08-26-2006, 06:30 PM
Quote:As soon as the above "Jake" gets out of prison, we'll make sure to send him to your house with a condom. I am sure you and your rectum won't mind.
Occhi
First off, I disagree with your use of the word "condone". Sometimes an action has to be done, which can't solve the problem but can make it better. Wearing a bullet proof vest in a firefight doesn't stop the battle, but it does make it safer. Practicing "safe sex" can't destroy the HIV virus, but it can make it safer. I find it hard to swallow that either of these is "condoning" the situation. Reacting to a situation is not the same as condoning it.
Now, as it pertains to this instance. Handing out condoms isn't going to make a difference in the frequency of anal rape. Instead, it's a reaction to rising issues of HIV spread in our prison systems - at best there is the slight chance of reducing the spread of HIV virus if condoms are made available. It's foolish to think of this as an action meant to change the frequency of anal rape/assault.
Does there need to be a change in policy towards correcting the problem of rape/assault? There is no doubt of that. And I personally agree that this type of reform should be the focus, not on ways to stop sexually transmitted diseases. But condeming preventative actions pertaining to the spread of STD's because they do nothing to prevent assault/rape, is foolish at best. Certainly they are connected issues, but they are seperate issues. Of course this goes both ways - if the legislation is stupid enough to think condoms makes a difference outside of spreading STD's, they should be dragged out into the street.
Cheers,
Munk