Condom Debate

[BigTexan]

This was originally posted on another thread. I didn't want to hijack that thread and as this was off topic I started this thread.

PS. I would like the Texan to cite/quote any good study showing a condom failure rate for AIDS of 20%. I don't see why the rate of preventing pregnancies --above 90%--would not transfer to AIDs, provided, as he says, the other routes are not present. I am talking of consistent condom use, not some spaced out junky who doesn't quite manage to get it on properly. Usually when you hear of 'condom failure' you hear a statement like "we use condoms." Upon questioning, though, you further hear, "Well, not that time, we were drunk." This is my experience as a b.c. counselor and long time user.

The study I cited was from the AMA (American Medical Association) It was sent to my wife, who is a nurse and deals with contagious diseases. I don't have the paper in front of me right now, I'm at work, but as I recall it seemed to be very well documented.

Now I want to say this. I'm NOT saying condoms are worthless and I didn't say they have a failure rate of 20% I said that the study said that 20% of the people who contracted aids from sexual activity claimed to be wearing condoms at the time. Very different claims. I don't know the numbers but I would put the failure rate of condoms far lower. Perhaps even lower than the failure rate for pregnancy.

The explaination they give for condom failure cited that the virus believed to cause AIDS is exceptionally small. Smaller than the molecules that make up the bodily fluids they are suspended in. Smaller even than the pores that naturally occur in latex and rubber. This allows the virus to move through the condom even without a tear. It's rare for this to happen because it requires the virus to move from the fluids through the latex but it can and does happen. I guess a good way to see it would be to try this. Put a combination of large rocks and small marbles into a jar with a mesh over the opening. Make sure the mesh is small enough to block the large rocks but large enough to let the marbles pass. Now turn the jar over and shake. If you shake long enough some of the marbles are going to fall out. That is a little like how the virus moves through the pores of latex or rubber condoms. Unlike sperm, it doesn't necessarily require a tear.

My only purpose for posting this is that there is a lot of false information being bandied about by idiots in the media. Someone needs to put facts out so that people can make informed decisions. The AMA does publish some good information. The CDC has a lot of information but rarely publishes it. I guess they don't want to cause a panic in the public or something. Maybe it's just a normal government reaction to having information to hide it. I don't know. Since my wife works with the CDC she gets a lot of stuff that tells her not to publish. Things like meningitis (sp) alerts, information on polio vacines, hanta-virus alerts, and information on AIDS.

Now my opinion. Should you have sex with strangers? Hey that's a personal decision, but I think it is risky.

If you do have sex with strangers should you wear a condom? HELL YES! But you should still understand that it's not a "magic cure." You are still at risk.

BigTexan

 

[wildsweetone]

Interesting and informative BigTexan. I did, however, cringe when I read about the rocks and marbles example. Ouch Thanks so much for that visual! There's a sci-fi story in there

The best way of avoiding AIDS is of course to hit the high hills and make ones way through life alone. Humans can cope with only so much aloneness I think. Inherently, we are designed and pre-conditioned to find a mate for creating those little darlings to continue the lifecycle of the species.

So really, the second best option is to remain monogamous. I think it's pretty rare to know a human who has only ever had one mate in their life. I know of one, and no, it wasn't me.

I'm stunned to know that the AIDS virus can squeeze through the latex. I shall certainly be passing that info on.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

According to a friend of mine, there's now a new, mutated form of HIV, which is much more aggressive, and spreads through saliva as well.

 

[Chicklet]

According to a friend of mine, there's now a new, mutated form of HIV, which is much more aggressive, and spreads through saliva as well.

hrm...

i don't know if i'd believe that one.

but then again, i am very gulible, and might freak out at any second.

Chicklet

 

[BigTexan]

According to a friend of mine, there's now a new, mutated form of HIV, which is much more aggressive, and spreads through saliva as well.

Svenskaflicka, This is one of those things that has been reported in the media, however, current research disputes it.

The CDC is currently only investigating one case where it is believed that AIDS was trasmitted via open mouth kissing. In that case the host (previously infected person) had open sores in their mouth and a great deal of blood in their saliva.

