Homosexual Marriage

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: namguy69 Why do they hate it?

Because the Bible tells them so.

If homosexuals deserved to be killed during OT times, then clearly it must be something horrible.

[Matts]

Quote by: dilligras Surely, you jest.

No, I am completely in earnest when I say that in order for expressions like "gay culture" and "homosexuality" to have any useful meaning, they cannot be applied interchangeably. The former expression refers to certain social forms, the latter to the thing that motivated the establishment of these forms. The so-called gay culture presumes the existence of homosexuality, but there is no reason to think that homosexuality as such would not exist without gay culture. Homosexual sex was practiced before anyone ever heard of gay culture, and there are certainly homosexual relationships now that are perfectly self-sufficient without gay culture. Surely, you do not suggest that an intimate relation between two men could not exist without their involvement in gay culture?

[Zinkovich]

The only other "problem" I have with them is when they get half-naked and go prancing down Main Street to celebrate their "arrival" to mainstream America. No, I don't have a problem with their wanting to party--just with the fact that they seem to think that the street is the appropriate place for such excesses of sexual display.

Do you have issues against Mardi Gras, and mass protestations on issues such as abortion as well, then?

As for them doing it as a small group, well, "we" get drunk and stagger around like everybody else. It doesn't justify anything, I'm just saying it most certianly not is an action exclusive to gays- no, its common amongst partiers in general.

We occasionally argue about one thing or another relating to their lifestyle choices, (when we discuss it at all) but few will deny that it is neither safe nor healthy, when viewed under the klieg lights of stark reality.

I'm sorry, but I have yet to see any danger stem from homosexuality in and of itself. There are some more...risque....cultures that are a bit dangerous(such as the whole meth/"Crystal" scene leftover from the 80's), but people who behave within such a cultural meme are slowly becoming the minority.

I mentioned no individual or specific acts, in an attempt to generalize from the specific, which, if I interpret your musings correctly, is your charge. But in the interest of clarity, subjugating propriety, I will only say that my mention of the gay lifestyle's inherent dangers reference only current realities, vis a vis AIDS and its likely appearance in the lives of those who insist on the indiscriminate release of ejaculates into each other's hirsute nether regions. To attempt to censor with ridicule, by complaining that one unfairly warns of this deadly likelyhood when pointing to a few cases, is to pervert logical argument in a desparate ploy to support the unsupportable with what can best be described as blatant, ideologically driven propaganda.

AIDs wouldn't be as much of a problem amongst the "community" if more of us were careful, in my opinion. Unfortunately, many of the less bright of my homosexual brethren think that anal sex should not need a condom for safety at all, thus compounding the problem.

The cause of the aids endemic is not homosexuality, but careless homosexuals, form my experience. I'm sure you can see many similar consequences from the carelessness in the younger of your hetero brethren with that whole "teen pregnancy pandemic" I hear so much about.

If you can back up the spinmobile several leagues, you'll notice that I never used the reference to my friends as proof of anything. I make my argument against the safety of anal sex based solely on its likely transmission of disease..........or will you now postulate that homosexuals are not the overwhelming victims of AIDS because of their proclivity toward such behavior?

First testing, then to be extra safe use FUCKING CONDOMS. Jesus Christ, I try to drill it into the head of everyone I know who participates in anal, whether gay or straight, but for some reason the large majority of people are just too stupid to listen to me.

Put it this way: a straight couple, biologically speaking, can get aids just as easily when participating in coital activities without protection. There is nothing biologically increasing the chance of homosexuals getting aids.

Oh wait.............but the fact of disproportionate levels of this deadly disease among gays proves nothing about any specific person, so it is to be discounted as irrelevant to any discussion of the "lifestyle", is that how the logic goes?

No, the logic goes that homosexuals that get aids are just either really stupid, really reckless, or just plain uninformed.

[dilligras]

Do you have issues against Mardi Gras, and mass protestations on issues such as abortion as well, then? As for them doing it as a small group, well, "we" get drunk and stagger around like everybody else. It doesn't justify anything, I'm just saying it most certianly not is an action exclusive to gays- no, its common amongst partiers in general.

