[CobaltBlue]

OK, took a look at your "statistical analysis" of HIV and condom use. I don't think epidemiology is your metier.

First of all, we're talking about vaginal intercourse here. The risk of contracting AIDS from vaginal intercourse *without a condom* is extremely low. Condoms reduce that small percentage even more.

To say that vaginal sex with a condom carries a 10-15% risk of HIV infection is just plain ignorant.

People who engage in anal sex or sex with a partner known to have HIV should use double condoms or special condoms that are thicker and stronger than ordinary condoms, and they should use spermicidal foam like Nonoxyl-9.

[Romulus]

I'm not going to be bothered defending things I never said. You're either too stupid to read plain English, or else too dishonest to care. Either way, you're a bore.

The question is not whether condoms reduce risk; it's whether over a reasonable period they reduce cumulative risk to an acceptable level. The study you cite implies that under best-case circumstances, millions of condom users in Africa can expect condom failure.

If "The risk of contracting AIDS from vaginal intercourse *without a condom* is extremely low" shouldn't someone tell the millions of AIDS cases in Africa? They'd be so relieved to know.

People who "engage in anal sex or sex with a partner known to have HIV" might as well dispense with the messy preliminaries because over the long run they're bound to become infected. As an advocate of the gay lifestyle you're no doubt aware that in many gay circles infection is actually sought after. With or without your advice, those having regular sex with infected partners, especially practitioners of gay sex, are bound to achieve this death wish.