A study by the NYU School of Medicine led by Sylvia Lee-Huang, Ph.D., professor of biochemistry at NYU, and Hao-Chia Chen, Ph.D., research chemist indicates that saliva and tears both contain lysozyme, which they believe is a potent anti-HIV agent.

A link to a 1999 report on that research is

http://www.pslgroup.com/dg/ec8d6.htm

I haven't heard of any new findings on the HIV virus being transmitted through saliva.

However, all that aside, you should still probably consider it a risk.

BigTexan

 

[Svenskaflicka]

Safe sex: exchanging nude photos of each other over the internet (no bacterias), and then jerking off in front of the screen.

There IS a risk of viruses spreading, but better you than your computer!

 

[TheEarl]

Due to Svens's new information we can now look forward to the phrase "tongue-hockeyed to death" appearing in regular conversation.

The Earl

PS. Yes, that is another Red Dwarf thing. Take anything you don't understand as a Red Dwarf thing.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

Due to Svens's new information we can now look forward to the phrase "tongue-hockeyed to death" appearing in regular conversation.

The Earl

PS. Yes, that is another Red Dwarf thing. Take anything you don't understand as a Red Dwarf thing.

• Why do USA have an asshole for a president? - It's a Red Dwarf thing.
• Why does Danish sound so weird? - It's a Red Dwarf thing
• Why can't BlackSnake post those jerk-off pics he has promised me already? - It's a Red Dwarf thing.
• Why can't my community put enough sand on the streets so that a person doesn't have to slip every ****ing time one walks to and from the bus? - It's a Red Dwarf thing.
• Why can't people learn to call me Svenska (=Swedish woman) instead of Sven(=Swedish MALE name) around here? - It's a Red Dwarf thing.

 

[Pure]

Knee Deep in the Big Muddy

BT said,


The explaination they give for condom failure cited that the virus believed to cause AIDS is exceptionally small. Smaller than the molecules that make up the bodily fluids they are suspended in. Smaller even than the pores that naturally occur in latex and rubber. This allows the virus to move through the condom even without a tear. It's rare for this to happen because it requires the virus to move from the fluids through the latex but it can and does happen. I guess a good way to see it would be to try this. Put a combination of large rocks and small marbles into a jar with a mesh over the opening. Make sure the mesh is small enough to block the large rocks but large enough to let the marbles pass. Now turn the jar over and shake. If you shake long enough some of the marbles are going to fall out. That is a little like how the virus moves through the pores of latex or rubber condoms. Unlike sperm, it doesn't necessarily require a tear.

Sorry friend, I'm sure your motives are good, but this is NOT information, though you put names like AMA in your posting. Give the citation and a quotation. Else post a correction/retraction in the interests of getting the truth out in this forum.

This myth has been circulated by the Christian right and has been debunked at more than one website. It's horse pukky, when applied to latex condoms, as you do. (Natural membrane 'lambskins' are a different story.)

This is not to say that the AIDs virus can't get through a tear in the condom, or over the top. Or that many IV users don't use condoms consistently or properly and bear the consequences.

Apart from all that marble nonsense, think of it this way: A good latex condom can be inflated and it will stay that way for some time, if tied off: do you really think an substance (latex) that blocks air moleculeswill let viruses through? (surely viruses are more than a 1000 times larger.) A latex condom can also be filled with water; do you see any water leaking out? Again if a water molecule is blocked, how could any virus pass through?

Let the internet reader be cautious of 'information' posted.

Caveat Emptor.
====
SOME SOURCES


Here is NY Times columnist, N Kristof,

followed by the University of Alberta Health website, followed by an AMA website. I trust that will make the point against the unsubstantiated claims mentioned.
====


http://www.valleyskeptic.com/bush_condoms.html

The Secret War on Condoms

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF


Three thousand years ago an amorous Egyptian couple (probably libidinous liberals) experimented with a linen pouch, producing the world's first known condom. Some right-wingers still haven't gotten over it.

Over the last few years conservative groups in President Bush's support base have declared war on condoms, in a campaign that is downright weird — but that, if successful, could lead to millions of deaths from AIDS around the world.

