Why Condoms Are Responsible For Spreading STDs Part II

Right now you’re probably saying that I have finally gone off my rocker, or I’ve lost the plot, for our British readers. The chutzpah of a medical professional making such an unfounded, unscientific, irrational statement such as that has to rise the hackles on the back of any reader, professional or layman. What sheer, unmitigated gall, compounded by unprofessional, unethical, irresponsible behavior would lead someone to make that kind of statement?

What total nonsense!

There isn’t a shred of evidence that condom use spreads disease. Where are the research studies? Where are the statistical evaluations? Where are the epidemiological figures? Where are the peer-reviewed papers?

Well, folks, I haven’t gone totally crazy.

How can I justify a statement that so completely goes against ingrained conventional wisdom, as well as the most basic of common sense?

Simple.

The almost universal use of condoms in the real world is probably the worst thing that has happened for the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.

Somebody’s gotta say it. So I’ll say it.

Why?

Condoms are very good at their intended purpose, to halt the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. And when used as envisioned by the condom godmother, they are very effective.

The problem is that the condom godmother is out to lunch! She is totally insane. She has no grounding in reality. And the last time she had sex she was in high school and somebody must have slipped her a mickey and she had passed out first.

Virtually nobody uses condoms in a way that will stop cross-infection. That’s right, virtually nobody.

Now is that a question of putting the condom on the proper way, and removing it in the proper manner?

No, not at all.

The point of this essay has nothing to do with that.

The way condoms are used is the key to spreading infection. Here’s how.

By the way, at this point I have to warn the more sensitive readers that... well... in a word, this is going to get raunchy.

So here we go:

I wasn’t around in the 19th century, but to read the literature, the Victorians were generally rather prudish and sexually unadventurous. So maybe in the average household in the Victorian era, on those rare instances when the lady of the manor would avail the gentleman of her services, if the gentleman had used a condom, then in that case it may have had the desired effect. Our Victorian lovers would have gone to bed wearing their voluminous nightclothes, turned off the lights, she would have given him a subtle signal of receptability, they would have engaged in their standard (?) penetrative intercourse, and then rolled over and gone to sleep.

I’m not a Victorian. In fact I doubt that even the Victorians were as Victorian as we like to think they were.

But the bottom line is who has sex in that manner in this day and age?

Nobody!

Every sexual study I can think of, as well as any sense of perceiving reality, points to the fact that sexuality these days is far more of an involved and adventurous event than the “old in and out.”

First of all there is the entire realm of foreplay. Foreplay can and usually does include all forms of sexual contact, oral to oral, oral to genital, oral to anal, etc.

Not to get pornographic, but an intense and sustained foreplay session can and usually does involve touching, licking and tasting of the various erogenous zones, and pretty well everything else. All of this activity is going on well before the condom is placed on the penis, and even if the condom already was there, what possible good would it do?

After all, when there are any of the other countless variations of intimate touching, the condom might as well still be on the drugstore shelf for all the good it’s doing.

But if you ask the lovers in question, they will most likely reply that it’s OK, since he used a condom! The act of having a condom seems to bring about a complete suspension of reality by sexual partners. It just simply doesn’t matter

“Well,” she may say “I don’t know who he is and have never seen him before, and I would never have dreamed of having sex with him if he didn’t wear a condom!”

Is this hypothetical young lady completely blind to the actions that surrounded their sexual intercourse? How many different times was she in contact with his mucous membranes, no matter where they are on his body? And how many times was he in contact with her mucous membranes, no matter where they are on her body?

Cross-infection of most sexually transmitted diseases occurs through the contact of mucous membranes. These are moist parts of the body, such as the glans (tip) of the penis, the vagina, the anus, the mouth, etc.

Did she in any way come into contact with his skin? Are either of our hot lovers aware that the HIV virus is found in almost every bodily fluid?

So we have to ask the hypothetical young lady if she thought that because he put on a condom once he penetrated her vaginally, that somehow, in some magical mystical fashion, that obviated transmission through their mucous membranes at all the other times.

Indeed, in a typical encounter, most sexual contact between mucous membranes occurs outside of the act of vaginal penetration. That means that most of the risk of transmission happens when you are not “technically” having sexual intercourse.

But using a condom does help during the act of penetrative intercourse, right? So it’s still better than nothing.

No.

Statistically, it is worse than nothing.

Because to paraphrase our hypothetical young lady, she never would have had sex with him if he hadn’t worn a condom.

That means that all the precautions that would have been taken prior to engaging in sexuality were not taken. If the hypothetical young lady had spotted Mr. Cute across the dance floor and had known that he was not going to wear a condom, she likely would have thought twice about exposing herself to his germs.

Continued in Part III

More by this Author


Comments 21 comments

Misha profile image

Misha 8 years ago from DC Area

Makes sense, definitely.


quicksand profile image

quicksand 8 years ago

Yeah, I understand. In this case the "precaution" is only an icon. Although this "icon" promises protection, it opens the door to the same danger in other forms. At the same time it encourages participation by blocking with certainty ONLY one form of the danger involved.

Well, you are probably the only one who noticed. Doctors don't talk about mucus membranes relating to this issue ... at least they don't focus on how the disease could be transmitted via that path.

Wow! You really have a point. 


