Conference quark::mennotes

    Why is it that the people who talk about the pore in condoms have never
    heard about surface tension?
    
    					andrew

Nobody I know of uses the term "safe sex", and especially "truly safe sex"
anymore.  "Safer sex" is the common parlance.  Are condoms 100% effective?
No.  Do they significantly reduce the chance of infection and pregnancy?
Yes.  So what's the idea?  Don't use condoms because they might fail?  That
seems rather backwards to me.  If the hidden agenda is "Just say no", that's
fighting against an innate physical drive in human beings.  I'd rather tell
people "If you're going to have sex, use a condom."

				Steve

    re .2

>If the hidden agenda is "Just say no", that's
>fighting against an innate physical drive in human beings.  I'd rather tell
>people "If you're going to have sex, use a condom."

    The problem a lot of people have with the "just us a condom" crowd
    is the message has been (although it is beginning to change), 
    "Go ahead and have all the sex you want. Just use a condom and you
    will be ok".  These crowd also screams bloody murder every time
    anyone dares to mention that abstinence and monogamy (with an 
    uninfected person) are the only "safe" sex.

    fred();

    re .3, why do you care if other people go ahead and "have all the sex
    they want"?  Basically, as long as people use condoms, what is the
    problem?  I mean, afterall, there is going to be a limit to how much
    sex most people can *get* unless they're rock stars, or sports stars,
    with groupies.
    
    Lorna
    

    RE: 4

    I think the problem is that a lot of people think that if everyone has
    sex willy-nilly, then it will degrade the "moral fiber" of our society.
    
    Not that I agree. I don't think of it as degradation, but evolution.

    - Jim

    
    RE: .4  Because my tax dollars will fund the search for the cure for
    the next deadly std that comes down the pike and my tax dollars will be
    used to care for these people.  We have a vested interest.
    
    
    Mike 

    re .6, there's always going to be something that your tax dollars go
    for, that you don't agree with.  If it's not one thing, it's another. 
    It's beyond your control, so don't waste your time worrying about it. 
    Better to just be thankful *you* aren't one of the people dying of a
    dreaded disease that other people don't want to pay for because they
    think you caught it by engaging in immoral behavior.  
    
    Lorna
    

    re .7

    It's this type of attitude that has us $4T in debt and getting in
    deeper to the tune of $350M/yr, and has the government confiscating
    over 25% of my hard earned pay check. 

    fred();

    Ime gona get sick.!!
    
    If you lived in Ireland like I do you would pay 49% tax PLUS
    
    8% Social Security which adds up to  57 % of your pay packet being
    confiscated each week.
    
    Thats 2.3 Times what you pay.

You people are in a sorry state - just do a double take on this line of
conversation. You've moved from condoms to the national debt inside 7 replies !!!

Steve and Lorna have their fingers on the pulse. I'd only add that in my opinion
it would be wrong of society to decide when, where and how much sex individuals 
enjoy, it's better to provide people with an opportunity to protect themselves 
and educate them accordingly.

You can choose to wear a condom, or you can choose not to. A woman can choose to 
take the pill, or she can choose not to. You can choose to abstain, or you can 
choose not to. It's your choice. I support that freedom 100%.

- Paul.

    .10 Gee, I dont see anyone going off track. It all boils down to two
    things sex and money. We pay for it either way.....:) 
    
    Bet there is some social problem that you don't like the goverment
    spending money on. Like guns, bombs, and nerd gas.:) Bet you might do a
    dance on the ol key board about that topic. Yet, when someone else
    brings for this in an unrelated topic in you eyes. Its off
    track......:)

    George, you did another great one!
    
    >Bet there is some social problem that you don't like the goverment
    >spending money on. Like guns, bombs, and nerd gas.:) 
    
    NERD GAS!  :-) :-)  The cure for the computer industry's woes?
    
    thanks,
    Laura

Re.11

	It comes down to a little more than just Sex and Money and
	this isn't a question of paying taxes.

