Condom Use Revisited

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
I was reading a printed article last night on a study from the World Health Organization that concluded condom use is 90% effective in stopping the transmission of HIV. Stupid me, I didn't bring the article in to research it, but I did manage to find the initial findings from WHO, entitled "Scientific Evidence on Condom Effectiveness for Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) Prevention."



http://www.niaid.nih.gov/dmid/stds/condomreport.pdf



The key quote from this article is:



Quote:

Information on consistent and correct condom use for the prevention of pregnancy has also provided valuable insights on the importance of consistent use. Approximately 3% of couples who reported using condoms consistently and correctly (considered "perfect use") are estimated to experience an unintended pregnancy during the first year of use (123), based on results of one rigorous controlled trial as well as modeling based on rates of condom breakage and slippage. In a recent well-controlled randomized clinical trial of monogamous couples using latex male condoms for contraception over six months, the pregnancy rate during ?typical use? was reported at 6.3%, with a 1.1% pregnancy rate during ?consistent use? (45). Most of these couples had experience using condoms. However, based on estimates from National Surveys of Family Growth (123), 14% of couples are estimated to experience an unintended pregnancy during the first year of ?typical? use, a failure rate that includes both inconsistent (non-use) and incorrect use, as well as breakage and slippage. Failure rates in the second year of typical use are about 50% lower (167).



Now, if you were offered a job where you had a 1 in 10 chance of being shot, would you consider that a safe job?



WHO needs to stop spewing garbage. They need to:



1) Take a firm position; Unmarried people must practice abstinence. Couples must be checked for HIV at marriage. Couples must practice monogamy.



2) If you want to be really stupid and die, here are your free condoms (don't stop distributing them until this disease is gone).
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 35
    smirclesmircle Posts: 1,035member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Jukebox Hero





    Now, if you were offered a job where you had a 1 in 10 chance of being shot, would you consider that a safe job?




    Here we go again

    10% likelyhood of getting shot relates to HIV infections from breaking condoms exactly how? And no mumbo-jumbo please - dig up some numbers on the likelyhood of HIV infection, there is a surprise waiting...
  • Reply 2 of 35
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Does discouraging condom use actually reduce sexual activity?

  • Reply 3 of 35
    Quote:

    10% likelyhood of getting shot relates to HIV infections from breaking condoms exactly how? And no mumbo-jumbo please - dig up some numbers on the likelyhood of HIV infection, there is a surprise waiting...



    I will bring the article tomorrow. It discusses HIV in particular. Perhaps in the mean time you can explain to me why you feel that there is no relationship between pregnancy and fluid transfer, and thus HIV?



    Quote:

    Does discouraging condom use actually reduce sexual activity?



    Not sure. Even if not, is it ethical to promote something that is unsafe?
  • Reply 4 of 35
    smirclesmircle Posts: 1,035member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Jukebox Hero

    I will bring the article tomorrow. It discusses HIV in particular. Perhaps in the mean time you can explain to me why you feel that there is no relationship between pregnancy and fluid transfer, and thus HIV?



    I do?

    I am questioning your 10% number and the equation of a fatal event (being shot) with the probability of an infection.



    Whatever, dish up numbers we can discuss. Your first attempt (two weeks back) failed so miserably you had to resort to insults - let's see how you fare this time
  • Reply 5 of 35
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Smircle

    I do?

    I am questioning your 10% number and the equation of a fatal event (being shot) with the probability of an infection.



    Whatever, dish up numbers we can discuss. Your first attempt (two weeks back) failed so miserably you had to resort to insults - let's see how you fare this time




    No, the first attempt was not my failure. People resorted to biggotry and hatred. But thats ancient history. I forgive and move on.



    Dish up numbers? Lets go back and forth on this. You fill in these numbers with what you feel to be reasonable:



    3% failure rate per year

    A$: Years of sexual activity

    B$: Percentage likelyhood of getting HIV from fluid transfer. I have no statistic. Anybody?

    C$: =3% * B$; Percentage likelyhood of getting HIV from condom failure per year

    D$: Percentage likelyhood of getting HIV from condom failure over lifetime of sexual activity. Anybody have a probability and statistics book? Its not C$ * A$.

    E$: Percentage likelyhood of dying from HIV. I don't have a statistic. Anybody?



