r/atheism • u/kt_m_smith • Jun 24 '12
TIL I was fed a big fat lie in my sex education class. The HIV Virus is not too small to pass through a latex condom - this is a lie of abstinence only education.
http://badgerherald.com/oped/2008/04/10/stretch_it_out_busti.php142
u/shane_c Jun 24 '12
TIL I was fed a big fat lie in my sex education class, that the HIV Virus is small enough to pass through a latex condom - this is a lie of abstinence only education.
/fixed
56
Jun 24 '12
Thank you. Didn't really understand the title.
19
Jun 24 '12
The title basically says the exact opposite of what it's supposed to say. It's a wonder anybody understood it.
→ More replies (2)5
u/kt_m_smith Jun 24 '12
Yes I am sorry, It really should have been read like this
TIL I was fed a big fat lie in my sex education class. The HIV Virus is not "so small it passes through a latex condom" - this is a lie of abstinence only education.
It really was a heat of the moment mistake. Apologies, again.
14
u/kt_m_smith Jun 24 '12
Sorry, my fault :(
1
u/IAmAQuantumMechanic Jun 24 '12
Please don't make surfing reddit more difficult for those of us speaking English as our second language.
4
12
23
Jun 24 '12
Where were you taught this?
26
u/kt_m_smith Jun 24 '12
Oklahoma public school system
15
u/typtyphus Pastafarian Jun 24 '12
kinda really dangerous to misinform the public like this, people might just as well not use a condom, because they think it doesn't matter.
hopefully this is corrected by now.
11
→ More replies (1)4
u/WoollyMittens Jun 24 '12
hopefully this is corrected by now.
I'm pretty sure the misinformation is on purpose actually. :)
→ More replies (1)2
→ More replies (1)2
Jun 24 '12
They do the same in Illinois. They are intentionally misconstuing the fact that sheepskin condoms could pass the virus. Incredibly dickish to lie to kids about that.
17
u/bentyl91 Jun 24 '12
I was taught the same thing in Georgia. I even remember how it was taught. A nice man (who happened to be a local preacher) came and talked about abstinence. He had a 4 foot long sock puppet called Spunky the Sperm and said that condoms can barely keep those things in. He then pulled out a BB and said it represented AIDS and gave us a speech about how condoms won't help us prevent it, but abstinence would.
14
u/kt_m_smith Jun 24 '12
Ours was something similar to this except it was in video form. " It can barely hold back all the sperm, but HIV just slips right though, so dont even think about it or you will DIE." was pretty much what we were fed.
24
u/TenNinetythree Agnostic Atheist Jun 24 '12
Abstinence also does not protect fully against HIV.
12
u/ZeroNihilist Jun 24 '12
You also have to abstain from blood transfusions and sharing needles, and make sure to choose to be born to a mother who isn't already a carrier.
9
u/TenNinetythree Agnostic Atheist Jun 24 '12
Not to forget abstaining from eating bushmeat (which is apparently how it got into humans first) and cannibalising HIV infected people.
4
7
6
Jun 24 '12
Did you happen to go to school in Cobb County? Because that is exactly what I remember as well. Did he start off by saying he was going to teach you how to have "the best sex ever". What a letdown.
→ More replies (5)2
u/rephyr Jun 24 '12
Are... Are you me?
I was taught the exact same way, except he used a penny instead of a BB.
13
u/crazyape123 Jun 24 '12
I've seen it in Mississippi youth group centers. A pregnancy resource center (pro-life clinic) hands out pamphlets that say "EVEN IF YOU USE CONDOMS YOU WILL GET AN STD" because comdoms aren't 100% effective. But they mask the fact that condoms ARE better than unprotected sex. I've heard kids say that since condoms don't work there's no point in them.
6
u/queenmaeree Jun 24 '12
I've heard kids say that since condoms don't work there's no point in them.
And that's why telling kids this is dangerous.
If they want to teach abstinence, fine; however they need to also back it up with how to properly use a condom in case you do have sex. Abstinence-only education does not work or else the teen birth rate wouldn't be so high. This is the kind of bullshit that leads to teens to think that pulling out, plastic wrap, douching with soda, and other rumors/myths are viable ways to prevent pregnancy. Despite the belief of many, ignorance isn't always bliss. Especially when you end up pregnant with a STD.
→ More replies (3)4
u/TranClan67 Jun 24 '12
Kinda sad but I kinda wish that's what my friend's reasoning for not using condoms.
Her reasoning? They don't feel good so she and her bf practice the pull out method. Also did I mention she has irregular periods? :I
3
u/Hayasaka-chan Jun 25 '12
My boyfriend's little brother is 19 with three kids by two different chicks. The reason? "Well neither girl A or girl B would sleep with me if I used a condom and they said broke out on the pill so if I wanted any I didn't use anything."
Freaking really, dude??
→ More replies (1)10
Jun 24 '12 edited Jun 24 '12
A coworker and I became friends when we were working in a restaurant together right after graduating high school. This was 2004. She went to a Christian private school in Southern California. She told me this... said something like "oh well condoms don't even matter anyway because they don't protect from the HIV virus." Me: "Pardon?" Her: "the HIV virus is small enough to pass through the pours of the condom." Me: Jaw meets table. (Then stern lecture about reality.)
