Would ya risk it if ya were in Love with the person?Would ya Worry about Infection?

Zelaira said:

How soon do you need to know?

Of course I would.

Anyone I sleep with, I assume is HIV+. Safer that way.

I found myself asking myself the same question just the other week. I was out with a friend who used to be a junky and I was suprised when this beautiful woman came up to him and starting talking to him (he's not the world's greatest socialiser). I chatted to her a bit and I definitely found her attractive. Anyway, later on my mate told me that she had HIV. I asked myself would I?

Of course I would! That's what protection is for, isn't it?

Didn't get the chance to, sadly, but I would have!

Everyone should be worried about infection every time you have sex. There's no way of knowing for 100% sure that the person you're sleeping with is or isn't HIV+. Sure, if you're in a comitted relationship and you've both been tested and there's a level of trust, you can generally reaonably assume all is safe.
I remember once making a rather assinine comment to a friend in a discussion about their decision to or not to have sex with someone who was admittedly HIV+. While he didn't end up having sex with the person (for other reasons) he put me right in my place on the HIV+ comment. We just don't ever really know, and while it would be nice if every single person a) has themselves tested every 6 months and knows their status and b) will be forthwith in telling every person they have sex with that they're +, we're kidding oursleves if we think that's the way it works.

It's too risky. If it were some lesser, curable disease, I'd use protection and take the risk, but not with HIV.

Ummm, how 'bout


NO FING WAY!

CarrieMpls said:

we've taught you well!

yes....

CarrieMpls said:

Just use protection and common sense.

But does "protection" work? The following is at http://www.prolife.com/CONDOMS.html

=====

Condom Warnings -- Beware!!!

Doctors speak out about condom failures!

Many leading health experts have warned against depending on condoms for protection against AIDS and other STDs. Here’s a sampling of their comments:

"You just can’t tell people it’s all right to do whatever you want as long as you wear a condom. It (AIDS) is just too dangerous a disease to say that."
Quote from: Dr. Harold Jaffee, chief of epidemiology, National Centers for Disease Control



"Simply put, condoms fail. And condoms fail at a rate unacceptable for me as a physician to endorse them as a strategy to be promoted as meaningful AIDS protection."
Quote from: Dr. Robert Renfield, chief of retro-viral research, Walter Reed Army Institute



"Relying on condoms for ‘protection’ can mean lifelong disease, suffering, and even death for you or for someone you love."
Quote from: Dr. Andre Lafrance, Canadian physician and researcher



"Saying that the use of condoms is ‘safe sex’ is in fact playing Russian roulette. A lot of people will die in this dangerous game."
Quote from: Dr. Teresa Crenshaw, member of the U.S. Presidential AIDS Commission and past president of the American Association of Sex Educators



Holes in Condoms . . .

STDs are very tiny organisms, minuscule in size compared to sperm. These super-small viruses can get through a hole in a condom much more easily than sperm can. For example, HIV (the AIDS-causing virus) is so small that two million of the disease-causing agents could crowd on the period at the end of a sentence.

In 1993 the University of Texas analyzed the results of 11 different studies that had tracked the effectiveness of condoms to prevent transmission of the AIDS virus. The average condom failure rate in the 11 studies for preventing transmission of the AIDS virus was 31%.

One reason condoms fail in preventing the transfer of AIDS is that latex condoms have tiny intrinsic holes called "voids." Sperm is larger than the holes, but the AIDS virus is 50 times smaller than these tiny holes which makes it easy for the virus to pass through [Source: Dr. C. M. Roland, editor of Rubber Chemistry and Technology]. To give you an idea of how easy it would be for the virus to pass through these holes, just imagine a ping pong ball going through a basketball hoop.



Girls Still Get Pregnant!

Did you know that you can use a condom and still get pregnant? A variety of studies have found that condoms have an "annual failure rate" of 10% to 36% when it comes to preventing pregnancy.

Can you imagine the consequences for a couple when their condom fails? It happens all the time! One of the studies found that among teenagers, the condom failure rate regarding pregnancy was 36%! On average, that means that one out of every three teenage couples using condoms will become pregnant each year.



Are You ready to catch a sexually transmitted diseases?

Condoms provide considerably less protection against sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) than they do against pregnancy.

That's because a girl can get pregnant only at ovulation time (that's two to three days each month) but STDs can pass from partner to partner at any time of the month.

STDs are frequently passed through "skin to skin" contact even when condoms are used. This can happen because the bacterial or viral germs that cause many serious STDs (such as human papillomavirus, chlamydia, herpes, and syphilis) do not infect just one place on your body. They may infect anywhere in the male or female genital areas.

So, even if the virus or bacteria isn't passed through tears or holes in the condom itself, you can still get diseases because condoms don't cover or protect all areas of the genital region. That means condoms don't prevent many of the STD infections that take place during sexual contact.

