The Great Condom Debate

[PaulKing]

I wish someone could explain to me the current obsession with the completely useless condom.

I have read every single study and not one showed condoms work in regard to a virus. The CDC does quote from their shabby '143 Couple' trial on their web site but fails to mention that the conclusion section of the very short paper, admits, that in actual usage condoms fail over 30% of the time.

A subsequent major CDC study (a little more scientific) showed condoms to have demonstrated 'no clear evidence of presenting an effective barrier to viral transmission'. The study was never distributed and was the subject of a protest petition signed by over 20,000 doctors attacking the CDC for a cover-up regarding condoms total failings.

Instead of the false slogan: - No glove, no love, we should teach kids the slogan; With a glove, it's NOT love!

At least it is in keeping with rubber to
s-t-r-e-t-c-h the truth!

Paul

[Nymph an' Satyr]

PaulKing, to each their own, but ain't nobody going in my woman without a "hat on". Nor would I be interested in sex with out wearing one myself.

I'm not going to read the studies, because it is not my area of expertise. But my doctor emphatically recommends the use of condoms. He is an expert in these matters, and I trust that he is up to date on the literature.

Accordingly, I will respect his opinion, and wear a raincoat.

You do what you believe you have to, and I the same

[bbcpl4cpl]

I agree. That's the way it will be in this house too. Condoms all the way!!

PaulKing, nothing against you at all. Your research appears to be quite in depth but most people are not going to just throw their preferences/decisions out the window. I commend you on trying to find out the dangers involved in using that form of birth/disease control. It's your personal decision to use or not use whatever method you choose.


Tigress xx

[OhioCouple]

Originally posted by PaulKing
I wish someone could explain to me the current obsession with the completely useless condom.

I have read every single study and not one showed condoms work in regard to a virus. The CDC does quote from their shabby '143 Couple' trial on their web site but fails to mention that the conclusion section of the very short paper, admits, that in actual usage condoms fail over 30% of the time.

Although we do not choose to use condoms (a personal choice) I do agree with bbcpl4cpl and Nymph an' Satyr. Even if there is a high failure rate, a condom will still offer a higher degree of protection that riding bareback doesn't.

Speaking from the experience of my own children, their use of condoms has been a very effective tool in preventing pregnancy. When they do go bareback with their spouses...they end up expecting another bundle of joy. So in that respect, I will have to say that whatever they use has been on the upside of offering them protection.

Lori

i dont know about protection from diseases, but as far as birth control goes, condoms seem to work great. I've never used any other form of birth control with my wife (we've been together for 8 years now). Havent gotten pregnant yet...though this is something we may WANT to change soon...

[PaulKing]

Dear Nymph an' Satyr,

You wrote; -

"But my doctor emphatically recommends the use of condoms. He is an expert in these matters, and I trust that he is up to date on the literature".

Thank you for your reply. I have been under the impression (possibly mistaken) that I have read every study of any substance with regard to condoms and std's. I would be most grateful if you could ask your doctor which studies he has read which show them to be an effective barrier.

I would be really interested to find even one study that supports the notion that they afford protection. I am always open to being proved wrong but do need some evidence, not just unsupported statements. no matter from how well respected a source.

If you can do this for me I should be very grateful as I would hate to have done incomplete research with regard to this important question.

Very best wishes,

Paul

[Elusive BiFem]

Paul, I don't want to attempt to debate the condom issue with you for several reasons. I haven't read the articles you cite (and really don't want to), and you obvioulsly have some degree of expertise related to AIDS/viruses (I don't). However, I feel compelled to respond if only with questions.

