I am trying to understand if you think that abstinence should be taught as the only way to avoid AIDS or not.

I am trying to understand if you see any value at all in a holistic approach to education about STD's in general, or if you prefer to simply take the moral high ground and shut your eyes and ears.

It's not the fault of abstinence, it's the fault of education that only covers one base. Giving advice that you know many won't take is fine if all you care about is making sure they know it's their fault when they don't, but I wouldn't consider it to be particularly good education except in the figurative "school of hard knocks" way, by which time it's too late.

Ah, a straight question. No, I do not think that abstinence should be taught as the only way to avoid AIDS. Here it's commonly called "abstinence only", and I think its value as a strategy for reducing the spread of AIDS is approximately zero. It may get better traction in monasteries, but I speculate only.

Two questions here, one straight, one bait. As I mentioned in my previous posts, which even Flint picked up on, I think abstinence has its place as a part of a larger conversation about how to reduce the spread of AIDS. So, yes, I do see value in a practical, holistic, comprehensive approach to education and STDs in general, including abstinence and including condoms.

I am temporarily relaxing my normal high moral ground standards to wrestle in the mud here with you by justifying your question with a response, but I am very, very rarely justly accused of shutting my eyes and ears when it comes to education.

Have I answered your questions?

Yes thankyou.

You're welcome.

I must admit, I would very much like to see this mud wrestling you speak about. :D

I wonder, is there any real law in the Qu'ran that females must be covered from head to toe? Or does it just say women must be modest?

I can understand a rule to be modest, and many religions have such a rule, but this maximum coverage thing propounded by more than one religious belief system has always bothered me. Because, apparently, these men of god can't be trusted not to fall upon a female like rutting animals if they see a forearm, or an ankle, or a lock of hair. How does that make it the fault of the woman, or make sense at all? I mean, control yourselves!

HERE I AM. I agree.

As far as I am aware there is nothing in the qu'ran stipulating total coverage. There is, however, some kind of reference to the wife of the prophet being behind a screen, or veil or somesuch and away from the eyes of men through her admirable modesty. It's a little like the way the Catholic church has argued that there should be no female priests because there weren't any female apostles in the bible. It doesn't actually stipulate, it just provides the means for emulation.

The covering up of females is a cultural phenomenon which has been fitted into a belief system (I think).

a bunch of smoke and mirrors to justify keeping women in slavery, really. In this case, Islamic male doctors can bare their forearms, right? and, oh, can these female "medics" treat male patients? bah!

Oh I totally agree Cloud. Unfortunately what we have with some of our British-born young moslem women is a tendency to want to assert their moslem identity by being, if anything, much stricter on these things than their parents might have been. They're busy asserting their right to wear veils and cover up; meanwhile a thousand miles away their moslem sisters are busy trying to assert their right not to cover up and be taken seriously as men's equals.

It's a difficult one really. The more our society goes down what appears to be an anti-Islamic path, the more these politically aware young women wish to assert their identity and the more they take on rules and strictures which, had they been born elsewhere they may see as an imposition and denial of their basic humanity. On the one hand I wish to support their right to that cultural heritage...on the other hand I want to slap them senseless for voluntarily applying the male yoke.

maybe it'll work like Muslims selling alcohol at supermarkets...
they'll call someone over to do the 'touchy' bits,

I remember hearing in a discussion by a Muslim academic that many of the oppressive laws that we hear of in the Middle East are Arabic tribal tradition being imposed under the guise of interpretation of the Quran.

Those people doing the interpreting, do it in a way that suits their sense of 'traditional values'.

Beest you are correct. I see this happen ALL THE TIME.

And isn't that exactly what happens with every other religion, in every other place, with every other belief system?

Tradition has (had) a purpose. Those who ate a Hasidic diet suffered less from disease and food poisoning. Therefore we should always obey that tradition?

Another 'culture' requires ties. Why? Because once we carried our napkin with us. The tie is a perversion of something that once had a purpose.

Many cars once had emblems sticking above the hood. Why? Once those emblems opened the radiator to add water without burning hands. Why did that hood ornament exist for so long? Tradition transcends reason. Meanwhile, those emblems would pierce pedestrians.

Many people don't ask or even refuse to ask the embarrassing question: "Why?" Those who do ask tend to be innovators. Those who are tolerant tend to learn from others who had that obduracy to ask.