No, I only have a problem with selfish nimrods wanting to parade half-naked in broad daylight down main street. If they're in a private venue, like a rented park with adult-only access, I say let the baccanalian celebrations run their course. And folks won't be forced to endure the spectacle unless they go out of their way to do so.

Kind of like the nude bather's retreat, "Hippie Hollow", in one of the secluded coves of Lake Travis, near Austin.

I'm sorry, but I have yet to see any danger stem from homosexuality in and of itself. There are some more...risque....cultures that are a bit dangerous(such as the whole meth/"Crystal" scene leftover from the 80's), but people who behave within such a cultural meme are slowly becoming the minority. AIDs wouldn't be as much of a problem amongst the "community" if more of us were careful, in my opinion. Unfortunately, many of the less bright of my homosexual brethren think that anal sex should not need a condom for safety at all, thus compounding the problem. The cause of the aids endemic is not homosexuality, but careless homosexuals, form my experience. I'm sure you can see many similar consequences from the carelessness in the younger of your hetero brethren with that whole "teen pregnancy pandemic" I hear so much about. First testing, then to be extra safe use FUCKING CONDOMS. Jesus Christ, I try to drill it into the head of everyone I know who participates in anal, whether gay or straight, but for some reason the large majority of people are just too stupid to listen to me. Put it this way: a straight couple, biologically speaking, can get aids just as easily when participating in coital activities without protection. There is nothing biologically increasing the chance of homosexuals getting aids.

Sadly, you also are misinformed. Anal sex is the only real danger to males' getting AIDS, other than contamination by dirty needles and such, and then, only to the one acting as the receptacle, as the penetrator has a very small chance of being infected by the receptacle, whether male or female, anal or vaginal.

Because of this idiosyncrasy of transmission, homosexual intercourse is much more dangerous to men than heterosexual bumping uglies. Contrary to what many have been led to believe by our lefty media, condoms do not work as a realistic method for prevention of aids among gays or heteros, for the very reasons of a lack of responsibility on the part of horndogs in heat that you mention........monogamy and abstention do, as has been amply proven in African nations who have tried both extensively.

Because monogamy is an important factor in stopping the rapid spread, the overwhelming tendency of gays to flit like butterflies from one "flower" to the next bodes ill for their future, if a cure is not found. But given our success in that regard with another virus, the cold, I have little hope for that outcome.


.

[dilligras]

Quote by: Matts No, I am completely in earnest when I say that in order for expressions like "gay culture" and "homosexuality" to have any useful meaning, they cannot be applied interchangeably. The former expression refers to certain social forms, the latter to the thing that motivated the establishment of these forms. The so-called gay culture presumes the existence of homosexuality, but there is no reason to think that homosexuality as such would not exist without gay culture. Homosexual sex was practiced before anyone ever heard of gay culture, and there are certainly homosexual relationships now that are perfectly self-sufficient without gay culture. Surely, you do not suggest that an intimate relation between two men could not exist without their involvement in gay culture?

Ah so, deska........but nonetheless, I don't think I ever used the words "gay culture" in my first post, but rather spoke of their lifestyle choices, in an attempt at a euphemism for anal sex, which is the only practice relating to gays that poses significant danger of infection.

So your charge that I was attempting to "frame" any context for homosexuality was entirely misguided and specious.

But perhaps you mistook me for another.



As you were.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Dilligras Contrary to what many have been led to believe by our lefty media, condoms do not work as a realistic method for prevention of aids among gays or heteros, for the very reasons of a lack of responsibility on the part of horndogs in heat that you mention........monogamy and abstention do, as has been amply proven in African nations who have tried both extensively. Because monogamy is an important factor in stopping the rapid spread, the overwhelming tendency of gays to flit like butterflies from one "flower" to the next bodes ill for their future, if a cure is not found. But given our success in that regard with another virus, the cold, I have little hope for that outcome.

Condoms, when used properly, make a huge difference. There are gay folk who have multiple partners, always use condoms, and stay uninfected.