	However, in my opinion tax money can be spent trying to 
	avoid or minimise potential problems or it can be spent trying 
	to cope with the consequences. I'd rather tax money was spent 
	trying to avoid single parent families, abortions or the incidence 
	of HIV. I'd rather young people had a choice about how their 
	lives turn out.

	That's a worthy cause for my tax dollars.

- Paul.

    re .12, Nerd gas?   Better yet, perhaps it's a cure for the dating woes
    of many single women?!!!    :-)
    
    (He's talking about computers again?  Where's that convenient purse
    sized can of nerd gas??  Just one quick spray and we'll be discussing
    books, movies, music, relationships and the meaning of life!!)
    
    Lorna
    
    

    Last time I checked, having sex is not an inalienable right.
    If it were, rape would be legal.  Nor is it a "right" to come
    stick your hand in my pocket to pay for someone else's 
    irresponsibility.

    I have every sympathy for those who contract HIV through blood 
    transfusion or other circumstance out of their control, but I 
    have little sympathy for those who contract the disease through
    their irresponsible actions, especially when when they then want
    _me_ to take away form my family to pay for their irresponsibility.

    fred();

Re: .15

Ah, the "good AIDS" and "bad AIDS" distinction.  Very popular choice.

			Steve

    Nerd gas. Its not just a name. Its a fame!:) 

    
    RE: .16 The truth hurts sometimes.
    
    
    
    Mike

    
    re .16
    
>Ah, the "good AIDS" and "bad AIDS" distinction.  Very popular choice.
    
    I take it that you mean that that is a bad argument.  That being
    a _popular_ choice somhow makes it a bad choice.  I associate it
    with someone who drives off a mountain pass by accident vs someone
    who tries to jump a canon with a motorcycle.  The one the person has
    control over, the other he may not.
    
    The "I have a _right_ to be as irresponsible as I wanna be, then
    if something bad happens I have a _right_ tho have _you_ pay for
    it" attitude to be very shallow and childish in the least.  If 
    people who get HIV have a right to have society support and care
    for them, then I think society has a right to expect some level
    of responsibility to not get HIV in the first place.
    
    fred();

re:      <<< Note 82.19 by CSC32::HADDOCK "Don't Tell My Achy-Breaky Back" >>>

I'm with you, Fred. Society covering the consequence of poor/unhealthy
choices just makes it that much easier for more people to make
poor/unhealthy choices - a negative and downward spiral.

This is one example of thinking I call part of 'The Age of Entitlement'.
The general theme is 'I deserve to do whatever I want to do without having
to face any negative consequences'. I don't know if it's a U.S. or
worldwide phenomenon, but it scares me... 

    John and Fred,
    
    How many mailes are you running a week these days?  Do you eat
    barbequed red meat?  do you or have you ever smoked?  do you drive to
    church on Sundays?  How many hours a week do you spend in front of a
    terminal and/or TV?
    
    Meg

    
    re 21
    
    				?
    
    fred();

	I'm not sure where you're coming from Fred so I'm going to ask
	you to clarify for me.

	From what information or experience are you concluding that single 
	parent families, HIV positives or other people in need have acted 
	irresponsibly ?

	- ??_of_Munich

    re .23, or that people who are not in those situations *have* acted
    responsibly?
    
    Personally, I think luck and coincidence both account for a lot more
    than most people are willing to admit.
    
    Lorna
    

    re .23
    
>	From what information or experience are you concluding that single 
>	parent families, HIV positives or other people in need have acted 
>	irresponsibly ?
    
    From what information or experience are you concluding that they have?
    Actually in this day, "sleeping around" is the next best thing to
    playing Russian Roulette (no non politically correct slam against
    Russians intended).
    
    fred();

    re .24
    
    
>    Personally, I think luck and coincidence both account for a lot more
>    than most people are willing to admit.
    