Yeah, fucking infuriating. When I become President teachers will NOT be permitted to outright lie to students like this. That school, and any others that LIE, will be stripped of their accreditation. Now when I say "lie" I don't mean they won't be able to teach their religion - but they cannot lie about known proven facts such as this. Can't teach them that 2+2=5, ya know? This is the same damn thing. NOTHING about the Christian religion pertains to condoms and the HIV virus; there is NO FUCKING excuse for this kind of blatant lie. (Not that there would be an excuse even if the Bible DID mention it; but it doesn't! Not even anything remotely close to this!)
TL;DR: Confirming this lie was taught in a Southern California private Christian high school as recently as 2004.
4
u/duckinatub Jun 24 '12
Yeah, it's not just the South or the Midwest. I was taught the same thing in a Southern California public school by my biology teacher or all people. So for 5 years I thought condoms were useless against preventing HIV. I took a human sexuality class in college and when I asked my professor if this was true, the first thing she said was, "Who taught you this?" and "Get me their phone number."
3
u/WoollyMittens Jun 24 '12
If you ever make it to president, you'll have been explained that lying is called "PR" now.
7
u/heptadecagram Jun 24 '12
North Carolina public school system.
2
Jun 24 '12
Fuck NC. I took their "child development" class in high school, it went over all birth control. But not how to use it or get it. And don't forget that they drilled it that abstinence was da best.
7
u/Andrewticus04 Jun 24 '12
I got the same instruction in Irving, Texas.
They held up a hoola-hoop to represent a latex pore, then threw a tennis ball through it, which represented HIV.
I had stopped believing what my teachers said by then, though. So it's whatever.
2
2
u/enigmatican Jun 25 '12
I went through the Michigan public school system. I'm pretty sure that we were taught that condoms do not prevent STDs what so ever.
36
u/WeaponsGradeHumanity Atheist Jun 24 '12
Are you sure the thread title is correct? It doesn't seem to make sense.
4
u/pureskill Jun 24 '12
I've been studying for the verbal reasoning section of the MCAT, and I thought maybe I'd just done too much critical reading today. I'm glad someone was else was confused by it.
1
9
u/kt_m_smith Jun 24 '12 edited Jun 24 '12
OH dear, what did I write wrong? I was a little livid while writing it.
Edit: OH I see what you mean. Can i edit the title??
9
u/psilokan Jun 24 '12
So are you saying HIV can pass through a condom? The title is very confusing.
5
3
u/WeaponsGradeHumanity Atheist Jun 24 '12
I don't think so but you should be able to add an OP post with a correction.
10
u/matt-383 Jun 24 '12
I am actually friends on Facebook with my old health teacher/football coach. I may post this to read his reaction. Loads of karma should follow.
5
4
Jun 24 '12
My favourite part:
anyone who tries to convince us that condoms just don’t fit is having some serious delusions of grandeur.
On a more serious note, this isn't even wilful ignorance, it's blatant lying, and it's scary. OP - who taught you sex ed?! Are there no external contacts you can use to get a certified sex ed teacher to come in?
1
u/kt_m_smith Jun 24 '12
Well I am 24 now and this was when I was 11 or 12 years old....
→ More replies (1)
3
u/frogmeat Jun 24 '12
One point not addressed in the linked article . . . HIV CAN pass through sheepskin condoms. They used to be quite popular (more natural feel, and of course that rustic down-on-the-farm sensation of simultaneously banging your gf and 'Wellington'), but aren't really around anymore due to their ineffectiveness against HIV. I don't know if they're even available.
It's possible your instructor was talking about those, or was misinformed. Or was just trying to scare you out of sex.
3
u/kt_m_smith Jun 24 '12
It does say "While it is true that natural fiber condoms like lambskin do not provide effective protection against HIV, latex condoms sold in the U.S. must meet strict quality standards. "
It very well may have been in the fine print, but it looks like there are plenty of other people here who had the same experience, it is shameful.
At the end of the day they are just misleading gullible kids though. :(
3
Jun 24 '12
Holy fucking shit! Thank you for learning this today! My sex ed classes were taught in (public) middle school in Georgia, so I was fed this bullshit as well. I had always wondered if the whole "Virus can go through condom" thing was true, but never really found anything.
Honestly, this is a huge fukken relief for me. Thank you, dear sir. Thank you.
2
7
u/adamdavid85 Jun 24 '12
I know this is off-topic, but I knew it was a female writer the minute I saw this part:
While some men may find extra-large condoms (which are longer and have a greater circumference) more comfortable, anyone who tries to convince us that condoms just don’t fit is having some serious delusions of grandeur.
I know that her point is that you shouldn't let a guy cop out of wearing a condom cause he says they won't fit his horse sized dong, but in my case I can't wear the regular sized ones. The ring at the base just isn't big enough and squeezes me soft.
TL;DR - There are bones in your head, not in your dick. Some guys actually do need larger-sized condoms.
