Safe Sex, Still a Myth?
Key words: Safe Sex, HIV, AIDS, Herpes, Hepatitis B & C,
sexuality transmitted diseases (STD's), condoms, condom failure,
pregnancy

� by R. L. Tyler on 06/06/99
[email protected],  [email protected],
[email protected]

Safe sex with condoms is still not very safe.  For people married
to people who are HIV positive or AIDS symptomatic, there may
be no other alternative, unless one is really sexually creative
and adaptable. I read the June 1999 issue of Consumer Reports'
article "Condoms get better".  This is what I get out of it, as a
single adult actively seeking a wife, as a father of three
wonderful adult and single daughters, and as a friend of some
wonderful women on the internet.  I don't claim to be error free
in my understanding and representation of what I read in that
article, so read it for yourself if you feel the need.

With 40,000 new American HIV infections per year, with
HIV/AIDS being the number one killer of humans in Africa as
of this year, with the American heterosexual population being
the fastest growing segment of Americans incurring HIV/AIDS,
with HIV/AIDS being the number one killer of American
Blacks/AfAms (male and female) aged 25-40, the seriousness of
the situation is tragically apparent.  A generation is threatened.
The number of widows, widowers and orphans is dramatically
increasing. For any one who treasures one's own life and the
lives of one's own loved ones, great care must be taken to avoid
and minimize this plague, at least in one's own sphere
of influence.

An epidemiologist is quoted as indicating that "seldom" do
condoms fail in the prevention of disease.  Scientifically and
sociologically that is a comforting statement.  Personally it can
be tragically inadequate, especially if you and/or your loved
ones are a part of that population that condoms failed to protect
from STD's like herpes, HIV, syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia,
Hepatitis B and C.   I understand the article to state that two of
thirty tested condom products failed their tests this year.  That
kind of information is small comfort if you and/or your loved
ones are a part of that population that condoms failed to protect
from STD's like herpes, HIV,  syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia,
Hepatitis B and C.

There is even a problem with quality control and truth in
labeling. I understand the article to indicate that the FDA
mandated expiration date on condoms can't be relied on.
Ideally  nonspermicide condoms are okay  for five years from
the  date of manufacture.  I understand the article to imply that
some of the five year old condoms (from 1995) they tested this
year failed their inflation test, and to warn users to carefully
observe expiration dates, and to not use condoms that have
become "sticky or brittle" even though they have not reached
their expiration date.  I would consider it to an exceptional
and remarkable couple that could take the time to carefully
examine a condom for stickiness and brittleness in the heat of
passion as she is there before him in all the glorious beauty of
her femininity and he has the roaring and exploding forces of
testosterone and adrenalin raging through his heart and mind.


I understand the article to indicate that of the women who
conscientiously and scrupulously  use  condoms for a year, 2 or
3 females in 100 still get pregnant in that year of scrupulous
and conscientious condom use. I understand the article to state
that of the women who less than conscientiously use condoms
for a year,14 females in 100 still get pregnant in that year of
less than conscientious condom use.  Now it is a fact that a
sperm is about100 times bigger than an HIV.  If the sperm got
through to effect pregnancy at the rates indicated above, do you
get a picture of how grossly the condoms failed to protect them
from STD's including HIV, Hep. C etc.  The journey of the sperm
to the uterus and fertilization is much more difficult and failure
prone than the passage of the STD virus through the irritated
and inflamed mucous membrane of the vagina, penis, mouth
and/or anus of two energetic and vigorous lovers.

What does that 2 or 3 and 14 per 100 failure rate mean for the
users of condoms?  Just for the sake of argument let's say that
there are 25 million condom using couples in America each
year, 50 million people.

** Conscientious and scrupulous use
---------2 or 3 ----------------- per 100 people
---------20 to 30 thousand per --- one million people
---------500 to 750 thousand per - 25 million people
--500 - 750 thousand people possibly exposed to STD's

** Less Conscientious and scrupulous use
---------14 ----------------- per 100 people
---------140 thousand per ----- one million people
---------3,500,000 per ------- 25 million people
-- 3.5 million people possibly exposed per 25 mil. people.

***500 to 3.5 million mothers, sisters, daughters; dads,
brothers and sons; husbands, wives, sweethearts; and
grandparents and grandchildren exposed to STD's while using
condoms.

Figuring that one of each couple is not infected with
STD's that means that from 500,000 to 3,500,000 people
per 25 million people per year were potentially exposed
to STD's because of the user failure rate of today's condoms.
That's a lot of people.  If you are one of those people, even
though you are a part of a 2 out of 100 or 14 out of 100
minority, you are an infected person who has much trouble,
suffering and sorrow ahead of you because you trusted a
condom to protect you.  Dead is dead and being a part of a
small minority won't make you taste any better to the worms
and bacteria that consume your dead body.

Now if those statistics and images have thrilled you to new
heights, wait until you get the scoop on condom slips and
breaks. The way I read the article is that even with correct use
of the condom it will break 2% of the time, and will slip off at
least 1% of the time.  Sounds pretty good, doesn't it?  Let's look
at it in terms of human life, people.