    HIV is one of the easiest diseases _not_ to catch.  As they say.
    "You can't win the lottery if you don't buy a ticket".
    
    fred();

    Fred,
      with the possible exception of running, (and I have seen enough
    "scoped" knees to wonder about this, everything I listed is a high risk
    behaviour, which can result in medical costs.

    Ever notice how easy it is for happily married people to tell single
    people they should be perfectly happy with abstinance?
    
    I have.
    
    Also, you know, Fred, everyone who has HIV+ hasn't led a promiscuous
    lifestyle.  I hate to be the one to shatter your illusions on that, but
    that's the way it goes I guess.
    
    I agree that people should be selective, use condoms, and not take
    chances, but pointing the finger at dying people, and telling them it's
    their own fault seems rather smug to me.
    
    Lorna
    

    re .27

>      with the possible exception of running, (and I have seen enough
>    "scoped" knees to wonder about this, everything I listed is a high risk
>    behaviour, which can result in medical costs.

    In these days breathing and drinking water could be considered "high
    risk" activities.  But there's a difference between drinking "purified"
    water and sucking up a few gallons of the Mississippi.

    With the exception of smoking I'd question the "high risk" part.  To
    try to justify irresponsible sex  by people driving to church
    or people eating red meat would be laughable if it weren't so scary 
    to consider just how far this attitude has gone.

    fred();

    re .28

>    Also, you know, Fred, everyone who has HIV+ hasn't led a promiscuous
>    lifestyle.  

    Lorna,  you don't get HIV from wet toilet seat.  A _few_ get it
    from blood transfusions, but the _vast_ majority get it from 
    1) having sex with an infected person, usually male, and 2)
    intervenous drug use.

    >I hate to be the one to shatter your illusions on that, but
>    that's the way it goes I guess.

    Would you also say "that's the way it is" if Congress cut off funding
    for Aids research and for taking care of Aids patients?  I doubt it.
    But neither do I accept "that's the way it is" that anyone can behave
    any way they wish, then come stick their hand in my pocket to pay for
    it.  One more time...If they want society to pay for their behavior,
    the society has a right to say something about their behavior.

    fred();

    re .30, okay, what if one woman meets a man and falls in love with him. 
    Just for discussion's sake, let's just say that he is very open with
    her about all but one thing, that he has had a few sexual experiences
    with other men.  Let's say that he tested negative several months ago,
    and only had sex once, with a man since then, and they used a condom,
    but it broke.  So, this woman decides to have sex with this man, that
    she is in love with.  Let's just say that this will be the first time
    she's had sex in over a year, and they use a condom.  Once again, the
    condom breaks.  It turns out that he was HIV+, because of the other
    guy, but didn't know it.  Now, she gets it from him when the condom
    breaks.  So, in your opinion, is this woman an irresponsible tramp who
    deserves to die?
    
    It just seems to me, Fred, that you aren't willing to cut other people
    much slack.  It just makes me hope that all of your behavior is always
    impeccable because I'd hate to think your conscience might ever give
    you any trouble.  Makes me hope you don't ever need any help yourself,
    too, because you might end up dealing with people like yourself, and be
    out of luck.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    theres a vast leap of logic in the assumption that because
    someone feels people should excersize responsibility they
    would condone someone's death from AIDS.
    
    

    re .32, I don't think it's that vast considering some of the comments
    that Fred has made in this topic.
    
    Lorna
    

    re .31

    The first statement I made in this string was that I have every
    sympathy for those who truly get HIV by accident.  To try to
    equate the situation you describe with someone who has multiple
    sex partners (per night?) and/or uses intervenes drugs (share needles?)
    is stretching things a bit.  Or how about people who _know_ they are
    HIV+ who continue to have sex ( as .0 says there is no such thing as
    _safe_ sex).  Or how about someone who has sex with a person that
    they _know_ is infected.  This leads us back to .0.  People who
    think they can have all the sex they wan and be _safe_ because of
    the condom sales pitch.