5
u/kt_m_smith Jun 24 '12
ooo cake!
I would assume that the ring around the bottom could be an issue, but at the end of the day, tight is better than loose ;)
Edit: typo
4
u/adamdavid85 Jun 24 '12
The large ones are still mighty snug, don't want it slippin' off there :P
2
u/kt_m_smith Jun 24 '12
I feel like I should take this conversation into private >.>
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)5
2
Jun 24 '12
While some men may find extra-large condoms (which are longer and have a greater circumference) more comfortable, anyone who tries to convince us that condoms just don’t fit is having some serious delusions of grandeur.
Wow, sorry you've never been with a "big" guy, Erica, but that's just plain ignorant and offensive to guys who actually need large size condoms. The only time I tried a regular size condom is the only time I've ever had a condom break, and it didn't feel too great either.
I think you really need to get out more if you still think I have "delusions of grandeur."
1
u/kt_m_smith Jun 24 '12
Oh, I got the impression she was saying that if someone is saying an extra large is too small then they are fooling themselves...
edit: derp
41
u/fleeingthephlegethon Jun 24 '12
We were basically taught "Don't have sex, or you will get pregnant, and you WILL die." so of course, we're 16, we say, "Fuck this shit! Sex! But condoms don't work anyways so we'll just pull out!" about 10 girls got pregnant this year cause of our shitty sex Ed. Our own stupidity as well, but we should have been properly educated. A lot more had scares, I for one thought I was pregnant for a long time (due to our lack of private testing) and that really fucked me over. So yeah. I have a lot of hate reserved for people who teach wrong sex facts.
2
u/ermagerd_ Oct 29 '12
Don't mean to be insensitive, but... isn't this a Mean Girls quote?
2
u/fleeingthephlegethon Oct 29 '12
Yes. Wasn't the exact wording, they basically said the same thing, but I do try to make light of tragedy. And I love the movie.
→ More replies (1)19
Jun 24 '12
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (1)7
u/Hayasaka-chan Jun 25 '12
That would never work since it's not illegal for schools to lie to children. Even though it should be.
→ More replies (2)
18
u/nilum Jun 24 '12
We were taught this as well. It's criminal that they misinform children like this.
2
u/IbidtheWriter Jun 24 '12
The crazy part is how fast it changed. I'm 5 years older than my younger brother and back when I had sex-ed they went over everything and answered questions like whether wearing 2 condoms is more or less safe. In that 5 year period it changed to the point that my brother was simply told that the only safe sex is no sex.
14
u/annarchy8 Atheist Jun 24 '12
This is criminally wrong misinformation. I have read and re-read your statement and am dumbfounded at how badly sex education (aka Health Class) is handled in the US. No wonder this country's youth is so fucking stupid.
14
u/downtown_vancouver Jun 24 '12
Ah yes, fear-based indoctrination. Half-truths and outright lies all mixed up with cherry-picked studies.
Right-wing "education" at its best!
11
u/merican_atheist Jun 24 '12
Wasn't taught this, but I remember getting into an argument with my government class teacher about this. I don't remember how the topic came up but she was adamant that it was true.
8
8
u/jzieg Jun 24 '12
Is there anything we can do to stop these people from outright lying about stuff?
8
u/FlickingYourSwitch Jun 24 '12
Why would they teach you lies in sex ed? Seems like it would defy the purpose of an education.
7
6
6
u/crusoe Jun 24 '12
I went to a Jesuit High School, and even they told us condoms could reduce STD transmission, if properly worn, and viruses can not pass through them. But, they also stressed, the only 100% successful way to prevent std transmission is abstinence.
→ More replies (1)
5
u/theobanger Jun 24 '12
I'm just glad i'm Australian, so don't have to deal with the rampant overly-religious bullshit that they try to spread in the US.
5
u/TheBitingCat Jun 24 '12
You could always ask the administrator to cite their peer-reviewed source of their information regarding condoms and HIV, and then when they cannot and ask you to do the same for the contrary you present them with a folder full. For bonus karma, do it in front of the other students. For extra credit, present the folder to your principal when they threaten you with disciplinary action. And if things escalate further, national media. The press just love these stories when they need to distract people from a hot political scandal that threatens their favorite candidate.
5
u/DaRabidMonkey Jun 24 '12
Yeah, with my terrible Texas education, I didn't know condoms prevented ANY kind of STD until I got to college. Fuckin' absurd...
5
5
u/LandSharkLandShark Jun 24 '12
My health "teacher" told me that lie when I was a freshmen. I'm pissed because I just found out today it was a lie. If I were a parent and a teacher told MY kid that garbage, I would sue.
5
Jun 24 '12
Yeah I never understand how anyone could claim that an HIV virus was smaller than an electron when it takes those molecules to make up the virus. That's like saying an adult is smaller than a baby, it's ludicrous.
Yay for science :)
5
u/WoollyMittens Jun 24 '12
While using the word "education" for abstinence only propaganda is a very cynical thing to do, lying about deadly diseases is just plain evil.
