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 oldservant@mindspring.com, oldservant@planetall.com, 0953@geocities.com 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 oldservant@mindspring.com or oldservant@planetall.com or 0953@geocities.com 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.info/Religious.Texts/Polyamory http://www.etext.info/Religious.texts/Polyamory ftp: www.etext.info; User: Anonymous; Password: Your email add