I May Be a Frigid, Socially Inept Loser, But On the Bright Side, At Least I Know I Don't Have Any STDs

I just had all this hilarious right-wing, anti-abortion/birth-control/euthanasia literature shoved under my door by some of the more extreme conservatives who lurk in the darker corners of my Jesuit university. My favourite is the anti-Condoms leaflet:

"Condoms have been shown to reduce the risk of gonorrhea infection somewhat in men, but not in women. And they have been shown to reduce the risk of HIV/AIDS infection by 85%. However, AIDS is a routinely fatal disease. Using condoms still leaves a 15% risk of HIV infection compared to not using a condom."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've been told that AIDS itself is not "routinely fatal," but is instead a disease that weakens your immune system enough so that illnesses as mild the common cold can kill you. That's just me being pedantic. What I'm more concerned with is the fact that their reasoning for one not using condoms consists of the fact that using condoms still allows for a margin of risk in HIV infection. Would you rather have an 85% or 0% reduction in risk of HIV infection? Under the logic of "Heritage House," the publishers of this pamphlet, you are a smart consumer and a conscientious Catholic if you prefer the latter.

Check out the source from which the authors of this pamphlet received this information: http://www.niaid.nih.gov/dmid/stds/condomreport.pdf

As you will see, the research results from which the writers of this pamphlet extracted their conclusion that condoms are ineffective was deemed incomplete by the Panel of experts who peer-reviewed the material: "The Panel concluded, however, that because of limitations in study designs there was insufficient evidence from the epidemiological studies on these diseases to draw definite conclusions about the effectiveness of the latex male condom in reducing the transmission of these diseases," "The Panel stressed that the absence of definitive conclusions reflected inadequacies of the evidence available and should not be interpreted as proof of the adequacy or inadequacy of the condom to reduce the risk of STDs other than HIV transmission in men and women and gonorrhea in men" (NIAID, ii).

So what does the pamphlet do? It interprets the results as "proof of the...inadequacy of the condom to reduce the risk of STDs" by printing a table saying that of "condom protection" there was "none found" when studying Chlamydia, Trichomoniasis, HPV, Genital Herpes, Syphilis, Gonorrhea and AIDS.

It then goes on to point out that "condoms are subject to breakage and slippage." Correct, more reason that people should be educated in the proper use of such birth-control in order to prevent such "breakage and slippage." The pamphlet sites that "Older tests have shown rates of slippage and breakage to be 1 to 15%," which is irrelevent information, then going on to state that "the CDC, using only newer studies that were rigorously controlled and peer-reviewed, still found a combined rate of between 1.6% and 3.6%. A 3.6% rate is equivalent to a failure 1 in 28 times." However, a 1.6% is 1 slippage or breakage, not a failure, in 63. When a condom slips or breaks, it is not a “failure,” it just means that there is a slightly higher risk of disease transmission. It does not definitively mean that you will be infected with a sexually transmitted disease. Neither does the (probably exaggerated) claim that “All condoms have naturally occurring holes, or voids.” Case in point, the very same study projects that “failure to use a condom would obviously result in certain exposure (1.0 probability)” and that “Conversely, condom use without breakage or slippage would reduce (if not eliminate) exposure dramatically (0.0 probability). However, and perhaps just as importantly, condom use—even in the event of breakage, leakage, or slippage—would also result in greatly reduced exposures” (NIAID, 8).

I have no way of verifying the other statistics quoted by the leaflet, because it cites a study by C. M. Roland and M. J. Schroeder, both Naval scientists, called “Intrinsic defect effects on NR permeability.” However, I’m guessing, from sheer precedence, that their results were grossly interpreted by the writer of this pamphlet.

The author then poses the pressing question “If condoms work so well, why does the FDA request such a failure rate be on every box of condoms?” in response to the FDA policy that condom manufacturers label every box of condoms with “a pregnancy rate for each year of use of 14% for condoms used “typically” and 3% if they are used exactly as directed every time without fail.” (check out the source: http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/ode/contrlab.html)

The FDA defines “Typical Use rates” as those measured as if “the method either was not always used correctly or was not used with every act of sexual intercourse (e.g. sometimes forgot to take a birth control pill as directed and became pregnant) or was used correctly but failed anyway.” Well, obviously, if you’re not going to use the condom correctly, or at all, every time you have sex, somebody’s going to get pregnant.

