******

CDC currently estimates that approximately one in five persons living with HIV in the US is unaware of their infection and may be unknowingly transmitting the virus to others.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that approximately 1.1 million persons are living with HIV in the United States.1 This number is expected to continue to increase over time, as antiretroviral treatments prolong the lives of those who are infected and more people become infected with HIV than die from the disease each year. As the number of people living with HIV—or HIV prevalence—grows, so does the opportunity for HIV transmission to others. Therefore, it is critical to have not only a clear understanding of the number of new infections that occur annually—or HIV incidence—it is also important to know the rate of HIV transmission in order to accurately gauge the impact of HIV prevention efforts on the US epidemic.

Well I read a article that Roland did his research on a study of rubber gloves, not condoms. Condoms are dipped in the latex twice, gloves only once.

From the CDC Latex condoms, when used consistently and correctly, are highly effective in preventing heterosexual sexual transmission of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. Research on the effectiveness of latex condoms in preventing heterosexual transmission is both comprehensive and conclusive. The ability of latex condoms to prevent transmission has been scientifically established in laboratory studies as well as in epidemiologic studies of uninfected persons at very high risk of infection because they were involved in sexual relationships with HIV-infected partners. The most recent meta-analysis of epidemiologic studies of condom effectiveness was published by Weller and Davis in 2004. This analysis refines and updates their previous report published in 1999. The analysis demonstrates that the consistent use of latex condoms provides a high degree of protection against heterosexual transmission of HIV. It should be noted that condom use cannot provide absolute protection against HIV. The surest way to avoid transmission of HIV is to abstain from sexual intercourse or to be in a** long-term mutually monogamous relationship*** with a partner who has been tested and you know is uninfected.

To DandJforplay...I'm still looking for the source, I found that in a health related discussion forum. I'd seen it elsewhere on the web as well but my search is complicated by the fact that the Washington Times shut it's doors a few months ago...

Frankly the discussion was as polarized as the one here...the only real difference was that all were in agreement that many STD's were transmitted while using condoms and that abstinence was the only 100% safe route.

""The possibility of being infected with HIV is always there, whether barebacking or wearing a condom, but it is not probable. What matters is how probable.""

Now help me with this statement above

'it is not probable' but you then say 'what matters is how probable'

which one is it ? maybe I am reading your statement wrong ??

Tort

DanJ can't grasp the reality that swinging bareback has a higher risk. He believe he can 'screen' his playmates, and limit his number of playmates to give himself the same risk as those that use condoms. This, ofcourse is generally untrue. If he had the slightest understanding of statistics he would realize it.

Could you let us know where you found this information? I've understood that natural condoms had large pore sizes, but never read anywhere that latex has pore sizes larger than the HIV virus. It would be vitally important to find out and for this man's findings to be replicated. Many people depend on condoms for safety. I am naturally skeptical of this one report so late in the condom safety game, but it certainly needs to be checked out.

Any estimate as to the effectiveness of avoiding high risk partners is a guess, as high risk needs to be clearly defined and effective strategies of avoiding them clearly delineated.

Lost, it is silly and risky to "know" what I think or know. You don't. Play as in sharing sensuality with others is PLAY for us. And we PLAY with each other. Play in the sense of fun, of exploration, of the spirit of discovery. If it loses that sense, we don't. There has been a focus on what is possible rather than what is probable, turning it in some minds to some form of certainty. The possibility of being infected with HIV is always there, whether barebacking or wearing a condom, but it is not probable. What matters is how probable. That is the purpose of statistics. There is the point of whether it's responsible to play with anyone other than your mate. Many will judge that it is dangerous to do so, condoms or not. In some way you've gotten beyond that judgment. It is at least a similar risk factor jump from not playing to playing using condoms as it is from playing with condoms to playing bareback, yet you've made that first leap of risk. Now you judge that the next leap is dangerous, but not the leap you made. What you have not mentioned in your danger judgment is the number of partners you play with, which is another risk factor. The more people you play with the greater your risk. Every time this risk factor has been brought up it is ignored or even deemed not important. What is the actual risk? I've tried in my posts to tease that out. You are welcome to argue that those risk numbers are wrong, or argue that in any case it is safer to use condoms. To judge that barebacking is dangerous leaves you open to the similar judgment that playing at all, even with condoms is dangerous. Using words like dangerous without being concerned with actual risk factors such as number of play partners, infection rates, or number of sexual contacts necessary for infection, is an indication that you are more interested in mere judgment rather than real risk assessment.

Here's some interesting reading...I'm not advocating or denying the safety or use of either method...just food for thought... A letter to the editor of the Washington Times from Mike Roland, editor of Rubber Chemistry and Technology, a publication of the American Chemical Society. Roland states that "the rubber comprising latex condoms has intrinsic voids [pores] about 5 microns (0.00002 inches) in size. Since this is roughly 10 times smaller than sperm, the latter are effectively blocked.... Contrarily, the AIDS virus is only 0.1 micron (4 millionths of an inch) in size. Since this is a factor of 50 smaller than the voids inherent in rubber, the virus can readily pass through." Mike Roland submitted a study cited by the government along with his above data that says condoms reduce AIDS risk by a factor of 5. Avoiding high-risk sex partners, it's believed, reduces it by a factor of 5,000. In summary, abstinence or, more realistically, avoidance of high-risk sex partners are far more effective strategies than condom use...or condom use alone.