Talk:Safe sex/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Safer sex vs. Safe sex

While this is all very admirable, am I completely alone in thinking this probably belongs under Safe sex? The possibility for the list of comparatives reaching absurdist proportions are there as the various adherents outline their postulations: e.g. Safe sex --> Safer sex --> Even Safer sex --> Foolproof sex --> Completely foolproof sex etc, etc ad infinitum. Of course it could get worse. It could be going in the other direction. sjc

I think it's an American thing to placate their religious conservatives who scream and yell about condoms letting HIV through the rubber. Whilst they are accurate in pointing out that no sexual act is completely safe (for that matter, I've known a few people who've caught glandular fever, probably from kissing), calling these activities "safe" is a reasonable approximation, considering that the statistics indicate that the risk of catching HIV through sex whilst using condoms is really quite low. --Robert Merkel

sjc, I don't understand your complaint here. (Possibly I agree with you, not sure)

I am sjc and the point I was making (really) was that this is an absurd nomenclature which really lends itself to further acts of absurdity. Language is like currency: bad usage drives out good. For my two groats worth, it would have been better left resting under Safe sex. The chances of people who need to know this sort of stuff finding it are more likely if it was put there, for starters...

I don't speak for sjc, but from my perspective "safer sex" is a propaganda term for latter-day puritans, er, abstinence campaigners like this one. As I've said, statistically safe sex *is* pretty safe, so I don't see the need for the qualification. --Robert Merkel

All the sites I've been finding that use this term look to me like anti- puritan sites. As far as I can tell, the "pro-abstinence" folks and the "pro-safer-sex" folks are generally on opposite sides.

"As I've said, statistically safe sex *is* pretty safe" -- I think people use the term "safer sex" with exactly your meaning here -- to emphasize the "pretty safe" aspect.

(Rather than "Safe. Period.")

If that's the case, by all means use safer sex. I don't like the term, because nothing is perfectly safe (read 1984 for a good thesis on the dangers of too many people not getting enough), but who

we're here to reflect usage, not define it for ourselves. --Robert Merkel

I, most unfortunately, sat thru many faculty-meetings-with-the-social-worker back in my high school teacher days (late 80s to mid 90s), and 'safer' was the locution of choice. And this was in CDCville (a.k.a. Atlanta). --MichaelTinkler

Okay, well I'm in Australia and all I've ever heard used is "safe sex", not "safer sex". -- SJK

Well, how about this then. I'd agree with SJK that "safe sex" is the term used in Australia, whilst it seems that "safer sex" is more common in America. They are talking about the same practices, essentially, though in Oz the idea of abstinence until marriage is pretty much dead :)I think we can speculate that "safer sex" is preferred in the US as a nod to people who claim the only truly safe alternative is not to have sex at all outside marriage, but it'd be nice to have some historical reference to establish exactly where the preferred terminology came from. --Robert Merkel.

I don't like the words "safe sex" because it implies that protected sex is completely "safe". I always use the term "safer sex" because it means that sex can be SAFER with a condom but not completely SAFE :)

In Canada we talk about safer sex (my mom the doctor, for example), and it has nothing to do with placating any religious conservatives, who are nowhere near the force they are in the US. It has to do with emphasizing the need for caution above and beyond the safer-sex techniques, and that the techniques themselves are not 100% effective. - montréalais

"safer sex" is used in the UK too. I don't think it's to placate the Rabid Religious Right -- it's to emphasise that no method of protection is 100% safe. -- Tarquin 22:27 Nov 7, 2002 (UTC)

---

IMHO effective discussion and modifications to the entry. Wikipedia working as it should. :-)

Google gets 500,000 for safer sex and 1,700,000 for safe sex-im in the middle of the US and ive never heard that ridiculous "safer sex" pc nonsense. Lir 22:24 Nov 7, 2002 (UTC)

I never heard 'safer sex' either. Always 'safe sex'. In speech, people might say "You should be safe, use protection." They don't say "You should be safer." By the same argument, you could say that 'safer driving' includes wearing a seat belt and driving carefully. Truly 'safe driving' would be sitting in a parked car.

EDIT (Later note): Read in a magazine the term 'safer sex' in an editorial. This is the first time outside of Wikipedia I've ever heard this term. cprompt 17:14 Feb 3, 2003 (UTC) - Feb 7

---

"Some studies have shown that, even with the best of intentions, determined condom users sometimes forget to put them on before sex"

- Determined condom users? This is such nonsense. 'I'm a determined condom user, I'm determined to put on this condom, yes, I'm definitely going to do it - oh shit, I'm already in and I forgot to put it on, how forgetful of me.' Nobody forgets to put on a condom, they might be drunk or caught up in the impatient heat of passion or just reckless, but "forgetting"?

