NIH Spends $400K To Figure Out Why Men Don't Like Condoms 844
The National Institutes of Health has given $423,500 to researchers at Indiana University's Kinsey Institute to figure out why men don't like to wear condoms. The institute will also study why men have trouble using condoms and investigate "penile erection and sensitivity during condom application." "The project aims to understand the relationship between condom application and loss of erections and decreased sensation, including the role of condom skills and performance anxiety, and to find new ways to improve condom use among those who experience such problems," reads the abstract from Drs. Erick Janssen and Stephanie Sanders, both of the Kinsey Institute.
Re:What exactly is the main thrust of the study? (Score:5, Informative)
Also, if they made one that felt BETTER, we could eliminate women altogether.
You sir, are lining up for a darwin award.
Re:Easy Answer (Score:5, Informative)
There should be more R&D funding into liquid condoms, which are basically a spermicidal lube infused with nonoxynol-9. Problem is that many women complain about nonoxynol-9 being too harsh, causing itching or burning. Nevertheless, the liquid condom would be the best solution because, let's face it, condoms do not prevent bodily juices from getting into uncovered parts.
Finally, condom manufacturers should offer more variance with respect to sizes. My favorite kind, Trojan Large [condomusa.com], have been discontinued. The Magnums are too large for my weenie and regulars are too tight.
My endorsements for men with slightly above-average penises are Kimono and jimmiehatz [jimmiehatz.com], which are black and may be weird for you and your partner if having a black dick is a problem.
Why do they only think of the men? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Here it is for 5c (Score:5, Informative)
Good luck!
Re:Vasectomy (Score:3, Informative)
British Journal of Urology
Volume 69 Issue 2, Pages 188 - 191
The incidence of chronic testicular pain following vasectomy has not been previously assessed. We have carried out a survey by postal questionnaire and telephone interview of 172 patients 4 years after vasectomy to assess the incidence of chronic testicular pain. Significant early post-operative complications occurred in 6 patients (3.5%): 2 infection, 3 haematoma and 1 orchitis. Chronic testicular discomfort was present in 56 patients (33%), considered by 26 (15%) to be troublesome but not by the other 30 (17%). Testicular discomfort related to sexual intercourse occurred in 9 cases (5%). Of the 9 patients who had sought further medical help only 2 had had further surgery (1 an epididymectomy and 1 excision of a hydrocele). Only 3 patients regretted having had the vasectomy because of chronic pain. On ultrasound examination, epididymal cysts were a common finding on both asymptomatic and symptomatic patients following vasectomy. Prior to vasectomy, all patients should be counselled with regard to the risk of chronic testicular pain.
There are many other peer reviewed articles.
Re:Because they are a con (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Here it is for 5c (Score:3, Informative)
The #1 reason for American doctors PUSHING circumcision is that they get YOU to pay extra.
#2 is that Americans generally don't even question it.
Re:Here it is for 5c (Score:1, Informative)
The idea that it affects sex is long disproven too.
Re:Here it is for 5c (Score:5, Informative)
Disproven? Seems scientific double-blind studies disagree with you. [cdc.gov]
To quote: "Male circumcision has been associated with a lower risk for HIV infection in international observational studies and in three randomized controlled clinical trials."
Re:Vasectomy (Score:2, Informative)
Also, RISUG mentioned above is Reversible inhibition of sperm under guidance [wikipedia.org].
Re:Here it is for 5c (Score:5, Informative)
Well it would seem you're very very wrong...
Male Circumcision Reduces Risk of Genital Herpes and HPV Infection, but not Syphilis [urotoday.com]
That's the problem with science, it's just so hard to use it to make cheap political attacks. One day you're right with science on your side, the next day your so very very ignorant.
Re:Easy Answer (Score:5, Informative)
No man would rather wear a condom if people didn't have pregnancies and STDs to worry about. There should be more R&D funding into liquid condoms, which are basically a spermicidal lube infused with nonoxynol-9.
"Although [nonoxynol-9] was at one time widely promoted as a protection against sexually transmitted infections including HIV, subsequent studies have shown that it can in fact increase the risk of infection by damaging the physical barriers of the rectum or vagina."- Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] (with reference!)
So, not much help on the STD level.
Re:Here it is for 5c (Score:0, Informative)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16184582/ :
"We now have confirmation -- from large, carefully controlled, randomized clinical trials -- showing definitively that medically performed circumcision can significantly lower the risk of adult males contracting HIV through heterosexual intercourse," said Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease.