Hal Licino profile image

Hal Licino 8 years ago from Toronto Author

Misha: I don't use a condom. But then again, I don't have sex. Kika Rose is stuck on her Navy boy and anyone who actually knows me finds me as sexy as a leper. :)

quicksand: There is one precaution that could work. The condom would have to be extended so that it hermetically covers your entire body. They already have those, but they call them Level 5 BioSuits! :)


Misha profile image

Misha 8 years ago from DC Area

Kika Rose is free - she broke down with her boy, or rather he did. So you better be fast to dry her tears before someone else does this :P


Hal Licino profile image

Hal Licino 8 years ago from Toronto Author

WHAT? You're KIDDING ME! YIKES! I'm SOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooo sorry to hear that. I of course just kid with Kika as I'm old enough to be her greatgreatgreatgrandpappy. I'm sure she knows that I'm not serious. Anyway, thanks for telling me, as I'll email her now.


blogging2 profile image

blogging2 8 years ago from Florida

Wow, this is a scary thought isn't it? 100% true but you don't stop to think about it. Thank goodness I am out of the dating market! It is scary out thre now...


Hal Licino profile image

Hal Licino 8 years ago from Toronto Author

Maybe I should have some bumper stickers made up: "Thomas Malthus wants you to wear condoms!" :)


Misha profile image

Misha 8 years ago from DC Area

LOL Of course I know you were kidding, and I was kidding too - may be this make her smile when she sees this :)


Hal Licino profile image

Hal Licino 8 years ago from Toronto Author

I hope so. I've emailed her so I'll see what I can do to cheer her up! :) See? Who says that HubPages isn't a Social Network! WE TAKE CARE OF OUR OWN! :)


quicksand profile image

quicksand 8 years ago

If level 5 bio suits are similar to what astronauts wear, then they are well protected are they not? Their antenna being the only thing protruding would come in handy I guess. I mean to receive radio instructions. :)


Hal Licino profile image

Hal Licino 8 years ago from Toronto Author

Actually, they're used by virologists in extremely secure negative air pressure biology labs where they keep samples of fun things like Ebola and Dengue. Once you realize that you're around viruses that can kill you and your entire city in a couple of days, you'd be surprised how LITTLE protrudes from anywhere at all! :)


quicksand profile image

quicksand 8 years ago

That's interesting ... and frightening too. :)


Ananta65 8 years ago

Hal,

First of all, I enjoyed this hub. However, I think you’re wrong when you state that sex was a simple “in and out” in the old days. After all, it was in the old days when they wrote the Kama Sutra. It was in the old days when Marquis de Sade delivered his piece de résistance to the world. It was in the old days when the Romans engaged in extravagant orgies.

Especially with regard to HIV it is important to note that infection does not take place by the simple act of touching or kissing.

http://hubpages.com/hub/Symptoms-and-Treatment-of-...


quicksand profile image

quicksand 8 years ago

Hal, you've mentioned that you don't have sex. Well that means you belong to the super-human category.

Your will power is stronger than all the steel manufactured by Mitsubishi Steeru Kaisha, Kawasaki Steeru Kaisha, and Honda Steeru Kaisha put together.

PS - The Japanese pronounce the English word "steel" as "steeru."


Hal Licino profile image

Hal Licino 8 years ago from Toronto Author

Ananta65: I wholeheartedly agree that the "touching/kissing" has not been proven as a retroviral vector, but research has proven that HIV transmission does occur through contact of the various erogenous mucus membranes. It is that touching which condoms cannot control. As a Roman (ok... maybe a hundred miles south or so...) I can assure you that the extravagant orgies were conducted by the higher classes while the vast multitudes were extraordinarily chaste. Barely 50 years ago in Italy, it would be unconscionable for a working class person to have premarital/extramarital sex of any kind. My aunt to this day has absolutely no knowledge or understanding of the very existence of either anal or oral sex in any way whatsoever, and she has had seven grown children!

quicksand: Believe me, my sexless status has little to do with my willpower. It speaks more of the willpower of the local ladies who would rather have a root canal without anaesthetic than go on a date with me! :)


Ananta65 8 years ago

Still, with all due respect, I don't think your aunt is representative for humankind throughout the ages, Hal :) In fact, ever since the Victorian age sex has become something dirty, not to be spoken of. Probably even earlier with the increasing influence of the Catholic church. Nevertheless, I feel we may be more explicit regarding sex nowadays, that doesn't mean that our ancestors where mere apes who only f*cked for reproductional reasons. I give them a bit more credit than that :)


Hal Licino profile image

Hal Licino 8 years ago from Toronto Author

I can most certainly respect your opinion, and agree that there has been a long background of promiscuity in our species. However, I don't know if there was another time in human history when the mores of monogamy and the nuclear family were violated in such a global manner.


Ananta65 8 years ago

Neither do I, I just find it hard to believe that human nature would have changed so drastically over time. The Greek myths are loaded with stories of adultery, by the gods no less. And wasn't it Lady Guinevere who cheated on Arthur? Don Juan, Casanova, Lady Chatterley's lover, you name them. Just because today things become public knowledge more often doesn't mean they didn't occur (on the same scale) back then, if you ask me.


Hal Licino profile image

Hal Licino 8 years ago from Toronto Author

Generally I believe (and I do NOT have any firm figures to back this up) that it would seem that adultery has been primarily the privilege of the upper classes through history. It would also seem that the working classes which have always constituted the vast majority of the human population, have had to rely on the nuclear family and other close tribal-like ties to ensure their own welfare. But then again, that is just a personal belief and it would require a massive historical research project to confirm the scientific basis of it.


Ananta65 8 years ago

I feel sort of the same way, Hal :)

But it would indeed require more research to prove either of us right or wrong.

Regardless, I’m still not sure as to subscribe to your opinion in this hub. Back in the sixties and seventies people were even more promiscuous and experimental than now and HIV was not a problem (I don’t say it didn’t occur, but it wasn’t a problem like it is today).


Hal Licino profile image

Hal Licino 8 years ago from Toronto Author

According to the WHO, HIV was only formally recognized in December 1981, so although there are some records of HIV infection prior to that date, it was relatively unknown in the 60s and 70s. Ah, for the good old days when Free Love didn't mean a one way ticket to the morgue! :(

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working