---

My understanding of safe sex has always included preventing pregnancy as well as disease. Obviously monogamy doesn't help with that. Perhaps pregnancy is "safe" in that it is not a disease, however unwanted pregnancy can have many disastrous consequences, even leaving the medical ones aside. NTK 16:47, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am also removing the phrase "citing studies that indicate that condoms are somewhat permeable to the tiny HIV." This claim has been made time and again by conservatives but until I am shown otherwise these "studies" do not exist. Not only are latex condoms individually tested for microscopic holes with lasers, but they have been tested experimentally in labs and shown absolutely impermeable to HIV and other viruses, as well as any other fluids or proteins found in semen. Nobody is saying condoms are foolproof, but when they fail it is due to slippage, breakage, or tearing, not due to viruses or sperm somehow penetrating through the latex. The whole reason for this misinformation is probably due to the fact that "sheepskin" condoms are in fact porous, but these are expensive and unpopular. NTK 16:57, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dental dam

From the section on "dental dams".... A piece of plastic wrap (such as Saran™ wrap) may also be used as a dental dam, but regular plastic wrap is too porous. Saran Wrap isn't "regular" plastic wrap? Then what is being described? Joyous 22:52, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

Bullets, numbers and listing

I replaced the sub-list bullets with numbers under "Avoiding any contact with blood, vaginal fluid, and semen of the partner:" because this more clearly denotes that the methods listed are listed under the above header, rather than mistakenly having been indented a touch. I believe this is an important difference in order to clearly define these as a sub-list rather than part of the main listing. If you believe otherwise, please elaborate.
18:35, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Ø

• The strategy of let's get tested together before we have sex... for sexually transmitted infections.

Revert

I've reverted to a previous version of the safe sex article b/c the newer revision defined safe sex as "a term describing the use of condoms as a harm reduction practice designed to reduce the spread of AIDS" implying condoms are the only means of practicing safe sex and that the only sex risk is AIDS, both of which are untrue.
Also the revision removed material that had been previously merged from unsafe sex. If you feel this material can be merged more effectively, please do so, but since someone felt the need to create an article about it, perhaps it shouldn't be removed altogether?
Additionally, the section titled Change in terminology was removed. As there was enough controversy on that particular topic to keep the talk page going for awhile (see above) perhaps we should keep that too? Maybe it doesn't necessarily need it's own section and can be incorporated into the main introductory text? I would strongly recommend not shuffling it to the bottom either as it is information used to clarify the use of the terms safe sex and safer sex and it's probably best to get the terminology straight before diving into the topic. If you disagree with any of the above, let's discuss it :)
19:48, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Ø

I'm in full agreement with your revert. It seems you've done some good work recovering it. -SocratesJedi | Talk 23:51, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Recommended Practices/Safer Sex Methodology

Heyas, I changed Recommended Practices to Safer Sex Methodology and added a minor bit of text before the list of safer sex practices to clarify that Wikipedia does not recommend anything (for that would be POV, no?), but that the following was a list of methods generally considered as safer sex methods. Will someone please review my edit for NPOV (I think it's NPOV, but one can never be sure)? Thanks! -SocratesJedi | Talk 23:50, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Not sure about the POV stuff (b/c isn't that about not mentioning Wikipedia? I don't remember. Anyway that's kind of a flexible thing), but I think it looks alright. Ø 00:44, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Fork?

I'm concerned about the possible forked article at Safer sex. It used to be a redirect created when Raul moved the page here, but recently User:Sci guy claims that it is substantially different there than this page is here. Can the community please review this to determine whether or not Safer sex is a fork of Safe sex?

Of course it's substantially different--it's been revised heavily since the move and greatly improved in my opinion. This fork is unnecessary as it doesn't provide any new information and some of the wording is misleading as well, and I'm turning it back into a redirect like now.
21:28, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Ø

Ah, what I meant was Sci guy was claiming that the current Safe sex and Safer sex articles were different, but I had thought they were a fork. I didn't want to get into an edit war with him, so I wanted a greater community consensus. I did a few days ago what you just did (and it was reverted, hence I went to the community). -SocratesJedi | Talk 22:34, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Terminology

Okay I added the following sentence: "Being that these two terms are synonymous with each other, they will be used interchangeably throughout this article" regarding the use of safe sex and safer sex for these simple reasons:

1. It's true.
2. People are going to use the term they are most comfortable with when editing the safe sex article.
3. It seems pointless to be running around editing it after them---there are sure to be plenty of edits going back and forth in this manner, a pointless waste of time.
4. People deserve a heads up somewhere in the intro to the meat of the article.
   