    You have been one of the biggest fans of stringing up "deadbeat 
    dads".  How would you compare someone having sex one time and
    getting HIV to a man having sex one time and getting a woman
    pregnant?  I've heard some of the same people that promote 
    "have all the sex you want and if you get HIV then society should
    take care of you" also trumpet "if you don't want to pay 'child 
    support' for twenty years don't have sex".  Should not _both_ be 
    responsible for their actions.


    fred();

    re .34, *I* have been one of the biggest fans of stringing up "deadbeat
    dads"?  Excuse me?  Where?  I don't even like the term.  My
    ex-boyfriend, who is a divorced non-custodial parent, found the term
    very offensive because he felt it tainted *all* non-custodial parents,
    whether they supported their children, or not, and I agreed with him. 
    His child support was taken right out of his paycheck, and he was
    always broke because he had to pay so much.
    
    Off course, I think that, ideally all parents should share equally in
    supporting their children, but I have hardly made the stringing up of
    "dead beat" dads a personal crusade.  
    
    Lorna
    

    re .34, and, when I earlier, suggested that all people who are HIV+ are
    not promiscuous, your answer was to tell me that you can't catch AIDS
    from a toilet seat.   
    
    Duh!  Gee, you can't?  Thanks for the info, Fred.  Finally I'll get to
    sit down when I use the MSO ladies room this afternoon, now that you've
    enlightened me.  It's been real tough trying to go standing up all
    these months, but I was afraid I'd get AIDS if I sat down.  What a
    relief!!!
    
    Lorna
    

    
    re .36
    
    Again it would be laughable.  Until you consider just how far this
    "nobody has a right to tell me what to do" and "entitlement" attitude 
    has gone.
    
    fred();

    Loura, 
    
    The way your descriptions about AIDs were in earlier readings. I felt
    that you to were implying:
    
    1. AIDs can be caught easier than a parking ticket in Boston.
    2. That Again, men were the sources of all evils in both AIDs and
    Deadbeats. 
    3. I am also happy pink that you will go to the ladies room this
    afternoon and feel that you will not die sitting there......:)
    
    I know a number of deadbeat moms too. Cannot wait to see them campain
    an equal number of them. For there are more deadbeat moms showing up in
    court rooms and in lidagation cases than originally thought.:)
    
    Perhaps there could be a singles file for deadbeat moms and dads to
    meet each other. Perhaps some Nerd gas could be applied.:)

    My perspective: regarding the base note, for quite some time now, the
    American public has been lead to believe that if a condom was used
    during sex, your would be "safe" ie. you would not "catch aides".  This
    article is merely pointing out this is not as true as was implied. 
    People need to *know* *all the facts* so they can make informed
    decisions.   One of my pet peeves, is that certain people, the press or
    whoever, only feel that John Q Public only needs to know one side of
    the issues!  Everyone should know what the TRUE safety rate, if you
    will, is of condom usage.  Then they can make informed decisions, to
    take the chance and hope they will be safe, or abstain or whatever.
    

Re.Fred "Actually in this day, "sleeping around" is the next best thing to
    	playing Russian Roulette..."
	
	...and actually America's one large waterbed which burst
	a couple of months back :-)

Re.39	"...the American public has been lead to believe that if a condom 
	was used during sex, you would be "safe" ie. you would not "catch 
	aides"."

	Maybe we should distinguish between the American public and Americans
	in this notesfile. Condoms are like safety belts (seatbelts) - they're
	for protection - they don't work 100% in all cases - but they do
	increase your chances of survival.

	Simple solution = IF the condom breaks - stop.

    Here comes the "I_had_mine" and
    "Damn_if_I_would_let_my_daughter_be_touched_by_someone_like_me"
    brigade!!
    
    How come all these people who are trying to ram the absitenence down
    the throat of the others never checked their libido when they had the
    chance to screw around?
    
    The very same people are still bragging about their "scores" at various
    places with difference "receipients".  
    
