PC/tablet Welcome page smartphone
Share Webmaster: paul yves wery contact@

- -

ReduceTXT Enlarge TXT

www.PrevAIDS.org - About 'total security'

If you want 100% security, you should consider:

"Sexual abstinence", "spiritual love", "platonic love", "cyber love", "voyeurism", "lonely animism"...In one word: love or sexual activities without physical body contact with your virtual or effective partner.

If that is too difficult, you should consider:

"Strict Safe Sex" practices which are the usual "Safe Sex" practices but excluding any penetration (with or without condom) of the penis in any part of your partner's body AND strictly avoiding contact with your partner's genital secretions.

If that compromise is still too difficult for you, it is impossible to get 100% security.

But you can consider that practicing the simple rules of "Safe Sex" is close enough to be totally safe ("more than 99.9 % of security"-see below-) if you use correctly the condoms at the right time.

We must here make a few important remarks about the evaluation of the degree of safety. Many serious medical text books like Harrison's or CMDT do not enter in the delicate debate about the degree of protection offered for instance by the use of condom. This is quite usual as it is impossible to conduct clear researches with statistics for the following reasons:

  • The diversity of grass rooted context is enormous. Shall we use the same statistics for users of condoms who have a female partner using intrauterine contraceptive device and those who have sexual practices with a female partner during menstruation or hormonal treatment (which hormonal treatment has its own effects on the vaginal mucosa)? Shall we use same statistics for man with big penis and those who have a little one or the old man with weak erection? Shall we use the same statistics for the one who suffers of premature ejaculation and the one who is able to prolong sexual intercourse during hours? Shall we use the same statistics for anal receptive partner with long experience and the one who just start with such practice? Shall we use the same statistics for users of ultra thin condoms and those using ultra thick condoms? What about the partner who has "rude" sexual practice comparing with another who takes half an hour to relax the orifice he will penetrate? If a man does use lubricant or if he doesn’t use it, should we consider the vaginal secretions of the female partner as similar? Etc...
  • The reliability of the sources of information is another absolute limitation for clear deduction... Sexuality is a very private subject. By supposing that we finally find a effective way to interview about genital practices, would it be more convenient to interview people about anal practices? Shall we ask the question in the same way to a homosexual who makes his "coming out" since years and to a homosexual who publicly pretends to be heterosexual?
  • Usually, sexual intercourse includes different kinds of practices. Which practice was the contaminant one if one partner becomes infected?
  • The goodwill is not enough to obtain trustable information... Some people will certify they wear condom always correctly but did they really check the possible breaking of the condom at the right time?  Etc.

These practical facts made us understand why statistics are not unanimous and, sometimes, quite different. For instance, by considering the issue of “sexual intercourses without condom”: the danger of receptive anal relation with an insertive anal HIV positive partner can vary from 0.1 % to 30% of contamination.

However, we are SURE that condom is NOT a 100 % total protection. But we are also sure that it is a "very good" protection if you wear it correctly at the right time and use it with a regular control of breaking (with light during intercourse!). The total risk of using condom, combined with the risk that your partner is positive or not and the risk of the type of role you have in your sexual relationship (insertive? anal? etc.), is becoming extremely low (less than 0.1%). For us, it is enough to promote the condom instead of the abstinence since we are sure that at the grass rooted level, asking too much drives to worse attitude than to accept reasonable risk.

Attention!!!! You can never consider that faithfulness is safer than "safe sex". The main problem is that confidence directly depends of morality and lucidity of the two partners... Unfortunately, statistics proof clearly that confidence is a dangerous investment in practice. Millions of faithful people have died, are dying and will die of aids because they have misunderstood or still misunderstand now that even the best partner can fail one day, one hour, one minute... Please see the page dedicated to confidence and faithfulness.

welcome page




UNAIDS (May 2004) does not hesitate to make this comment which does not include any rate of protection...and it is probably the most realistic presentation:
"...Carefully monitored studies have demonstrated that consistent and correct use of condoms is an effective means of protecting users and their partners against unplanned pregnancy and STDs, including the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), the virus that causes AIDS...." (Extract of the UNAIDS LIBRARY (CD) - May 2004

welcome page


Français - English











Webmaster: paul yves wery - contact@

aids-hospice.com & prevaids.org& stylite.net