I first noticed this campaign last year, when I began to get e-mails from evangelical Christians insisting that condoms have pores about 10 microns in diameter, while the AIDS virus measures only about 0.1 micron. This is junk science (electron microscopes haven't found these pores), but the disinformation campaign turns out to be a far-reaching effort to discredit condoms, squelch any mention of them in schools and discourage their use abroad.
====

http://www.ualberta.ca/HEALTHINFO/aidsprev.htm

====
http://www.ama-assn.org/special/hiv/preventn/prevent2.htm

Do Condoms Work?

From the Center for AIDS Prevention Studies
University of California, San Francisco
(February 1995)

Can condoms save lives? Absolutely. Although controversy persists regarding whether condoms are an effective means of preventing human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) transmission, condoms that are readily available, effectively promoted, and used correctly and consistently, play an important public health role in HIV prevention. Abstinence or sexual intercourse with a mutually faithful uninfected partner are most effective in preventing HIV infection. However, in a national survey of adolescents, 63% of 14-21 year-olds reported engaging in sexual intercourse (1). Using condoms can reduce the risk of infection of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including HIV, for those people who are not abstinent. No public health strategy can guarantee perfect protection. For instance, the influenza vaccine is "only" 60 to 80% effective in preventing influenza, but thousands of deaths could be prevented annually through the wider use of this "imperfect" vaccine (2). The real public health question is not are condoms 100% effective, but rather, how can we more effectively use condoms to help prevent the spread of disease.

Are condoms effective barriers?

Yes. In the laboratory, latex condoms are very effective at blocking transmission of HIV because the pores in latex condoms are too small to allow the passage of the virus. Condoms have been shown to be effective barriers not only to HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, but also to herpes simplex, CMV, hepatitis B, chlamydia, and gonorrhea (3). Out of the laboratory, condom effectiveness declines with the introduction of the "human factor." Because condom education has been lacking, people do not use them well. Condom failure is more often due to user failure than product failure. Users may fail to: 1) use a condom with each act of sexual intercourse, 2) put the condom on before any genital contact occurs, or 3) completely unroll the condom (3). Using drugs or alcohol can also impair judgment and proper condom use (4). To insure maximum condom efficacy, the following should be avoided: use of oil-based lubricants (petroleum jelly, shortening, lotions) that weaken latex; storing condoms in direct heat or sunlight; using condoms in damaged packages or showing obvious signs of age (brittle, sticky or discolored) (3). //
======

 

[hiddenself]

Conspiracy theories abound...

Sorry friend, this is NOT information, though you put names like AMA in your posting. Give the citation and a quotation.

I second. Let's leave these conspiracy theories alone please.

The way I read the scant details about the 20%, the info is irrelevant. Lots of people say that they use condoms, but in reality they don't (or use them inappropriately). The statement is misleading at best.

The CDC advises researchers not to publish info (presumably on the ineffectiveness of condoms) that may cause panic? Give me a break.

The virus can go through the latex pores? Do you have a reference? It's the natural (lambskin) condoms that have pores too big for HIV, not the latex ones.

Oh, why not repeat that argument that the government unleashed HIV as a secret military experiment?

Nothing is 100% safe in life. But as far as protection against HIV (and other STDs), latex condoms (when used consistently and correctly) come pretty darn close. It is irresponsible to post such 'junk pseudoscience' info -- unless, one has a hidden agenda of course.

hs

 

[Pure]

Condoms cont.

Some further sources on the internet (search with Google, condoms, pores, AIDS)

1) "The Body" is an AIDS related site, quite elaborate, with links to the Center for Disease Control.

2) A summary of CDC position

3) Newspaper columnist K Baldeosingh discusses the roots of the 'condoms are ineffective' rumor.

========
1)

http://www.thebody.com/popups/popup2.html

CAN HIV/AIDS VIRUS PASS THROUGH CONDOMS
Posted: Jan 13, 2002


I was taught that the HIV/Aids virus it self is much smaller then the pores in condoms, and that the virus can and will pass through the pores. Is this true, because, I have been searching the internet for this infomation and haven't found it.