    - Vikas

>    How come all these people who are trying to ram the absitenence down
>    the throat of the others never checked their libido when they had the
>    chance to screw around?

    For one thing, if you'll check your history, AIDS is a fairly recent
    development.

    Before Penicillin, syphilis etc, were the big deterrents.  For the
    last few decades, sex itself was fairly safe as far as STD's go.
    Now HIV comes along and is putting a crimp in the "sexual revolution".
    Remember Herpes.  It's still around.  It's just been pushed off the
    front pages by HIV.

    fred();

>    How come all these people who are trying to ram the absitenence down
>    the throat of the others never checked their libido when they had the
>    chance to screw around?

	All? I don't know about all. I for one don't expect anyone to abstain
	more than I did myself. I waited until I got married. It wasn't all
	that hard and I don't quite understand why others found it hard.

			Alfred

    > It wasn't all
    > that hard ...
    
    guffaw!

    re .43, I think it's generally referred to as having a sex drive.
    
    :-)
    
    Lorna
    
    ps - each to their own, but, personally I've always found value in
    comparison shopping
    

    re 45

>    ps - each to their own, but, personally I've always found value in
>    comparison shopping

    In the age of HIV, "comparison shopping" can be hazardous to your 
    health.  I suspect that befores penicillin, STD's had as much
    to do with monogamy as did morality.  It's becoming that way
    again.  Monogamy (with an uninfected person) is just plain the 
    "healthy choice".  Even if you leave morality completely out of it.  

    fred();

    re .46, well, fortunately, for me, most of my shopping took place after
    the invention of penicillin and before I ever heard of AIDS.
    
    And, hey, I still enjoy antique shows and malls.
    
    Lorna
    

    Re .47
    
    I don't mean to be smartass, Lorna, but a lot of comparison shopping
    seems to have taken place before the shoppers ever heard of AIDS but
    not before the shoppees had managed to contract it.  Awareness is at
    the core of this issue.

    re .48, yeah, well, I think there's a happy medium somewhere in between
    cruising and hanging out at the public baths, and saving oneself for
    marriage.  It's not like the only behavioral choices people have are
    rampant promiscuity and abstinance.  Condoms break and planes crash,
    but spending one's life totally abstaining from sex and travel, would
    be very boring, IMO.
    
    Lorna
    

    Dont take up flying Laura. The skys are not safe these days. Add you to
    the list. WOW! You might have allot of us up all night putting rubber
    padding to our roofs.:)

    re .50, no, actually, I think you should just relax and enjoy yourself
    until the plane falls on your head.  :-)
    
    Lorna
    

    Speaking of planes, I just gotta wonder what the statistical
    probability is of a condom's breaking while being used to further
    membership in the Mile High Club...

    re .52, I wonder how many children have been conceived while the
    parents were becoming members of the Mile High Club?  :-)
    
    Lorna
    

    RE: .43
    
    But then I never said you were of the type to ram your belief down
    other's throat.  If I gave out such a feeling, I apologize to you.
    
    - Vikas

    
>    But then I never said you were of the type to ram your belief down
>    other's throat.  

    I must be getting soft. :-)

    >If I gave out such a feeling, I apologize to you.

    No you didn't, but I do know some ram it down their throat people who
    abstained as much as I did.

    		Alfred

I see that the bae note gives an author and title, but not a publication.  I'd
like to know if this was published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Not that I disagree with the idea that condoms are an imperfect defence 
against HIV transmission.  But the author seems to go much farther in saying
that condoms are ineffective.  In fact, he seems to drop qualifying phrases
from his own sources, for example:

>        Finally, the pregnancy failure rates and HIV transmission
>rates during condom use show that condoms are ineffective in
>stopping sperm or in preventing HIV infection 1,3,16.  "Condom
>failure rates for HIV are substantially greater than for
>pregnancy", and they are "ineffective for lifelong protection
>from HIV-infected partners" 9.

There's a big difference between "ineffective" and "ineffective for
lifelong protection."

