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?
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.
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?
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.
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.