Pregnancy, Sex Education and TV

Both Ron Dorfman and Charles C. Munroe III (Letters, Dec. 17) argue that mainly because of the Catholic influence manufacturers are being denied commercial time on television, thereby keeping teenagers, homosexuals, and others in the dark about condoms, their main purpose (birth control) and their side effects (prevention of sexual diseases). Balderdash, indeed.

Do these men also believe that without commercials women wouldn’t konw about the feminine hygiene products available to them? Balderdash again.

Can they also really believe that because the Catholic Church considers homosexuality and artificial means of birth control immoral that no Catholic becomes a homosexual or uses the pill or condoms? How much balderdash can one stand?

Even the most naive teenager of the ‘30s, Catholic or not, knew what condoms were and their purpose without the instruction of television, radio or newspaper advertising. In these enlightened days one would have to have no television set or be a complete recluse not to know all there is to know about these matters, since condoms are discussed on just about every newscast, as well as in every published article about AIDS.

Commercials would only educate us as to which manufacturer produces the best product. One can only imagine the video portion of such proof of reliability.

I say spare us from such needlesss education on ridiculously competitive commercials.

MARJORIE R. PARK

Ramona