Talk:Safe sex

Article merged: See old talk-page here. --Una Smith (talk) 03:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Does

Does the article say touching hiv +ve blood or vaginal fluids with no apparant cuts or open bleeding wounds cause aids? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.142.100 (talk • contribs) 08:14, 17 September 2008

Immunization

Immunization before initiation of sexual activity increases effectiveness.

I'm not sure that this is accurate. Certainly immunization before exposure is important, and one reliable way to do this is to immunize before the first sexual activity, but the fact remains that a solitary individual, or an uninfected monogamous couple, can engage in all kinds of sexual activities without the smallest risk of contracting a vaccine-preventable sexually transmissible infection, and if they later receive the vaccine, it will be no less effective for them than for the next person.

I'm also not sure that this sentence is especially relevant. Perhaps it might make more sense to say that health authorities commonly recommend that these vaccines be given to children. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Using two or more forms of birth control concurrently

This section is very poorly written - the reference is just someone's post on newsgroups - there is no actual reference. The math on the statistics is also wrong, the tables are mislabeled, and the wording in all of it is very non-wiki.

I suggest this section be removed or revised as it clearly does not meet Wikipedia standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.199.103 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 27 April 2010

Using two or more forms of birth control provides incredibly greater protection.

The typical and perfect risk numbers for condoms and birth control are given based upon 80-100 sex acts. For best case scenario in the chart, this is assumed to be based on 100 sex acts because that makes the risk less. For the worst case scenario in the chart, this is assumed to be based on 80 sex acts because that makes the risk more.

The subsequent per year risk calculation of Condoms and Birth Control is based upon the per act risk of each times the other, divided by the number of acts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.30.178.236 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 6 May 2010

Yes, but it is irrelevant (Pregnancy prevention is not Disease prevention) and badly sourced. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Definition of Safe Sex

Shouldn't safe sex be defined as to include pregnancy prevention? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.30.178.236 (talk) 23:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't, because it's not so defined by reliable sources, which are what the content of this encyclopedia depends on. Deor (talk) 00:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Condom Usage.jpg

I'm removing the above image which has just been added. The image itself hasn't had a license added and so is liable to be deleted, it also has one subject (the woman) who is clearly identifiable in a very private situation and who has not (as far as we can tell) consented to this publication. These 2 facts will almost certainly cause the photo to be deleted in the near future even though it's a lot better than some sex pictures we get. What do other editors think? Do we need an illustration of condom usage on the page? If so what form should it take? The Wikimedia Commons category Commons:Category:Condoms has a lot of material that is free to use. --Simon Speed (talk) 09:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Legality

I think the fact that nonconsensual unprotected sex is illegal in certain jurisdictions is appropriate material for this article. I'm not sure why the reverting editor disagrees. Please explain.--Nowa (talk) 15:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the general question of legality should be mentioned in the article, the statement you made regarding Assange is incorrect; "This is one of Sweden sex scandal charges against Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks". As yet, Assange has not been charged with any offence, and the issue of condom non-use may or may not be of relevance.

(And incidentally, I think that you'll find that "nonconsensual unprotected sex is illegal" in most jurisdictions, because it is nonconsensual.) AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Andy, you are right. There have been no charges. My mistake. Regarding the legality of unprotected sex, I had the sense from the article that there was something distinctive about the Swedish law that went beyond the nonconsensual part. If I get more specifics I'll post on talk first.--Nowa (talk) 16:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)