Your obviously feel there is no benefit from the use of condoms

I wish someone could explain to me the current obsession with the completely useless condom.

and go on to say that you have read every single study and not one showed the effectiveness of condoms in regard to a virus.
Right off the bat...have you read every single study that does show the effectiveness of condoms in regard to a virus? It is human nature that we gravitate towards books, articles, opinions, suggestions that support our own opinions. We have to ask ourselves how truly objective we are being when relaying information.
Every morning on the daily news shows we are informed of these new "break through studies published in the ____ journal showing _____ (fill in the subject). And frequently, within days, we are informed of a totally different study that invalidates the findings of the previous study. Let's just face it...many of those publishing these studies are doing so to gain tenure, boost their CV's, etc. And, frequently, a single, small-scale study is merely the building block to further scientific studies yielding different outcomes and as such, one can say that the initial study, while invalid, was of significant benefit. Not to mention that many of us without scientific knowledge can latch onto a study that merely supports what we want to believe. Consider the contradictory studies that have come out in recent years related to comparatively innocuous subects such as weight control, diets, exercise, smoking, 2nd hand smoke - the list goes on and on.

The CDC does quote from their shabby '143 Couple' trial on their web site but fails to mention that the conclusion section of the very short paper, admits, that in actual usage condoms fail over 30% of the time.

OK, specific to this study...that means that condoms had a 70% success rate? Rather significant in my opinion. And what type of failure are we speaking of? Failure in transmission of HIV? Other STD's? Pregnancy? And who deemed this a "shabby" study?

A subsequent major CDC study (a little more scientific) showed condoms to have demonstrated 'no clear evidence of presenting an effective barrier to viral transmission'. The study was never distributed and was the subject of a protest petition signed by over 20,000 doctors attacking the CDC for a cover-up regarding condoms total failings.

I find this statement confusing. (I grant you, it is early AM and I've only had one cup of coffee.) Seems to me the CDC is saying, "Hey! Condoms are not effective." The protestors are saying, "CDC, you are covering up condom failures." Please clarify this statement for me. And while I'm waiting for the clarification...

What about all the drugs that have been "studied and researched" and proven to be effective for ___ or ___ (again, fill in the blank). And later studies come out saying, "Oops. That new and improved drug for blood pressure that we hyped and prescribed to you at increased expense really causes dire consequences. Sorry guys." Or...what was it? Ephedrine, I think. Touted as the wonderful diet drug? And then we later find out it destroys our heart valves? Hmmm...should we not look at aspects of financial gain in some of these so-called studies?

Years back, there was talk about the then-current condoms being substandard to those we have available today. So, when were these studies published? Before or after the new and improved versions? And what was the attributable cause of condom failure? Could it have anything to do with the ph of the semen or vaginal secretions in those involved in the studies and trials? Was latex sensitivity accounted for? And of course, actual usage? We both know that people don't always tell the truth in these studies (the subjects and the investigators). How many people were in the control groups? Diverse statistics will arise from small samples vs. large samples. Big difference in the 30% with a sample of 100 vs. 1000. Or maybe I should say in the interpretation of the validity of the statistics based upon the sample number.
And how do we account for the decline in diagnosed cases of HIV since the emphasis on safe-sex and condom usage? In another thread, you mentioned 250 viruses and the relationship to the immune system. Is it conceivable that the use of condoms in the past few years has resulted in the inability of the HIV virus to replicate itself while at the same time allowing the population to boost their immune response, thereby decreasing the number of diagnosed cases? My thought process is headed towards something similar to an antigen-antibody response as we see with allergies, if that makes any sense. Maybe not.

And please, Paul, do not try to tell me anything about a bunch of physicians protesting something. Sorry. I won't buy such a simplistic statement without additional clarification. Who exactly were these 20K physicians? What were the medical specialties? A bunch of podiatrists? Family practitioners? What did they base their protest on? Personally, when I hear a statement like this, I want to know exactly what type of vestment, financial and otherwise, the protesting group has in the outcome of their protest.

And what about the frontline health care providers in our hospitals. The use of barriers (equivalent to condoms) has apparently significantly decreased the number of diagnosed cases of HIV.
What about the older population. A few years back, there were numerous diagnosed cases of HIV following CABG procedures, etc., and stemming from direct blood transfusions. There was no barrier, so to speak. Blood testing has eliminated much of that concern. Nonetheless, the fact remains that they were being diagnosed with HIV/AIDS in the absence of barrier protection.
And third world countries where they don't practice safe sex and utilize condoms? How do we account for the continued rising epidemic? One could assume that their immune systems are more intact than ours given the lack of pollution, environmental contaminants, lower fat diets, etc.