So how about the answer to the question? The FDA requests that the failure rate is marked on every box of condoms in order to provide the consumer with the information he or she needs in order to make a wise purchase. That’s the job of the FDA, dumbass, to provide information to the public. The pamphlet left out that the FDA advises condom manufacturers to mark the box with the following: “If used properly, latex condoms will help to reduce the risk of transmission of HIV infection (AIDS) and many sexually transmitted diseases.”

The leaflet then concludes with a quote from the CDC: "The surest way to avoid transmission of sexually ttransmitted diseases is to abstain from sexual intercourse, or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with a partner who has been tested and you know is uninfected." The thoughtful author of this peace then adds "(a relationship normally referred to as marriage)." Um, no? You can have " a long-term, mutually-monogamous relationship with a partner who has been tested and you know is uninfected" and not refer to it as marriage. You can refer to it as, I don't know, "together," or "in a serious relationship."People have been having extra-marital sex ever since the dawn of time. It is possible to have a monogamous relationship without the social institution of marriage.

Yeah, I concur, abstinence is the surest way of preventing sexually transmitted diseases. But that's like saying "you'll never get food poisoning if you don't eat" or "you'll never trip if you don't walk." I'm sure there are some that would argue that abstinence just involves a little self-control, which is possible, but I honestly don't think that's going to solve anything, because sex is basic. I think that it is a basic biological need, just like food and water, which sounds dumb as hell, but you try telling that to the average fifteen-year-old.

Seriously, needing sex is a global, cross-cultural phenomenon, and repressing sexuality really kind of, no pun intended, fucks you up. Look what happened in the Victorian era, when sex was not spoken about in polite company. Rampant hysteria, children, that's what happened. Sexually-represesd women were going mental all over the place, what with the catatonia, the psychosomatic pain and the self-induced paralysis. It's how Freud came up with all his mad psychoanalytic theories. Although his theories have been largely debunked, there's something to them I think.

Anyway, it’s 3am, so I leave you with the following: NO FUCK FOR YOU!!

Listening to: "Flugufrelsarinn" by Sigur Ros

Mixed Bag

Today's post will seem a bit odd. I just went for a swim, which always clears my head, and by "clears my head," I really mean that it loosens the connections between thoughts, so I end up thinking about a number of bizarrely abstract topics. I believe this is called "loosening of association," and is a symptom of schizophrenia.

Anyway, I was thinking about smoking today. I think the only reason I haven't all-out quit yet is because it is one of the only things that legitimizes sitting around outside and doing nothing. See, if you just sit outside in the knife-sharp frigidity and peoplewatch without some sort of secondary accessory, such as a cup of coffee or a cigarette, people think you're crazy. However, if you're smoking or drinking coffee, you are allowed to stare at people as they walk by. I can't drink coffee because it has immediate adverse effects on me, such as insomnia, panic attack and homicidal tendencies. So I smoke cigarettes instead, which is probably a bad idea in the long run. I figure by the time I get lung cancer at age thirty-five, I'll be all wrinkly and jaded, and my life will be pretty much over anyway because I will lack my youthful glow. By then, I'll be ready to die because without looks, what is there in life? So that's why cigarettes are so beguiling. I like looking at people.

As I was walking home from the gymn along Prospect St., a small road that skirts my university, I saw something odd. Since our campus is on a hill, there is quite a steep slope along one side of Prospect that plunges down until it hits the parkway below. This slope covered in raggedy trees, brambles, feral houseplants, and accumulated trash from a million drunken weekends: crumpled Natty Ice cans, empty plastic bottles of generic-brand Polish vodka, used condoms and, perplexingly, a Safeway shopping cart (Safeway is a mile away). Anyway, I was walking along when I saw some footprints in the snow. Normal enough, but here's the strange thing: there was only one set of footprints, coming up the hill from the parkway. I guess this doesn't sound very weird, so you probably have to see it. This is a really steep hill I'm talking about--like, it's the same hill the Exorcist steps are built into, and if you've seen that movie you'll know how steep this hill is.

Okay, whatever. I thought it was weird.