I think you are pointing out that some rather impulsive homosexuals find themselves unable or unwilling to use condoms all the time. Do you believe that these people are more likely to respond to an abstinence or monogamy message?


Regarding the cold - upper respiratory viral infections can be caused by multiple viruses. There are treatments and vaccines for some of them. Eventually, we will be able to treat them all. I am not sure we should, because there is something to be said for strengthening your immune system, but nonetheless we are slowly but surely conquering the common cold.

[Matts]

Quote by: dilligras Ah so, deska........but nonetheless, I don't think I ever used the words "gay culture" in my first post, but rather spoke of their lifestyle choices, in an attempt at a euphemism for anal sex, which is the only practice relating to gays that poses significant danger of infection.

So it was just as I expected, my interpretation of your use of "lifestyle choices" was correct. What at first glance appears to be a critique of certain choices (wildly promiscuous homosexual sex) turns out to be a totalising condemnation of any and all choices (homosexual sex in general). A "critique" of "lifestyle choices" made by a very specific group of "gay friends" is translated into a totalising condemnation of any choice involving the practice of homosexual sex under any social circumstance whatever. This part–whole confusion, in which specific instances of a type are used to give an air of authority to a categorical condemnation of the type itself, is a typical sleight of hand to get around inconsistencies of reasoning.

As long as you cannot prove that homosexual sex per se is the cause of serious sexually transmitted deseases like AIDS, your gesticulation towards your alleged "friends" is pointless insofar as it pretends to be an argument against male homosexuality in general. If you were truly concerned about the personal choices made by your friends, you would focus your tirade on these particular risk behaviours and not try to use them as a despicable political weapon against homosexuality. As far as parade frivolity is concerned, men who attend Gay Pride do not represent gay men on the whole, and many gay men are repelled by the very thought of these events.

[dilligras]

Quote by: Matts So it was just as I expected, my interpretation of your use of "lifestyle choices" was correct.

And I would suggest that things are ALWAYS "just as you expect", for your perceptions NEVER suggest that your "interpretations" are incorrect, for the human mind is nothing if not a slave to its own preconceptions of reality, survival being the harsh taskmaster of all subconscious tendencies that it is.

That is why we have such a large investment in being right--on a purely subconscious level, our survival of the harsh realities of physical existence require it, without involving rational, conscious thought. Thus we see manifest over and over, apparently illogical behavior posing as righteous justifications for our points of view, just as we consciously use our points of view to justify our illogical behavior.

"Listen up, ah say, listen to me when I'm talkin' to ya,boy......ya gotta take that there four-legged chicken by surprise, ah say, ya gotta be sneaky, boy.." [/Foghorn Leghorn]

What at first glance appears to be a critique of certain choices (wildly promiscuous homosexual sex) turns out to be a totalising condemnation of any and all choices (homosexual sex in general). A "critique" of "lifestyle choices" made by a very specific group of "gay friends" is translated into a totalising condemnation of any choice involving the practice of homosexual sex under any social circumstance whatever.

Nooooo, what at first glance appears to be an assessment of the inherent dangers of indiscriminate male/male anal sex, turns out to be exactly and only just that and nothing more. Gays are NOT forced by circumstance of birth to engage in ANY particular form of sex, and so to suggest that they are innocent victims of that circumstance when they ignore the current realities of consequence vis a vis anal sex is pandering to irresponsibility and insulting to any unbiased consideration of the facts.

You do them no favor in that pandering sir, just as Jesse Jackson ill serves black America with his devisive, selfish pandering to its self image as victim to modern "injustices". Such posturing serves only to keep blacks enslaved to an image of self as helpless, woebegone victims, who can do nothing to better themselves--in the country that offers more opportunity than any other to men of ALL origins who will make an effort to improve their lot. Immigrants from the four corners of the world and of all races and cultures prove it here daily.

As long as you cannot prove that homosexual sex per se is the cause of serious sexually transmitted deseases like AIDS.......

