Do you trust condoms?

[an7222]

Would you make sex using condoms with somebody you knew beforehand he/she had aids?

 

[Caitlin.ann]

Of course I wouldn't. I trust condoms to a certain extent, but not to THAT extent. Although I don't use those latex contraptions as is..

 

[TexasSky]

Nope.
I have friends who got pregnant while using them, and aids is much easier to get than pregnant is.

 

[Ryal Kane]

To be honest, probably not.
While condoms greatly decrease the risk of STD transmission, nobody is saying they're perfect. The direct foreknowledge of a woman having AIDS would unfortunately make me overly cautious. For me personally, penetrative sex just isn't worth that risk.

However if someone MIGHT have AIDS, then it always makes sense to use a condom. Furthermore, There are a lot of people who would have sex with someone with AIDS and they should certainly use a condom.

There was a documentary I saw last week about the rise of the disease. You have my condolences for the ravaging effect it has had on your country.

 

[flicka]

No. I would risk pregnancy but not AIDS.

 

[an7222]

UNITED NATIONS, June 23, 2003 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The United Nations AIDS
agency (UNAIDS) has published a draft of a study, due out at the end of the month, which shows that condoms are ineffective in protecting against HIV an estimated 10% of the time. The admission from the UN, which is far lower than some studies which have shown larger than 50% failure rates, is a blow to population control activists which have aggressively and misleadingly marketed condoms in the third world as 100% effective.

The Boston Globe, which reviewed the draft report, demonstrates the false marketing of the notorious population control advocacy group, Population Action International (PAI). A September 2002 report, ''Condoms Count,'' published by PAI, said, ''Public health experts around the globe agree that condoms block contact with bodily fluids that can carry the HIV virus and have nearly 100 percent effectiveness when used correctly and consistently.''

The report examined two decades of scientific literature on condoms and UNAIDS says lead author Norman Hearst, "makes a cogent argument that we should be talking about safer sex, not safe sex, with condoms."

The Globe quotes Edward C. Green, a senior research scientist at the Harvard School of Public Health, saying, the one in ten failure rate of condoms protection from AIDS, is "not good enough for a fatal disease." "He said, "The way condoms are marketed in Africa and other developing parts of the world is as if they were 100 percent safe. Condoms have brand names like Shield and Protector that gives the impression that they are 100 percent safe."

Vinand M. Nantulya, a former advisor to Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni, warned, "If we tell youth that if you use condoms, you will be safe, then we are actually fueling the epidemic." Uganda's AIDS fighting program, which stressed abstinence first and being faithful second and condoms only if one was crazy enough to forego the first two, has been seen as the only successful program in reversing the AIDS tide in Africa.

Aside from AIDS, condoms are also known to provide even less protection from a variety of other sexually transmitted diseases.

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2003/jun/03062303.html

 

[Blayz]

UNITED NATIONS, June 23, 2003 (LifeSiteNews.com)

Hmm...do I trust a fundy website as a source of epidemiological information....that would be no.

And given Uganda's HIV prevelance in 2005 was 6.7%, up 2% from the last year and putting Uganda in as one of the worst affected countires, I don't believe the ministerial advisors comments either.

an7222, is that atheist icon a ruse?

Anyone interested in the actual facts rather than exploitative religious based evil life destroying propaganda should visit the UNAIDS website itself.

Here's a good starting point
http://www.unaids.org/en/HIV_data/Epidemiology/epi_slides.asp

 

[TeddyKGB]

Abstinence first, being faithful second? Even in a monogamous relationship?

 

[Snowbunny]

i think that's meant to be understood in seriatum... *don't laugh* i don't actually know how to use a condom... but i couldn't imagine that latex could completely prevent aids or pregnancy.

 

[WatersMoon110]

Only if it was my husband. But that is just for me personally.

If I hypothetically weren't married and monogamous, I probably wouldn't risk safer sex with someone who I knew had AIDS, or even just HIV. I have, in the past, had sex with people who had not been tested for HIV, and so I (of course) used a condom. Anyone who has had sex might have HIV (though it is unlikely in most countries) so it is always best to use a condom!

 

[quatona]

Since I read a comic book about a killercondom that bites off peoples willies I don´t trust condoms anymore.

 

[Vene]

I'd trust using a condom more than forgoing any protection.

 

[JadeTigress]

Heck no. I don't trust condoms anyway, and don't ever plan on using them except as a last resort. Good thing I'm not promiscuous. But just the mere chance of it breaking is enough to make me paranoid and never use them. So there's no way I'd risk the thing breaking and then me being stuck with the AIDS.

