A proposed law in a town in Colombia, that states it is compulsory for all men and women to carry at least one condom on them if they are over 14 years of age, has caused outrage amongst Roman Catholic priests in the country.
A councilman for the town of Tulua said: "Sexual relations are going on constantly. If you carry a condom, chances are you'll use it during the day. It's not going to be there forever." Those found condomless will be fined up to US$180.
They will also have to take a safe sex course. Reverand Roberto Sarmiento said: "Nobody can force someone to carry a condom in their pocket. They should instead carry the responsibility..." Colombia has 190,000 HIV sufferers.
If you population wont use them by themselves. Priests should get a grip. The reason diseases are spreading is because people ARE having sex, protecting those who are having sex from diseases is not wrong. I will never understand why priests push russian rulette style sex over safe sex. Abstinence (sp?) doesnt work, and it never will, if the chruch cared about helping it would suggest condoms, not forbid them.
Is to not have sex. But this law discriminates against people in monogamous relationships, people practicing abstinance and people that aren't capable, or even need condoms.
How many wife's/husbands would start to worry if they found a condom in thier partners jeans?
Laws are supposed to protect people, not nanny them.
Your right about abstinence, this law doesn’t discriminate against anyone. EVERYONE is required to carry condoms, and if you aren’t going to use one because you are practicing abstinence, or monogamy then give the condom to us who hopefully get to use more than one a day. Hate the law because it is a waste of money, or because it is not solution. After all just because you have a condom doesn’t mean that you are going to use it. Not because you believe that every sperm is precious or mistakenly think that it is discriminatory. Discrimination means it doesn’t apply to everyone.
this is a crazy law. so my granny and local priest have to buy condoms and carry them around or pay a $180 fine? that's ridiculous. i believe in safe sex as much as anyone else, but you can't force people to do this. sounds like the politicians made a deal with the condom companies. AIDS kills, as does air pollution, cholesterol, and stray bullets. so wearing a bulletproof vest could save the lives of everyday people too, but you can't force everyone in your town to wear one!
the priests have a right to be outraged. they're the only sane ones standing up against this law. they might oppose it for reasons you dont agree with, but they are allowed to believe what they believe. forcing a catholic priest to carry a condom is like forcing a rabbi to carry around pork. this law is insensitive to their beliefs.
1. Rapists will be able to rely on the girl having a condom on her, might even force the girl to put it on them
2. Condoms are latex/rubber and they degrade over time, an old condom is worse than no condom - it gives a false sense of security, it reduces sensation marginally, and it is prone to breakage.
while i think this law is stupid i fail to see how it promotes rape. i would think that being raped by someone wearing a condom would be better than being raped by someone not wearing one. i doubt that having a condom handy is the deciding factor in a rapists mind when he decides to rape someone.
The priests that are mad about this _proposed_ law don't even live in the same town.
The article didn't cite the actual infection rate in this town, but if it's the highest rate in all of Colombia (and Colombia being the 2nd highest rate in all of Latin America, which as a whole has the 3rd highest rate of HIV infection in the world), I would guess that the locals would like some sort of local measures to be taken.
This seems like one of the least invasive choices avialable.
"Nobody can force someone to carry a condom in their pocket," he said. "They should instead carry the responsibility of what sexual relations mean."
As the Catholic ideologues should carry the responsibility of disseminating misleading and spurious information under the guise of 'scientific' authority?
One of the few avenues that police have for prosecuting rapes is through DNA evidence collected from semen left by the rapist. If a rapist can rely on the victim having a condom on her, the chance of successfully proving and prosecuting the case against the rapist descreases significantly - particularly if he has the presence of mind to take the used condom with him.
I'm Catholic. Protection is good. Quite frankly I think the old laws scoured having sex and such more because they didnt want people having sex outta marriage,and having "illegitamate" children. Think about it, they didnt have ample protection then. Its not like sheepskin condoms worked. Now we have various forms of contraception. Granted all life is sacred, still, at least people are protecting themselves while getting nasty!
I doubt too many rapes have been prevented because no one had a condom. If a rapist thinks that far ahead, he'll be carrying one himself. By your logic, they ought to pull condoms from the shelves because they're readily available for rapists, allowing them to prepare for their crimes. Condoms are readily availble now, and police still solve rape cases. It may be a poor law (carrying and using condoms are two different things), but condom availability does not promote rape.
I had heard of this one rape where the woman begged the rapist to wear a condom. In trial the rapist got off because asking for the condom was similar to consent. It's not and the jury should be hung, by the neck, till dead. Letting off a rapist..