And some will not accept any evidence contrary to their closely held agenda, flailing about with angry condemnation, in a veritable paroxysm of illogical manipulations of fact--in order to make the round peg of reality fit the square hole of said agenda.

The "proof" you deny is easily apparent upon the most cursory of investigations devoid of prejudice.........but again I waste breath.

your gesticulation towards your alleged "friends" is pointless insofar as it pretends to be an argument against male homosexuality in general. If you were truly concerned about the personal choices made by your friends, you would focus your tirade on these particular risk behaviours and not try to use them as a despicable political weapon against homosexuality.

And you are obviously blinded to the facts by your own programming, seeking to condemn any who would point to the obvious in an effort to save their gay friends from their potentially dangerous self-indulgences. I do not have any problem whatsoever with my friends' choices for their own likes and dislikes, including those of a homosexual nature........I do have a serious problem with them killing themselves inadvertently due to ignorance of the consequences of indiscriminant anal sex with multiple partners, and I resent your politically motivated condemnation of my efforts to avoid for them the misery certain to accompany those consequences.

But then, I have come to expect little else from folks who cannot seperate their closely held beliefs from reality. They are trapped in a riddle of their own design.

As far as parade frivolity is concerned, men who attend Gay Pride do not represent gay men on the whole, and many gay men are repelled by the very thought of these events.

Yes, and I should have mentioned that a few of my friends also decry the negative attention these events engender in the general population. Sorry if I gave the wrong impression.

[Zinkovich]

Here's some research for everyone here:

The objective of this study was to examine the consistency of barrier/condom use among men who have sex with men in the Kansas City metropolitan area. The authors sought to determine if barrier/condom usage patterns were associated with the type of sex act and whether it was insertive or receptive, HIV testing frequency, and number of sexual partners. Data were extracted from a 2003 community health assessment of the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered community in the metropolitan area. The health assessment instrument was anonymous, self-administered, and distributed at events in that community. Responses from 623 men indicated that consistent use of a barrier/condom was low regardless of the sex act. There was no relationship between barrier/condom usage patterns and HIV testing frequency for any sex act or the number of sex partners, with the exception of anal intercourse. The authors concluded that a different approach is needed to translate the barrier/condom use message into a behavioral response.

Entrez PubMed

PROBLEM/CONDITION: For CDC's goal of reducing the number of new human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infections to be achieved, data are needed to assess the prevalence of HIV-related risk behaviors at a given time, monitor trends in these behaviors, and assess the correlates of risk. These data also can be used to evaluate the extent to which current HIV-prevention programs are reaching targeted communities and direct future HIV-prevention activities to reduce HIV transmission. REPORTING PERIOD: November 2003-April 2005. DESCRIPTION OF SYSTEM: The National HIV Behavioral Surveillance (NHBS) System collects risk behavior data from three populations at high risk for HIV infection: men who have sex with men (MSM), injection-drug users, and heterosexual adults in areas in which HIV is prevalent. Data collection began in 2003 among MSM in 17 U.S. metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs), and surveys have been conducted in 25 MSAs since 2005. Participants must be aged >/= 18 years and reside in a participating MSA. RESULTS: This report summarizes data gathered during the first cycle (i.e., data collection period) of NHBS (November 2003-April 2005) from approximately 10,000 MSM. The results indicated that >90% of participants had ever been tested for HIV. Of those, 77% had been tested during the preceding 12 months. In addition to their male sex partners, 14% of participants also had at least one female sex partner during the preceding 12 months. Unprotected anal intercourse was reported by 58% with a main male partner (someone with whom the participant had sex and to whom he felt most committed [e.g., a boyfriend, spouse, significant other, or life partner]) and by 36[corrected]% with a casual male partner (someone with whom the participant had sex but who was not considered a main partner). Noninjection drugs were used by 42% of participants during the preceding 12 months; the most commonly used drugs were marijuana (77%), cocaine (37%), ecstasy (29%), poppers (28%), and stimulants (27%). A substantial proportion (80%) of participants had received free condoms during the preceding 12 months, but fewer had participated in individual- or group-level HIV prevention programs (15% and 8%, respectively). INTERPRETATION: MSM surveyed engaged in sexual and drug-use behaviors that placed them at increased risk for HIV infection. The majority of MSM surveyed had been tested for HIV infection. Although a substantial proportion of participants had received free condoms, a much smaller proportion had participated in more intensive HIV-prevention programs. PUBLIC HEALTH ACTION: NHBS data are used to assess and develop effective HIV-prevention programs and services. Continued collection and reporting of NHBS data from all targeted high-risk populations is needed to monitor behavior trends and assess future HIV prevention needs in these populations. The data are used for local HIV-prevention planning and monitoring in MSAs in which NHBS is conducted.