It's clear that abstinence or monagamous sex with a HIV- and (presumably)
monagamous partner is a relatively safe alternative.

Nothing in the base note suggests to me that using a condom in occasional
encounters with HIV? partners is a bad idea.  The base note does suggest
(but does not prove) that using condoms in frequent encounters with HIV+
partners will make little or no difference.  These is a big difference between
these two statements.

If I were HIV+, I think I would have a very hard time justifying to myself 
anything but abstinence from penetrative sex, condom or no condom.

    �re .50, no, actually, I think you should just relax and enjoy yourself
    �until the plane falls on your head.  :-)
    
    I am not taking up flying!:) 

Excerpts from "Life, Love & Latex" by Joe Carrithers, July 16, 1993
Frontiers.

This month, Mariposa released the results of a more extensive study
of six brands, performed in association with Nelson Laboratories
in Salt Lake City and funded by AmFAR and the National Institutes of
Health, which again showed condom effectiveness varying greatly
by brand.  Of 110 Ramses Non-Lube condoms tested, only one appeared to
exhibit any leakage, while 21 out of 92 Trojan Naturalube Ribbed condoms
leaked HIV-- a failure rate of 22.8 percent.  The four other failure rates
were 6.3 percent (Lifestyles Conture, originally ranked #27); 9 percent
(Trojan Ribbed, #30); 10.3 percent (Tahiti, #26); and 100 percent
(Contracept Plus, #31; it is no longer on the market)...

The following is the original Mariposa Foundation study on
condom safety and HIV done in conjuction with UCLA and USC.
The score is based on a 100-point weighted test scale.

Rank    Score   Brand                   Manufacturer

1       *
2       91.3    Ramses Non-Lube         Schmid
3       91.3    Ramses Sensitol         Schmid
4       85.2    Gold Circle Coin        Circle
5       83.7    Gold Circle             Circle
6       83.7    Sheik Elite             Schmid
7       81.7    Durex Nuform            Schmid (London)
8       80.2    Pleaser                 Circle
9       78.7    Ramses Extra            Schmid
10      77.3    Embrace Her             Circle
11      77.2    Hot Rubber              (Switzerland)
12      76.6    Lifestyles Stimula      Ansell
13      75.3    Ramses NuForm           Schmid
14      74.8    Excita Extra            Schmid
15      74.5    Parrish                 Circle
16      71.9    Yamabuki #1             Fuju
17      71.4    Trojan-Enz              Carter Wallace
18      71.1    Trojan-Enz Lubricated   Carter Wallace
19      70.4    Duo                     Schmid (London)
20      69.9    Shields                 Ortho Pharmaceuticals
21      69.9    Trojan Plus             Carter Wallace
22      68.4    Zero 0-2000             Fuju
23      68.1    Prime                   Ansell
24      66.8    Lifestyles Nuda Plus    Ansell
25      64.1    Arouse                  National Sanitary
26      62.7    Tahiti                  Ansell
27      60.9    Lifestyles Contour      Ansell
28      60.6    Lifestyle Nuda          Ansell
29      57.7    Trojan Ribbed Natural   Carter Wallace
30      50.9    Trojan Ribbed           Carter Wallace
31      21.3    Contracept Plus         National Sanitary

* The #1 condom, with a score of 98.9, was the Mentor brand manufacted
by Circle.  It is no longer sold. Subsequent to this study, Mentor
was bought out by Carter Wallace, which, according to Consumer Reports,
has substituted its own, lower-ranked condoms under the Mentor name."

    [From the Boston Globe, 6-Aug-1993]
    
    ATLANTA (AP) - The government, seeking to end one of the biggest
    debates of the AIDS epidemic, yesterday said latex condoms, used
    properly, do indeed block the virus.
    
    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said it must now
    persuade Americans to use condoms correctly - every time they have sex.
    
    "Our first message is to avoid intercourse with an infected partner,"
    said the CDC's Dr. Bert Peterson.  "But for the people who will take
    that risk ... condoms can save your life.
    
