Yes, I understand that. But, as I was getting to and then Robert pointed out, there are plenty of other entities that could pay for those condoms, and the inability to replace the U.S. money should it dissapear is by no means clear. Of course, Robert then went further and presented information that there seems to be no actual evidence (as opposed to feelings by someone not directly invovled with the funding) that the U.S. is actually doing or threatening to do any such thing, and that official policy actually seems to be neutral on the subject.

To which I have seen no response ….

It’s going to take time for an abstinence message to create social norms of reasonable chastity.

Well, what you’re implying here is that a given culture’s concept of sex lies along a scale, with “chaste and kind” at one end, and “promiscuous and unthoughtful” at the other. This in regards particularly to Ms. Were’s husband, and his role as both a disease vector and a rapist.

Except, it seems like there’s two dimensions involved here, not just one. Cultures and groups and people can be (and have been) simultaneously very sexually active and also unprone to sexual violence. There’s (it seems to me) some overlap between polyamory and feminist viewpoints regarding DV; to acknowledge that one’s sexual life should be more openly discussed and practiced reduces the secrecy and stigma that protect many kinds of sexual violence.

There’s also the other extreme, which is unfortunately far more popular; cultures with an ideological emphasis on total chastity exclusive of marriage, but a far less rosy reality. If one is considered less “moral” in proportion to their number of sexual partners, then the shame of it may stop them from having very much sex.

Or, it might simply force them to be more secretive about their sex lives, and then also less subject to the other ethical guidelines of their society, such as those against rape or against spreading disease.

Basically, the problem with abstinence is that it attempts to solve a problem indirectly, in a way that can make everything worse.

That’s why I can only half agree with this statement:

Finally, on a feminist site, is it not worth considering that maybe, if Beatrice Were’s husband had been taught while a young boy that women were to be respected, that sex was something special and personal, and that sleeping around and rape and cheating were bad things - do you think that, perhaps, he might not have raped her? Might not have cheated on her?

I’m all in favor of teaching respect for women, and respect for sex. I’m not so keen on “sleeping around” being in the same category as “rape”.

Under that set of values, we’ve seen historically that women who have sex with more people are seen less as being potential victims of rape. In the eyes of third parties, they’ve involved themselves in a seedy underworld that reduces their capability to be innocent parties of anything, particularly anything sexual.

A more-abstinent culture in Uganda could still have let Mr. Were rape his wife, and could still have allowed him to be a vector for a sexual disease. In fact, it could very well make it harder for her to find out about it, or to seek help.

Of course, Uganda is a little different, since we are worried also about disease transmission. There I agree with you that if a particular educational strategy proves effective at stopping AIDS, that can trump nearly anything else.

…if we do it for a generation and it seems like a miserable failure, then OK, let’s give it up.

Agreed. Uganda may not be the clear example we want for that, however; there seem to be conflicting reports about how big a part condoms have played in the Uganda programs.

If they pass reasonable First Amendment tests, yes. I’m willing to be evidence-based about it; if we do it for a generation and it seems like a miserable failure, then OK, let’s give it up.

A lot of liberals seem to discount abstinence education, and the grounds cited seem often to be that it doesn’t work. And so far, the studies and analyses which have been done do seem to support that; some programs might work but most don’t seem to have an impact.

I would argue, however, that we wouldn’t expect to see an impact right now. Culture is not a switch that you throw and it goes from one extreme to another; it’s a gradual accretion of millions of individual choices and values. It’s going to take time for an abstinence message to create social norms of reasonable chastity.

It seems to even this non-feminist guy that such a possibility is a worthwhile one; that it would be a good thing if the young Mr. Weres of Uganda, and of every nation which wishes to hear the message, hear that word when they are boys.

So, you are in favor of your tax money, and US tax money in general, going towards such education programs?

Plus, as I say, the fight against HIV/AIDS is often less about public health and more about making leftists feel good and progressive. There are deadlier diseases that get less funding and less publicity. With a private individual’s pocketbook that’s fine–different causes tug on different people’s heartstrings. If you feel moved by the AIDS situation in Africa and want to do something about with your own money, so be it. But why are you trying to tell other people how and where they’re supposed to be compassionate? Especially since, as Robert points out, you may not even pay income taxes? We’ve rearranged the tax code in this country to the point where you actually have to be making a fair amount of money before you pay a single dime in federal income taxes. Which means a lot of people are not only trying to spend other people’s money, they’re trying to spend money that EXCLUSIVELY comes from other people, don’t have a single dollar in the pot.

