By Beauty Damned

WOW. I'm at a loss for words at the moment, this will have to sink in later...Wow!!!

Yeah, it's pretty shocking isn't it? Turned me into a fireball that's for sure. If Idiots could fly, the Roman Catholic Church would be an airport.

Happy Belated, Maria.

Let me begin by saying that I'm neither a Catholic or JW, but one who's seen too many people get pregnant, get sick, or die unnecessarily because of their sexual practices. I also have enough years on you to know and say I was watching people die from AIDS before you were even in kindergarten; back when AIDS was originally thought to be some kind of flu that seemed only to infect gay men.

Technically, on a microscopic scale, the latex condom is a net, though not a net in the way we normally think of it. It's porous by nature. It's the same material surgical gloves are made of.

Let's look at it another way. If HIV were the size of a golf ball, the naturally occurring holes in a latex condom, proportionately, would be about three feet in diameter. This is not new information -- it's been known since the mid-'80s. But some viruses are many times larger than HIV and can't pass through. A condom may be an effective barrier for one, but not the other. Not necessarily.

During surgical procedures it's not uncommon for doctors to wear two or three pairs of surgical gloves at once to protect themselves. No one is telling those relying on condoms to wear two or three of them to protect themselves.

Also, the failure rate of condoms is not as low as the makers would like us to believe. A condom's reliability is considered only in preventing pregnancy. A woman can get pregnant only a few days out of the month, but you can get a disease any time, and a condom can "malfunction" at any time, and they do. Take those factors into account, and the reliability diminishes. I'm not aware of any research detailing a condom's ability to prevent HIV infection, because there is still so much we don't know about HIV, and because of the threat to the test subjects. I don't know of any sane, healthy person who would knowingly and willingly have sex with an infected person, just to find out how many times you can do it before you get infected.

(I wonder if you can get a refund if the condom fails and a pregancy or disease results. I've never heard of any product liability suits, but give it time.)

Furthermore, with all the emphasis on AIDS, it should be kept in mind that a condom will not protect you from other diseases (herpes II, HPV, chlamydia, syphillis, gonnorhea, PID, etc.), which is one of the reasons why health educators stopped referring to it as "safe sex" and began using the term "safer sex."

I think the point of the Cardinal's statement is that while a condom may reduce your risk, but you're still taking a risk. It's your personal choice to take those risks, but it almost seems like you're pissed at him or anyone who'd dare mention the risks are still there.

I can understand how reading something like that can cause a "fireball reaction," I'm just trying to keep the rhetoric in perspective.

I believe it's really a matter of picking and sticking to one partner, really knowing your partner, and taking responsibility for your life and your actions. Because when something goes wrong, the people encouraging you to "go ahead, use a condom, you'll be okay," won't be around to make all the bad stuff go away.

I usually don't post comments on other people's blogs (I've seen things get very ugly), but I really felt a need to share a different perspective on the matter with you.

Thanks for letting me share.

Thanks for sharing The Martini. I think you must have overlooked the quote that stated "'AIDS...has grown so fast because of the availability of condoms.'"

It's nice that you are so liberal in your interpretation of the statements made by these RCs ("I think the point of the Cardinal's statement is that while a condom may reduce your risk, but you're still taking a risk. It's your personal choice to take those risks, but it almost seems like you're pissed at him or anyone who'd dare mention the risks are still there.") But I think it was pretty clearly stated that these people believe that the use of condoms INCREASES a persons chances of contracting HIV and that the use of condoms deems one to be promiscuous.

I am also not seeing any alternative being proposed by those who oppose the use of condoms. I am not angry at anyone who suggests there are still risks, I am quite familiar with the fact that contraceptives sometimes fail, but isn't it better than NOTHING AT ALL? Answer me that. What they are saying is almost as good as saying that it's possible that if you leave your house and get in a car you may get in a car accident any day, so better to stay in the house and on top of that, if you wear a seatbelt, you are ASKING for an accident to happen. So better to not wear a seatbelt if you're going to ride in a car, because you might get in an accident and die regardless. It's absolutely ludicrous.

We have to take SOME measures to TRY and prevent unwanted pregnancies and STDs and the oppose the measures available based on religious crap that means nothing in the scientific world.

As for your having been around long enough to see lots of people die of AIDS and the like, I think you might try being a little less presumptuous about what I myself may have seen. None of which has a thing to do with the subject at hand.

Hi Maria,

Just so you know, I never made any presumptions about what you may or may not have seen or experienced in your life. I don’t know you like that. My point was that in 1982, AIDS had a much different meaning for me at 20 than it did for you at 4. I can't make it any clearer than that.

Yes, it’s true you risk death every time you get in your car and drive, but you increase your risks of getting killed tooling down the freeway at 90 mph in the wrong lane toward oncoming traffic. And you (the generic “you”) put other people at risk. If you (all of us) keep your car in good working order, obey the traffic laws and rules of the road, drive according to road and traffic conditions, and show some common courtesy, there’d be way fewer traffic fatalities. But there are those who find those rules too restrictive and want to do their own thing. Enter consequences. There are no alternatives for those who want it all.

I hate flying (not off-topic, I promise). But to get from there to there, it's still the safest way to travel. I can't remember exactly, but you'd have to fly so many millions of miles before you'd have an incident, and that flight attendants have very low insurance rates. All fine and good. But when something does happen, it's usually fatal. But I do travel by air, knowing the risks (had some awful flights). Taking all the precautions I can, I'm not going to be so paralyzed by fear that I never set foot on a plane again. But I don't pick up and jetting off here and there to the point that I become a jaded flyer and no longer remember there are risks involved.

What I gathered from the Cardinal's statement as posted is that too many people want that panacea that allows them to do whatever they want whenever they want.

It was the same way 70 years ago when syphillis and gonnorhea were the STDs to worry about. But antibiotics took care that for the most part. People still got infected, but it wasn't lethal. Then people really started wilding out when the pill came out, because that eliminated the threat pregnancy. But people still got sick and pregnant. On and on it's gone until we're at the point where sex can be a life-changing event.

For the record, I don't have a problem with condom use. They can protect you from certain diseases, but not all of them. And if contraceptives fail, or you get exposed to something through a port of entry not protected by condom, what then?

I hope I don't read like I'm attacking you -- I really don't mean to if it does.

Thanks again.

It doesn't sound like you're attacking me. It sounds like you are speaking from the school of desperately flawed logic. The distribution and use of condoms does not promote promiscuous sex. Bottom line. Believe me, you may have been alive way back when Aids started, but I am a 25 year old girl who is far more familiar with safe/unsafe sex in the last ten years and education and protection are key. To encourage kids and adults alike not to use condoms at all because it will deem them to be sluts is inconceivable. People are going to have sex. You can't stop them. So the best thing to do is promote safe sex.

History speaks for itself. Come up with a solution for a problem, and you will ultimately get a more complicated problem. That's what we're facing right now.

I actually think we're more in agreement than not.

People can be promiscuous, inanimate objects can't. I know many monogamous couples who use condoms. I don't think we should bury our heads in the sands of religious dogma, but I can understand the concern raised by some people, not all of whom are religious, that some people attach an implied warranty that condoms will always keep them safe. Because then, in that way of thinking, it becomes a license.

As I said, I don't have a problem with condoms. I've stated that it can prevent some infections. You stated that you're aware that contraceptives sometimes fail. If people don't use them or use them incorrectly, that's on them. But the original purpose of contraceptives is preventing pregnancy. It's coincidental or serendipitous that certain barrier methods also prevent some diseases. It's asking an awful lot for one method (condoms) to be the cure-all. I'm not talking about just AIDS, because that piece of latex is only covering a small part of the body.

I'm in total agreement that there is nothing we can do to stop the sex drive. But I do believe we are in control of what we do.

Promiscuous - Having casual sexual relations frequently with different partners; indiscriminate in the choice of sexual partners.

That's from the dictionary. From that definition, I'm suggesting there is a smart way to have sex, and to have it in a way that minimizes your risks.

Safer sex may be a possible solution . . . if it includes being more discriminating in one's choice of partners as well. But that comes with education. As long as accurate information is presented regarding risks and benefits of such practices, GREAT! I'd also like to see (if it's not already done, do you know?) some panels with real people who thought "it could never happen to them," or "we were using X when Y happened anyway."

I think we can both agree that people have to be smart about this. There are some mistakes you just can't bounce back from.

Happy Monday!