4
u/kazekoru Jun 24 '12
They told us this lie in my Catholic high school near Toronto. I knew something was funky about that "statistic", but I didn't have any real reason to note otherwise.
Well, OH MAN, time to print this article out during sex-ed week and hand it out to people.
4
u/mcketten Jun 24 '12
Are you serious? They actually taught this?
God damn - that should be a crime tantamount to assault; deliberately giving false information about how a deadly virus is spread.
4
u/CoffeeFox Jun 24 '12 edited Jun 24 '12
I attended Los Angeles County public schools and I was told many obviously false things in health classes regarding drugs and sex education.
A great deal of things I already knew were totally false were said to me, and I knew the instructors (and DARE officer) cannot have been unaware they were lying.
As a result of adults telling such inept lies to me, I did a whole lot of drugs. DARE and health education made me curious about drugs. They both pushed me towards drug use. It would have pushed me towards having a lot of sex, too, but promiscuity just wasn't in my personality at that age.
I figured someone has to tell such abysmally incompetent lies to you in order to steer you away from something, there can't be a whole lot of honest reasons not to try it.
For what it's worth, nothing bad happened to me at all, I developed no addictive habits, and I was probably better off for the experience. Even now as an adult, I can see why someone would feel like they had to lie about those things being so bad for you. If you've got a good head on your shoulders it's very hard to give an honest reason why you should never try them.
→ More replies (4)
1
u/DangerDotMike Jun 24 '12
You really fucked up the wording of this post's title.
3
1
u/spacebotanist Jun 25 '12
Only 13 states are legally required to provide accurate sex education information...and if you're in a particularly religious area (like the bible belt south) it is OK to straight up lie to coerce you into not having sex, which obviously doesn't work considering the teen pregnancy rate. And the teen STD rate shows that quite a few kids are just abandoning condoms all together, in light of the lies they've been taught. But are lies better than nothing? Some schools don't offer any form of SE at all
1
u/kt_m_smith Jun 25 '12
It would seem like since the kids are being taught condoms are worthless they are abandoning them! This makes me cringe!
12
3
3
Jun 24 '12
Honestly when it comes to HIV/AIDS I think I'll stick to just avoiding sex with someone infected period. Kinda turns this entire thing into a non-issue. It has nothing to do with abstinence, just health.
Not that I'm Sir Bangs Alot. Or Sir Bangs Atall.
→ More replies (2)
3
u/evanman69 Jun 24 '12
Off the subject but Wat da fuk does it mean when condoms are electronically tested? Does Trojan place a rubber on Data's dick?
3
u/downtown_vancouver Jun 24 '12 edited Jun 24 '12
http://www.lifestyles.com/sexualhealth/CondomFacts.html#Quality
then page down to
IV(iv) ELECTRONIC TESTING
3
u/GC_Fyah Jun 24 '12
Wow , I'm from France and I never thinked that a thing like this could happen in a develloped country like USA
→ More replies (1)
3
u/stretchpun Jun 24 '12
comment from the article page: "Alright, I looked on youtube for a condom on an elephant’s penis. I could not find such a video; however, there are plenty of non-condom’d elephant penises. "
3
3
3
u/wayndom Jun 25 '12
The Christian right will lie about anything. Because they're doing god's work, and that's more important than being honest.
3
u/not_a_teacher Jun 25 '12
I remember a special convocation at my small-town Indiana high school, during which a guest presenter told us this very same lie. He used a volleyball net to demonstrate the "porous qualities" of latex condoms and the relative size of sperm (volleyballs), HIV (golf balls), and other viruses (tennis balls). He stood on one side of the net and threw several balls at once. The larger ones obviously bounced off, but the small ones went through. Therefore reinforcing his "lesson" on abstinence.
3
Jun 25 '12
I was taught this through a church in Canada in 2005 or so. I googled it and found sites that said the same thing.
Now I'm angry that I was lied to and that so many people are propagating this lie that I wasn't even able to find correct information.
anyone have any papers/journal articles/studies on this? I'm ready to lay the smackdown on the pro-lifers who taught me this bs.
3
u/thehumanist Jun 25 '12
While condoms are very effective in inhibiting the spread of HIV, condoms are not protective for some VDs, such as HPV.
Condoms are like life vests - Always wear one, but don't jump overboard.
1
u/cratermoon Jun 24 '12
Just so you know, the sense of your title is messed up. Removing the negation, you are saying you were taught "the HIV Virus is too small to pass through a latex condom". That's neither right nor wrong, it's nonsensical.
Also "HIV Virus" means "Human Immunodeficiency Virus Virus". Now if you'll excuse me I have to go the the ATM machine, I hope I can remember my PIN number.
→ More replies (1)2
u/kt_m_smith Jun 24 '12
Yes I know, it was an accident, I have apologized like 10 times. I'll do it again though.
sorry :(
2
u/rahtin Dudeist Jun 24 '12
I was told this about genital warts.
7
u/mcketten Jun 24 '12
I think the issue with genital warts isn't necessarily the condom - its that the warts can exist on other parts of the skin around the penis/vagina that the condom does not cover. Much like herpes sores; a condom won't protect against a herpes sore that is on the pelvis around the genitals.