You know Paul, I believe that a thorough literature search could provide, in almost a 1:1 ratio, an article to support the use of condoms and to contradict each article you mention.

To sum things up: You seem to advocate that condoms are useless. I think you are treading on dangerous waters and particularly when advocating for such carelessness on a site such as this. People here are interested in the pleasures of sexual exploration, but want to practice as safely as possible and protect themselves as much as possible. Personally, I have to advocate for the use of condoms until such time that irrefutable evidence is provided to indicate they are not of benefit or until a vaccine against HIV is developed and tested. Given the fact that we know the consequences of HIV/AIDS, it seems that the minimal reduction in sexual pleasure is certainly worth it, given the risks involved.

And I want to say one more thing that I'm certain I'll get blasted for, but here goes...You obviously have significant knowledge in this area of STD's/viruses and certainly, more so than most of us. One could assume from your postings that you are involved in HIV research of some sort. Or...could you be someone that has been diagnosed with HIV/AIDS, has done some research, and is on some type of vendetta? Someone screwed you (literally and figuratively), you contracted AIDS, and now you want to inflict the same wounds on the rest of the swinging population under the guise of an anonymous poster? I certainly don't mean to imply that as an absolute; however, I tend to look at skewed information with skepticism and ask myself questions about the intent of the message and the messenger, and particularly when I'm only being provided with information to support the views of the messenger. Regardless of the studies you quote, the risks are there, and we can only serve ourselves and each other by utilizing the only safety mechanisms available at the current time, i.e., condoms, and by providing those less knowledgeable with information that will allow them to make truly informed decisions.
And now I'm through. And I'll get that 2nd cup of coffee.

-EBF

One more thing (tee hee!!): I just looked back at your comments to Nymph 'an Satyr. In my line of work, I've said many times, "Just tell me which side of the fence you want me to ride and I'll find you the supporting documentation." The flip side of that statement is that I then have the obligation to find the documentation that will support the other side . That is what makes it fun and also let's you know the basis of my questions. Coffee!!

[Nymph an' Satyr]

Paul, perhaps I am reading you wrong, but you strike me as being disingenuous at best, if not outright condescending.

I am not going to ask my doctor for a study endorsing every piece of medical advice he gives me. The guy has kept me going this long, so I trust his expertise. I'll leave it at that.

You play Russian Roulette all you like amigo, I choose not too.

[Roxysbayou]

Paul, I have to admit that you scare me. I have read stories of people with aids that are so angry that they go around and sleep with as many people as possible trying to infect them. You are so anti-condom that I am wondering what exactly you are trying to prove and why. So what if people use a condom, even if it doesn't work. It gives them a feeling of security and does add at least some barrier of protection. Whether they are 100% fool proof I don't know. As I have said several times in reference to your posts, it's better to be safe than sorry.

[Nymph an' Satyr]

It seems to me that most (all?) of Paul's posts are condom related. (Maybe those are just the ones that I run into.)

Do you ever post about swinging in general Paul- or are you using this as a forum for anti-condom diatribes? Just curious, that's all.

What is your agenda, really? Is it merely to "educate" us about not using condoms so that we can enhance our pleasure? You are far too zealous in your message for that I think.... What is your agenda????? It's clear that I am not the only one that questions your motivation.

[Greg & Sheryl]

PaulKing wrote:
"A subsequent major CDC study (a little more scientific) showed condoms to have demonstrated 'no clear evidence of presenting an effective barrier to viral transmission'. The study was never distributed and was the subject of a protest petition signed by over 20,000 doctors attacking the CDC for a cover-up regarding condoms total failings."

We're not sure fuels Paul's anti-condom agenda, but it always seems like a cop-out when someone quotes an alleged undistributed study and cries "cover-up." Was this a joint study between ex-KGB agents and the CIA conducted on the grassy knoll?