I'm putting it back. Feel free to edit the phrasing to suit your personal tastes but, unless everyone manages to reach a consensus on what we'll be referring to it as and finds a way to notify new editors of this decision, if you remove it, I'm going to keep putting it back ;)
21:38, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Ø

Agree that that's a good idea. Changed phrasing to: "Because these terms are virtually synonymous with each other.... Revert if desired. -SocratesJedi | Talk 22:37, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

There can never be zero risk. The correct term is always... safer

AIDS and the Safer Sex fork integration

I've been editing through some of the changes Sci guy made in his effort to emphasize the importance of AIDS prevention via the use of condoms as a central message. I have several concerns that I have addressed in my recent edits, but am open to community ideas (rather than stolidly proclaiming that I am the correct one here; i'd rather garner consensus). These are my concerns:

1. AIDS is a specific instance of a STI so it doesn't make sense to say "AIDS and STIs" so I think we had ought to avoid this.
2. It seems POV to say that "abstinence followed by lifelong mutually fidelity is the best way to avoid AIDS", which is why I removed it, but I also removed it because it seems to be demonstratibly false. Correct me if I am mistaken, but wouldn't "lifelong abstinence" be the most effective way of preventing AIDS? In any case, my point is, why not just point out what both sides say and then make no further commentary on "best"? "Best" is a value judgement and inherently POV.
3. There is more to safer sex than condom usage and AIDS. It's true that it's a big part, which is why we have this gigantic section on barrier methods and such. Perhaps it is the case that AIDS is not adequately addressed (?). Perhaps Sci guy (or another) might be willing to write the beginning of a new subject heading specifically dealing with AIDS while allowing the article to retain the generality of STI and pregnancy prevention.
4. I restored the bit about AIDS and condoms as the third paragraph and was confused why we lost it. It seemed to be the part most about what Sci guy is trying to edit, so clarification there would be wonderful to have.

Also, I was vaguely concerned about the removal of the discussing about child sexuality. It seemed to be removed because "child sex isn't safe sex" but I thought the intent was to say that early sexual education was important and that conservatives were opposing the acquisition of that sexual knowledge by younglings. Would it be possible to rephrase this rather than delete it? I have restored it for the time being, but would be very open to someone proposing better wording for it.

In any case, I'm happy to be working with an editor such as Sci guy, who obviously is knowledgable about the AIDS component of the Safer Sex movement, but I am also interested in protecting the generality and NPOV of this article by avoiding narrowing the focus down primarily onto AIDS and by avoiding blanket statements like "the best way to ..." and focusing on things that people have said and such.

Also random: we need more citations. "Some studies" is bad (and yes, I realize I typed those words into the article at least once). It'd be nice to know who they were done by and such. I will be working actively on this and would appreciate whatever support is possible.

Anyway, I look forward to continuing to edit productivly with all of you. Look forward to your comments. -SocratesJedi | Talk 06:38, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Also posted at User talk:Sci guy:

Heyas, First I wanted to say good job on some good edits to Safe sex like removing the biased part after "perhaps" and such. I edited through your recent edits too again and I just wrote a lengthy comment on Talk:Safe sex that I'd hope you might review. I'm concerned that the Safe sex article needs to retain it's generality of being a preventative measure against all STI's (of which AIDS is one type), but also to include information regarding the special campaign against AIDS which are extremly emphatic regarding condom usage. I've started a new subject heading specially called just "Focus on AIDS" and was wondering if perhaps we could contain that information there in a prominent location in the article (so as not to get it lost) while retaining the convention of talking in generality about STIs throughout the rest of the article. Would this be an acceptable way to integrate the AIDS information? I look forward to working with your further and your reply (best if you reply either on my talk page or Talk:Safe sex)! Happy editing. -SocratesJedi | Talk 06:50, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with your Safe sex article. An article on safer sex is an important part on the WikiProject Aids and I hope you will respect the need for an article on the use of condoms as a harm reduction approach for AIDS. Sci guy 14:16, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5