This article in today's Times Online declares that Aids 'will overwhelm wider world', noting that experts warnings that India, China and Russia were all on the brink of epidemics like those in Africa:

High-risk groups still dominate the Aids problem in Russia and China. But allowing the virus to leapfrog into the wider population as it has elsewhere could swallow up resources for African countries. HIV infections in Africa remain far higher than those in the Asia-Pacific nations. In China, 0.1 percent of people aged 15 to 49 are infected, compared with 7.5 per cent in sub-Saharan Africa.

But that picture could change quickly. Mr Piot recalled that in South Africa the population affected doubled to 1 per cent in five years and then rocketed to 20 per cent in just seven years. India’s infection rate is also relatively low but the number of people infected, at 5.1 million, is second only to South Africa.

Very sobering stuff. For an interesting parallel, take a look at what Matt Abbott has observed in the United States regarding sex education:

According to a story in the Dec. 2, 2004 edition of the Washington Post (link), a congressional investigation, led by Bush-critic Waxman, has found that students taking abstinence-only classes" frequently receive medically inaccurate or misleading information, often in direct contradiction to the findings of government scientists."

Is there a juxtaposition of the two stories? I find one in the Times article with these paragraphs immediately following the dire prediction quoted above:

The experts also criticised the focus on sexual abstinence in President Bush’s £7.7 billion Aids relief plan known as “ABC” — Abstinence, Being faithful and using Condoms.

“Millions of women became infected while monogamous and faithful, so focusing solely on personal behaviour and risk absolutely does not go far enough,” said Geeta Rao Gupta, head of the International Centre for Research on Women. Mr Piot added: “Abstinence isn’t an option for women who are violated or abused. Our prevention strategies have to fit the realities of women’s lives. Marriage was not made for sexual abstinence.

This is the first time I've heard this line of reasoning in opposition to promiscuity. Let me paraphrase: "Being faithful has no benefit because your lover might not be and you might still be at risk of infection. Thus being promiscuous is just the same. Oh, and abstinence is really boring. Marriage was not made for sexual abstinence so get out there and wrap your legs around everything that moves."

The common thread between these two stories is the ideology that everyone is going to have lots of sex with lots of people and to suggest that people do otherwise is bad. What is so bad about abstinence? The first big problem is that the concept is based on one of those "moral values" we have heard so many complaints about so recently.. The other issue is that the experts feel that people have no control over their own sex drive.

This argument always seemed kind of self defeating to me. Asking someone to save themselves for a future spouse or to be faithful to their current spouse is completely unreasonable. However, if they are told to use a condom and a squirt of microbicide when exchanging bodily fluids, they will comply. Whenever the action gets hot and heavy, they will take a little break from the action, don the latex and the spread of disease will be stopped cold.

I am fully aware that having sex is usually more fun than not having it, but in the same vein, is there anyone who would actually choose a condom over the alternative? (Latex vs. flesh…tough decision there!) Both 'quasi-safe' sex (condoms), 'safe-sex' (monogamous partners who are both faithful) and abstinence are choices that overrule the raw sex drive. I find it dishonest to maintain that two of those choices are impossible to physically achieve while pulling off (or rather on) the other can always be accomplished.

By the way, Waxman's issues with the abstinence curriculum are that they "contain unproved claims, subjective conclusions or outright falsehoods regarding reproductive health, gender traits and when life begins." All that on topics such as the failure rate of condoms, post-abortive suicide rates and the possibility that abortion has a detrimental affect on fertility.

Contrary to popular belief, condoms actually do have a failure rate. They can be employed incorrectly; some are defective while others fail under the stress of heat, friction, and passion. They are not 100% effective in stopping sperm cells, and presumably less effective against the much smaller (25-50 times) HIV virus.

If you are truly abstinent, which in my definition includes oral and skin contact with the bodily fluids of others, there is no failure rate. It is not possible for an abstinent individual to contract a STD in a sexual manner, something that cannot be said for a faithful condom user. I'm not saying that condoms fail to reduce risk, but they do fail to eliminate risk.

Back to Abbott's analysis of the Waxman critique of the Bush plan:

The obvious implication of the story: Abstinence-only education is deficient. And, in a sense, that's true. Sex education should be taught by parents, not the schools. But, that said, I submit that abstinence-only education is better than so-called comprehensive sex education.

Consider: Brian Clowes, PhD, author and researcher for Human Life International (www.hli.org), found that between 1960 and 1991, the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases increased 245%; abortions increased 800%; and the illegitimate birthrate increased 457%.

Much of these trends, says Clowes, "must be laid at the doorsteps of the [secular] sex educators." Indeed.

Abstinence-only education is far from perfect — and perhaps some of the curricula currently being used should be revised — but at least it's telling teens to do what is right, namely, don't have sex until you're married. Planned Parenthood-style comprehensive sex education doesn't do that; it tells teens, "If you choose to engage in sexual activity, use protection."

And, if that fails, well, there's always the local abortion mill.

It almost seems that the secular perspective on the Aids crisis is that a cure for Aids is needed, and quickly because the pants of the people refuse to stay buttoned. This is evidenced from these words by Geeta Rao Gupta in the Times article: "focusing solely on personal behaviour and risk absolutely does not go far enough". What is left to focus on, aside from making sure the blood supply is clean, medical facilities are sanitary and researchers are working toward a cure? The primary method of transmission of this disease (and many others) is through sexual means. The primary method of prevention has to be by addressing the same.

The absolute best way to ensure that you do not receive Aids via sexual contact is to not have any sexual contact at all. It is impossible to argue otherwise. It might not be the most enjoyable method, but it is the most effective. The second most effective option is to be involved in a monogamous relationship where both you and your partner are faithful unto death.

All other prevention methods are less effective than those two, which is why the opposition to teaching either of those methods is ridiculous. Granted, not everyone will choose to employ either of these options, but I believe we owe it to them to honestly inform them of the actual risks of all possible methods, including abstinence and being faithful.