Condoms

Remove all ads!

Hypothesis:

Condoms are an effective way of preventing unwanted pregnancies and STD spreading.

I do not intend to prove the validity of this, for the sake of the argument, I will assume it is true a priori, as I will aim to debunk it.


Premises:

1. Best possibility:
http://www.plannedparenthood.com/pp2/portal/files/portal/medicalinfo/birthcontrol/pub-condom.xml
PP discloses that PI for condoms is ca. 15 for typical cases and ca. 2 for perfect cases. I will only assume perfect cases in further discussion.
2. HIV data
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV#Structure_of_the_virus
2a. HIV has a diameter of 120 nm.
2b. HIV finds itself in spermatic liquid and is transferred in any possible kind of intercourse involving penetration (including what PP describes as "outercourse")
3. Sperm data
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sperm#Sperm_structure_and_size
One sperm cell has 5 µm widest size for purposes of this argument.
4. More prevalent STDs.
http://www.who.int/vaccine_research/diseases/hpv/en/
4a. Human papillomavirus causes cervical cancer which is the second most prevalent reason of death of cancer among women (after breast cancer) and HPV is much more prevalent than HIV as well. 20 million Americans are carriers, and 5.5 million infections are reported each year. HIV infections pale by comparison:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV#History
4b. 45 million people worldwide live with HIV, 25 million of which live in sub-Saharan Africa, and the rest is distributed worldwide, with developed countries having largely contained HIV spread.
Treatment of HPV is currently impossible
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_papillomavirus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cervical_cancer#Pathophysiology
4c. Among half of the patients, HPV infection is invisible, and infection is most common through contact of genital area skin, not necessarily penetration.

Textbook premises:
5. Sperm cells, in order to live and move, require spermatic liquid.
6. Sperm cells cause fertilisation of an egg.


Synthesis:

A: 2a+3. HIV is ca. 40 times smaller than a sperm cell for purposes of moving through a barrier.
B: 1. Sperm cells are able to move through the barrier created by a condom even with perfect usage in at least 2% cases. In reality, assuming that fertilisation may occur only during ovulation, with intercourse(s) in circum-ovulation period, which occurs at most, in very seldom cases, 33% of a given PI statistic woman-year (10 days each month), and that even during circum-ovulation period fertilisation occurs only 40% of the time, we end up with the following equation:
2%=33%×40%×X, where X is the percentage of situations during which sperm cells must have moved through the barrier. X=2%÷(0,33×0,4)>15%
In the worst case, assuming that a woman has circum-ovulation period of only ca. 4 days (poor mucus quality, low mucus secretion, short fertile quality mucus times, etc.), and her period occurs only 9 times per year, the situation is even worse. X=2%÷(0,1×0,4)=50%.
In any case, the average condom failure rate ranks somewhere between 15% and 45%. Assuming that any PI test should be perfectly representative, there may be infertile women in the test as well, and any fertility or period disorders play a role in the test.
C: B+5+6. In 15–50% of cases, spermatic liquid, containing sperm cells, gets through the mechanical barrier created by the condom.
D: A+C. If sperm cells are able to move through, so can HIV, which is 40 times linearly smaller.
E: 4a+4c. Even if a condom works flawlessly, you can get infected with HPV and other STD agents through skin contact.


Summary:

It had been used as a premise that a condom is not an effective pregnancy prevention contraceptive since 2% does not mean high effectiveness.
It had been proven that HIV can move along with sperm cells in the spermatic liquid through a barrier created by a condom at least two times in 100 woman-years, and in reality this occurence may be much more frequent.
It had been shown that there are STDs which do not require penetration to cause an infection.


Thesis:

A condom is not an effective protection against unwanted pregnancy, neither is it an effective agent agains STDs, QED.

Furthermore, as it creates an illusion of “safety,” which may cause an observation of an even greater virulence due to creating a culture of promiscuity in a couple (who do not abstain from sex), or in a broader sense, in a society.

 

Hmmm, as always, all I have to go on is my own personal experience.

And as I am not keen (and you should be glad of this) to go into my own personal experiences in this area, all I will say is that, in my experience, they have proven 100% safe against unwanted pregnancy. In addition, NOT using them has been 100% effective in causing pregnancy.

That's probably already 'too much information' so I'll stop there.

 

Ditto HB, on all counts.

 

They used to be illegal in Ireland (with any form of birth control save the 'rhythm method'!), but shortly after they were legal, teenage pregnancy hit record levels! Thankfully these levels have come down, but it just goes to show you that its more society than anything else. If you are a virgin in the western world after the age of 15 you are a 'pathetic loser'

 

Which western world would that be? Certainly isn't the one I live in.

 

It takes a pathetic loser to go sleep with someone irrelevant in order to get rid of virginity ASAP and be able to point finger at friends and brag "you virgin".

 

Condoms did their work just fine for me, they prevented me from any awkward situations. There will always be a few incidents i guess, but noone or nobody is perfect.

 

About HIV transmission - from one of the websites you linked to:

Oh and BTW:

How do you reckon they did that then?


EDIT: Just noticed that I agree with Chev about something... What is the world coming to

 

Oh, I don't know. Perhaps it was screening blood and transplant donors, perhaps it was the consciousness regarding usage of one-time needles, perhaps it was fear which prevented people from getting too promiscuous? What? You expected me to say "condoms"? They were in widespread use since the 50s, and I fail to see whether they helped contain AIDS.
Furthermore, look at Uganda's example. They were able to contain AIDS without promoting condoms at all. The following BBC article is false:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4392941.stm
And Mrs. Janet Museveni has been misquted. They have indeed dropped any condom promotion. I had read an interview with her, but after having formatted my hard drive, I don't have it in my bookmarks...