What you have heard is popular myth about HIV and condoms. Laboratory studies have demonstrated that the pores in latex and polyurethane condoms are too small for HIV and many other STD-related viruses and bacteria. Some laboratory studies have shown that some viruses, like HIV, hepatitis, and herpes, can pass through pores in natural membrane condoms (like lambskin). Natural membrane condoms are not recommended for disease prevention.

Human studies have also demonstrated that latex condoms are extremely effective in preventing HIV transmission. Latex condoms are also very effective in preventing the transmission of many, but not all, sexually transmitted diseases.

Latex and polyurethane condoms are superior to lambskin in preventing the transmission of STDs. Latex or polyurethane condoms should be used each and every time you have sex. If you use latex condoms, only use water-based lubricants, since oil-based ones can reduce the condom's effectiveness.

See the "HIV Prevention Basics" http://www.thebody.com/safesex/basics.html for more info.

RMK
===================
2)

http://www.thebody.com/cdc/factv.html

From the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [1994]


Effectiveness of Condoms

The proper and consistent use of latex condoms when engaging in sexual intercourse -- vaginal, anal, or oral -- can greatly reduce a person's risk of acquiring or transmitting sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV infection. Under laboratory conditions, viruses occasionally have been shown to pass through natural membrane ("skin" or lambskin) condoms, which contain natural pores and are therefore not recommended for disease prevention. On the other hand, laboratory studies have consistently demonstrated that latex condoms provide a highly effective mechanical barrier to HIV. In order for condoms to provide maximum protection, they must be used consistently (every time) and correctly. Incorrect use contributes to the possibility that the condom could leak or break. Proper use should include the following: //


===========
3)

http://www.caribscape.com/baldeosingh/religion/sober/2000/condom2.html


Death for Sex 9 March 2000, 852 words

People who fornicate deserve to die. That, it seems, is the opinion of the devout amongst us. At last week's AIDS conference, Catholic fundamentalist Professor Courtenay Bartholomew stated: "Whereas the faithful use of a condom may indeed lower one's risk of HIV infection, unfortunately, on the other hand, it promotes and increases promiscuity world-wide." In other words, even though Bartholomew seems aware that proper condom use reduces HIV infection rates, he still opposes it because he believes that condoms may encourage people to fornicate. Bartholomew's comments were made at a panel discussion titled "Spirituality and coping with AIDS". In this country, any discussion with "Spirituality" in its title is guaranteed to be well-attended, though mostly by fools. And, sure enough, the crowd applauded and cried "Amen!" when Bartholomew said that God often sent plagues to punish mankind, in disagreement with Fr. Winston Joseph who asserted that AIDS was not divine punishment, but who got no applause. So much, it seems, for Christian love, charity and forgiveness.But Bartholomew was at least less dishonest that Dr. Wilfred Chen. Chen, a medical doctor and staunch Catholic, has written a letter to the newspapers in which he claims that condoms do not help prevent HIV infection.

Given the easily available information on HIV transmission and Chen's professional qualifications, one can hardly dismiss this as simple ignorance. Chen says that "Electron Scanning Microscopic Studies have shown that there are five micron size pores in the condom. The diameter of the AIDS virus is 0.1...A virus can pass through the pore as easily as a cat can walk through a garage door," he asserts. This is not true. The five micron figure is based on rubber gloves, not condoms. Gloves are dipped only once in latex, while condoms are dipped twice. A study of latex condoms by the National Health Institute in the United States found no holes at a magnification of 2000. Many laboratory studies show that sperm and disease-causing organisms (including HIV) cannot pass through intact latex condoms.Chen betrays himself when he writes a little further on that "Doubly-dipped condoms are supposed to be free from pores" but "The real problem of the condom is its propensity to burst, tear and slip."

