Originally posted by Alexander the GreatSafe sex is not all that safe.
Alexander the Great
Actually, the link you posted is to a conservative Christian organization whose main agenda is anti-choice and whose secondary agenda is anti-birth control. I think I'll stick to the facts, thanks. Give me a link from the WHO or a non Christian/Catholic affiliated site and I'll take it seriously.
For instance, obne of the "facts" cited on that page is this:"3. "The rubber comprising latex condom has intrinsic voids about 5 microns in size." The HIV virus is 0.1 micron. Roland, Rubber World. June 1993. Roland and Sobieski, Rubber Chemistry and Technology. Vol. 62, 1989."
and"9. In one test, 33% of latex condoms leaked HIV sized particles. Sexually Transmitted Diseases. vol.19. 1992"
This is basically the same "fact". Of course, what they don't tell you is that the HIV virus only exists in fluids whose particle size is far greater than the largest of holes in the latex, meaning that it's 100% impossible for the virus to cross the barrier (it doesn't transfer between fluids across the barrier, either). But of course that
fact goes against their agenda, so they let you be misled into thinking that a condom is a sieve.
And then there's this one:"4. Condoms reduce the risk of HIV infection by about 70% if they are used "consistently and correctly" IPPF (International Planned Parenthood Federation) Medical Bulletin Feb. 1997."
First of all, IPPF is another Conservative Christian organization with the same anti safe-sex agenda. The number is completely out of their hole, with no scientific study to back it up.
While the number is absolutely not accurate, it is true that condoms reduce the risk of HIV infection, especially when used properly. But who is it that doesn't want schools to teach kids how to use condoms properly? The very same Christians!
"Condoms need to be used properly to be effective."
"We can't teach our kids how to use condoms at school, because [misperception here] that would lead to promiscuity!"
Add those two things together, with the fact that kids will
have sex against their parents' guidance, and you can see what happens.
I don't even need to go on. Only an idiot would believe that condoms are not safe protection against HIV and other STDs."11. IPPF indicates that the risk of contracting AIDS during so-called 'protected sex' approaches 100 percent as the number of episodes of sexual intercourse increases. Cates Medical Bulletin, IPPF 1997."
Uh. Basic math. The limit of any chance at all is 100%, so even if there's one fault in a million, this statement would be true. Of course, IPPF thinks condoms only make sex 70% safer. My chances of winning the lottery approach 100% as the number of tickets I buy increases as well."12. The only sure ways to avoid sexual transmission of diseases (including AIDS, chlamydia, genital herpes, genital warts, gonorrhoea, hepatitis B, and syphilis) are not to have sex at all or to limit sex to one uninfected partner who is also monogamous. Food and Drug Administrationc (USA) Consumer Magazine Sep 1990."
This is true. But it is also misleading. There's never any way for us to be 100% sure any partner is uninfected. There had to be a first encounter with that partner, no? The only way to be sure is to not have sex at all (even then one might get raped or be exposed to infected blood). But not having sex is unnatural and unhealthy.
If you really want me to dispute all
of the data on that bogus link, I have no doubt I can do it. If you insist, I will. Give me a few days, though, as I have to get to work today and won't be online tomorrow.
Oh, and here's the web page banner for your "source" rolleyes: