What happened to the invisible condom?
-
-
-
-
- jubal
- added this
-
-
- related topics
-
- Politics (10221)
- News (4024)
- Religion (861)
- Africa (422)
- GLBT (240)
- Journalism (209)
- LGBT (114)
- Conspiracy (108)
- HIV/AIDS (105)
- HIV (100)
- AIDS (76)
- Condoms (45)
- Hiding the truth (27)
- HIV prevention (4)
- Invisible barriers (2)
- Invisible Condom (1)
I find it very interesting that when the Bush Administration came to power in this country, science was on the verge of many quite promising technologies to add to the arsenal of weapons against HIV transmission. However the "Religious Climate" of the Administration led to moral "strings" attached to any funding offered; preach abstinence as the only solution to stopping the transmission of HIV. This was a failed policy from the start and is at the core of the rise in HIV transmissions among the youth in this country. They lack the basic information and tools necessary to protect themselves and they are being shamed back into the closet, so to speak, where sex without knowledge about HIV transmission can be lethal.
Among these technologies were two that I have been searching for information about because essentially they went nowhere. They were left to die by the wayside. I want to know why? Who is responsible for these products not being given to the public?
I think that these products should be brought to market. Enough with the Big Brother control over our sexual freedom and our right to safe sex.
Product number one (subject of the article from 2002) is a gel that provides an invisible barrier of protection. At the Barcelona 2002 AIDS conference it was touted as the most amazing development in HIV transmission prevention up to that time. It could provide protection to millions of African women.
Product number two was the anti-HIV shot that would make you immune to HIV through the use of an injectable anti-HIV medication. It would render the patient immune for up to 72 hours.
Doesn't it seem obvious that these products were suppressed due to the politics of the Bush administration or what?
Among these technologies were two that I have been searching for information about because essentially they went nowhere. They were left to die by the wayside. I want to know why? Who is responsible for these products not being given to the public?
I think that these products should be brought to market. Enough with the Big Brother control over our sexual freedom and our right to safe sex.
Product number one (subject of the article from 2002) is a gel that provides an invisible barrier of protection. At the Barcelona 2002 AIDS conference it was touted as the most amazing development in HIV transmission prevention up to that time. It could provide protection to millions of African women.
Product number two was the anti-HIV shot that would make you immune to HIV through the use of an injectable anti-HIV medication. It would render the patient immune for up to 72 hours.
Doesn't it seem obvious that these products were suppressed due to the politics of the Bush administration or what?
-
-
-
-
- jubal
- 8 days ago
-
Here is another link to a product called a "topical microbicide" for use in HIV prevention.
-
* Safe sex fatigue. Plainly put, people are tired of constantly being on guard against HIV.
* Some people regard condoms as a barrier to sexual pleasure and deep intimacy. Many studies suggest that only 20% of people in a stable relationship use condoms. Even those who use condoms with "outside" partners may be unwilling or unable to use them with a primary partner. One study conducted at Columbia University showed that 43% of men-who-have-sex-with-men (MSM) reported inconsistent condom use.
* Women (and some men) often don't have control over when and how they have sex. Asking a man to use a condom may result in a woman being beaten, threatened, or abandoned by her partner. The possibility of a violent response is especially high if a man believes that condoms imply a lessening of male pleasure, promiscuity or lack of fidelity, or a woman's "inappropriate" knowledge of sexual practices. -
Maybe the men feel that way because of inadequet (sp?) sexual education . . .
I know of someone that (I heard through the grapevine, aka my mom gossiping with my sister) that she got pregnant because when she asked her bf to use a condom he was like "Why? Are you being promiscous" so I think you're right on the money jubal.-
-
-
-
- CarlosIsDown
- 8 days ago
-
-
I guess they just stopped the test for the HIV microbicide Carraguard that they were experimenting with in Africa. Apparently the study was marred by inconsistent use of the gel but they're gearing up to test a revamped version of Carraguard that has MIV-150 (an experimental AIDS drug) this year.
I never even heard about the Anti-HIV shot. That sounds interesting. One wonders how close we could be to developing a wonder vaccine that would function as an Anti-EverySTD birth control shot with $3 trillion. Make love, not war! :-)
Failed Anti-HIV microbicide study in S. Africa
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23223084/
and here @ NPR
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=19...
-
What happened to the Femidom?
The female condom has saved many lives.
-
-
-
-
- Vierotchka
- 8 days ago
-
-
it is ironic that with the market flooded with presumably everything it takes to get and keep it up for a good time (cialis, levitra, viagra, all that) that "protection" hasn't exactly kept pace. Planned Parenthood has a lot of money. It might good to see to who and where they try to pass the buck though they have been worldwide and loaded with cash themselves for quite a long long time, and supposedly acting in the interest of public health, and often funded with taxpayer monies. WTF is their problem, I'd wonder. Where's all that cash going? Chairmen's pockets? lobbyists? ...I wonder. It's not a little bit of money either.
but Hawkmang's comment that "Apparently the study was marred by inconsistent use" is a hauntingly familiar scenario for more than just the test but general practical use as well that I think some would do well to take into similar/as equal and important account as availability; cuz even when we have the opportunity to use it...tsk, we don't always care to even with the risks =/ I'll be the first to admit that desire can be all consuming, especially if you already have romantic notions for someone, but that incredibly important personal responsibility is often easily overlooked as more of an inconvenient chore in the heat of the moment, like taking the trash out, than as part of the fun.
