Married couples and condoms

[Newbie2]

Ok, tell people they can count on becoming HIV+, but only if they have sex at least 50,000 times. Then the risk turns from theoretical to real. Until you have sex something like that many times, the risk is more akin to being hit by an asteroid. (Could you theoretically contract HIV on the first instance? Sure, but the chances against it are literally a million to one. Not until you have sex tens or hundreds of thousands of times does the compounded chance make it so that your total sex life has even an appreciable chance of infecting you with HIV.)

That’s baloney.

The risk is the same for the first time as it is with the 10,000th time and vice-versa.

Not to mention that these are odds (and I question the numbers) are for condom use under ideal conditions i.e. being used properly.

However, I’m happy to see that you concede to “highly unlikely”.

 

[tjm190]

That’s baloney.

The risk is the same for the first time as it is with the 10,000th time and vice-versa.

Not to mention that these are odds (and I question the numbers) are for condom use under ideal conditions i.e. being used properly.

However, I’m happy to see that you concede to “highly unlikely”.

Would you let your child go outside, knowing that every moment your child is in the sun light could mean skin cancer?

 

[camerong]

That’s baloney.

The risk is the same for the first time as it is with the 10,000th time and vice-versa.

Not until you have sex tens or hundreds of thousands of times does the compounded chance make it so that your total sex life has even an appreciable chance of infecting you with HIV

Notice I referred to the chances of one’s “total sex life,” a perhaps sloppy term meaning the absolutely likelihood that person will get HIV from having sex in one’s entire life. If I only have sex with an infected person one time, I have a 1 in 100,000 (or whatever the number may be) chance of contracting HIV; if I have sex 100 times, my chances of contracting HIV in my life are 100/100,000, or 1/1000… I wasn’t implying the chances differed per intercourse, but merely that the more intercourse, the greater overall likelihood.

I only mention this, of course, out of intellectual pride and desire to clear my name of “baloney.”

 

[maryjk]

I disagree with above post about leaving a life to a bit of rubber–studies involving tens of thousands of couples where one partner has HIV and the other does not show condoms,** when properly used**, are 100% effective at preventing transmission. While I think condoms are sinful, I also think we ought not to misstate the evidence out there. Saying condoms don’t work when they clearly do has caused many people to leave the Church…

The success rate of condom use at preventing HIV, when the users have been educated and use them correctly, is 100%, even when used in anal sex, which transmits HIV much, much more efficiently than vaginal sex.

I have read those and a number of other studies. Notice that I said, when used properly, the only cause of condom failure is improper use.

These participants used condoms correctly (in wanting to avoid contracting HIV, they had a strong motive to learn how) and the condoms worked perfectly.

Serodiscordant couples who consistently and correctly use condoms can count on never spreading the infection.

The problem with you saying that condoms aren’t effective because people use them improperly

In addition to being a mortal sin, I would never trust using a piece of rubber correctly, to protect the life of my husband. I love him too much for that.

 

[tjm190]

In addition to being a mortal sin, I would never trust using a piece of rubber correctly, to protect the life of my husband. I love him too much for that.

Doctors have no issue trusting rubber to protect themselves from infection multiple times a day- but hey, what do they know.

 

[Newbie2]

Would you let your child go outside, knowing that every moment your child is in the sun light could mean skin cancer?

Or get struck by lightning, or hit by an asteroid, or abducted by alians from space.

Poor analogy. Exposure to UV rays is cumulative; “every moment” is not accurate regarding the risk of skin cancer. Every act of intercourse, in the context of this discussion, is.

However, if your analogy was correct, maybe the earth lost all it’s ozone, the sun got closer to the earth and even a few minutes of unprotected exposure to sunlight could be deadly, yes, I would keep my kids out of the sun.

Notice I referred to the chances of one’s “total sex life,” a perhaps sloppy term meaning the absolutely likelihood that person will get HIV from having sex in one’s entire life. If I only have sex with an infected person one time, I have a 1 in 100,000 (or whatever the number may be) chance of contracting HIV; if I have sex 100 times, my chances of contracting HIV in my life are 100/100,000, or 1/1000… I wasn’t implying the chances differed per intercourse, but merely that the more intercourse, the greater overall likelihood.

I only mention this, of course, out of intellectual pride and desire to clear my name of “baloney.”

OK, you cleared up sloppy. No more baloney.