This isn’t a question of libertarian vs. non, this is a question of understanding basic science and how diseases spread.

—Myca

Oh, wait…there are far deadlier and far more communicable diseases than HIV out there. Let’s spend a whole lot of money to stop those. In fact, let’s figure out the single deadliest disease in another country and spend every single tax dollar on finding a cure for it, or at least keep anybody from jumping on a plane and coming over here to infect us. And we’d better do it quick, before those diseases get over here!

Oh, wait again….the world’s already pretty much globalized. HIV certainly and probably every other disease elsewhere in the world is ALREADY in the United States.

Beginning to feel that slippery slope?

The problem I have with the post after that, Decavda, is that it takes a very common and everyday word and forces into contexts that aren’t really appropriate for it. Using your own example, is an abusive husband an example of a ‘government’*? Under the libertarian definition, yes - but what exactly is gained from that - to counterbalance the loss of clarity and common sense, if nothing else?

Yet I, like RonF, find it difficult to discern the connection between US policy or American “fundamentalist” Christian morality (it’s not, particularly, btw - just ordinary), and the fact that her husband is a man who cheats on his wife, gets STDs, and then rapes her. There are undoubtedly fundamentalist American Christians who have done the same; nonetheless, I can say confidently that it is not normative behavior in the population. It would be frowned upon. From the article and from Beatrice Were’s testimony, it seems to be not quite so out of the mainstream, in Uganda.

I further find it hard to avoid thinking that, perhaps, a culture where sleeping around and then raping one’s wife approximates normalcy is a culture where a message of abstinence and faithfulness - even a message motivated by such a wicked thing as Christian sexual morality - might not be entirely out of place. At least some Ugandans seem to think along those lines as well.

Finally, on a feminist site, is it not worth considering that maybe, if Beatrice Were’s husband had been taught while a young boy that women were to be respected, that sex was something special and personal, and that sleeping around and rape and cheating were bad things - do you think that, perhaps, he might not have raped her? Might not have cheated on her?

It seems to even this non-feminist guy that such a possibility is a worthwhile one; that it would be a good thing if the young Mr. Weres of Uganda, and of every nation which wishes to hear the message, hear that word when they are boys.

The advantage taxes have for this kind of mechanism is that governments have a lot of power to use in promoting their wishes. With all that money in one place, and all that authority behind it, more could be accomplished than could be by a disassociated group of smaller organizations.

You run, though, into Robert’s problem; who decides what gets done with that big pot of money? Is it right that, once his money goes in, he has little influence over what happens to it? I’d say, in some circumstances, yes; not just for expediency, but also because it may be just in some circumstances for government to use the force it has to play Robin Hood, even if some of the rich nobles with fat purses are also members of the Merry Men.

(I’d like to apologize at this point for my entire body of knowledge about Robin Hood being Daffy Duck cartoons.)

Suppose the government legitimately (in the US’s case, that means democratically) decides that Robert is just plain wrong about whether or not it’s our business to provide condoms and safe-sex education to Uganda. In that case, it ought to have the authority to use tax money, including Robert’s, to do that. Our job then as good citizens is to try our best to make the government make the right decisions about the money; trying to fracture the money makes it more personally expressive of each individual’s wishes, but also less effective overall.

All this heart-bleeding aside, though, I’m really most interested in Robert’s last post, where he claims that the US actually isn’t making a real threat to cut PEPFAR funding. From the article Amp linked to, people on the ground there seem to feel that that sort of pressure was being leveled at them. Robert, do you have more to back that statement up? As it is, Dr. Dybul sounds a little like the playground bully saying “Well, I wasn’t really going to hit him if he didn’t give me his lunch money…”

If you prefer, you can rephrase my catchy tagline as “In essence, you are arguing that America’s politically-controlled charitable donations should be delivered in accordance with the values of the people who didn’t win the political contest.”

But that isn’t nearly as catchy.

You’re in essence arguing that MY charitable donation should be delivered in accordance with YOUR values.

Robert, are you aware that I’m American, not European? Is PEPFAR somehow paid for from the taxes you pay but not from the taxes I pay?

“It is impossible for a site to be told to stop distributing condoms, or to close because of condom distribution… it would be directly contravening the stated policy of the U.S. government to say that because someone distributes condoms, they cannot receive resources from the U.S. government.”
- Dr. Mark Dybul, US Global AIDS Coordinator

Have any of the countries which are allegedly cowering under the reign of fear had funding cut? (Hint: No.)