Entrez PubMed

This is part of the bloody problem, folks. What is needed is a more widely encouraged usage of condoms, rather than a denouncement of homosexual methods of intimacy altogether.

[namguy69]

Quote by: dilligras And I would suggest that things are ALWAYS "just as you expect", for your perceptions NEVER suggest that your "interpretations" are incorrect, for the human mind is nothing if not a slave to its own preconceptions of reality, survival being the harsh taskmaster of all subconscious tendencies that it is. That is why we have such a large investment in being right--on a purely subconscious level, our survival of the harsh realities of physical existence require it, without involving rational, conscious thought. Thus we see manifest over and over, apparently illogical behavior posing as righteous justifications for our points of view, just as we consciously use our points of view to justify our illogical behavior. "Listen up, ah say, listen to me when I'm talkin' to ya,boy......ya gotta take that there four-legged chicken by surprise, ah say, ya gotta be sneaky, boy.." [/Foghorn Leghorn] Nooooo, what at first glance appears to be an assessment of the inherent dangers of indiscriminate male/male anal sex, turns out to be exactly and only just that and nothing more. Gays are NOT forced by circumstance of birth to engage in ANY particular form of sex, and so to suggest that they are innocent victims of that circumstance when they ignore the current realities of consequence vis a vis anal sex is pandering to irresponsibility and insulting to any unbiased consideration of the facts. You do them no favor in that pandering sir, just as Jesse Jackson ill serves black America with his devisive, selfish pandering to its self image as victim to modern "injustices". Such posturing serves only to keep blacks enslaved to an image of self as helpless, woebegone victims, who can do nothing to better themselves--in the country that offers more opportunity than any other to men of ALL origins who will make an effort to improve their lot. Immigrants from the four corners of the world and of all races and cultures prove it here daily. And some will not accept any evidence contrary to their closely held agenda, flailing about with angry condemnation, in a veritable paroxysm of illogical manipulations of fact--in order to make the round peg of reality fit the square hole of said agenda. The "proof" you deny is easily apparent upon the most cursory of investigations devoid of prejudice.........but again I waste breath. And you are obviously blinded to the facts by your own programming, seeking to condemn any who would point to the obvious in an effort to save their gay friends from their potentially dangerous self-indulgences. I do not have any problem whatsoever with my friends' choices for their own likes and dislikes, including those of a homosexual nature........I do have a serious problem with them killing themselves inadvertently due to ignorance of the consequences of indiscriminant anal sex with multiple partners, and I resent your politically motivated condemnation of my efforts to avoid for them the misery certain to accompany those consequences. But then, I have come to expect little else from folks who cannot seperate their closely held beliefs from reality. They are trapped in a riddle of their own design. Yes, and I should have mentioned that a few of my friends also decry the negative attention these events engender in the general population. Sorry if I gave the wrong impression.

Ok.

[namguy69]

Quote by: Zinkovich Here's some research for everyone here: Entrez PubMed Entrez PubMed This is part of the bloody problem, folks. What is needed is a more widely encouraged usage of condoms, rather than a denouncement of homosexual methods of intimacy altogether.

Ok.

[Matts]

Dilligras, nothing you can say will ever change the simple, value-neutral fact of biology, of which I think I have already made abundant mention, that sexually transmitted deseases are not passed on from one healthy male to another healthy male. Your alledged gay friends are irresponsible gits? Who cares? If you want to reprimand them for their choice to have promiscuous sex, reprimand them, reprimand to your heart's content, but don't try to pretend that in doing so you have said some profound truth about homosexuality in general.

