While extolling the effectiveness of condoms in the avoidance of STDs, Ms Elaine Dutton (The Sunday Times, December 31) did not refer to, much less emphasise, the serious risks involved in their use.
May I quote what the authors of a book for young people, Sex, Love and You (Tom & Judy Lickona with William Boudreau, MD) have to say in this regard? After referring to the various causes which may be responsible for the failure rate of the use of condoms in unplanned pregnancies, the authors observe:
"Naturally, if a condom has holes in it, or slips off or breaks during intercourse, it won't protect you against STDs, just as it won't protect you against pregnancy.
"But even when condoms do remain on and intact, they provide considerably less protection against sexually transmitted disease than they do against pregnancy. Why is that so?
"The first reason is this. Whereas a girl can get pregnant only at ovulation time (two to three days each month), a sexually transmitted disease can be passed on from partner to partner at any time of the month. STDs don't depend on ovulation for transmission.
"Secondly, STDs are very tiny organisms, minuscule in size compared to sperm. These super-small viruses can get through a hole in a condom much more easily than sperm can. For example, HIV (the AIDS-causing virus) is so small that two million of the disease-causing agents could crowd on the period at the end of this sentence.
"A third reason is an extremely important fact that is not emphasised nearly enough by sex educators. A condom covers only a portion of the genital area that is contacted during intercourse. A female's pubic area and vulva are not covered by the condom. Neither are a male's pubic area and scrotum.
"That's a problem, because the bacterial or viral germs that cause many serious STDs (such as human papillomavirus, chlamydia, herpes, and syphilis) do not infect just one place on your body. They may infect anywhere in the male or female genital areas.
"So, even if the virus or bacteria don't get through the condom itself, you can still get a disease because the condom isn't covering enough of your genital region to prevent infection during sexual contact.
"A fourth hazard. After intercourse, various potentially infectious sexual fluids are on both sides of the condom. As the condom is removed these potentially contaminated fluids can be transmitted between partners.
"Medical studies show that for all these reasons, condoms provide little or no protection against several of the STDs that are a danger to your health and your ability to bear children."
Referring to the chances of human error in the use of condoms, the authors observe:
"Teenagers aren't the only ones who don't always use condoms correctly. Sexual excitement or the influence of alcohol often interferes with correct usage. There's a big difference between laboratory studies of condom effectiveness (using fluid-filled condoms to simulate real conditions) and real-life sexual encounters involving less-than-perfect human beings."
In view of these facts, why don't we give young people holistic information about the condom 'solution' for the avoidance of STDs?
Why only limit ourselves to presenting the condom as 'safe sex' without at the same time insisting with equal emphasis and publicity on the risks involved in its use?
Who knows? Maybe some young people, on learning about these dangers, may be more effectively persuaded to limit themselves only to the first two letters of the UNAIDS 'ABCD' principle: abstinence and being faithful.
If, thanks to such holistic information, made readily available to young people, some young lives were saved, would not such an effort be truly worthwhile? Why consistently overlook such promising possibilities?