PaulKing wrote:
"I have read every single study and not one showed condoms work in regard to a virus. The CDC does quote from their shabby '143 Couple' trial on their web site but fails to mention that the conclusion section of the very short paper, admits, that in actual usage condoms fail over 30% of the time."

We decided to check out the CDC's website but we did not find this "143 Couple" trial that Paul mentioned. Instead, we found some very detailed information regarding the prevention of STDs. While acknowledging that no method outside of abstinence is 100% effective in preventing STDs, it states "Laboratory studies have demonstrated that latex condoms provide an essentially impermeable barrier to particles the size of STD pathogens." This includes HIV.

You can find this information at http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/facts/condoms.htm This page also contains a link to a 49-page .pdf file which summarizes a June 2000 workshop on the scientific evidence of condom effectiveness on STD transmission. Nothing we read in that document seems to support Paul's assertions.

Condoms may not be perfect, but they are better than using nothing at all. We realize this is the case even though we are guilty of not using condoms all the time when we play with others. In any event, I guess it shouldn't matter to any of us what Paul thinks. The use of condoms is a personal choice, anyway.

[OhioCouple]

Originally posted by Greg & Sheryl
In any event, I guess it shouldn't matter to any of us what Paul thinks. The use of condoms is a personal choice, anyway.

I think that about sums it up. It is a personal choice and in my opinion there is no right or wrong in the matter.

[Nymph an' Satyr]

I agree- it is a personal choice. But I think that it needs to be an informed choice.

Lori, you and others have clearly looked at the pros and cons, and made the choice that is right for you. It is an INFORMED choice.

Ourselves, we don't use condoms for oral sex. We have weighed the risks, and believe them to be worth taking. But not for one minute do we think that this is risk free behavior.

What concerns me is that Paul King so blithely decrees that condoms are not only useless, but that they are actually harmful, purportedly causing cancer, etc...

IMHO, Paul King is espousing grossly irresponsible behavior. I believe his diatribes to be harmful misinformation. God forbid someone actually believes him...

Not that I have strong feelings or anything about this....:

[OhioCouple]

Originally posted by Elusive BiFem

And I want to say one more thing that I'm certain I'll get blasted for, but here goes...You obviously have significant knowledge in this area of STD's/viruses and certainly, more so than most of us. One could assume from your postings that you are involved in HIV research of some sort. Or...could you be someone that has been diagnosed with HIV/AIDS, has done some research, and is on some type of vendetta? Someone screwed you (literally and figuratively), you contracted AIDS, and now you want to inflict the same wounds on the rest of the swinging population under the guise of an anonymous poster? I certainly don't mean to imply that as an absolute; however, I tend to look at skewed information with skepticism and ask myself questions about the intent of the message and the messenger, and particularly when I'm only being provided with information to support the views of the messenger.

I think this it a little far fetched. I have experienced the unfortunate ravages of AIDS through some friends and co-workers. The furthest thing from their minds was infecting others. Granted Paul is passionate about his stance on condoms, but that is no different than one who is passionate about politics, left or right. It doesn't mean that they will harm to anyone. With the exception of when Paul quotes a lengthy article, I enjoy hearing his point of view. (Go back to posting the links Paul.) Just as I enjoy the opposing views.

I don't recall if it was said in this thread or not as I read quite a few posts this morning, but hadn't the time to respond, but someone suggested that all of Paul's postings were strictly about an anti-condom usage. As I do read all postings, I can tell you that no, they have not been. He has participated in quite a few topics that had nothing to do with condoms.

Paul also posted something (which I'll have to search for) about HIV, which peaked my interest about a theory that I have. I'll start a new topic about that as it will be interesting to hear what others have to say.

And now I'm through. And I'll get that 2nd cup of coffee.

Goodness, EBF! You are one heck of a lot perkier than I could even dream of being in the morning!

[ArcaneReference]

I would not be as vain as to suggest I have read every single study on anything, but I do try to keep up to date, and as someone else on this thread said, you can find an expert witness supporting either side of a trial.

I will continue to be what is quantified by most people as safe.

I am just curious about the cancer links aluded to by PK. Seriously.