A lot of rapes are committed as targets of opportunity, a girl walking through the park or on her way home from classes, a burgler finding a woman asleep at home etc. These are not the committed serial rapists that methodically identify, stalk, and attack their victims - they are rapes of opportunity.
With all rapes of opportunity often the only thing holding the rapist back is the fear of getting caught.
Now we have the situation where not just every male but every female over the age of 14 will be carrying a condom. Potential rapists and rapes of opportunity are going to take advantage of that to negate or reduce both their fear of getting caught, and the ability of the police to successfully prosecute them if they ARE caught.
BTW, When a worked for Blue Light, the estimated ratio of potential rapists to actual rapists was somewhere around 3 - that is to say, for every active rapists, there are approximately 3 more men who WOULD rape if they had the opportunity and believed they could get away with it.
I'm not saying people should not sell, carry, or use condoms - if you ARE going to have sex, do it safely!
What I am saying is that the knowledge of, and the abilty to rely on, the fact that a potential rapist and victim will be carrying condoms as a matter of law, is a cause for concern.
Is a division of the NSW Police that started by off duty police officers to look out for kids and provide safe avenues for them to have fun - camps, discos, sporting events etc.
It was so successful that it became official, and spread to other states. In addition to their original activities, they also produce education material and guides, and provide help services and contacts for children in need of assistance.
WRT: Rapist using a condom - yeah he will, but only if he is carrying one.
Quick poll:
Who here carries a condom in their wallet/purse in case they get lucky? If you do, how old is it - when was the last time you replaced it?
I am assuming that it was established as a volunteer community organization staffed by civilians. I have a real hard time believeing that a police officer would make the statement that police cannot issue summonses when working an accident because they didn't witness the crash. Didn't work many accidents, did you?
It was started by police officers - it now encorporates officers from all states, and civilian staff and volunteers.
I'm not an officer, I wouldn't be working an accident - but in regards to the Arnie question, the police weren't involved at the site of the accident, they were involved later, and as such cannot issue a citation on heresay.
It mighn't make much sense that police have to personally observe something to issue a citation - but it is the law. Remember, just because it is a law doesn't make it sensible.
The police did work the accident and they could have issued a summons had they chose to. Most accidents worked by police result in s summons being issued based upon witness testimony and physical evidence of a violation being committed. I have worked dozens of them. It's pretty apparent from the source story that their lack of action was politically motivated. I particularly liked the part that read, "The Police Department turned its investigation over to the Los Angeles City Attorney's Office, which said Wednesday that prosecutors decided not to get involved because the incident was a minor matter that would have resulted in no more than a traffic ticket."
Police don't issue summons - DA's department does. If you have worked as many accidents as you say you have, you would know this.
Police issue citations - that is, tickets. They can also, if they feel it is warranted, arrest a suspect for prosecution - however again, police do not prosecute, the DA's department does.
Now, to issue a citation - or ticket - the police have to witness the infraction, they cannot write someone up on the basis that someone told them they were driving/piloting without a license.
The police in question turned what they had over to the DA, the DA declined to prosecute.
I hate to drop this bombshell on you but a citation is a summons. Yes, you can issue a summons without witnessing the accident. Most anyone who has been involved in an accident and has been cited into court will tell you this. Rarely do officers witness accident, but more times than not a summons is issued. Now, quit babbling about things you have no knowledge or experience with.
(d) A person may not drive a motor vehicle or combination of vehicles that is not of a type for which the person is licensed.
Code 40000
11. A violation of any of the following provisions is a misdemeanor, and not an infraction: (b) Section 12500, subdivision (a), relating to unlicensed drivers.
From City of Petaluma Ca website:
"For most misdemeanor laws, an officer can only issue a citation for those offenses that he/she actually sees happen in their presence. A classic example would be an officer seeing a car go through a stop sign. In this case, the officer would make a traffic stop and a citation could be written to the driver. "
(d) A person may not drive a motor vehicle or combination of vehicles that is not of a type for which the person is licensed.
Code 40000
11. A violation of any of the following provisions is a misdemeanor, and not an infraction: (b) Section 12500, subdivision (a), relating to unlicensed drivers.
From City of Petaluma Ca website:
"For most misdemeanor laws, an officer can only issue a citation for those offenses that he/she actually sees happen in their presence. A classic example would be an officer seeing a car go through a stop sign. In this case, the officer would make a traffic stop and a citation could be written to the driver. "
(d) A person may not drive a motor vehicle or combination of vehicles that is not of a type for which the person is licensed.