[namguy69]

Quote by: Matts Dilligras, nothing you can say will ever change the simple, value-neutral fact of biology, of which I think I have already made abundant mention, that sexually transmitted deseases are not passed on from one healthy male to another healthy male. Your alledged gay friends are irresponsible gits? Who cares? If you want to reprimand them for their choice to have promiscuous sex, reprimand them, reprimand to your heart's content, but don't try to pretend that in doing so you have said some profound truth about homosexuality in general.

Ok.:rolleyes:

[Zinkovich]

Quote by: namguy69 Ok.:rolleyes:

Okay :)

....wait is this okaying some form of argument or discussion or what :confused:

[BWRoberts221]

No, I don't have a problem with their wanting to party--just with the fact that they seem to think that the street is the appropriate place for such excesses of sexual display.

I haven't read from this thread in a while but aren't we getting a little off topic discussing the effects of culture, safe sex, and exhibitionism? I thought this was about defining marriage. Anyway, I find it surprising that so many people get all up in arms over gay parades and "excesses of sexual display" amongst homosexuals when our main stream media is filled with constant barrages of sexuality and decadence. And who cares anyway? Or are we still worried that our children might get corrupted if they see or hear anything with sexual content? It's too late for that; the evil seed has already been planted in the innocent minds of every American. I think the effects of sex on culture and vice versa is for another topic.

[dilligras]

Quote by: Matts Dilligras, nothing you can say will ever change the simple, value-neutral fact of biology, of which I think I have already made abundant mention, that sexually transmitted deseases are not passed on from one healthy male to another healthy male

.

So what? As I have pointed out, your point is irrellevant to the discussion, as no one has asserted otherwise. It is not the majority, the healthy partners that concern us here, is it? And I'm sure when you're looking at prospective partners that you may easily discern which ones are infected by the most casual observation, but given the stakes in this "poker game", (pun intended) I do not trust this method for any of my friends, especially those immersed in the highest risk group of all.

Your alledged gay friends are irresponsible gits?

So when you run out of arguments, my friends become "alleged" and worthy only of name-calling?

Nice.

Who cares? If you want to reprimand them for their choice to have promiscuous sex, reprimand them, reprimand to your heart's content, but don't try to pretend that in doing so you have said some profound truth about homosexuality in general.

I don't, nor have I ever attempted reprimanding my friends, only making sure that are aware of the proven facts that in African countries where condoms are dispensed freely, AIDS is rampant, while in countries that have a policy of promoting monogamy and abstinance, it is not.

Spin all your agenda-driven platitudes all you wish, these are the indisputable facts.

So who is pretending to the throne of pretense here?

[Zinkovich]

I don't, nor have I ever attempted reprimanding my friends, only making sure that are aware of the proven facts that in African countries where condoms are dispensed freely, AIDS is rampant, while in countries that have a policy of promoting monogamy and abstinance, it is not.

Facts, you say? Here's some studies for you:

The degree to which women are able to control various aspects of their sexual lives is clearly a critical question for health promotion and the prevention of AIDS. It is evident that social factors such as the high rate of rape, the unfavourable economic position of women, and the inability to insist on condom usage make South African women unable to negotiate the timing of sex and the conditions under which it occurs. They are thus rendered powerless to protect themselves against HIV infection. Prevention campaigns often do not take into account the reality of the daily lives of South African women and the difficulties they face gaining control over their own sexual lives. The rampant spread of this disease can only be stemmed if the subordinate position of women is acknowledged and addressed.