making it part of the fun, enhancing the experience =P would make it a lot more likely that couples would use it, but then you have all kinds of "other" logistical issues to navigate...like the *kind* of sex you have and the immediate frequency with which you have it =D I'd guess that could really be a practical nightmare and a potentially severe hamper on sponteneity, something most people are very loath to do without. -
sadly, i feel that if there were contraceptives and std barriers the were invisable, one partner may fib to have gotten said vaccine or pill and really.....
just a thought-
-
-
-
- phillyphil
- 8 days ago
-
-
Vierotchka. we have the Femidom here in Oregon. Our local Planned Parenthood and HIV service organization distribute them to people. It can be used both rectally and vaginally.
-
LMAO =D ...re: Vierotchka's very informative/entertaining Femidom link:
"...In just 10 weeks, 70,000 had been sold to NHS clinics. But 13 years on, UK usage is so low that it registers as 0% according the National Office of Statistics' report on Contraception and Sexual Behaviour. How did we fall so quickly out of love with the Femidom?
The answer may be that Britain never really loved it in the first place. The female condom may have seemed a good idea to most modern, emancipated women in 1992 (when the world was was riding the second wave of Aids terror, with heterosexuals the new victims). But once they saw it up close - and tried using one - they weren't so keen. The Femidom (the British brand name for the invention) is a baggy, seven-inch prelubricated polyurethane tube designed to line the vagina. It looks like a cross between a pair of diaphragms and a male condom that might have been used as a water bomb. It can't have helped that the Danish inventor, Dr Lasse Hessel, originally intended it to be used as an incontinence sheath.
Newspaper headlines such as "Is that an amoeba between your legs?" weren't helpful either. Nor was comedian Jo Brand, who couldn't resist such a comic gift: "Like Tesco's carrier bags," she said. "What a nightmare if one of those falls out of your handbag in the pub. What do you say? 'It's all right, I'm just off on a ballooning weekend.' " And let's not forget the infamous "rustle", the noise that the Femidom made during sex.
"Fun with a windsock" is how 30-year-old marketing executive Louise Sandler recalls her first and only Femidom experience, in 1993, at university. "They were being given out in the student union. My boyfriend was up for it because it meant he wouldn't have to wear a condom. But once was enough; first off, I couldn't get it in. The instructions said, 'Squeeze inner ring together and slide to cover cervix.' I mean, what sort of woman has the capacity to slide her entire hand inside herself - and in front of her boyfriend?"
The manufacturers had calculated that older, sexually confident women in steady relationships would be the initial takers - and that it would take three trial runs for a woman to feel comfortable with the product...on the whole, positive feature in Cosmopolitan began: "It's not for an elephant or a donkey, but it is the strangest-looking thing...it didn't matter how sensible, safe or comfortable the female condom might be; it was just a bit too weird."
I guess the people in India like it though. =D -
The point of invisible barriers are for people who would be in danger of something more serious like a beating or being burned alive by their jealous and insane partners.
In many countries, because of religious and moral issues, women would be accused of being promiscuous or not being an obedient wife and such.
Also all those people who claim that you loose sensitivity when you use a condom could use the gel or foam instead and keep the sensitivity while getting protection. -
thanks jubal.
good points :)-
-
-
-
- phillyphil
- 8 days ago
-
-
well, I'm not exactly sold on the alleged cultural gravity of condom use to incite common beatings and the like, as it would seem to me that especially in illicit promiscuity, consent to anything that prevents a discovery of the relationship via a pregnancy would be in the best interest generally, even if they don't use them; but in those probably rather extreme cases, if condom use really sets some jealous mferz off for a beating, I wonder what asking for a little gel/foam application would do for the situation. *shrug*
-
Because the Gel/Foam could be used while the woman is getting ready in the bathroom and she can attribute the moisture to excitement, extra lubrication for the vagina.
This mostly applies to women in countries where they don't have the right to say no to the man. Places like Muslim countries would be a good example, or countries in Africa with tribal customs, etc. -
=D dam jubal! lol script it dude lol what's Act 2 lookin' like??? any steamier and you might fog up your monitor bro! lol
philly had what I thought was a pretty good point too that sometimes a woman can/may say whatever she wants to. =) and sometimes a woman can use the issue of pregnancy to so apparent advantage....something to think about when you got invisibility on your hands too =P lol -
In addition to abstinance, monagamy is also the best prevention from HIV/AIDS and other STD's. We all make our own choices. Protected sex is not 100% safe-sex. Whenever a new product is introduced to the market, the makers and financial backers of the new product will always boast proudly that the new product is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Jubal, as far as countries where the women does not have the right to say no to a man.... try the United States of America. Here in Virginia, the law states the there is no such as rape between husband and wife. No matter what the wife can not press rape charges against her husband. This was someting I learned from watching the Lorena/John Wayne Bobbit trial. I do not agree with that law by the way. We all make our own choices in life. To me I chose monagamy because it is the safest, most satisfying and best sex life a person can have.
keep browsing
this space intentionally left blank