Re:Government (Score:4, Informative)
'Glad to see that the US has a big surplus in the budget that we can afford to fund this stuff.'
Glad to see that Slashdot is helpfully parroting a 'story' fed to Fox News by a 'government watchdog', AKA a right-wing astroturf lobby group previously known for its heroic pro-tobacco, pro-Microsoft and anti-FOSS campaigns funded by (well, you can guess who):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_Against_Government_Waste [wikipedia.org]
Still, who cares about politically motivated attacks on public health research, provided we can make Knob Jokes?
Re:Cheaper than treating AIDS for 1 1/2 people (Score:2, Informative)
I research condom use in teens... (Score:5, Informative)
... and the study mentioned in the article makes perfect sense. The article is propaganda that intentionally misunderstands what the study is about in order to stir up their readership.
In one of our studies of (mostly queer) sexually active teenagers. One of the key things we look at is condom use knowledge and condom errors. Most people know that they should use a condom if they're having sex, but quite a large swath of the population doesn't know how to *properly* use them and what they do and do not protect against. Some people are perfectly willing to use condoms, but they get frustrated because they're using them wrong, and so the condoms break or come off, and they stop using them out of frustration.
One measure we give is we have 20 different "steps" for using a condom properly, and they're out of order, and some are not real steps. Out of ~250 teenagers, most of whom have taken sex ed, been exposed to safer sex info all their lives, only 6 got that exercise 100% correct (all real steps in proper order, all fake steps removed), and only 42 got all the real steps in the correct order (but kept some of the fake steps). The kids have been taught, but retention isn't so hot - we're coming up with better ways to teach this.
Another measure we have is taking an inventory of experiences with recent condom use, and most of our participants report some level of difficulty with condom use, with most of those reports coming along the lines of it being too confusing to remember all of the steps they were taught while in the heat of the moment etc. They want to use condoms, but they've learned all of that in a very "academic" environment - we're trying to develop interventions that will help teach people how to handle themselves when they're not at their most rational.
A final measure we give which is related to condom use is an HIV & STI knowledge quiz with true, false and "don't know" answers. Most of our participants score 70% or better, but certain segments average scores below 30%. By identifying the lagging segments and then examining what it is that is leading to this dearth of HIV & STI knowledge, we're able to come up with plans to get this information out to those groups because the current techniques clearly aren't working.
It's neither an obvious nor simple area of research, despite what some in this thread will say. $400k to potentially save quite a few lives (or protect the quality of many lives) is a bargain. If you're a wretched excuse for a human being and you think that people who get HIV "deserve" it, you probably don't care that a lifetime of treatment for a single case of HIV infection will run around $400-500k (minimum) so this kind of research is also cost effective from that standpoint.
Re:Perhaps (Score:3, Informative)
No. We aren't. I used a condom for three years when I first got married. After stop using the things, the sensation doubled.
Re:Here it is for 5c (Score:1, Informative)
Y'know what's decreases risk of HIV even more?
Condoms.
Re:What exactly is the main thrust of the study? (Score:3, Informative)
However, if the study is "how can we FIX what men don't like about condoms", then the study becomes very important, and might benefit society immensely.
From reading the actual research proposal abstract [nih.gov], yes, the goal of the research is determining what sorts of interventions will help encourage proper condom use:
Grant Number: 1R21HD060447-01
Project Title: Barriers to Correct Condom Use
PI Information: Name Email Title
JANSSEN, ERICK (Contact) ejanssen@indiana.edu PROFESSOR
SANDERS, STEPHANIE A.
Abstract: DESCRIPTION (provided by applicant): Sexually transmitted infections (STI), including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), pose significant health risks. About half of the new HIV infections in the US are among people under age 25 years with the majority infected through sexual behavior. About one in three new diagnoses with HIV/AIDS are attributed to heterosexual transmission. Men who have sex with women play a major role in HIV transmission to women who can also pass it on to offspring. Consistent and correct use of condoms can be a highly effective method of preventing the transmission of HIV and many STIs. Yet, studies show that problems with condom use are common and that these problems pose a barrier to consistent and complete condom use. This project aims to advance our understanding of, among other factors, the role of cognitive and affective processes and condom application skills in explaining problems with condom use in young, heterosexual adult men. A multi-method approach - consisting of two studies and involving questionnaires, observational, and psychophysiological methods - will be used in conjunction with a skill-based intervention. The knowledge gained from the proposed research can be used to inform the development of innovative, more effective, and targeted intervention and education strategies tailored to the needs of individuals who have trouble using condoms effectively. PUBLIC HEALTH RELEVANCE: Sexually transmitted infections (STI), including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), pose significant health risks. Consistent and correct use of condoms can be a highly effective method of preventing the transmission of HIV and many STIs, yet studies show that problems with condom use are common. This project is one of the first to examine under controlled conditions the role of cognitive and affective factors and condom skills in explaining condom use problems in young, heterosexual adult men.
