Everywhere I find on the internet says that condoms, when used properly and don’t break, are only 98% effective.
That means if you have sex once a week you’re just as well off as having no protection once a year.
Are 2% of condoms randomly selected to have holes poked in them?
What’s going on?
In: Biology
Birth control statistics are based on 13 cycles (one year) of a couple using only that birth control method, theoretical and actual. Not even tubal ligation (tubes tied) or vasectomy are 100% full proof, nature finds a way.
Theoretical effectiveness would account for device error, while actual effectiveness is human error. Human error would include not using the condom, putting it on wrong, etc. Theoretic would be condoms breaking, among other things. For condoms, effectiveness is 98% in theory, 92% in practice, meaning human error is more common than device error.
Cycle watching can reduce the error rate, but nothing is 100% effective.
First of all, those number assume perfect use, which seldom happens. But the more important question is effective against what? If we’re talking HIV protection, it’s closer to 80% in vaginal intercourse. By anal we’re talking 70%.
Protection against smear infections like chlamydia and gonorrhea is between 25% and 50%. I won’t even mention HPV.
That’s why no matter how great you condom use is, regular STI testing is important. Many infections are symptomless and you can carry them and pass them on for months or years without knowing.
That second paragraph is a classic example of a fallacy that arises from figures, I forget the name. It’s like if a nuclear shield works for 99 in hundred nukes then there is no point fighting an enemy with 101 nukes.
Does not work that way and don’t let that advise your contraceptive behaviour and for heaven’s sake don’t say this to someone you’re about to have an encounter with, you’ll get blocked on the sex and on the chat.
Latest Answers