Price of Condoms

Cremo wrote:

well i wouldn't want to be using the salt and vinegar one not inside out. :eek:

idd. and the other one just gives a new defination to "knob cheese"

..I'll get my coat...

Spyral wrote:

Condoms lead to a false sense of security and are only 85% effective against diseases in practice

A report by America's National Institute for Health in 2001 put the efficacy of the condom in preventing HIV infection at 85 per cent, and that only if it is used correctly and consistently all the time.

No, it didn't say that.

Firstly, the research referred to was a study of sero-discordant, sexually active heterosexual couples ... i.e. couples where one partner was already HIV positive. For most people, every time they have sex is not with a HIV positive person.

Secondly, the figures for usage of a condom "100% of the time" were, obviously enough, based on self-reporting ... unavoidable, but self-reporting is not the most accurate method, especially in studies of contraceptive usage.

Thirdly, even at that, the study did NOT say what the letter-writer you quote claims it said. What the study actually said is this:

Condom usage was classified into the following three categories always (100% use), sometimes, and never. Among participants who reported always using condoms, the summary estimate of HIV/AIDS incidence from the twelve studies was 0.9 seroconversion per 100 person years. Among those who reported never using condoms, the summary estimate of HIV/AIDS incidence from the seven studies was 6.7 seroconversions per 100 person years. Overall, Davis and Weller estimated that condoms provided an 85% reduction in HIV/AIDS transmission risk when infection rates were compared in always versus never users.

In other words, for every 100 couples having sex repeatedly through the course of a year, using condoms every time (according to themselves), and where one partner was already HIV-positive, only 0.9% of the HIV-negative partners became HIV-positive.

By comparison, for every 100 similar couples having sex repeatedly through the course of a year, but who never used condoms, 6.7 of the initially HIV-negative partners became HIV negative.

Those who used condoms were therefore considered 85% less likely to become HIV-positive, among couples (with one partner already HIV-positive) who were having sex only with each other.

"0.9 seroconversion per 100 person years" ... hmm, that would suggest to me that the evidence actually suggested that, if using a condom, there was less than 1% chance of contracting HIV despite having sex consistently with a HIV-positive partner for a 100 years.

Tbh, even I would be dubious that they are that effective ... but I certainly don't think it argues that ...

Spyral wrote:

Condoms lead to a false sense of security and are only 85% effective against diseases in practice

Unfortunately, people often misquote and pick out random figures out of scientific studies to further their own agendas ... as with the letter-writer you quote.

I'm not going to argue with you that total abstinence isn't a better prevention against AIDS than condoms ... just as living on the Great Blasket for the rest of your life would be an excellent way to avoid getting killed in a car crash. And some people will follow that path (abstinence, I mean!) for moral, religious or other reasons, and fair play to them, that is their choice ... what I object to is when they try to influence other peoples choices by misrepresentation and scaremongering, as with the writer of the letter you quoted. I didn't have to go far to find the other side of the story ... I just followed the link you gave, and the links from that page!

This couple’s first mistake was giving up on using a condom; condoms are 98 per cent effective at preventing pregnancy and around 70-85 per cent effective at preventing sexually transmitted infections, when used correctly

Ok, following the link you gave, this is a quote from a student newspaper "Agony Aunt" type columnist ... but no matter. What I really want to point out is that she says "sexually transmitted infections", not AIDS ... condoms will do SFA to prevent crabs or genital lice, for example, no such claim has ever been made!!

Again, I am not knocking abstinence as a preventative for STIs ... it works, of course it works ... and I have the utmost respect for those who make that choice. But it is not everybody's choice, and those who don't make it have a right to respect for their choice.

While condoms may reduce the risk of infection, they can never eliminate it. The fact remains: the greater the practice of casual sex, the higher the risk.

Now that bit I can actually agree with! Condoms are not 100% effective ... everyone should know that ... but they are the best preventative against STIs available to those who are neither abstinent nor solely involved in a long-term monogamous relationship. As I said in my earlier post, I personally believe they should be as accessible as possible to everyone who is sexually active, or likely to be.