From: n5ppm264 (Charlie Board)
Subject: Re: SURVEY <-- Please read this one!
Organization: bnr
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 18:43:42 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.082811.310@doc.bmd.trw.com>, jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com writes:
> 
> X-NEWS: doc alt.atheism: 8697
> Newsgroups: alt.atheism
> Subject: Re: SURVEY <-- Please Read This One!
> Message-ID: <10209@vice.ICO.TEK.COM>
> From: bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine)
> Date: 21 Aug 92 18:34:12 GMT
> 
> In article <1992Aug21.082159.295@doc.bmd.trw.com> jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com writes:
> >In article <1992Aug20.230043.13220@bmerh85.bnr.ca>, dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
> >> In article <1992Aug20.144304.293@doc.bmd.trw.com> jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com writes:
> >> 
> >If condoms could actually help to prevent AIDS, I would be all for it.
> >But they won't.  They can't.  If condoms are only 80% effective against
> >pregnancy without the aid of a spermicide as reported in the little
> >info sheets than come with birth control pills that discuss alternative
> >birth control options, then how does anyone seriously think that condoms
> >will help prevent HIV infection during long-term sexual activity?  The HIV
> >is much smaller than a sperm, and there isn't any "AIDSicide" to use
> >with the condom.  At best you might have a 4 in 5 chance of protecting
> >yourself, and this might be helpful for an occasional frolic, but it's 
> >not much help for repeated liaisons.
> 
> 
> In Message-ID: <10209@vice.ICO.TEK.COM>
> bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:
> 
>   Bullshit.  Condoms are statistically only 80% effective because
>   people don't use them correctly.  My wife and I have used condoms as
>   our only birth control device (no spermicide) over the last 7
>   years.  We have two children, and when we decided to produce(?)
>   them it took all of exactly 1 month on both attempts.  Don't tell
>   me that condoms aren't effective, else I'd have what appears to be
>   a perfectly natural Catholic or Mormon family by now.
> 
>     Bob, to use your own words...bullshit!  Who was trying to give me
>     a primer in math not so long ago??	OK, so you and your wife have
>     100% success!  Great!  Since 80% is a *statistical average*, that
>     means that for every one of you, there is some poor sucker out
>     there who has a ** 60% ** success rate!  Or there are two poor
>     suckers out there with 70% success rates.

Jim, you're trying to argue from statistics that you (obviously) don't
understand. Just read the notes that come with any package of birth
control pills - the 80% effectiveness figure for condoms includes ALL
failures for ALL reasons among people who rely on condoms as their sole
(primary?) birth control device. This includes NOT EVEN WEARING IT! as well
as improper use, defective material, etc. This seems like a screwy way to
provide the information but it is standard and is intended to factor in
the "inconvenience factor" among various methods. (Note that using this
standard "abstinence" becomes the WORST possible birth control method :)).
If you can find a documented reference to effectiveness that only measures
*proper use* (I can't), your argument will still apply but it will be FAR
less persuading because the figure will be MUCH higher than 80%!

> 
>     Regards,
> 
>     Jim B.	   Jim_Brown@oz.bmd.trw.com
> 
> =======================================================================
> Best Quote of the Month:  (Pres. Bush to Saddam Hussein)  "Look Saddam,
> either you're going to let our inspectors into your ministry buildings,
> or we're going to drop ACLU lawyers over Baghdad...WITH PARACHUTES!!"
> =======================================================================
> 
>