Lynn Gazis-Sax points out that the problem with comparing abstinence with other forms of birth control or safer sex isn't about the typical vs. ideal failure rate of the method. As methods go, abstinence is an almost* 100% effective.

Instead what's important is the typical vs. ideal rate of use. (Emphasis mine.)

One flaw in arguments for abstinence is that they often compare perfect use effectiveness rates for abstinence with typical use effectiveness rates for contraception. Maggie Gallagher, for example, places great emphasis, when speaking of contraception, on the typical use failure rates, to supply an estimate that your chances of getting pregnant if you use the Pill are actually not that low. And she has a point. If you assume a typical use effectiveness rate, for the Pill, of around 92%, and if you further note that that typical use effectiveness rate is the chance that you successfully avoid getting pregnant for just one year, the chance that you will ever be pregnant, over the course of your entire reproductive life, while you were attempting to avoid pregnancy with the Pill, may not be that small. The same is true of condoms, which have a lower typical use effectiveness rate than the Pill.

...

Condoms are better at preventing AIDS than abstinence is, for the simple reason that, however often people may fail to use condoms, they fail to abstain even more often. And most methods of birth control have a better “typical use” success rate than abstinence, in the sense that people are much better at using birth control mostly reliably than they are at abstaining from sex until they’re ready for kids.

Source: Noli Irritare Leones

* Lynn mentions the obvious case where it didn't work when Mary had Jesus, and pretty much by-definition abstinence isn't effective for someone forced to have sex against her or his will.

Just a tip of the hat to Consumer’s Union, the publishers of Consumer Reports. Like a number of other folks who blog about relationships and sex I got advance notice that CR will have a review of condoms in their November issue.

I should say they’ll have another review. Which they’ve been doing on and off for years. Going back to the days when condoms weren’t just controversial but weren’t cool either. Or particularly safe or reliable. They got a lot of heat for it then. I had very personal reasons to be grateful then, though. And we all have good reason to be grateful now.

Not least because straight-up, no-nonsense, business-as-usual reviews that forswore the standard knee-squeezing and tittering and asked fundamental questions actual consumers wanted to know. Questions like do they work? Do they leak? Are they durable? Are they affordable? And are those stupid glow-in-the-dark kinds anything but a risky stunt?

The short answer, by the way is an overall yes, while some are less reliable than others condoms made today are safe and effective if used properly!!! Which is more than you could say years ago.

Good for them.

Quick note: for those of us familiar with ad-revenue-driven sites, and venture-capital-financed sites it’s a bit irksome that Consumer Reports puts its reports behind a for-pay firewall. However unlike pretty much all aforementioned sites Consumers Union accepts no advertising, accepts no venture financing and, as far as I know, accepts no other kind of grants or funding that would compromise either their mission or their integrity. For that reason you’ll have to pay to see their condom reviews online, or find the magazine on the shelf of a store or library. But you know what? In this case you really do get what you pay for, and, in this case I think that’s worth a lot.

They do have a blog, though, and like all good blogs it’s free. Here’s their post on their condom article.

Seven of the 20 models we tested earned a perfect score, indicating they were not only stronger and more reliable than most, but also had no leaks or flaws in their packaging. Those top seven include one Durex, two Lifestyles, and four Trojan models (Ratings available to subscribers). Alas, one of the more playful condoms we tested, the Night Light glow-in-the-dark model, didn’t fare as well, earning our lowest score for strength and exceeding the allowable number of samples with holes. But it did live up to its name on the glow front.

Read all about it here.

I gotta say I love that they confirmed that, as advertised, at least the glow-in-the-dark condom actually glows in the dark.