**Facts to Remember . . .

The United States' Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports that 56 million Americans have an incurable STD. That means 1 in 5 Americans are infected!

12 million people get a new STD each year!

33,000 people get a new STD every day and 22,000 of them are 15 to 24 years old!

25% of High School students will be infected with an STD before graduation!


[**Source: Alan Guttmacher Institute, New York and Center for Disease Control, Atlanta]

Is this a real question?


Because to me it definately isn't

ThreadBare said:

I think that condoms are good at protecting people from HIV expecially if they are treated with spermicide and nonxydil 9, which kills the HIV virus on contact. That being said, I was always taught the safe sex is no sex and that you should only have sex with a partner who you love and trust. Monogamy is key and condoms do fail. If you are sexually active and/or have multiple partners, be sure to be tested and be sure that your partner(s) has been, too. I think that everyone should be free to do as they please but personally, I'm not about to be having sex with someone I barely know and if I did happen to fall in love with someone with HIV, then the sexual side of our relationship would have to be seriously discussed. I'm not trying to die.

ThreadBare said:

I guess some of the things in that article are true, however it is clearly biased against the use of condoms and therefore sends the wrong message. Also, it's pretty inacurate in places. For instance u won't automatically get HIV the first time u have sex with a HIV+ person. I think the contamination rate is pretty low, actually.

However the article can be a warning for people that condoms are NOT the ultimate protection, only a stable relationship and common sense (more or less) is.

SpcMs said:

doesn't the contamination rate depend on your gender? Isn't it more likely that a woman will get HIV at first exposure than a man will?

SpcMs said:

I don't know that the article is biased against condoms as much as it is issuing a warning against relying on condoms to be the protection they're often vaunted to be. Pointing out the weaknesses of an alleged safeguard, to me, doesn't connote opposition to its use. Personally, i don't hear much by way of condoms' weaknesses in health department news releases. I'm sure some pro-life people are against using them, but not necessarily everybody who's pro-life opposes condoms.

And, I'm not sure where the article said people will automatically get HIV the first time they sleep with an HIV+ person. I skimmed the article, admittedly, but I'm still missing that point on the reread. But, I'm not wearing my glasses either...

If anything, the article just illuminates the risks involved in sleeping with ANYONE you don't know is "safe."

'Course, there's always the risk that they're "safe" but still crazy....

jessyMD32781 said:

I'm not very educated on the issue, but i think you'r correct. Not because woman are less resistant or anything, they are simply more extensively exposed to the man's 'bodily fluids' than the other way around. In the same way men who have homosexual contacts are more at risk than women who have heterosexual contacts.

ThreadBare said:

Admittedly, i took the liberty of reading between the lines, but for example when they make the comparisan between the chances of getting pregnant and catching HIV, they seem to suggest the first is 1 out of 3 and the second 100%. I know that's not what it says, but still... When they say the failure rate of condoms against HIV is 31%, it's like they suggest that, when u have 'safe' sex with a HIV+ person, there's 1 chance in 3 you will get infected. Also at no point they talk about the benefits of using condoms against STD's, and i'm afraid some people might read this and think 'Oh, we might as well not use a condom then'. It's probably not the intention, and it does raise some valid points, but considering the source and all, it just appears like it is written with an agenda in mind.

Nope. if I know in advance that this person is HIV+, I would not sleep with that person, because there is no protection that is 100% proof. So unless I'm seriously involved with that person, and would like to share my life and future with them, then I'll pass.

Heavenly said:

SpcMs said:

this looks exactly like the information the religious right has put together to promote abstinence ONLY education in US schools. Granted, condoms can and do fail. Often this is due to inappropriate use of the condoms (with improper lubricant for example). However, condoms are the 1 barrier we do have that provides protection from exposure, for those who are sexually active. Information such as threadbare provided the link imo discourages the use of condoms. As numerous people have pointed out, you can rarely be sure the HIV status of a partner and condoms, when used correctly, provide protection.

I wear my seatbelt everytime I drive in my car. Does this mean I could never possibly be injured/die in an accident. NO. But my odds of survival are greatly improved if I wear it. The same goes with the condom.

jessyMD32781 said:

just some info on what you've commented on....

most of it I pulled from http://www.aegis.com/pubs...nchor67462

WHAT ARE THEY MADE OF?
Condoms used to be made of natural skin (including lambskin) or of rubber. That's why they are called "rubbers". Most condoms today are latex or polyurethane.

Lambskin condoms can prevent pregnancy. However, they have tiny holes (pores) that are large enough for HIV to get through. Lambskin condoms do not prevent the spread of HIV.

Latex is the most common material for condoms. Viruses can not get through it. Latex is inexpensive and available in many styles. It has two drawbacks: oils make it fall apart, and some people are allergic to it.