    But using ballpark numbers of A$=50, B$=30%, therefore c$=0.9%, d$= ??? intuitively seems to be more than 10%, e$= ??? my guess is, in Africa, 99%.
  • Reply 6 of 35
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    I don't think you can reduce responsible practice down to perfect condom use. Condoms should be looked at as a safety net for otherwise sexually dilligent people (how's that for an odd phrase?)



    If people are generally more selective of their sexual partners and have fewer partners/encounters, or limit their encounters to people they know well, then condom use will probably supply that last bit of protection to make their lifestlye as safe as possible.



    If a person is extremely promiscuous, condome use will still do a lot to safe guard their health, but that person's long term outlook is not good. Condoms can only do so much to mitigate high risk behavior.
  • Reply 7 of 35
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Matsu

    I don't think you can reduce responsible practice down to perfect condom use. Condoms should be looked at as a safety net for otherwise sexually dilligent people (how's that for an odd phrase?)



    If people are generally more selective of their sexual partners and have fewer partners/encounters, or limit their encounters to people they know well, then condom use will probably supply that last bit of protection to make their lifestlye as safe as possible.



    If a person is extremely promiscuous, condome use will still do a lot to safe guard their health, but that person's long term outlook is not good. Condoms can only do so much to mitigate high risk behavior.




    I think you hit the nail on the head. And the WHO presents condom use as an alternative to modifying poor life choices.
  • Reply 8 of 35
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Jukebox Hero

    I think you hit the nail on the head. And the WHO presents condom use as an alternative to modifying poor life choices.



    its not the WHO, or anyone other than each individual unto themself, to decide what is a 'poor life choice.'
  • Reply 9 of 35
    One fact to keep in mind: The WHO is not an institution set up to enforce moral codes (i.e. only have sex when you're married and only with that person, abstince only otherwise). It is designed to deal with world health programs. Condoms are a good way of attmepting to protect people from HIV/AIDS. I'm pretty sure that they also encourage people to limit the number of partners and to be careful about who they have sex with. They also try to remind people that condoms are never 100% effective. However, they have no enforcement power, so the best thing to do is provide protection as best they can: in this case, condoms.
  • Reply 10 of 35
    Quote:

    its not the WHO, or anyone other than each individual unto themself, to decide what is a 'poor life choice.'



    Quote:

    The WHO is not an institution set up to enforce moral codes



    Here's where the societal pendulum swings wildly. Nobody ever has the right to enforce a moral code, unless of course the act infringes on the rights of another. But in this case we are (presumably) talking about two consenting adults. Groups that try to enforce a moral code just cause the pedulum to swing far the other way. We, as a society, forget that we have an obligation to teach moral code as best we can. We can do this by sighting specific examples of why something is bad. In the case of sexual permisquity there are plenty of logical arguments against it. Disease is a big one, but beyond that you have a cheapening of sex, such that when you do give it to your life partner it means less.



    I think you could also argue that there is often a violation of one party, even in consentual sex. What I mean is that the implications of sex may be very different for the female versus the male. So, unless you have a sort of sexual symmetry, you're going to have a violation of someones will. Its the same sort of violation you have durring a non-mutual breakup. You have the will of one party, and the inevitable violation of the will of the other. In my mind, its that violation of will that makes divorce and sexual promiscuity particularly offensive.



    Quote:

    I'm pretty sure that they also encourage people to limit the number of partners and to be careful about who they have sex with.



    I don't see that on their web site:

    http://www.who.int/reproductive-health/rtis/index.htm



    What I see is:



    Quote:

    Condoms are effective in preventing the sexual transmission of HIV. Their effectiveness in preventing other sexually transmitted infections is less well documented, but this must not distract from vital efforts to promote condoms to reduce the risk of HIV infection.



  • Reply 11 of 35
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    The people who these condoms are for already choose to have sex with or without. It is safer with.



    You used a dumbass 10% chance of getting shot analogy. Let's put that in perspective.



    The people currently are walking around playing Russian Roulette with a 10 chamber revolver, each chamber filled with a bullet. They only chance they have is a misfire or a bad bullet.



    With a condom, they REDUCE their chances of dying by 90%. That sounds like a pretty good deal to me.



    You and your silly jesus friends aren't going to stop these people from having sex. Their lives suck ass. Sex is fun. It's probably one of the few moments of bliss in their entire lives. You aren't going to be able to go jesus all over them and jesus them into stopping. Condoms are better than no condoms.



    THAT IS THE POINT! CONDOMS ARE BETTER THAN NO CONDOMS!



    Jesus off.
  • Reply 12 of 35
    murbotmurbot Posts: 5,261member
    I wonder if we shouldn't merge these threads...







  • Reply 13 of 35




    Yes and we should rename it:



    "If Bush Sr. had withdrawn early or used a condom, we wouldn't be in this mess"



  • Reply 14 of 35
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Jukebox Hero

    Here's where the societal pendulum swings wildly. Nobody ever has the right to enforce a moral code, unless of course the act infringes on the rights of another. But in this case we are (presumably) talking about two consenting adults. Groups that try to enforce a moral code just cause the pedulum to swing far the other way. We, as a society, forget that we have an obligation to teach moral code as best we can. We can do this by sighting specific examples of why something is bad. In the case of sexual permisquity there are plenty of logical arguments against it. Disease is a big one, but beyond that you have a cheapening of sex, such that when you do give it to your life partner it means less.



    that's an interesting distinction. but i don't like the idea of the WHO, or anyone, even insinuating that i am immoral/amoral. it's offensive. i don't think we have an obligation to teach morality. priests, rabbis and other religious folk maybe, but not a health organization. the WHO should, probably, mention that abstinence is a lot safer than even condom sex. But not for morality's sake, for Health's sake. The world health org should only be concerned with the world's health, not morality.
  • Reply 15 of 35
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BR

    THAT IS THE POINT! CONDOMS ARE BETTER THAN NO CONDOMS!





    First of all, leave Jesus out of it. This is what I was referring to with the biggotry. Its obvious that you have a serious problem.



    Second of all, if you had a need to get to work and I sold you a car that had a 10% chance of exploding on the way to work without TELLING YOU THAT YOU HAD A 10% CHANCE OF DYING, then there is an ethics problem.



    I'm not arguing that we shouldn't give them condoms. I'm arguing that its unethical to neglect to tell them the risks associated with the "solution."



    Why do I suddenly feel the need to call you a retard again?
  • Reply 16 of 35
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Jukebox Hero

    [B

    Why do I suddenly feel the need to call you a retard again? [/B]



    If this discussion turn this way, i will closed this thread according to the moral code of AI : the posting guidelines.
  • Reply 17 of 35
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Powerdoc

    If this discussion turn this way, i will closed this thread according to the moral code of AI : the posting guidelines.



    BR should be warned for his violation of the posting guidelines. Specifically,



    Quote:

    5. Sexually graphic or otherwise offensive material is strictly forbidden. AppleInsider will strive to maintain a work-friendly and family-friendly environment in regards to pornography and hate-speech. These cases are up to the discretion of the moderators and administrators. Pursuant to this, toilet humor is not tolerated. It is expected that the membership can conduct themselves with enough maturity to avoid such idiocy.





    His words are intentfully biggoted and hateful.
  • Reply 18 of 35
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Jukebox Hero

    TELLING YOU THAT YOU HAD A 10% CHANCE OF DYING



    Now that's misleading. You don't have a 10% chance of dying. You have to factor in the percentage chance that the person you are snogging has HIV and then the chance that the condom is ineffective and then the chance that you get infected and then the chance that you survive long term.



    Sorry, that's not 10% Mr. Misrepresent the Facts.



    Quote:

    Why do I suddenly feel the need to call you a retard again?



    Go right ahead. It won't bother me. I always consider the source when deciding whether or not to be offended. I'm not. Not in the least.
  • Reply 19 of 35
    applenutapplenut Posts: 5,768member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Jukebox Hero

    BR should be warned for his violation of the posting guidelines. Specifically,









    His words are intentfully biggoted and hateful.




    please let us be the judge of that and other potential violations.



    otherwise, you'll just further take the thread off course.
  • Reply 20 of 35
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Jukebox Hero

    BR should be warned for his violation of the posting guidelines. Specifically,









    His words are intentfully biggoted and hateful.




    I see. Should you be warned then for this as well?



    Quote:

    Why do I suddenly feel the need to call you a retard again?



    This must be that whole eye for an eye thing I don't understand or subscribe to. Oh well.



    Stop stoning me.
Sign In or Register to comment.