Another website I was looking at for information about HIV prevention (tweaker.org) indicates that bottoming with a condom is more dangerous than topping *without* one. Yes, I know that the partner who is "putting it in" is always at less risk than the one who is "receiving it." But follow my reasoning: I would always consider topping without a condom to be unacceptably risky. If that is true, shouldn't I consider bottoming under any circumstances to be too great a risk, too? Does this make sense?

Part of what makes it difficult to assess the risk is I don't know what the relative risk of these acts is. Sure, bottoming without a condom is extremely unsafe. But is bottoming with a condom also rather unsafe? Or is it actually quite safe--which would make topping without a condom much safer than I think?

Hello,

Your "reasoning" would be reasonable if the reasoning your reasoning was based on was reasonable, but unfortunately it's totally unreasonable. In other words, despite what you may have read on tweaker.org, bottoming with a condom is not more dangerous than topping without one, unless, of course, the condom is not properly used or breaks! HIV cannot permeate intact latex (or polyurethane). No way. No how. (No McCain. No Sarah "I can see Russia from my house" Palin.)

Check out the information in the archives of this forum. We have whole chapters devoted to HIV sexual transmission, HIV sexual prevention and safer sexual techniques.

Dr. Bob