Polyurethane is an option for people who are allergic to latex, but only the female condom and one brand of male condom are made of polyurethane.

NONOXYNOL-9
Nonoxynol-9 is a chemical that kills sperm (a spermicide). It can help prevent pregnancy when it is used in the vagina along with condoms or other birth control methods. Nonoxynol-9 should not be used in the mouth or rectum.

Because nonoxynol-9 kills HIV in the test tube, it was considered as a way to prevent HIV infection during sex. Unfortunately, many people are allergic to it. Their sex organs (penis, vagina, and rectum) can get irritated and develop small sores that actually make it easier for HIV infection to spread. Nonoxynol-9 is not recommended as a way to prevent HIV infection.

CONDOM MYTHS

Condoms don't work: Condoms prevent HIV transmission very well if they are used correctly every time you have sex.

Condoms break a lot: Less than 2% of condoms break when they are used correctly: no oils with latex condoms, no double condoms, no outdated condoms.

HIV can get through condoms: HIV can not get through latex or polyurethane condoms. Don't use lambskin condoms

lambskin condoms?????


do durex make those?



i would. if u love the guy why not.



just dont get semen on any internal abrasions.


remember it's dead as soon as it comes in contact with air.

.

I would!

endorphin74 said:

I think this is a wonderful analogy. There remains a difference, however. You could be injured in an accident and, with some exceptions, have a relatively solid idea of your injuries within a short amount of time. But, if condom safety is much lower than advertised, and its users aren't so diligent about getting tested, some serious time can elapse between contraction of a disease and the discovery of infection. Such a person, to continue that analogy, could be considered the walking wounded.

As for the information presented in the link, I think some people are seeing bias where it isn't, confusing an inferred agenda with straightforward facts presented by credible, independent health-policy bodies.I think people are overlooking the fact that the information found at that site is set forth by actual physicians. Doctors are the people talking about the fallability of condoms, and the subsequent information was compiled by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, in New York, and the Center for Disease Control, in Atlanta. It's not like a bunch of pro-life loonies huddled and pulled out numbers from their heads.

I had reservations about using that link, for the fear that people would see "pro-life" and disregard the information put forth by medical and governmental bodies. Anyone with questions about the AGI -- a non-profit group, not a faith-based organization, mind you -- can check their news releases and information at http://www.agi-usa.org/. The founder was a former head of Planned Parenthood.

endorphin74 said:

thanks for the info, especially about nonoxynol9, but less than 2% is still a high breakage rate when it comes to HIV. For birth control, that's fine but when it comes to a disease that will kill you and cause tons of suffering in the process, i think i'll pass. Like I said, I'm not trying to die.

ThreadBare said:

The site you initially referenced is a pro-life site ("Saving babies and families from abortion"). The only portion of that page attributed to AGI are the stats following the heading "facts to remember." I would venture it's an unfair use of that reference as it makes it appear that AGI would support the entire referenced page.

Yes, the page you listed does quote doctors and members of the CDC. However, doctors are people too and capable of being swayed by their own idealogical beliefs. Simply saying "a doctor said this, so it must be true" isn't good critical thinking. What is clear is we have quotes from doctors discouraging condom use on a site that is clearly conservative. We have comments on "research" and "studies" with no actual indentifying info so readers could follow-up to find if the study results are being accurately reported.

Take a look at the homepage of the site referenced:
http://www.prolife.com

it's cristal clear from this page that one of the site's many purposes is to discourage any sexual activity outside of marriage. To me it seems that misrepresenting scientific findings in order to scare people is a part of their agenda.

Also, one of the quotes on the referenced page is by a member of the US presidential AIDS commission. There has been a lot of controversy as Bush has made many appointments around HIV work. Bush, the epitomy of conservative. He has appointed people who match his agenda and are willing to look away from years of research to promote their idealogical point of view. Considering the source (in this quote and the page in general) the information presented from the prolife webpage is flawed, misleading and dangerous.

BTW, I searched the AGI website and have yet to find anything that discusses the ineffectiveness and dangers of condoms as a HIV prevention tool.

For a one night stand or in a 'relationship' of only a very short duration...NO. I would not risk my health, my future, my entire LIFE just for sex, I don't care what the statistics or science says about the 'safety' of condoms. I value my life and my health too much to jeopardize them, not to mention the guilt of inflicting emotional pain and suffering on my family if I were to become ill with a disease like HIV.

In the case of a truly loving and lasting relationship I would have a lot to consider and to discuss with a number of people before I would make the decision to place myself at possible risk.

This thread reminds me of a documentary film I saw on the Sundance channel not long ago called "The Gift", about gay men who actively try to acquire HIV. It was quite interesting, although disturbing and very sad.

http://www.thegiftdocumen...efilm.html

PrimordialOoze said:

i feel the exact same way. I checked out the gift website, looks like it's worth checking out even though it seems so incredibly sad.