Re:Here it is for 5c (Score:3, Informative)
The idea that circumcision promotes cock health is long since disproven.
You're mistaken. Here's a 1999 article [sciencedaily.com] on the subject, with some related links. Aside from the finding that circumcising heterosexual men reduces the risk of HIV, I'm not aware of any recent development. Circumcision remains medically slightly beneficial, but only slightly. Whether that's worth the loss of sensation... I dunno.
Fortunately, at least half the population has gotten the message, and there are some hospitals (like UCSD) where you can't get newborns circumcised at all.
You are also mistaken. UCSD delays circumcision but does it at the parent's request, as is the case with all other public hospitals I'm aware of. No hospital in America or Europe, public or private, would dare prevent a mohel or family practitioner from circumcising an infant.
Re:DUH! (Score:5, Informative)
You know, before you call somebody retarded you should check your facts.
Spermicide [wikipedia.org] failure rate perfect use: 18%
Spermicide failure rate for typical use: 29%
Pulling out [wikipedia.org] failure rate for pefect use: 4%
Pulling out failure rate for typical use: 15-28%.
So, under typical usage they're about equal. However, if you're good at pulling out you'll be the pants off spermicide.
Re:What exactly is the main thrust of the study? (Score:2, Informative)
Also, if they made one that felt BETTER, we could eliminate women altogether.
You sir, are lining up for a darwin award.
I'm intrigued as to why this was modded "Informative"....
Re:Cheaper than treating AIDS for 1 1/2 people (Score:3, Informative)
Simply reporting the "obvious" turns out not to be nearly as effective at obtaining useful information as performing studies. Of course, sometimes your studies show that the obvious answer was correct, but you don't know which studies those are a priori. (Also, while often summarized into simple, seemingly-simple statements, most studies gather substantially more useful information than the one-line summary.)
Re:Perhaps (Score:3, Informative)
Last time I mentioned this on Slashdot, I got flamed. Whatever. Different strokes for different folks.
I've been fucking the same fucking person for six fucking years, and she's fixed, so I've never used a fucking condom while fucking her.
Not too long ago, while waiting around at the fucking pharmacy, I found myself looking at condoms. Why? Because I remember back more than six years ago, when I could fuck different fucking people, and could pick out different condoms to add a little variety for times when I'd be fucking the same fucking person for a few weeks or months at a time.
And, no -- I didn't fucking buy any. But I may.
Re:Government (Score:3, Informative)
The post you responded to doesn't rely on the character attack. It relies on a factual account of the corruption of a political group, and then adds a dose of venom on top of the factual account. With or without the added character attack, the strength of the argument rests on the factual account.
Another example:
Factual account: The policeman entered false information into the court record.
Ad Hominem: The policeman is a stupid pig.
Factual account with an added character attack: The stupid pig entered false information into the court record.
The only statement which counts as an ad hominem is the middle one. It does not contain any factual information on which a logical argument can be based.
Re:Perhaps (Score:2, Informative)
"If you wanna be happy for the rest of your life
Never make a pretty women your wife
Go for my personal point of view
Get an ugly girl to marry you." - Jimmy Soul
Re:Trojans=Tight (Score:3, Informative)
The Trojans weren't the ones in the Trojan horse, The were the ones whom the occupants of the Trojan horse killed.
Yes, W.H.O. could possibly reccomend this (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Here it is for 5c (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Here it is for 5c (Score:3, Informative)
As much as I believe infant circumcision is wrong, adult circumcision is worse. When you remove thousands of nerve endings, a developing brain can rewire itself. An adult brain is accustomed to receiving those signals, and cannot rewire itself as readily. Infant circumcision is bad, adult circumcision is much worse.
Re:This is pretty fucking pathetic. (Score:3, Informative)
Let me explain in more detail, though I think I more or less covered this in my first and follow-up post:
We're doing research to find out how much people actually know. To do this, we need to set up situations where there is a very small chance of people accidentally getting the "right" answer simply by guessing. So in addition to the proper steps, we add in ones that are not relevant when we do the sorting exercise and ask the participants to remove the steps they think are irrelevant. A participant who knows how to properly use a condom will be able to discard the irrelevant steps and put the few remaining relevant ones into proper order. If we simply gave them the steps that are relevant, there would be a non-trivial chance that we'd get people getting the right answer by guesswork, and that would be bad science.
