Raquel, I'm sorry you're offended as I had no intent to offend anyone, only to offer a word of caution. I only made that statement because I care very much about everyone assciated with this forum.
And I concede my data may have been outdated. But, while condoms have improved over the last decade they are still not 100% effective in preventing HIV transmission.
From your support material:
Cecil replies:
Great letter, P. In more than 20 years of writing this column it's the first defense I've gotten of IV drug use, which to be honest I do think of as "inherently self-destructive." But I didn't say "queer men" were "inherently diseased." I said they were in a high-risk group, which no one disputes, and that while condoms significantly reduce the risk of infection, no one should think they will render you immune to AIDS. Discretion in your choice of sexual partners is a sound strategy regardless of your sexual orientation. That said, by all means use condoms as well.
As for the substantive issue you raise, it's true "the transmission of HIV by genital fluids most probably occurs through virus-infected cells since they can be present in larger numbers than free virus in the body fluids" (Jay Levy, "Pathogenesis of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infection," Microbiological Reviews, March 1993--an exhaustive treatment of the subject). But it would be wrong to construe this to mean that HIV is transmitted only by cells. When I spoke to Dr. Levy he readily conceded that HIV may be transmitted by free virus as well. He did add that the viscosity of semen may (italics mine) hinder the passage of such virus through the latex barrier.
We could debate the technical stuff all day. My point is this: for whatever reason--pores, improper use, etc.--real-world research shows condoms don't offer 100 percent protection against AIDS. Maybe not, say the AIDS experts, but if you tell people that they'll use it as an excuse not to use condoms. To which I reply: the arguably greater danger is that they'll use condoms the way some weight watchers use Diet Coke--as an excuse to continue dangerous behavior (e.g., promiscuous sex, not gay sex per se). If that's "anti-eros," as some people seem to think, too bad. A friend of mine who died of AIDS attributed his illness to a wild weekend he'd once had. It's hardly anti-sex to wish he'd stayed home
I am by no means anti-sex; Lord knows I've had my share. My point is that a fella named Murphy lives in small percentages such as the 1% or so of defective condoms that get past quality control. 1% equals 100% to persons affected by them. A prudent person will be sure of their partners.
Peace?