Yeah, I noticed that text too. However, the problem is, how is it possible for sperm to get through and impossible for HIV? Furthermore, there is a problem with methodology, as I have not read the original book. The fact is, I have read a university (Jagiellonian) textbook on AIDS prevention through use of condoms. Since the book's author is not yet accredited abroad, there's no point in me searching for the book, and mentioning the author. She summarises research on couples in which one of the partners tested positive, having divided them into two samples. One of them used condoms in every intercourse and the other one never used condoms (she found partners that were unwilling to use them, but wanted to continue having sex). In the group that never used condoms, the inevitable happened: both partners in ca. 98% of all couples were tested positive, and somewhere towards the middle of the second year, all of them were tested HIV-positive. However, in the group that always used condoms, after one year, it was something unthinkable. Both partners in 80% of the couples were infected, and after two years—100%. There was no point in continuing research afterwards, and the conclusion was simple: condoms do not prevent transmission of HIV, but only delay it, and not indefinitely, but she stated a definite borderline of two years. Of course, further research on an even greater sample is needed (assuming there's no point in repeating the representative sample of potential for HIV transmission in couples that do not use condoms), but for me, that research shows that condoms cannot be an effective method of preventing HIV spread.

 

Jagiellonian? Oh, Poland... Oh I see...

Erm.. Anyway the point is that the scientific consensus is that HIV transmission is greatly reduced by the use of latex condoms (but I would be curious to see any evidence to the contrary). As to your question: ' how is it possible for sperm to get through and impossible for HIV' well, of course it isn't impossible. However, reducing the exchange of fluids, direct contact between abrasions and sores can all contribute to lessen the risk of HIV transmission.

Remember, nobody is claiming that condoms are 100% efficient. But neither are seat belts or motorcycle helmets.

 

I join HB and Rally in saying condoms have worked exactly as advertised for me. No unwanted preganancies or veneral diseases in my wild years. No unwanted preganancies during marriage. As soon as we decided to have a kid we stopped using condoms, and viola we had one.

I totally respect people who are able to maintain their virginity. I don't understand it, but I respect it .

 

I've had a scare, so from now on it's protection all the way. But, I don't use a johnny. My girlfriend has an injection every so often now. I don't pretend to know what it's all about, but as long as it stops me having a time of lost sleep again, that's what we'll keep doing.
Until we are both ready to be parents. I'd like a wee little Barmy or a wee little Barmette, but not yet.

 

I'd take an interest. Nothing is 100%, short of not doing it. Personally I use the pill (well she does) and condom method for double protection, given how a baby would effect both our lives (Im against abortion) I consider the minor annoance of having to use rubber aceptable.

 

Sadly the rubber isnt a minor annoyance, it is a major one. I personally more or less prefer to refrain from sex than to use the little rubber bag, ie waiting with sex until you are reasonable sure that the lady in question isnt riddled with disease and is on the pill or the ecquivalent thereof.

It should be a must for anyone who feels like taking people home from the club and the like and for any casual relations but seeing as that isnt my thang I doubt I will be in that situation any time soon.

However, I am carrying a rubber with me always just in case the woman of my dreams sits down next to me on the bus and we start talking and everything is sweet and we decide to run off to her place for a cup of tea (cant go my place, it is worse than a pigsty). That scenario is not very likely though.

 

I think if I wasn't so against abortion I would also be happy with just the missus on the pill. However, like I said nothing is 100% certain, and either abortion or pregnancy are NOT options at this moment in time. Maybe when I've finished university, masters and bar etc but certainly not now.

 

Condoms do work, and are reasonably safe in containing unwanted pregnancies as well as whatever mother nature else has in store for us. As for the rest, I'm completely with Rally.

I find your thread amusing toughluck. You try to rationalise that evil condoms are also useless, and for that (too) should not be used. Which is just hilarious.

More straighforward you should have titled your thread "Why there is no alternative for 'no sex until marriage'"

There is.

 

I have been absent for some time from the boards, but this is a perfect thread for me to return on and throw in my two bits. Actually, I have several bits to throw in.

1: Condoms work in the sense that they cut down on the risk of both pregnancy and STDs. On that basis, I'm all for their use.

2: There is a deeper issue than just those two risks, however -- I do not believe that sex is merely a physical action -- there are psychological, emotional and social consequences to engaging in sex. On that basis, I do not believe that we should provide condoms in schools or advocate sexual behaviour in teens -- we should educate them that millenia of experience has demonstrated that abstinence during the teen years is a socially desirable policy.

3: That said, I'm not a moron -- I know teens will have sex, they've been doing it for millenia. I just don't think that schools should supply them with the tools to do it with.

4: Personally speaking, I hate them (condoms that is, not teens). I don't care what the experts say, it inhibits the full joy of the act.

5: Finally, I'm all for sending condoms to the third world -- they need to get their birth rate down for a few decades minimum so they can stabilize their societies and move into the modern world.
There; 5 bits

 

Thinking about your criticisms once again, toughluck ... condoms letting through sperm (thus not preventing pregnancy), condoms let through nasty virusses of all kind (thus not preventing STD)... what harm is it using them then anyway?

As condoms, as you suggest, are useless, dangerous even, using them is about as bad or dangerous as having sex unprotected.

Your problem in this thread actually is other people having sex at all, something you, as far as I recall your previous posts and threads, seem constantly upset about.

 

I think this comment sums things up nicely. Seatbelts don't prevent all deaths, but the fact that they are not 100% effective does not mean that people should only drive when there are no other cars on the raod.