Code 40000
11. A violation of any of the following provisions is a misdemeanor, and not an infraction: (b) Section 12500, subdivision (a), relating to unlicensed drivers.
From City of Petaluma Ca website:
"For most misdemeanor laws, an officer can only issue a citation for those offenses that he/she actually sees happen in their presence. A classic example would be an officer seeing a car go through a stop sign. In this case, the officer would make a traffic stop and a citation could be written to the driver. "
You know we are talking about a third world country in the grip of an AIDS crisis. It’s all too easy to sit in our comfortable homes arguing on the internet using our expensive computers about the pros and cons of this seemingly silly law.
But the reality is something needs to be done, and perhaps this idea might be effective. Simply having a bunch of priests banging on about abstinence has not worked so far, so maybe they need to try something else. Frankly, the Catholic Church needs to butt out of this debate. It’s clear their approach has been woefully ineffective, and in fact their stance on this issue has probably resulted in countless preventable deaths and unwanted pregnancies (which in turn leads to poverty and crime).
Only time will tell if this idea is any good, or even workable. But arguing for more of the same is no argument at all.
I'm 18, I'm single and still in high school, and for some reason I keep a condem in my wallet, and 8 in my glovebox. As a Catholic, I also believe in keeping it safe, just like I believe in miracles. (Hence the reason why I carry the condem!)
As much as I believe in all life is sacred, I agree with jedimen3. I also agree with ZCT about how we cannot legitimately argue the issue of condems in a 3rd world nation because very few if any of us reside in one where the issue cannot be avoided. I do not agree with his part about the Catholic church though. And now, my own .2 cents
Unfortunately I do not think condems will solve the matter. It may make a small dent in the overall issue at hand really. I think condem usage and more sex education would be appropriate, but as we've seen in the United States, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. As a result of teaching smoking is bad for your health, smoking is down. But, as studies have shown about sex education however, intercourse is down amongst teens, and oral is up. Why? Because they taught us you could not get someone pregnant through oral, so it seems to be the safer sex.
We must also acknowledge the basic human form of entertainment, aside from violence, is sex. Sex and violence are on the same level really. They are the most primitive form of behavior when it comes down to it. The Romans enjoyed watching men kill each other in the Collosseum. I could go on and on about violence and how primitive it is entertainment wise. But I won't.
I think a solution, along with sex education and condems, is to give these people JOBS. That way they have money and would not have to consult to the flesh for curing boredom, or aside from horniness, is encouraging them to get laid.
But if the people support a law we deem stupid, then obviously it is not stupid afterall and the legislation should be passed. "Ramiro Cano, a 19-year-old laborer in Tulua, said Wednesday the proposal was the talk of the town and most young people he talked to support it." (source)
As for those who joke about the clergy carrying them: The Rev. Jesus Velasquez said it would only encourage sexual relations and ridiculed it as absurd. ""I would have to have a condom even though I'm a member of the clergy," he was quoted as saying in the newspaper El Tiempo."" (again, source)
So yes, priests would also have to carry them.
Course thats just my 1st world opinion, who knows nothing of the true matter at hand.
Condoms come in different sizes. Are the cops going to check that the size matches the hardware? I'm sure all the men will carry xtra-large so that the cops can't laugh at the fact that they are... er... smaller than most. Will women have to carry multiple sizes in case their next partner is exceptionally above or below average? What about those in monogamous relationships who choose another form of birth control? US$180 is a big fine. It's the same principle as speed cameras on straight, wide roads - revenue raising.
Russians, Latvians, Estonians, Polish, Lithuanians... have a very poor selection of condom. My wife and I were dismayed, before getting married, at the lack of size-choices and it presented quite a problem. The only condoms that I could find that fit me were the ones from Germany in a 'french-tickler' style or some other interesting shape. But those are about 2.40 Euros apiece or even more expensive.
The people around these parts must have small dingalings... it's also heavily Catholic (Poland and Lithuania especially)
Now theres something i didnt know. I've always found condoms an extremely snug fit. But seeing as they are made of very stretchy rubber I thought they were like that for everyone.
Condoms can tear when they are unable to accomodate penises of greater width and/or length. The quality of latex varies depending on the manufacturer and the design of the sheath. Synthetic or natural rubber..... etc.
Have you ever tried putting on a rubber galosh or glove that was too small? What happens? Either you don't get your appendage in or the thing ruptures.
