Auxillary post about condoms/pregnancy/STD healthcare

[piin]

Just wanted to address a few common pieces of misinformation.

I see a lot of people write trite comments to address anyone who experienced teen pregnancy and/or STDs/STIs.

Common Understanding: Use a condom correctly, prevent STDs/STIs.

Truth: Consistent and correct condom use will definitely strongly reduce your risk of HIV transmission. Herpes and HPV however can easily be transmitted through skin to skin contact in the genital areas that are not covered by a condom. There is NO statistical evidence that the transmission of those infections are reduced by condom use. 20% of the sexually active population over the age of 12 has Herpes 2. Some college campuses estimate that 75% of their students are carrying at least one strain of the HPV virus (not all strains cause genital warts of cervical cancer)

Common Understanding: Typical condom use will greatly reduce your risk of pregnancy.

Truth: It actually IS true, depending on how you choose to look at the numbers. Typical use studies of condoms show that 12 couples out of 100 will experience a pregnancy during the course of one year (typical use). Certainly your chances are better, but how do you determine whether you're on of the 12 or not?

I write this only to stir the pot a little and have people do a little thinking on their own. Please don't assume that this post has anything to do with the morality/appropriate age/married or not/etc of sex. I'm not moralizing, I'm correcting some peoples' misunderstanding of their risk factors.

[Stir]

I write this only to stir the pot a little and have people do a little thinking on their own. Please don't assume that this post has anything to do with the morality/appropriate age/married or not/etc of sex. I'm not moralizing, I'm correcting some peoples' misunderstanding of their risk factors.

This cannot be true, since there is no immediate context in which you post this. As a stand-alone post, it must serve a purpose or be pointless.

[piin]

This cannot be true, since there is no immediate context in which you post this. As a stand-alone post, it must serve a purpose or be pointless.

How about education? I am a former teacher so that is my motivation in a large part of what I communicate. I'm not sure what additional information you're wanting.

[Stir]

How about education? I am a former teacher so that is my motivation in a large part of what I communicate. I'm not sure what additional information you're wanting.

See; that doesn't cut it because the opening post is not responsive, while it also does not invite for discussion. Meaning that you have something to say, something to convince others of, outside of the context of something going on on this board/topic.

Context matters. So your goal is to educate, but I suspect that your opinion is that premarital sex is bad, and preventatives aren't good. Which is enforced by your phrasing on the effectiveness of condoms in regards to pregnancy preventions: 'This actually IS true' implies a surprising fact, which also implies that condoms really aren't very good for anything else.

So I see the premise of this topic as dishonest propaganda.

[piin]

See; that doesn't cut it because the opening post is not responsive, while it also does not invite for discussion. Meaning that you have something to say, something to convince others of, outside of the context of something going on on this board/topic.

Context matters. So your goal is to educate, but I suspect that your opinion is that premarital sex is bad, and preventatives aren't good. Which is enforced by your phrasing on the effectiveness of condoms in regards to pregnancy preventions: 'This actually IS true' implies a surprising fact, which also implies that condoms really aren't very good for anything else.

So I see the premise of this topic as dishonest propaganda.

Let me attempt to give additional understanding then. As a former teacher, I saw too many of my students end up in situations for which they were not prepared (pregnancy) or that they regretted but couldn't change (viral STIs). The reason I included the capital IS in my original post is because I didn't want someone to misunderstand that I was suggesting that condoms were ineffective in preventing pregnancy. The question I would raise for someone to evaluate is what percentages do you need to see in order for things to qualify as effective enough for you? Using the data I already listed, consider this scenario: 100 high school couples (longer term relationships) are having sexual intercourse throughout the year. Typically 10-12 of the girls will end up pregnant if all of the 100 couples are using condoms.

I don't know Stir, so I can't claim to understand where you're coming from, but calling what I wrote "dishonest propaganda" seems a little harsh.

I'm open to continued discussion with you.

[owbu]

If you want to "help" people, try teaching them methods to figure out information like this on their own, so that they can form their own opiion.