So, although confessing that condoms are not porous as he initially claimed, he continues to mislead. Properly used, condoms are not prone to burst, tear or slip. Studies show that it is a minority of users who are responsible for a disproportionate number of breakages. The real problem is that people often don't use condoms properly: they use them with oil-based lubricants like baby oil, petroleum jelly or hand lotion; they store them in wallets and glove compartments; they stretch them like socks; they use them after the expiry date, and so on. So the "real problem", therefore, is actually ignorance - an ignorance fostered by the Vatican's official position that teaching safe sex is "a dangerous and immoral policy based on the deluded theory that the condom can provide adequate protection against AIDS."So is it the theory or the Vatican that is deluded?


One study in the New England Journal of Medicine observed heterosexual couples, over an average period of 20 months, where one person was HIV-positive and the other not. Among 124 couples who used condoms consistently and correctly, no infection occurred. Where condom use was inconsistent, however, 10 percent of the HIV-negative partners became infected.

The US Food and Drug Administration says that proper condom use decreases exposure to HIV 10,000-fold. Other studies show that, when combined with a spermicide, condoms are 99.9 percent effective in preventing STDs (sexually transmitted diseases).So, if the authorities in Trinidad and Tobago are serious about containing AIDS, there needs to be more education about condom use, as well as about fidelity and abstinence. This, remember, is a place where one in every 25 persons is HIV-positive, with the majority of them between 24 and 25 years of age. It is a country where five times more females than males are infected in the 15 to 19 age group.Given such statistics, Dr. Rawle Edwards's suggestion that condoms be made available to sexually active teens is eminently sensible and, in a sensible society, the facts and the opinions of experts would determine public policy, not religious beliefs. But ours is a society where Catholic, Hindu, Pentecostal, Anglican and Muslim leaders immediately shot Dr. Edwards down, and where the Prime Minister has been calling for religious values to be taught more in schools, not for condoms. That is because, as with the religious leaders, Mr. Panday knows his authority rests on ignorance and brain-washing. Meanwhile, people - including children - continue to suffer and die. But I suppose that hardly matters, once we preserve morality.Copyright ©2000 Kevin Baldeosingh

[my emphasis: pure]

[A writer and newspaper columnist]

 

[wildsweetone]

okay for the life i me, i know exactly how serious a topic this is but

A good latex condom can be inflated and it will stay that way for some time, if tied off

i wonder if this would come under the Humour and Satire or Toys section...?

sorry i couldn't help myself

***
seriously. it sucks how there are so many professional people out in the world who constantly barrage us (the average human being) with information that's biased for one reason or another.

i'd like to know which piece of information to take seriously, especially considering i have, and will continue, to inform my own children about condom useage and safe sex.

suffice it to say though, i shall be letting them know that whatever kind of sexual activity they indulge in, masturbation is probably the only safe option of the lot.

 

[Pure]

WSO said, about condoms,

"i'd like to know which piece of information to take seriously, "

Well, you do research just as one used to do in libraries; look at websites, and take account of who they are connected with. You consider possible sources of bias.

seriously. it sucks how there are so many professional people out in the world who constantly barrage us (the average human being) with information that's biased for one reason or another.

As with some of the previously cited websites, there is no reason to believe the Centers for Disease Control--cited below-- are particularly biased, although the present executive leadership of the US has exerted some pressure to remove or limit condom information.

To make your best conclusion as to the truth, you ask yourself which alleged 'information' is presented with any kind of 'back up.' References, etc.

Beyond the humor of the condom 'ballooning' tests,
here's the following is from the (United States) Centers for Disease Control, official website:

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/facts/condoms.htm

Fact Sheet for Public Health Personnel: Male Latex Condoms
and Sexually Transmitted Diseases

In June 2000, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), in collaboration with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), convened a workshop to evaluate the published evidence establishing the effectiveness of latex male condoms in preventing STDs, including HIV. A summary report from that workshop was completed in July 2001 (http://www.niaid.nih.gov/ dmid/stds/condomreport.pdf). This fact sheet is based on the NIH workshop report and additional studies that were not reviewed in that report or were published subsequent to the workshop. Most epidemiologic studies comparing rates of STD transmission between condom users and non-users focus on penile-vaginal intercourse.
[...]

HIV / AIDS

HIV, the virus that causes AIDS
Latex condoms, when used consistently and correctly, are highly effective in preventing the sexual transmission of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.