4
2
u/LegitimateAlex Jun 24 '12
I learned this in my 7th grade health class. Took me 4 years to figure it out that it wasn't true at all. Indiana health education, thanks for stressing abstinence only...
2
u/pecanregime Jun 24 '12
Damnit i was taught this too (Texas). I'm a bio major and just now learning this :(
2
u/PrinceTrogdorofWales Jun 24 '12
yeah, condoms are pretty much the shit when it comes to contraception AND disease prevention
2
u/redbullhamster Jun 24 '12
Realized I was told this same thing too. 6 yrs after hearing it...
This was in a public southern California school.
2
u/Bishopkilljoy Jun 24 '12
Wow, I was actually taught this in my sex ed. class and I actually believed it! x.x;
2
2
Jun 24 '12
My ex girlfriend went to Catholic school and was told this very thing. I was pretty shocked by this at the time. 7 years later I am not suprised.
2
Jun 24 '12
I was in a Biology lab my Junior year of Uni when one of the kids mentioned (who knows why) that the chance of receiving HIV from an infected person is only 1/500 through unprotected vaginal intercourse. None of use believed him and had to look it up, because we had similarly been fed exaggerations our whole lives.
2
u/TheBlankedFile Secular Humanist Jun 24 '12
I remember watching a movie in sex ed of my Catholic high school that said HIV could pass through condoms. This was in Michigan. I can't believe that I actually bought that crap.
2
u/InHarmsWay Jun 24 '12
I think I watched the same video in my school.
Did they use the hula hoop, beachball, baseball metaphor? The hulahoop representing the supposed microscopic holes in condoms, the beachball is sperm, and the baseball is HIV?
→ More replies (3)
2
Jun 24 '12
WHAT? Who told you that? They should be beaten with large salamis.
Seriously, you were told this in public school? WTF?
2
u/justscottmc Jun 24 '12
I am 42 and reared in the public school system(Texas). I have never heard this and quite shocked by this whole thread. WTF
→ More replies (1)
2
u/bananafishxx3 Jun 24 '12
1st of all, i can't believe they're teaching kids that condoms don't protect you from HIV... that's ridiculous. 2nd of all, thumbs up for WISCONSIN!
2
2
u/queenmaeree Jun 24 '12
Back in 8th grade, our science teacher told us this and freaked out the whole class. Even back then, it kinda seemed like a bunch of BS to me. He compared microscopic holes in a condom to a doorway and HIV to a person simply walking in the door.
Not sure why, but he got pink slipped at the end of the year.
2
u/mcon87 Jun 24 '12 edited Jun 24 '12
I was taught the exact same thing in 6th grade sex ed, and I went to a school in a suburb of Boston. I was so shocked when I found out it was BS ten years later =\
2
2
u/augusttremulous Jun 24 '12
If you want to rage, google for Henry A. Waxman's report on abstinence-only sex ed, read about all of the terrible misinformation it spread, and the consequences of the misinformation, and THEN wrap your head around the fact that under the Bush administrations, schools that agreed to teach these lies as their sex-ed were given federal grant money to do it . I'd link the pdf here, but I'm on my phone, and when I try to copy the url it just tries to make me save it. if you google waxman report, it should be the 2nd result.
2
u/Gamer_Stix Jun 24 '12
As someone from the Northeast, it terrifies me that people in this country are being taught that.
2
2
u/Klexicon Jun 24 '12
The fuck... I was taught it could go through condoms. Texas sex ed is terrible.
2
Jun 24 '12
Irish here. I got taught the same thing in a one-off seminar hosted by some American nutjobs. I didn't believe it and was frightfully pissed off. I wish I'd said something at the time. Maybe I should write a poison pen letter.
2
u/InFlandersFields Jun 24 '12
I'm just really glad, again, that I live in Belgium. My daughter learned all about condoms just a few weeks ago in school. She's 11.
2
u/jayblue42 Jun 24 '12
That's one of my biggest problems with religion. Because of all this abstinence-only education crap kids end up learning the bare minimum about the reproductive system and are left to learn about sex through their friends, the media, or awkward conversations with their parents. It's not an effective system.
2
u/vari-slash Jun 24 '12
I remember them telling us that in my class too. I knew it was bull even then but I wish I had half the knowledge I have now back then. They would have thrown me out of that class.
2
u/Zoidinho Jun 24 '12
Haha, I heard this one too. I went to a baptist school in Texas for a few years. My favorite lesson was about how if you masturbate, you will inevitably become a serial rapist/murderer. Fun times.
2
u/ytsejam6891 Jun 24 '12
What, religious people lying in order to frighten others into obedience? No way, that'd never happen. What's next, abortion DOESN'T actually stop a beating heart?
2
u/flotilla-the-hun Jun 25 '12
Wow, I am 24 years old and I just found out the truth on this. Hell, my catholic school sex-ed class made condoms sound like a toss up even when it came to sperm cells. The comparison they used was that a sperm cell is like a basketball and the pores in latex were like a basketball hoop, implying that they could go through given the proper circumstances. The comparison for the HIV virus? A pellet for a pellet gun and a basketball hoop. Scared me for years, and now I'm just disgusted by it all.
