safer sex'. What prompted the change? Could it possibly be that despite the Government backed sponsorship of condoms as the solution to HIV that the figures were still rising? How could this be? Condoms are the 'salvation' of the world in enabling 'everyone' to have sex with whomever, whenever and no risks attached. Or are they? Does the still ever increasing numbers of people contracting HIV and dying of AIDS tell us something about the so-called effectiveness of condoms?
Even the condom manufacturers admit that the only way to prevent the transmission of HIV is not to have sex at all with an infected partner. They also admit that this is the only guaranteed way not to get pregnant or to contract any sexually transmitted disease, which HIV is only one of many. When looking at the failure rate of a condom, it must be recognised that the figures quoted are for rates of pregnancy. Condom failure rates for contracting sexually transmitted diseases are not quoted as the rates would be astronomical.  Especially so for teenagers.
And so 'safe sex' became 'safer sex'. The 'sexperts' were reluctantly having to admit that condoms were not as 'safe' as they had once promoted. This fact hasn't stopped them from promoting them. They just blame the user and state that they work 'when consistently and correctly used'. They refuse to acknowledge the inherent holes in condoms that allow sexually transmitted diseases through, and even sperm which is much larger and can carry other organisms with it, including HIV. They also refuse to acknowledge that condoms split during use. No, their message is now to use a condom so that you are 'safer' than you would be if you didn't use one.
But again the figures still do not bear this out. The rise of sexually transmitted diseases is still increasing. The National Health Service is cracking under the strain. And the ages of those attending GUM clinics are getting lower all the time. The more condoms and 'safer sex' is promoted, the more infectivity occurs. Those contracting these diseases often do not realise that if it is a virus that is contracted then they are infected for life. They are led to believe that it is just an inconvenience that can be easily treated.
However, the 'sexperts' have come to the rescue yet again. Now they are teaching our youngsters and 'everyone' else that to avoid contracting HIV or any other sexually transmitted disease another way to practice 'safer' sex is not to actually have full intercourse. Masturbation with your partner, oral sex and anal sex are now promoted as 'safer' sex. Children are encouraged to discuss this in the classroom and to even play board games so that they can see how much 'fun' sex is and to learn all that they need to know to enjoy their own sexual wants.
Just for good measure, their is also now the 'positive' teaching that 'saved sex' is best. By building up a child's self esteem about themselves they can be strong and 'save' themselves for the right person. The fact that youngsters are constantly 'falling in love' and have done so for generations, having crushes on teachers, sports stars, actors, or anything in trousers/skirts seems to have been overlooked. If 'saved' sex is taught then children will grow up still being taught that sex 'with the right person' is perfectly okay. Love, commitment and marriage (especially marriage) are not promoted.
Children are free to make up their own minds and to adopt the non-judgemental teaching and morality of the 'sexperts' just by the virture that they are taught how to behave this way in school. Parent's opinions are to be discarded. For those parents who care enough to try and find out what is being taught to their children and to oppose this teaching, they are just seen as bigots, intolerant or trouble makers. The Government still sponsor these programmes. What is your response?