Just writing down some random numbers, to make them come to your conclusion, is not helping anyone and just makes you seem like one of the propaganda guys on the other side.
A side that is very good in random numbers, I might add^^

[Deleted]

100 high school couples (longer term relationships) are having sexual intercourse throughout the year. Typically 10-12 of the girls will end up pregnant if all of the 100 couples are using condoms.

Of 100 women whose partners use condoms inconsistently or imperfectly, 18 will become pregnant in the first year of use. Only two will become pregnant if condoms are used perfectly (Trussell, 2011)

High failure rates in some studies occur because many people over-report contraceptive use to shift the responsibility for an unintended pregnancy to a “faulty” contraceptive. Such over-reporting artificially inflates failure rates (Trussell, 1998)

Condom failure rates are also inflated because some young people have been shown to inaccurately report condom uses, use condoms incorrectly, and respond to survey questions with what they perceive to be socially desirable answers (Rose et al., 2009).

In fact, most people who use condoms do not experience breakage or slippage. Most condom failures occur among a minority of users because they are less experienced and/or less careful about using condoms than more successful users (Steiner et al., 1993, Steiner et al., 1994)

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/fil...ut_condoms.pdf

You want to educate people, educate people, don't scare them with half truths.

[Payday]

The throes of passionate, protected love making will be matched by the screams of agony and pain in the eternal fires of hell. The choice is yours.

[Rukentuts]

The throes of passionate, protected love making will be matched by the screams of agony and pain in the eternal fires of hell. The choice is yours.

It's why I request to be burned with lit cigarettes as to adequately prepare myself.

[Stir]

Let me attempt to give additional understanding then. As a former teacher, I saw too many of my students end up in situations for which they were not prepared (pregnancy) or that they regretted but couldn't change (viral STIs). The reason I included the capital IS in my original post is because I didn't want someone to misunderstand that I was suggesting that condoms were ineffective in preventing pregnancy. The question I would raise for someone to evaluate is what percentages do you need to see in order for things to qualify as effective enough for you? Using the data I already listed, consider this scenario: 100 high school couples (longer term relationships) are having sexual intercourse throughout the year. Typically 10-12 of the girls will end up pregnant if all of the 100 couples are using condoms.

I don't know Stir, so I can't claim to understand where you're coming from, but calling what I wrote "dishonest propaganda" seems a little harsh.

I'm open to continued discussion with you.

I'm also for educating people. But if a discussion like this would arise in which I was asked to grant information, I would not just state in which cases condoms are ineffective (as you did), but also state in which cases they áre effective. There are a myriad of infections that can effectively be prevented using a condom. If used correctly. I would then also explain a few correct methods for the use of a condom. Such as: Young boys should buy different sizes of condoms and track their 'fit.' Schools should teach children how to put on condoms (like I was taught in school). Children should learn early on to use (spermicidal) lubricants with a condom, to prevent it from tearing.
With proper use, your number would plummet from 12 in 100 to 1,5 in 100.

Basically: I would teach the merits of proper condom use. I would tell people that there is no shame in buying a condom. Every twelve year old boy should buy condoms regularly, and know his size. People should no longer believe that 'double layers' are a good preventative (because it breaks the condoms), and yet, people by and large believe just that. It's unsafe. 'Common condom use' such as you describe it would be 'how to destroy your condom' as I would see it.

But you don't go into any of that. You don't actually speak of proper condom use. Of properly using preventatives. All you do is point to specific things in which condoms are ineffective (such as herpes), or where condoms fail (because of a lack of education), implying that condoms are ineffective, and thereby endangering young people.

That's why I believe you're acting from a dogmatic belief.

[Nightspear]

How about education? I am a former teacher so that is my motivation in a large part of what I communicate. I'm not sure what additional information you're wanting.

I can understand "former teacher". As a teacher you should have told about the merits of correct condom use, and how to use it correctly.

[Darsithis]

There isn't much point to starting a thread like this here. There are more verifiable and official resources on the Internet than the off-topic forum of a gaming site for such content.