AIDS is, by far, the most deadly sexually transmitted disease, and considerably more scientific evidence exists regarding condom effectiveness for prevention of HIV infection than for other STDs. The body of research on the effectiveness of latex condoms in preventing sexual transmission of HIV is both comprehensive and conclusive. In fact, the ability of latex condoms to prevent transmission of HIV has been scientifically established in “real-life” studies of sexually active couples as well as in laboratory studies.

Laboratory studies have demonstrated that latex condoms provide an essentially impermeable barrier to particles the size of STD pathogens.

Theoretical basis for protection. Latex condoms cover the penis and provide an effective barrier to exposure to secretions such as semen and vaginal fluids, blocking the pathway of sexual transmission of HIV infection.

Epidemiologic studies that are conducted in real-life settings, where one partner is infected with HIV and the other partner is not, demonstrate conclusively that the consistent use of latex condoms provides a high degree of protection.

=======

 

[Pure]

[pure:]
A good latex condom can be inflated and it will stay that way for some time, if tied off
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[WSO:]
i wonder if this would come under the Humour and Satire or Toys section...?

====

A condom also makes an excellent waterballoon, and for that reason its story falls under 'Fetish' -- Watersports.

 

[BigTexan]

Pure,

As I said I didn't have the article in front of me when I wrote that. Last night I went back and checked it.

You are right. Latex condoms were excluded from the pore thing. But not from other kinds of condoms.

My apology for this misstatement.

As far as me being a member of the far right conspiracy people. I'm not. Neither am I a member of the far left media nuts.

Once again, my point was not to dissuade people from using condoms. I have said before that people should use them. But even your sources indicate there is still risk.

I'm not advocating abstinence. That, to me, is a personal choice.

I'm not advocating monogamy. That too is a personal choice.

But I am saying that handing a sixteen-year old kid a condom and telling him to have sex as much as he wants, he's safe as long as he wears this, is wrong.

I would much rather hand the kid a condom and explain to him that if he chooses to have sex, he should wear it, but he will still be taking a risk.

Look at it this way. If a condom fails in .01% of the time then one fails once every 10,000 times someone has sex. In a city with 75,000 sixteen year olds having sex every Saturday night, the chance of some kid getting aids, even if they all use condoms, is still pretty high.

You can become incensed by the far right all you want. The risk is real. Even your own sources say "can greatly reduce a person's risk of acquiring or transmitting sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV infection" Note that they don't say eliminate but instead say greatly reduce.

I'm not saying they don't greatly reduce the risk. I'm saying they don't eliminate it. And how bad would I feel if I told my daughter that she was safe as long as she wore a condom and then, after being very careful, she was that one in 100,000 that became infected. How would I be able to look into her face and say, "Gee baby, I'm sorry, but I had this political agenda, this axe to wield, and so now you are going to die. Sorry that I lied to you. Oh well."

As far as the fornicate thing. Look back in all my posts and you'll not find me railing against anything except rape. I despise rapists, that's true. But other than that, I'm a very open minded person. Your personal attack was just that and as is usual with personal attacks, it wasn't even based on the truth of who I am or what I was saying.

I'm truly sorry you are so upset by my suggestion that condoms are not a "Magic Pill make you safe" device. But they aren't. There is still risk. All your ranting and raving won't change that. You want me to lie to my children about that risk. I won't. And I'll oppose anyone who does.

BigTexan

 

[Pure]

Hi BT,

Thanks for your response. I'm sorry if I upset you.

BT said,



I'm not advocating abstinence. That, to me, is a personal choice.

I'm not advocating monogamy. That too is a personal choice.

But I am saying that handing a sixteen-year old kid a condom and telling him to have sex as much as he wants, he's safe as long as he wears this, is wrong.

I would much rather hand the kid a condom and explain to him that if he chooses to have sex, he should wear it, but he will still be taking a risk.

Contrary to what you seem to expect we may not have big differences on the rearing or sex ed. of teens, including instructions about birth control.