The economy of the European Union - which has taken over the funding of UNFPA in the wake of American withdrawal - constitutes 30.3% of world GDP at $13 trillion - about $2 trillion more than the USA. Total PEPFAR funding for all countries (not just Uganda) amounted to $1.6 billion last year. Replacing the entire PEPFAR program, lock stock and barrel, would constitute a smidge over 1/10,000th of the EU’s gross.

I’m kind of thinking that there is, in fact, another set of entities that could provide this contribution, if it’s all that important, and all that scientifically obviously the right approach. The Europeans are just about as rich as we are (a bit less per cap, a bit more overall - and considerably richer net of military expenditures and obligations). If the preferred approach of their government is better than the preferred approach of our government, then let them pay for it. You’re in essence arguing that MY charitable donation should be delivered in accordance with YOUR values.

Nah.

The way you frame the issue implies you think the question is “should the US be sending condoms to Uganda?” But that’s not the main issue here.

The real problem — as even bothering to read the few sentences quoted in my post should have told you — is that countries (not just Uganda) who receive money from PEPFAR are worried that if they teach about condom use or safe sex, the Bush administration will cut off their PEPFAR funding. So even if UNFPA provides funding for safe sex education, people are afraid to take it because they know that UNFPA doesn’t have the budget to completely replace the USA as a funder.

So it’s not a matter of the US saying “we don’t want to pay for condoms.” It’s a matter of people being afraid that if they teach safe sex — REGARDLESS of where the money for that comes from — US funding will be cut off.

In addition, I think it would be better if AIDS prevention money were being spent in ways guided by legitimate science, rather than spent in ways that people who don’t believe in evolution or global warming — that is to say, people who are proven incapable of correctly understanding scientific issues — think is best.

“Primary cause - no. Contributing to making a bad situation worse? Oh yes.”

So, it appears that you’ll concede that the headline is extreme, since (at least to me) it makes the U.S. Government look like the primary cause. Now let me go a bit further. If sending condoms to Uganda is so important, why is it that one actor, the U.S. Federal government, is able to make this call all by itself? As Chief points out, where are the private organizations? I’ll go further - where are the French? The Germans? The Spaniards? The Norweigans? There are a large number of governments, NGOs and private charities that could send condoms and AIDS aid, etc. to Uganda. How is it that the U.S. Federal government is the only actor that has any responsibility here?

BTW; I say “if sending condoms to Uganda is so important” because given the culture I think it would be very hard for women in that culture to force their men to use them. But that’s an aside to my main argument.

Actually ANY use of force by a human against a human (at least) for rule enforcement DOES implicate the government. The essence of government is a claim of right to a monopoly on the use of force in a certain area. If force is used in that area routinely enough to effectively enforce certain rules, the government is either consenting by not preventing it, or it lacks the power to prevent it, in which case it is failing in being the actual government. This is where feminists have been 100% right in the claim that “the personal is political”, especially in regards to domestic violence and spousal rape. DV is used primarily by husbands to control the behavior of their wives. To the extent that DV continues in a systematic way, the government must either be failing or consenting.

sylphhead, I do not think I agree with you. As for your examples, with most animals and certainly with plants, the use of force is not in the service of enforcing rules, maintaining the credibility of a threat. It is usually just a use of force to achieve a direct gain, although there are some cases with animals where the use of force is in the service of rule enforcement. Mammals protecting their self-defined territory from others of their species is an obvious case, as well as a good description of most human wars.

But the main objection I have to claiming that all rules are backed by force is that among humans, there are many rules that are enforced through the use of freedom of association. Unincorporated associations and amateur team sports involve many rules, and the ultimate “punishment” for continued violations is being expelled from the group or game, that is, the others in the game or organization decide to stop interacting with you as if you are part of their group or game. This non-violent method of rule enforcement is also used to enforce many implicit, unverbalized, rules in social situations. It is “enforcement”, but I would not call it “force”.

In the absence of government, any entity that has to enforce any rule for any reason, good or bad, must back it up with force. (Of course, any entity that carves out rules in the absence of government in effect becomes a new government, but I’ll stick to using the word as we understand it in this context.)

But otherwise, very nice formulation.

As for your main concern, Chief, I’m a bit on the fence w/r/t foreign aid myself, though I don’t feel up to going to it in detail at the moment. It’ll have to wait for later, I guess.