Pool's closed.

(Reps for whoever gets that )

 

[TeddyKGB]

i think that's meant to be understood in seriatum... *don't laugh* i don't actually know how to use a condom... but i couldn't imagine that latex could completely prevent aids or pregnancy.

The only complaints I have seen that condoms are not foolproof or 100% effective have come from sex-haters (my term of endearment for abstinence-crazed zealots). No one who actually promotes condom use seems to be operating under that delusion.

In any case, all this doomsaying is silly. It's as if the sex-haters expect us to believe that an 80% effectiveness rate (or whatever it would be for condoms) would promote so much more indiscriminate sex as to cause an increase in STD transmission.

 

[RavenPoe]

The Great Habbo Raid of July 12, 2006

I trust my car's safety features, but it'd still be stupid to intentionally drive 50mph into a brick wall.

 

[Snowbunny]

The only complaints I have seen that condoms are not foolproof or 100% effective have come from sex-haters (my term of endearment for abstinence-crazed zealots). No one who actually promotes condom use seems to be operating under that delusion.

In any case, all this doomsaying is silly. It's as if the sex-haters expect us to believe that an 80% effectiveness rate (or whatever it would be for condoms) would promote so much more indiscriminate sex as to cause an increase in STD transmission.

lol well... abstinence does result in 100% effectiveness of not contracting an STD through sex. i'm confused why you would be so proud of yourself for regularly leaning on insults as an argument crutch... but to each his own.

i think that the OP's question isn't a social question, it's one of personal safety. if you want to risk being in the 20% failure category to make your point about contraceptives in the larger social context be my guest... it appears that when given the choice of relying on condoms to not get AIDS most people here would rather not... as an issue of personal safety.

que Dios te bendiga

 

[Atheuz]

I never had any partners with STDs, and even if I did(Had some that I didn't ask), but I'd likely avoid them even if I know condoms only have a 7% chance of breaking.

Heck no. I don't trust condoms anyway, and don't ever plan on using them except as a last resort. Good thing I'm not promiscuous. But just the mere chance of it breaking is enough to make me paranoid and never use them. So there's no way I'd risk the thing breaking and then me being stuck with the AIDS.

Pool's closed.

(Reps for whoever gets that )

Give rep anon, I'll bump you up some 2k in exchange

 

[PassionFruit]

Well, if condoms don't work then I'm really lucky.

Of course condoms aren't 100% but as I've said before, when they're used properly and consistently then they're very effective. I wouldn't really underestimate it's effectiveness. Besides, it's better than not using any protection at all.

And condoms don't break as much as people think. The failure rate of condoms is about 2-3%. This is when they're used correctly.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs243/en/
http://unworkplace.unaids.org/UNAIDS/basics/condoms/effectiveness-of-condoms.shtml
http://www.trojancondoms.com/default.aspx?jumpFrame=health_center

But even when you're using condoms it is still important to get tested for STD's.

 

[trunks2k]

oops I misread. I shoulda read the question fully before answering.

Emotionally, no I wouldn't trust them, and emotions often outweigh reason. The consequences ( a long and painful terminal disease) is not worth the risk, even if it is very small, in this case.

Logically, however I do. Studies have been done between groups of people that have used condoms correctly and inconsistently and groups that did not. The couples in the studies each had one partner that was HIV positive. The groups that used condoms cosistently and correctly had no transmissions.

Condoms are incredibly effective against HIV transmission provided they are used correctly.

 

[TeddyKGB]

lol well... abstinence does result in 100% effectiveness of not contracting an STD through sex.

It's difficult for me to contextualize the disdain I have for the notion that organisms evolved for the purpose of sexual reproduction should simply abstain from sex en masse.

i'm confused why you would be so proud of yourself for regularly leaning on insults as an argument crutch... but to each his own.

"Regularly leaning on insults"? I needed a term to refer to that group. Yes, it's insulting, but it's not like I am using it in lieu of an argument.

i think that the OP's question isn't a social question, it's one of personal safety. if you want to risk being in the 20% failure category to make your point about contraceptives in the larger social context be my guest... it appears that when given the choice of relying on condoms to not get AIDS most people here would rather not... as an issue of personal safety.

The question doesn't even apply to me because I am educated enough to take precautions sufficient to render condom usage for HIV prevention moot. If I discuss it at all, it will be in the larger context of regional epidemics.