    "The biggest problem ... is failure to take the condom out of the
    wrapper and use it.  We need to shift our focus from the product, which
    is reliable, to the user."
    
    Twelve years into the epidemic, CDC surveys show that only 28 percent
    of Americans think condoms are very effective against HIV, the AIDS
    virus.  And many do not know how to use them.  Only 27 percent know
    that lubricating condoms with baby oil or petroleum jelly will dissolve
    them.
    
    Condom critics are spreading myths, the CDC said yesterday.  It said
    two new studies, the largest ever, show latex condoms are highly
    effective.
    
    In one study, none of 123 healthy Europeans who used condoms every
    time they had sex with an infected partner became infected over a two
    year period.  Twelve of another 122 healthy Europeans - 10 percent -
    who did not use condoms consistently became infected.
    
    In the other study, only three - 2 percent - of 171 healthy Italians
    who used condoms for two years became infected despite having sex with
    an infected partner.  Eight of another 55 Italians - 15 percent - did
    not use condoms consistently and became infected.

	*** Clarinet articles may not be distributed outside Digital ***

	LONDON (UPI) -- A test of 34 different brands of British-made condoms
found more than a quarter of the labels failed to stand up to tough new
European safety standards that go into effect later this year, a
consumer magazine reported Tuesday.

	Which? way to Health, a magazine produced by the Consumer
Association, said three brands of condoms that failed the test -- Durex
Gold, Mates Natural and Gold Knight Extra Shield -- carried a seal
indicating they regularly underwent tests to meet safety standards set
by the British Standards Institution.

	The magazine said the tests indicated the seal, known as the British
Standard Kitemark, was a ``reasonable guide to quality, but there's room
for improvement.''

	The other condoms that failed one of the magazine's three tests were
the Aegis Ribbed, Aegis Rugged, Red Stripe, Skin Less Skin, Rubbers
(flavored) and Streetwise (colored and flavored).

	The magazine used three tests to examine 500 of each of the 34
different brands of condoms. None of the nine failing brands passed the
airburst test, in which the condoms are inflated with air to determine
how much pressure they withstand. The magazine called the airburst test
the most rigorous test of overall strength.

	Two brands failed the ``holes'' test, in which the condoms were
filled with water and suspended for a minute to determine if they
developed leaks. Two brands also failed the tensile test, in which a
section of the condom was stretched like a rubber band to determine its
elongation before breaking.

	The magazine said it chose the three tests because they are part of
the European standards that are due to replace current British standards
later this year.

	``Condoms can save lives,'' said David Dickinson, the magazine's
editor. ``They are very effective at protecting against sexually
transmitted diseases and HIV infection as well as preventing unplanned
pregnancies.''

	``But they are not infallible. Some brands are clearly more reliable
than others, although our tests show poor quality condoms are thankfully
few and far between,'' he added.

	Researchers conducting the tests discovered that more than half the
packets of one brand -- Gold Knight Extra Shield condoms -- carried the
Kitemark seal even though they were made in a factory that was not
licensed by the British Standards Institution.

	The magazine said suppliers had agreed to recall all affected stocks
of Gold Knight Extra Shield condoms.

Can I ask a serious question here about condoms ?  Given the actual performance
of them, would I be foolish to depend on them to prevent pregnancy between
my girlfriend and me ?  Is the addition of foam therefore required ?  Or is
foam plus condom generally considered overly cautious ?  Directions in my life
make we ponder these things more...  What do you do ?

/Eric

Foam plus condom is a combination often recommended for additional
protection.  Condoms, used properly though, are highly effective.  The
failure rates are as high as they are due to improper use, use of petroleum-
based lubricants, etc.  If you use condoms with spermicide, that increases
the protection.

				Steve

    I don't need condoms for safe sex, I'm usually alone.

    .63 Or you have a great sex life. Now all you need is a partner!:)