We're using the results of this research to come up with interventions/educational programs which present the information in vastly simplified ways, but ones that actually work. We're using the research to inform the intervention because, you know, just sort of guessing what might work doesn't actually work as well as some people would like to think. It turns out that in many unexpected ways many of the current educational models fail horribly. One example of this is the idea of catchy slogans and cartoons about condom use - some people assume that because cartoons are being used that it can't be all that serious a thing, since if it were important the educators would be taking it Very Seriously. Another example of the current model is that cultural competence is often missing - programs designed for affluent white suburban kids often don't work for poverty stricken african-american kids living in the city. Stuff that works great for guys does absolutely nothing for girls (and knowing how to use condoms properly is just as important for females, as is the idea that you can INSIST that your partner use a condom and refuse to have sex if he won't).
And, though you say it isn't rocket science, you were, in fact, incorrect when you explained how to put it on. You neglected to check the foil to make sure it was sealed. You neglected to make sure that the condom was new rather than some crusty thing that's been sitting in a wallet for several years. You neglected to check to make sure it was a latex condom and lubricated rather than one made from animal products or dry. You neglected to make sure that whatever lubricant you're using is not oil based/is latex safe. Oops. You might say that those steps are no-brainers or implied, but the fact is, they aren't no-brainers, they aren't implied, and they are very, very, VERY important parts of proper condom use. I won't even get into things like knowing that ANY penetration without a condom is risky, or that if you do fuck up and put the wrong end on first that you can't just flip it over, and numerous other things - they aren't part of the "20 steps" measure, but the second measure I mentioned where we assess actual errors with condom usage.
I really do wish it were as simple as some people want to make it out to be. I would love it if this part of my job were made obsolete.
Re:Perhaps (Score:3, Informative)
talk to your wife about getting a non hormonal IUD. They are fantastic. None of the side effects or hormones plus your wife will still have those ovulation weeks when she really wants sex.
Seriously, look into it.
Re:This is pretty fucking pathetic. (Score:3, Informative)
Because they aren't separate for teenagers. If teenagers actually did practice proper condom purchasing and maintenance behaviors, we could completely separate the two aspects - but they don't.
Guy is over at his boy or girlfriend's house, they're making out and want to have sex. Does either one have a condom? What if they don't? Oh, "I think my dad has some... let me look..." Hey, if dad's using it, it's got to be a good kind, right? Oh, "I bought this from a bathroom vending machine, it should be good, right?" Oh, "Uh, I think I have one laying around that I got from some safe-sex deal..." In all of those cases, properly using the condom ABSOLUTELY means knowing the stuff you say is part of maintenance.
People make the assumption that if there's a condom around it has to be good because it wouldn't be available if it weren't, and because of that, they need to know that all that "maintenance" stuff is essential to proper use.
They have a condom, now what? "Oh, it's kinda tight... what can we use for lube?" I've had participants tell me they used *salad dressing* for lube because they couldn't find anything legit and thought it *had* to be safe because you eat it. Or people putting petroleum jelly on because "it doesn't say oil." What to put on the condom is every bit as important as knowing how to put the condom on for proper use.
We absolutely have to consider realistic scenarios when talking about proper use, and that ups the complexity. We want to get measures of what people *actually* know and might realistically practice, not whether they know some overly simplified and idealized method of putting things on.
Re:Here it is for 5c (Score:1, Informative)
What is called "female circumcision" usually involves removal of the entire clitoris, thereby removing almost all possibility of sexual pleasure. It's purely a male controlling females thing. They might as well be removing their eyes so they can't ever gaze upon a man in lust. Catch my drift? It's far worse than removing some useless tissue. Male circumcision is pretty much like tonsil or apendix removal. No loss at all.
Re:Here it is for 5c (Score:3, Informative)
Not to nit pick, but a minor can not legally give consent, so a parent's consent is all the legal requirement to cover it. Whether that's a reasonable argument for or against circumcision, I don't know.
Re:Here it is for 5c (Score:3, Informative)
A minor cannot give legal consent, so legally they still need a parent to consent. However, many medical personnel feel it is unethical to perform a cosmetic surgical procedure on anyone who has not given informed consent. That ethical requirement has nothing to do with law (although the law may require informed consent within its own framework), and minors can certainly give that sort of consent.