I was thinking about the future, when we'll hit that wave when everybody starts getting married. I guess it'll happen when we're all around like 28-32 years old, which seems really far-off, but I am of the firm belief that time starts getting faster and faster as you get older. Remember how slow years used to pass when you were a little kid? Now they zip by like the speed of light, and before we know it, we'll all have to start using Rogaine and Levitra, and will be watching our kids shoot up like heroin addicts. Anyway, I was just thinking about how weird it will be to watch our friends getting married. Even though marriage is somewhat meaningless these days, it still seems like a huge and irreversible step because, despite the possibility of divorce, you're always going to have been married. You're always going to have a husband or a wife or an ex-husband or an ex-wife. It's going to be strange. Even stranger than going to college because marriage really twists relationships around. It seems like you can't have close friends of the opposite sex anymore because your spouse will think you're cheating on them. Maybe one of his or her prying friends will spot you having lunch or coffee with your best girl- or guy-friend and will tell your husband or wife that you're cheating on him or her, and then you'll have to go home and explain yourself--but then there will always be that nagging little suspicion because your spouse will never exactly know for sure, so he or she will pull it out as arsenal against you every time you have a fight and everything will be weird. I think maybe I'm just being cynical and paranoid.

Also, the inauguration was today, but that doesn't matter so much.

Listening to: "O. K. With My Decay" by Grandaddy

Red State Advertising

(Dark screen.)

We are so hungry. Our stomachs feel like limp sacks of flesh, dangling in the hollow void that is our chest. No one has ever known hunger like this before. No one. This hunger is like Ireland and Rwanda rolled into one giant bundle of malnutrition.

But do we want food, or do we yearn for something greater? Something sustaining, something that will keep us sated for eons? Do we hope for relief from this hunger, relief for our sons and daughters and brothers and forefathers?

My brothers, I have what you seek.

(A light appears. It enlarges, ever so slowly. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, this is the proverbial light at the end of the tunnel.)

I give you something mankind has been searching for since he first landed upon this god-forsaken planet. I give you the bottomless cup, the eternal bread. I give you...

(Flash!)

The Powerbar! Go and tell your neighbors! Shout the good news for all to hear!

(Fade.)

Listening to: Rebellion (Lies) - The Arcade Fire

Woo Hoo Woo Hoo Hoo Woo Hoo Woo Hoo Hoo

You know that ad for the new Chevys where the cars are playing with a ball accompanied by that song from Kill Bill? I hate it. Every time I see it (every fifteen minutes), the song inevitably gets stuck in my head, so that all I can think of for hours and hours is the following phrase: "Woo Hoo Woo Hoo Hoo Woo Hoo Woo Hoo Hoo."

My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Woo Hoo Woo Hoo Hoo Woo Hoo Woo Hoo Hoo.

Why would any human create a song like this? What would possess you to write it? Although the band is Japanese, they have no excuse for this abominable travesty of a song.

Woo Hoo Woo Hoo Hoo Woo Hoo Woo Hoo Hoo.
Woo Hoo Woo Hoo Hoo Woo Hoo Woo Hoo Hoo.

The other song I really hate is "1, 2 Step" by Ciara. I'd never heard of her until SomethingAwful's special on the worst singles of this year. Now she's everywhere. I can't escape the four notes: da da da da da da da. I see it every time I flip to the soul-crushing cultural graveyard that consists of MTV, MTV2 and Fuse, along with "I'm Not Okay (I Promise)" by My Chemical Romance and whatever that new Green Day video is. And the Avril Lavigne one in which she rhymes "home" with "home" ("She wants to go home/But nobody's home--oh okay, that's creative. Good job.) I change the channel every time they comes on.

Woo Hoo Woo Hoo Hoo Woo Hoo Woo Hoo Hoo.

See, the thing that blows my mind about My Chemical Romance is the singer's makeup. Hypothetically, if ones has a video running every two or three minutes on various popular music channels, one should be able to afford a decent makeup artist. Not in the case of My Chemical Romance (a clever allusion to pheromones, perhaps?) The singer is lavishly slathered with white foundation and black-rimmed eyes dusted liberally with red eyeshadow, complemented by an uncontrollable nest of jet-black emo hair. He looks like a plague victim.

Woo Hoo Woo Hoo Hoo Woo Hoo Woo Hoo Hoo.

Also, way to pander to dumb and angsty teenagers, mate. Boo hoo, I'm not okay. I shall screech it into a microphone accompanied by some of my fellow social misfits. Boo hoo, I get bullied in school. Maybe it's because I'm a pathetic, pasty, vile little bitch who whines too much? No, it just means that I'm a sensitive soul. It must be that. Yes.

Woo Hoo Woo Hoo Hoo Woo Hoo Woo Hoo Hoo.

Jesus, I'm a fucking nerd, and I can't stand people like that. Shut up, bitch. My Chemical Romance needs to stop selling their records. Actually, everybody needs to stop buying their records. Then, perhaps, I'd get some respite from that FUCKING SONG.

Listening to: "Woo Hoo Woo Hoo Hoo Woo Hoo Woo Hoo Hoo"