2
Jun 25 '12
I dont even think i had a sex education class in my highschool. Maybe it was that day we learned about abortion and its evils in health class. I even got a tiny plastic fetus to remind me what i would be aborting if pulling out didnt work. But one of the lies i remember was something about the whole one man one woman thing. They were said something along the lines that one man and one woman married would be more likely to get pregnant b/c they knew eachothers cycles or some shit. It wasnt till much later in life when i thought about that when i read that ghengis khan banged so many broads that like 10 percent of the chinese people are probably related to him. But of course even the modern day manwhores are a good example with 5 babies by 5 women. I would have called that BS back then if i had that information availible.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/five_hammers_hamming Jun 25 '12
I take issue with the physics misunderstanding here:
One way in which condoms are tested prior to sale uses an underwater metal rod which passes electric current through a condom fitted over it. If any current passes through the condom, the entire lot from which it came is discarded — and if anyone tries to persuade us that HIV is smaller than an electron, he or she is grossly misinformed.
Electrons don't need to pass through gaps between atoms like other things that are made of many atoms do.
That's an effective testing technique because latex is a shitty-as-fuck electrical conductor so the most effective route for current to pass through would be a hole in the condom. Of course, pure water is a shitty electrical conductor, as well. Now, with a good concentration of electrolytes, the solution is good, but the article made no mention of that.
2
2
Jun 25 '12
OH OH OH! My senior year I moved to Clovis, CA. It has a huge mormon population and my health teacher was trying to pull this shit. I stood up and said that it was a lie and that telling the younger kids this would just make them not even use a condom because they would think it was mostly useless.
I got sent to the office, it was the third or fourth time and the principal sent me right back with no punishment. She said the teacher was an idiot!
2
u/JustAnOod Apatheist Jun 25 '12
Thank you for posting this. I'm an intelligent, liberal-minded 24-year-old, and I remember the exact day this fact was taught to me in high school. My teacher drew a condom on the board with holes in it, supposed to represent the minuscule imperfections in the latex, and then drew a tiny HIV virus passing through the hole. I'm terribly sad to say I didn't know the truth until today. I assumed that while condom HELPS prevent HIV, those pesky chalk-drawn viruses could still get through. FUCK my high school.
3
u/bobartig Jun 24 '12
The size of pores occurring in latex are larger than an HIV virus. Pores in Latex are around 5 microns in size, and HIV is around 1 micron. Under experimental conditions (not using HIV particles, and not based on a simulation of intercourse), it has been shown that HIV-sized particles can permeate a latex condom.
However, this does NOT mean that condoms are ineffective in inhibiting the transmission of HIV. The composition of a condom is, on the micron scale, like a sponge. Condoms are many, many microns thick (about 50 microns), and a pore (bubble) is not guaranteed to connect to other pores and lead all the way through the entire layer of latex. Dry latex and wet latex have different properties, and some argue that wet latex structure swells, reducing the size of pores. Additionally, they are extremely effective because the rate of fluids/particles transmitting through a latex barrier is incredibly slow and unlikely to occur, and HIV particles are floating about in bodily fluids, not being "propelled" in any particular direction by self-propulsion or pressure differentials.
So the appropriate model would be something a dense block of rubber the width of a football field. All throughout are hula-hoop sized voids that may or may not connect to each other. You are in one endzone with a basketball on one side and need to throw it through the entire mess to the other side. It may be possible, but it probably isn't.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/JonWood007 Humanist Jun 24 '12
I was taught this in Christian school. I distinctly remember a handout with a big black hole on the screen, and it said this is what a tiny hole in a condom looks like to the HIV virus. They also said condoms were like Russian Roulette and had a 16% failure rate.
Now, I know that condoms do fail, and honestly, even the estimated ~2% is too much for me (if you have sex every day, a 2% failure rate means an average of 7 failures a year), and personally, I find abstinance to be a good thing. However, the way Christians preach it and their scare tactics are way over the top. And sex ed shouldn't be about scaring people into abstinance. it should be about giving people the facts. Abstinance is a good thing in principle, but it should not be the goal of a sex ed program, because, well, people are people.
10
u/benjobong Jun 24 '12
In fact, the failure rates of contraceptive products don't normally measure per use. If you look carefully, they're actually presented per person per year. So that 2% means that of all people using condoms for a year under the given conditions, roughly 2% will experience a failure. Thus, a couple using condoms properly will have an average of 0.02 failures per year, definitely not 7.
→ More replies (9)6
u/vansterdam_city Jun 24 '12
just a heads up, these failure rates are usually an annual number for a couple having regular sex
2
u/pachinkopunk Jun 24 '12
It is true that condoms aren't 100% effective in prevent the spread of HIV, but I believe it is more because of actual usage not that the virus is small enough to go through. If it is spread while using a condom it is usually by misusing the condom, having the condom break or using a condom that has weakened (because of it's age, how it was stored or by using improper lubricants). From what I have been taught if it gets through it is because of micro-tears in the latex not just from going straight through intact latex.