BACKGROUND: Drug therapy for people with AIDS is a humanitarian priority but prevention of HIV infection remains essential. Focusing on young single African women, we aimed to assess trends in a set of behaviours-sexual abstinence, contraceptive use, and condom use-that are known to affect the rates of HIV transmission. METHODS: We did a secondary analysis of public-access data sets in 18 African countries (132,800 women), and calculated changes in a set of behavioural indicators over time. We standardised these trends from nationally representative surveys to adjust for within-country changes in age, education, and type of residential location. FINDINGS: Between about 1993 and 2001, the percentage of women reporting no sexual experience changed little. During the same period, the percentage of sexually experienced women who reported no sexual intercourse in the previous 3 months (secondary abstinence) rose significantly in seven of 18 countries and the median for all 18 countries increased from 43.8% to 49.2%. Use of condoms for pregnancy prevention rose significantly in 13 of 18 countries and the median proportion increased from 5.3% to 18.8%. The median rate of annual increase of condom use was 1.41 percentage points (95% CI 1.12-2.25). In the 13 countries with available data, condom use at most recent coitus rose from a median of 19.3% to 28.4%. Over half (58.5%) of condom users were motivated, at least in part, by a wish to avoid pregnancy. INTERPRETATION: Condom promotion campaigns in sub-Saharan Africa have affected the behaviour of young single women; the pace of change has matched the rise in contraceptive use by married couples in developing countries over recent decades. Thus continuing efforts to promote condom use with emphasis on pregnancy prevention are justified.

Entrez PubMed

Condoms not effective against aids? What about these studies:

The most convincing data on risk factors for HIV infection come from prospective studies of serodiscordant couples, those where one partner is infected and the other is not. In these situations, regular sexual exposure to an infected partner is known, and more accurate record-keeping on condom use is usually possible than in retrospective surveys. (Feldblum) Three recent studies of heterosexual serodiscordant couples have compared rates of HIV seroconversion (where the uninfected partner becomes infected) in couples using condoms with varying consistency (see Table 1-1). Two extremely important conclusions are supported by all three studies. First, with consistent condom use, the HIV infection rate among the uninfected partners was less than 1 percent per year. Second, in situations where one partner is definitely infected, inconsistent condom use can be as risky as not using condoms at all. In a multi-center Italian study that followed 305 sexually active seronegative female sexual partners of HIV-infected men for a median of 24 months, 3.9 infections occurred per 100 person-years (py). (Saracco) The HIV incidence was reduced by 84 percent in women who always used condoms compared with women who used them inconsistently or never (rate ratio 0.2; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.1-0.5).* Of the 171 women who always used a condom, 1.7 percent became infected. The percent infected was higher among those using condoms some of the time (14.5 percent of 55 women), compared with those who never used condoms (10.1 percent of 79 women). A multi-country European collaborative study enrolled 378 seronegative regular partners of HIV-infected men or women; 256 of the couples continued to have vaginal or anal intercourse. (deVincenzi) About one half of the couples used condoms at every intercourse, and no seroconversions occurred among these couples (95% CI 0-1.5 per 100 py). Nearly 10 percent of the 121 couples who used condoms inconsistently or not at all seroconverted, an HIV incidence rate of 4.8/100 py (95% CI 2.5-8.4). These infections occurred even though 50 percent of the inconsistent users reported using condoms at least half the time. In a Haitian serodiscordant couples study, 63 percent of couples ceased sexual activity soon after enrollment. The HIV seroconver-sion rate among the 177 couples who remained sexually active was 5.4 per 100 py. (Deschamps) The infection rate was 1.0 per 100 couples who always used condoms (2.4 percent of 42 couples), compared with 6.8 per 100 couples who used condoms inconsistently or not at all (rate ratio 0.1). As in the Italian study, there was almost no difference in the risk of infection between inconsistent users and non-users. Of the 45 inconsistent users, 13.3 percent became infected; of the 90 non-users, 14.4 percent became infected. These three studies show that consistent condom use is extremely effective against HIV transmission. Even with regular exposure to infection, self-reported consistent condom users have a near-zero risk of HIV. However, among these serodiscordant couples, inconsistent condom use carries considerable risks of HIV infection, since exposure to infection is guaranteed at every unprotected intercourse. In this sexual context, inconsistent condom use offers little protection against HIV, compared with non-use.

More, on a condom's ability to block fluids(which is the method by which HIV transmits between partners):

Quote: