# Is HIV a danger for people with only 1 sex partner? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [August 14, 2012, 8:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hiv-a-danger-for-people-with-only-1-sex-partner/631449 "2012-08-14T08:30:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![CookingWithGas](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cookingwithgas/32/485_2.png) [@CookingWithGas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CookingWithGas)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2012, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hiv-a-danger-for-people-with-only-1-sex-partner/631449/21 "2012-08-15T17:51:17Z")
> [@Ferret\_Herder](#): > > First of all, this isn’t new; he announced the change in stance [two years ago](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/24/world/europe/24pope.html?pagewanted=all). > > Second, it appears to be focused on people who have AIDS and other sexually-transmitted diseases (and their partner, as applicable) to prevent them from spreading the disease: > So if someone was infected with HIV previously, and then entered into a committed relationship/marriage, using condoms in that case would be Catholic Church-endorsed in order to protect the life of the partner. Thanks for adding these actual facts to the conversation. This does cause me to revise my earlier post (if I could). Adding this specificity certainly does clarify the church’s position. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2012, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hiv-a-danger-for-people-with-only-1-sex-partner/631449/22 "2012-08-15T18:02:51Z")
> [@AaronX](#): > > Isn’t HIV only a risk if people have multiple partners? Simple - no. It’s a risk if _**your partner(s)**_ have had more than 1 partner. > [@AaronX](#): > > … does the Catholic Church allow fornication? No. There’s an expression somewhere about horses and barn doors. The catholic church probably recognizes that some people may not have the moral strength to abstain from sex inside marriage just because their spouse strayed at one time… ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2012, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hiv-a-danger-for-people-with-only-1-sex-partner/631449/23 "2012-08-15T18:13:02Z")
The Church doesn’t even recognize the _concept_ of lifelong abstinence from sex inside marriage. Sex between the spouses is considered to be an inherent part of marriage. ---
**Author:** ![ThelmaLou](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thelmalou/32/390_2.png) [@ThelmaLou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ThelmaLou)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2012, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hiv-a-danger-for-people-with-only-1-sex-partner/631449/24 "2012-08-15T18:16:01Z")
This is not news and the Church claims it’s not a change in Church teaching. [Here’s an article from Dec 2010 clarifying.](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/22/world/europe/22pope.html) [New York Times article-- will count toward your permitted quota if you’re not a subscriber.] ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2012, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hiv-a-danger-for-people-with-only-1-sex-partner/631449/25 "2012-08-15T18:27:13Z")
> [@CookingWithGas](#): > > Thanks for adding these actual facts to the conversation. This does cause me to revise my earlier post (if I could). Adding this specificity certainly does clarify the church’s position. And it’s not really a change in position - the principle of double effect has been around a long time. This is the principle which allows a woman to take what are commonly called birth control pills for other medical reasons, so long as she is not actually seeking the contraceptive effect , or permits the removal of a Fallopian tube containing an ectopic pregnancy. And which would also permit the use of condoms so long as any contraceptive effect was unintended. What’s changed is what the Pope/Vatican is willing to actually say, rather than simply not repudiate. From the NYT article > [@](#): > > In 2001, the Southern African Bishops Conference issued a landmark pastoral letter, which said that in a case of a married couple in which one spouse was H.I.V.-positive and the other was not, the use of “appropriate” protection to prevent the spread of H.I.V. was acceptable.“The church accepts that everyone has the right to defend one’s life against mortal danger,” said the letter, which the Vatican never repudiated. ---
**Author:** ![listedmia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e0b2c6/32.png) [@listedmia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/listedmia)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2012, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hiv-a-danger-for-people-with-only-1-sex-partner/631449/26 "2012-08-16T13:14:18Z")
There were also quite a few babies born with HIV in the United States before the likelihood of mother-to-child transmission was reduced in the early 90s. In Africa, plenty of children still are born with it. Due to advances in HIV medication, some of those kids are living longer nowadays and they are now at marriageable age. So there’s plenty of people around who are infected with HIV and have NEVER had sex! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-hiv-a-danger-for-people-with-only-1-sex-partner/631449.md?page=1)