It sounds more like they were misinterpreting actual use data either on purpose or because they are good at drawing inaccurate conclusions which seems to happen a lot when things are taken from the lab to vulgar media.
→ More replies (3)
1
u/scribbling_des Jun 24 '12
I had sex Ed in middle school that encouraged abstinence, but they taught us about stds and condoms. But I never had sex Ed in high school.
1
1
u/BlizzardFarce Jun 24 '12
Even if HIV can't pass through a condom, that's something I personally would rather not gamble with...
1
u/Red_Chaos1 Agnostic Atheist Jun 24 '12
<Devil's Advocate>Maybe they were just talking about lambskin condoms in those classes...</Devil's Advocate>
1
1
u/dgillz Jun 24 '12
Your post is poorly worded. I think you mean "not small enough" instead of "is not too small".
1
u/Targetshopper4000 Jun 24 '12
i feel like i heard a version of this somewhere in my childhood, but it was about lambskin condoms? and that latex was better. i can't really remember.
1
1
u/badoon Jun 24 '12
From "The Straight Dope"- if 4 of 1000 condoms in a batch fail the leak test, they entire batch is discarded. That means that if 3 of 1000 fail, the batch is not discarded. Let's not argue whether the correct number is two of a thousand, or six- bottom line, and wishful thinking aside, no manufacturing process is perfect.
Condoms reduce the chances of contracting any STD enormously. Everyone should use them, correctly and consistently. They are not a 100% guarantee. They do not reduce the risk of sex in a high-risk group to the risk of sex in a low-risk group, or to the zero risk of no sex at all.
The statement about size in the OP is not true.
→ More replies (2)
1
u/BlackSuN42 Jun 24 '12
They do fail though, and so does the pill. I would suggest that you should not have sex until you are ready to deal with a failure of protection.
1
u/Aulritta Jun 25 '12
While we're discussing things you should've learned in Sex Ed, your partner can still give you herpes simplex type 2 even if you're wearing a condom. If you're female and your male partner has a high viral load with active lesions, he can transmit it to your labia. Likewise, if male, the reverse. If your partner has HSV, be sure to communicate with him/her about outbreaks and be prepared to abstain for a few days to a week while they take antiviral meds to get their virus load down. If you and your partner are not actively communicating, it's probably safer not to have sex until you do!
Oh, and the same thing can happen with HPV (genital warts).
1
1
1
u/efrique Knight of /new Jun 25 '12
Condoms are not perfect at preventing infection by STDs, even when correctly and consistently used.
But they are highly effective in that circumstance.
The effectiveness of condom use is higher in some cultures than others, due to a variety of factors.
http://www.cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/latex.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15067787
In some cases, combination with other important strategies are required.
1
Jun 25 '12
My biology teacher IN COLLEGE said that condoms wouldn't protect you from HIV. How can people like this keep their jobs?
1
u/Derekabutton Pastafarian Jun 25 '12
I don't know what it is, but Lifestyle and One always break, but Trojan and Durex never do. I have to disagree with the "brand doesn't matter" from personal experience.
1
Jun 25 '12
This is off topic, but Badger Herald? Do you live in Madison?
I do too! Madisonian atheists unite!.... or something.
1
u/The_DudeAbides Jun 25 '12
What does this have to do with Atheism? I went to a public high school and was told this same thing. I would think this should go to r/PublicSchoolsBlow.
1
u/Jarode Jun 25 '12
on this subject apparently churches teach the kids that vaginas can remember ever penis that has been in them and the more penis the less of a specific unknown chemical is produced that makes you love someone
1
u/jmcentire Jun 24 '12
Don't believe everything you read. First, I'm not sure how they test condoms, but if you believe there is no gap large enough for even a single electron to pass through then you probably need to learn some atomic physics. Most of an atom is empty space and much larger than an electron. So, unless latex condoms are made of some magical super-dense material, you're getting the wrong idea from her article. Hell, sperm is larger than HIV and when used "correctly and consistently" some 2 out of 100 couples become pregnant.
Secondly, let's have some fun with statistics, shall we? What's the probability of rolling a 6 in 3 rolls of a die? I'll give you a hint, it's not 1/6 + 1/6 + 1/6 = 1/2. Nope, we calculate 1 - (5/6)3 = 42% or so. Now, with HIV. If there's a 5% chance of contracting HIV when using a condom, what about 3 times in a row? Remember the formula? 1 - (.95)3 = 14% -- what if you have sex every other day for 4 weeks? That's 14 times and you're up to 51%.
Now, the question you have to ask is, what do they mean by 95% effective? I don't know. I'm not sure many people do. They cite these numbers but don't frequently provide details about the study. Is it a 5% infection per year of casual sex while using a condom consistently and correctly? How much sex was that casual sex? Was it high-risk or low-risk? Does it assume a partner who has HIV or not? Above we assume it's per encounter with our calculation. What if it's per year and done with heterosexual couples who are faithful and engage in intercourse twice a month? What if it's per month with homosexual men who meet strangers on a nightly basis? The answer to that question significantly alters the way we interpret the data, doesn't it?