I'm not saying they don't greatly reduce the risk. I'm saying they don't eliminate it. And how bad would I feel if I told my daughter that she was safe as long as she wore a condom and then, after being very careful, she was that one in 100,000 that became infected. How would I be able to look into her face and say, "Gee baby, I'm sorry, but I had this political agenda, this axe to wield, and so now you are going to die. Sorry that I lied to you. Oh well."

I'm not sure where this is coming from. I'd hand my daughter any of the material posted, including that of the CDC. That does not involve lying.

All your ranting and raving won't change that.

My posted info is 'rant.' Hmmm. There was in fact no personal attack on you, merely comments on your misinformation.

I have no reason to believe you're other than a fine upstanding person and parent, and I've not said anything to the contrary.

Let's move on. The info is there, posted, and accepted by you.

Best regards,

J.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I was originally going to chime in and say that if the AIDS virus could permeate latex, then there were a hell of a lot of medical personel who were in big trouble, since they all wear latex for just that kind of protection.

Then I was struck by Big Texan's taking offense at the suggestion that he might have a hidden agenda. Regarding Pure, he wrote:

"Your personal attack was just that and as is usual with personal attacks, it wasn't even based on the truth of who I am or what I was saying. "

For which Pure graciously apologized.

That's more than I got from the Big Man himself after I complained that he had accused me and AVS of promulgating rape, which he had, and which we had not.

Not that I would remember such an offense, of course. Not that it would fester at all. Not that I mind being accused of being in favor of rape.


---dr.M.

 

[BigTexan]

Dr. M.

Let me set the record straight. I never, not once said that either you or DVS defended or “promulgated” (by the way I think you have the wrong word here) rape. What I implied was that both you and DVS have so called “Uncontrollable urges.” I got that from you both saying men/boys have “uncontrollable urges” so you being a man I figured you must have them. I’m posting the relevant parts of the thread here to show my point. People are free to go read the thread “Do you really like Women” to see the entire posts.

You said

So how does a man react to this? How does he handle these overwhelming feelings a woman can elicit from him?

I interpreted “overwhelming” to be “Uncontrollable” perhaps that isn’t what you meant.

Here is what I said talking about rape.

My perscription is public physical castration without benefit of medical aid and then public crusifiction until such time as their skeletons fall from the crosses. If we did that I suspect that even DVS and Dr. M. would suddenly find their urges to be much more controllable.

Note that nowhere in there did I say that either you or DVS defended rape. I simply mentioned your “urges”, which I assumed you must have because both of you said simply men or boys, implying that all men and boys feel this way.

As to my apology to you. I apologized to DVS on that thread when he said I misunderstood him. I would have given you one too, however I stopped following that thread before your post saying the same thing. I only found it when I went back to copy these posts.

If I did misunderstand you then you do have my apology. Hell, even if I didn’t misunderstand you, you have my apology, and this goes to DVS too. My statement was flip and ill considered. I shouldn’t have used your names. You angered me by sounding like you spoke for all men when quite honestly, you don’t speak for me at all and I am a man. I let my anger get the best of my judgment. I disagree in whole with pretty much everything you said on that thread and I feel very strongly about this entire topic. That emotion got the best of me.

BigTexan

 

[hiddenself]

Owning up...

Then I was struck by Big Texan's taking offense at the suggestion that he might have a hidden agenda.

For the record (let's not blame everything on poor Pure who got the brunt of it nevertheless): it was I who said that posting such junk science is irresponsible, unless one has a hidden agenda. Pure was much kinder...

hs

 

[gb77]

Fear always rules (unfortunately)

Tha AIDS virus is very ineffectively transmitted in a single incidence of unprotected vaginal intercourse - it is only that we do it so damn much causes the problem.

If...

1) There was no anal sex
2) There was no needle sharing by IV drug users
3) Condoms were used in vaginal intercourse in casual sexual encounters

none us would have even heard of AIDS.

I find it faintly annoying when people give credence to possibilities that in reality are utterly neglible (pores or no damn pores). Pores and latex defects increase the probability of transmission by a bilionth of nothing.

So use condoms properly and go on a sex frenzy is my advice.