**Condom failure (slipping off, breaking etc.) during correct use:
----------3 condom failures per ------------100
-------30,000 condom failures per ----------- 1 million
------750,000 condom failures per ----------- 25 million

***750,000 mothers, sisters, daughters; dads, brothers and sons;
husbands, wives and sweethearts; and grandparents and
grandchildren exposed to STD's while using condoms ---- per 25
mil. users.

According to the article, the manufacturers make a legitimate
effort to prevent ineffective condoms from getting out to the
consumers.  On the assembly line a charged metal form is
inserted into each condom.  If there are any holes in the
condom, sparks fly and the condom is trashed. But think about
it.  If a good condom can be inflated with 16 liters (four gallons)
of air and not leak, that  means have a great stretching capacity.
It appears that Consumer Report maintains that they feel that
the 25 liter inflation mark is crucial in the prediction of condom
failure during usage. That means if they are not inflated, but
are simply placed over a metal form, then  all of that stretching
capacity is pressed back in on itself and all that excess condom
material would overlap and close off micron size holes, holes big
enough for viral STD's to pass through.  Those tiny holes
wouldn't show up on the metal form testing procedure. Only
inflation, vigorous use or being filled with water would reveal
those holes.  So the metal form test would only catch the largest
holes.

I understand this article to state that the state of Maryland
gave condoms to certain middle and high schools in Baltimore
and they were tested this year with the minimal 16 liter
inflation test. When tested this year, 5% could not even pass this
minimal 16 liter (as opposed to the 25 liter) test. An
insignificant failure rate? Put it in terms of sons, daughters,
grandson, granddaughters, nephews, nieces, uncles and aunts.

*Five per 100 breaks/failures
------5 condom failures ----------- per 100 condoms tested
---50000 condom failures ---------per one million tested
**50,000 young people possibly exposed to deadly viral STD's

How would you like to be one of those 50,000 young people?
What if one of those young people were your son, daughter,
grandson, granddaughters, nephews or niece?  We are dealing
with lives, not just percentages.

It appears that skin condoms do not provide protection against
viral STD's; that polyurethane condoms and female condoms
have not been sufficiently studied to provide a report on their
effectiveness. The Consumer Report article included a 1998
report on "Contraceptive failures" made by Hatcher in New
York's Ardent Media. The way I read the chart's figures on the
failure of condoms to protect their users against pregnancy and
STD's is as follows:

*1. Male condom use failure
-------13 failures to protect/prevent -------per 100 users
-----130,000 failures to protect/prevent per 1 million users
-----3,250,000 failures to protect/prevent per 25 mil. users
*2. Female condom use failure
------20 failures to protect/prevent -------- per 100 users
----200,000 failures to protect/prevent -- per 1 million users
---5,000,000 failures to protect/prevent per 25 mil. users

Any realistic evaluation of this data has to line up with  the
statement  made by Consumer Reports in its June 1999 report,
that properly used condoms, condoms used correctly every time
during sexual contact, "will help protect against diseases and
pregnancy".  They could not state that condoms so used WILL
PROTECT AGAINST DISEASES AND PREGNANCY.  Condoms can
only HELP "protect against diseases and pregnancy".  Yes
condoms do help a vast majority escape diseases and
pregnancy, but it fails to protect the grandmothers, mothers,
aunts, daughters, nieces, granddads, dads, uncles, sons and
nephews who are that small minority (numbering in the
thousands and millions) that are the victims of condom failure.
It's great that 88% - 97% may not be affected, but if you are in
the 3% -12% that are infected due to product or user failure, the
well being of the majority will be small comfort as your body is
ravaged by deadly diseases.

Please see my file "Safe_Sex.txt" and the "Plight_of_the_Black_
Female/Family.txt" at my web sites or request it by e-mail.
Please join me in the Herculean task of trying to save a remnant
of the next generation.  Please don't succumb to the liberal
environmental notion that these diseases are beneficial because
they keep the global population down.  Selfishness, greed,
avarice and heartless capitalism/ethnocentricity (as opposed to
compassionate capitalism/ethnocentricity) are the cause of
starvation and homelessness in America and the Third World.
May we not be heartless fools and sacrifice , by disease etc., a
generation of loved ones on the altar of selfishness, greed,
avarice and heartless capitalism/ethnocentricity.
Peace,
Tyler

These documents are available at
[email protected]   or [email protected]
or [email protected]
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Troy/6916/MFile_Index99.t
xt
http://www.mindspring.com/users/~oldservant
http://www.mindspring.com/~oldservant/
ftp.mindspring.com; User: Anonymous; Password: your email
address;
Directory: /users/oldservant
http://www.etext.org/Religious.Texts/Polyamory
http://www.etext.org/Religious.texts/Polyamory
ftp: www.etext.org; User: Anonymous; Password: Your email add

You are viewing proxied material from infinitelyremote.com. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.