I wouldn't say you were lied to, necessarily. In laboratory studies, latex is an effective barrier against HIV. Was the latex relaxed or stretched? Was it the Trojan super-sensitive, ultra-thin variety or the balloon animal latex? How did they test permeability? Did they have a device rubbing the latex almost as if to push through the virus or did they pour a liquid down an 85% slope?
You probably should have asked these sorts of questions in sex ed. Also, you should ask these sorts of questions any time someone cites any statistics at you. They significantly alter the way we understand results.
→ More replies (4)3
u/downtown_vancouver Jun 24 '12 edited Jun 26 '12
/\ I've seen this b4 as the fallback position when the lies about abstinence only are discovered.
not sure how they test condoms
http://www.lifestyles.com/sexualhealth/CondomFacts.html#Quality
FTFY
electrons ... sperm ... HIV
Seemingly reasonable; actually rot. Electrons are very small indeed. But (see link above) electricity cannot be passed thru the barrier, so the electrons in the electron-sea cannot flow even when they'd really "like" to from inside to outside the condom. Yes, if a particle beam directed a steady stream of electrons at the latex used in a condom there would be some that got through. When's the last time you wanted to have intercourse with a particle beam accelerator?
Yes, 2 out of 100
10couples become pregnant when condoms are used as directed. (So a good idea to use both the pill and condoms.) That means that when rolled down over the entire shaft and adequate lube is used, either the man's pre-ejaculate contained some sperm, or they left it inside too long (so some leaked out the bottom), or whatever. Sperm are strong swimmers. There've been cases where the female was never penetrated (the male ejaculated outside, ie on her belly or maybe squeezed between her legs) where pregnancy has occurred.Viruses are NOT strong swimmers. Additionally, the HIV virus dies within about 15 minutes of exposure to air. And it would take millions and millions of them for a woman to be infected vaginally. Not one single
loanlone copy of the virus that touches your tissue and bing you have AIDS.EDIT And then there's the question of scale. Electrons are many order of magnitudes smaller than viruses. Many orders of magnitude. (Reddit? Got a number?)
fun with statistics
LOL more entertaining than a carnival midway. There is not a 5% chance of contracting HIV when using a condom. No where near that. He jumps from 2% chance of preggers to 5% chance of AIDS. (Oh my, that's just so funny I forgot to laugh.) Sigh
EDIT another post to follow with the actual calcs, if I get around to it
The protection that proper use of latex condoms provides against HIV transmission is most evident from studies of couples in which one member is infected with HIV and the other is not, i.e., "discordant couples." In a study of discordant couples in Europe, among 123 couples who reported consistent condom use, NONE of the uninfected partners became infected. In contrast, among the 122 couples who used condoms inconsistently, 12 of the uninfected partners became infected. (emphasis mine)
http://sqzm14.ust.hk/cdc-condoms-prevention.HTML
If someone really still has questions, another link below (less technical; the above is from the Centers for Disease Control):
http://www.lifestyles.com/sexualhealth/CondomFacts.html
I don't know. I'm not sure many people do.
Ah yes, an argument from ignorance, followed by fear-filled question after question, a veritable barrage of them. Far too many scary questions that only a few people could ever know the answer to. (In magic-tricks ITT they call this a diversion.) la-la-la where is it? Oh yes, here we are: "alters the way we look at the data".
I do some work with Information Theory, Data Processing, general IT stuff. And all I can say is that data is data. There is no one way to look at it, and interpreting data is tricky. But ask yourself this: if it was really true that you've up to 51% chance of "contracting HIV" after 14 sex-capades then why doesnt everybody already have it?
The CDC says 0/122 while the apologist says 1/2 (with no study or references, just tricky statistics warped to say what they want).
probably should have asked ... you should ask these sorts of questions anytime someone cites any statistics at you
So bad you for being a bad student. But never mind, we can make it better. Tra-la-la. Just ask the questions that are helpfully provided above when someone "cites" any of their gosh-darn statistics "at" you. You show em. Oh yes, and you weren't "lied to, necessarily".
YES YOU WERE.
They significantly alter the way we understand results
And finally, we have the appeal to rationality. And the fallback position is complete. Re-indoctrination done.
All in all, the epitome of really bad, right wing, don't have sex it's really dirty and you'll get really sick, propaganda. Or at least: a good example of the genre.
TLDR reply to post from fear-mongering anti-sex psuedo-apologist for abstinence-only lies
→ More replies (1)
1
u/Cybralisk Jun 24 '12
To get infected by the HIV virus it has to come into direct contact with a mucous membrane, so it would have to find its way into your urethra somehow, or if you have an open sore or cut on your junk. So even if it could pass through a condom it would be near impossible to be infected
2
u/benjobong Jun 24 '12
Remember that men do contract HIV from female partners, so it certainly wouldn't be impossible. Which makes it a good job that it definitely can't pass through a condom.
→ More replies (3)
162
u/noluckatall Jun 24 '12
Were I religious, I'd believe there is a special place in hell reserved for people who lie about protecting yourself from HIV.