CONDOMS: CHOOSE WISELY

If you think that only an “easy woman” would take an interest in a search for the best condoms, you will be surprised by what you find in the following article. The largest part of the following article takes place far from the setting where one would expect to find an “easy woman.” In fact, it focuses on a laboratory experiment. And yet the following article reveals surprising facts about how one might search for the best condoms. The following article illustrates the reason why such a search does not always rely on statistics that relate to activities in a bedroom.In the fall of 1981, a researcher at UCLA initiated a search for the best condoms. She did not begin her search in the bedroom. The opening of her search efforts called for the use of laboratory equipment.

The researcher perceived of “best condoms” as those least likely to have a leak. The scientist, a woman who studied infectious diseases, understood that a good condom should prevent the spread of a sexually transmitted disease (STD). Of course, only the best condoms would prevent such an occurrence during almost any act of intercourse.

With that fact uppermost in her mind, the scientist removed from a cabinet in her lab a tall metal pole, one that had tiny plastic “feet.” The scientist put that pole on a bench in her laboratory. She then fastened a special holder to that pole. Into that holder the scientist planned to put a series of condoms.

The scientist intended to pour water into a series of  condoms. She hypothesized that only the best condoms would retain that water. She wanted to see which condoms failed to allow any water to leak onto the bench. The condom that could hold off a leak for the longest amount of time would be considered the “best condom brand.”

That scientist’s search for the best condoms represented only one segment of her studies relating to the spread of Herpes. The scientist had decided to take a closer look at the various ways that one could contract the Herpes virus. The scientist had looked beyond the scene where such transmission would be most apt to take place.

The scientist had developed a new treatment for Herpes. She had then decided to seek assistance from one young lady who had benefited from that treatment. The scientist asked that young lady to take a collection of cotton swabs. The young lady found herself swabbing many of the toilet seats on the UCLA campus.

The scientist used those swabs as a potential source of Herpes. She tried to grow Herpes virus in culture, using material from each swab. In most cases, no virus showed up in the cultured cells. In one or two instances, however, the scientist did manage to grow Herpes virus from the material on a swab.

That information suggested that one could get Herpes from a contaminated toilet seat. That information implied that even the best condoms provide no guarantee that a person will never come in contact with Herpes. All of that information came to light just as other scientists up in San Francisco struggled to understand a different disease.

That disease was AIDS. The information about Herpes that came from that UCLA lab might have fueled fears concerning the virus that causes AIDS. For a long time, many people refused to believe that one could contract AIDS only through contact with contaminated body fluids. Perhaps some people still doubt that claim.