to be fair, I think that the infection way would probably work the same with male tissue, at least from the paper. What is kind of strange is, that no one ever tried the healthy tissue experiment before. And even stranger is from the article, why someone would believe that using a diaphragm would be "safe sex", as there are quite a few STD that are known to go through or into the vaginal tissue.
What in my opinion is most annoying, is that condoms are more or less male only, and any things to prevent HIV infection for females have yet to make it past ugly prototypes (I think I saw some Zebra prototypes in Africa a while ago, but they have room for improvement).
- Condoms are not male only. WSW with toys, MSM, and MSW all should use condoms and not just for HIV prevention but for Hep to yeast infections. - A number of diseases have been documented as behaving differently with female physiology than male physiology. Heart Attacks/Strokes for one. - Are you familiar with harm reduction tactics? That is where you are supposed to pick the lesser of evils aka if you are a tweaker trying to quit crystal you should only drink or smoke pot or something cause it is a 'lesser' evil. So with VD's where there is whining about condoms use other prevention methods...
sorry, kind of bad expressing myself in English - yes, condoms are the way, as diaphragms definitively don't prevent too many STDs (if at all) - I am a bit sceptical with sex-specifc viral diseases, as most of them are quite sex-unspecific in their mode of infection (cold/flu/rabies/...), so I don't see why anal tissue should not get infected in a similar way if vaginal tissue is. - and I tried not to whine about condoms (that was our contraception choice by mutual consent for the last 10 years and it worked very well, so no complaints from me), I just tried to point out that there is not much choice for women if they want to protect themselves from STDs.
I really wish that the common perception (or this is how it seems to me) that AIDS is a gay male issue would change. Articles like this point out the real view of it. So sad to hear the current rate of infection when a condom can prevent so much of that.
Comments 5
What is kind of strange is, that no one ever tried the healthy tissue experiment before.
And even stranger is from the article, why someone would believe that using a diaphragm would be "safe sex", as there are quite a few STD that are known to go through or into the vaginal tissue.
What in my opinion is most annoying, is that condoms are more or less male only, and any things to prevent HIV infection for females have yet to make it past ugly prototypes (I think I saw some Zebra prototypes in Africa a while ago, but they have room for improvement).
Reply
- Condoms are not male only. WSW with toys, MSM, and MSW all should use condoms and not just for HIV prevention but for Hep to yeast infections.
- A number of diseases have been documented as behaving differently with female physiology than male physiology. Heart Attacks/Strokes for one.
- Are you familiar with harm reduction tactics? That is where you are supposed to pick the lesser of evils aka if you are a tweaker trying to quit crystal you should only drink or smoke pot or something cause it is a 'lesser' evil. So with VD's where there is whining about condoms use other prevention methods...
Reply
- yes, condoms are the way, as diaphragms definitively don't prevent too many STDs (if at all)
- I am a bit sceptical with sex-specifc viral diseases, as most of them are quite sex-unspecific in their mode of infection (cold/flu/rabies/...), so I don't see why anal tissue should not get infected in a similar way if vaginal tissue is.
- and I tried not to whine about condoms (that was our contraception choice by mutual consent for the last 10 years and it worked very well, so no complaints from me), I just tried to point out that there is not much choice for women if they want to protect themselves from STDs.
darn, I have to work on my discussion skills ;-)
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment