As I often say, so much of the deep liberal-left philosophy and policy initiative and so on revolves around the orgasm

They will do and say and discuss a thing to death, notably in articles or discussions about sexually-transmitted diseases like AIDS and HPV, and even pregnancy, before they invoke the word “abstinence” (actually, in the case of pregnancy, all they talk about is abstinence, before the fact or after).  And if someone does bring the word up, they get positively hostile.  It’s absurd!  What—are you stupid?  Get realistic!  Abstinence!?  In this day and age!  What a retard!  Christian!  It’ll never work!   Actually, I guarantee, it will ALWAYS work.  That’s the inconvenient truth of life, liberals.

It’s not about moralizing, it’s about saving lives!  I agree (even though morals do tend to save lives, in case that’s what you’re on about). But let’s talk strictly scientifically:  the most scientifically assured way of stopping STDs is abstinence.  There you go.  Irrefutable scientific fact.  Have a nice day.

I agree that another fact of the matter is that so many girls will follow the well-taught “progressive” tact, have never heard the word “abstinence” before, and will have sex as they’ve basically been told to do in their secular progressive schools, complete with the condom on the cucumber classes and the free map to the abortion clinic.  And since I’m not about to advocate sacrificing people to prove a point, I do suggest talking about the other far less effective methods too, like drugs to cure disease and prevent them, and of course condoms so you can blame someone or something when it goes wrong.  But to not even mention the most scientifically effective method is hideously shoddy journalism and shoddy science, with more than an ounce of agenda, at the very best.

The ingenious scientists and journalists in the article in the National Post’s Financial Post section, “A cancer vaccine with political will” do what they always do, and only mention the only two methods they can get their heads around: drugs to prevent and cure STDs; and of course the condoms, which once again they insanely represent, scientifically, as “safe sex”, which is hysterically stupid, bad science, manifestly because it’s a pure lie.  Another inconvenient truth they never talk about.  Pattern developing! 

But you see at least you can still have sex this way, and that’s what it’s all about. Now you’re thinking like a liberal.

The article has to do with the scientists, drug companies (suddenly liberals are totally on-side with them),  doctors, and wild monkey sex advocates in Canada who want to vaccinate a whole generation of innocent little girls with a drug called Gardasil, so that from age eight or nine onward, the theory goes, they’ll be able to have sex (yay!  sex!) with less likelihood of spreading a sexually transmitted disease called HPV, and therefore they will be less likely to get cervical cancer from the HPV.

It’s either drugs to prevent or cure the disease, or condoms.  Those are the only options presented.  Whatever yields the ability to have sex—hopefully with multiple partners—even at the risk of life itself.  That’s sound science.  That’s “progressive”. 

In gently arguing against the drug option, the only other option available to the brains of liberals is presented as: ”…condoms and Pap tests are nearly 100% effective, not only against all cervical cancers but against all STDs.”

Here’s the actual science:  Condoms don’t prevent HPV.  No, not 100%, no, not even “nearly” 100%.  The disease is spread through the skin.  So, through oral sex, for example, which Bill Clinton informs us and the young ‘uns is not, in fact, sex. 

Great.  Now this is a problem worse than “man-made global warming” for liberals, because they’ll no sooner stop having sex and contracting STDs than stop driving SUVs, buying motor boats, and flying in jets.  No wonder drugs and condoms are the best they can come up with to combat HPV.

Therefore here’s a letter-to-the-editor from an actual “realistic” Canadian that I liked today.  It’s in the National Post:

 

Abstinence is the only guarantee against STDs

Re: A Cancer Vaccine With Political Will, Aug. 7.

Your article claims that condoms are “nearly 100% effective, not only against all cervical cancers but against all STDs.” That’s a joke. The U.S. National Institute of Health did the most extensive study ever on the effectiveness of condoms and the results showed there is no scientific evidence to prove that condoms can protect men from six of the eight STDs, nor women from seven of the eight.

Also, the most common STD (which also causes 99% of cervical cancer) is the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV), which is spread by skin contact. One doesn’t need to have intercourse to contract it—oral sex is enough.

“Safe sex” doesn’t exist in a promiscuous society, but woe to me if I talk about abstinence. It seems people can’t handle such a simple solution to such a major health problem.

I like Michael Coren’s line on this, in a column he wrote last year in the Toronto Sun about AIDS (during the AIDS conference in Canada at which talk of abstinence was apparently taboo), but which could apply here as well: 

”…The irony is that AIDS is one of the few diseases where personal behavior rather than medical research could save millions of lives.

At its most simple, stop fornicating.”

Nah.  That ain’t liberal. 

Additional reading with similar lack of sound scientific advice