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.
Here it is for 5c (Score:5, Insightful)
For men with smaller or chopped foreskins, condoms interfere with sexual pleasure and frankly, when I'm in bed with a beautiful naked girl, the last thing I need is for a cock sock. Pretty naked girl overrides sanity, to the point where if the condom gets in the way, the logical answer is to rip it off and go without.
Slashdot, news for nerds. Now bringing you, sex for geeks.
Government (Score:1, Insightful)
Glad to see that the US has a big surplus in the budget that we can afford to fund this stuff.
Perhaps (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe because it feels like you're trying to mate with a garden hose.
Brings up another issue. (Score:5, Insightful)
What exactly is the main thrust of the study? (Score:5, Insightful)
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. If a condom could be constructed that didn't impede feeling at all, there would be huge benefits, a great reduction in unwanted pregnancies.
Also, if they made one that felt BETTER, we could eliminate women altogether.
Cheaper than treating AIDS for 1 1/2 people (Score:5, Insightful)
the lifetime cost of treating an HIV-positive person exceeds $400,000 and can run as high as $648,000
(http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid19334.asp)
So, if only TWO PEOPLE on government health care (Medicaid, Medicare, Veterans or Prisoners) DON'T get AIDS as a result of this study, then it saved us money.
I'd say that's a pretty good investment.
Re:Vasectomy (Score:3, Insightful)
Ooops, vasectomy not condom. That will teach me to read the subject line.
Re:Easy Answer (Score:2, Insightful)
Men who disregard birth-control entirely are dicks. Condoms are pretty universally unpopular amongst men and are somewhat unpopular with women too.
Why? You're stretching a piece of rubber across places and both parties are fully aware of that fact. Do I need to explain more?
Re:Vasectomy (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, but both sound like losers. Withholding such important information from a spouse / potential spouse is a recipe for disaster.
At least your friend won't procreate.
Another political cheap shot at public expense (Score:5, Insightful)
I knew when I saw this news item that it would turn out to be dishonest. There is one very obvious reason why men don't like to wear condoms ("it doesn't feel as good...duh"). So I suspected immediately that this isn't actually what the study is about, and it's just a matter of a politician or lobbyist phrasing it this way to try to score a cheap shot at the expense of the public welfare. Because, of course, there is a huge public benefit to condoms: The reduce unwanted pregnancies, which often end up imposing a substantial financial and social burden on the public. And they reduce the spread of diseases that also end up costing the public money, not to mention placing those dear to us in peril--sometimes mortal peril.
And while men don't much like condoms, there are many reasons for them to want to use them--to protect themselves against disease, to protect themselves against unwanted financial obligations, and even out of consideration for their partner's well-being.
So any change that would shift that balance a bit to encourage correct usage of condoms, even by a small amount, could provide a huge public benefit.
But of course, there are always going to be some selfish people who don't care about protecting other people's health, or reducing the financial burden on the public from diseases and unwanted pregnancies. All they see is a chance to score a benefit for themselves or their own cause--and if it ultimately at the expense of the public, well, that's not their problem.
Re:Brings up another issue. (Score:2, Insightful)
Didn't you get the memo? Only women have reproductive rights in the US. They will split things with you however and give you all the bills.
Re:Easy Answer (Score:4, Insightful)
IRC log which html in slashdot posts is gonna fuck up, but oh well:
[19:39] Hubbell> 450k to find out why men don't like condoms [19:39] Hubbell> are they serious? [19:39] Hubbell> i can tell you why [19:39] Hubbell> cause they reduce the sensation [19:39] Hubbell> and [19:39] Hubbell> its so much more enjoyable to bust inside a bitch [19:39] Hubbell> than to bust inside a condom [19:39] Hubbell> mother fucking common sense
bam. answered in under a minute.
Re:Easy Answer (Score:5, Insightful)
Or to quote a Farker when the same story showed up there the other day:
"Same reason you don't like eating steak with a balloon an your tongue... you can feel it, but you can't taste it."
Re:Here it is for 5c (Score:5, Insightful)
As a circumcised guy, it's more or less completely impossible for me to get off when using a condom. Sex feels vaguely warm, and that's about it. Not only that, but after a while of trying to get off and failing, my penis becomes so desensitized that I can't even get off through masturbation after I give up at sex. And this is using ultra thin condoms, even the kimono ones.
Re:Here it is for 5c (Score:4, Insightful)
A public service announcement for all citizens of the US of A: stop mutilating your children's cocks.
Seriously, what is the matter with you nutjobs? The idea that circumcision promotes cock health is long since disproven. Put the knife down. Step away from the cock. Thank you.
Re:Government (Score:5, Insightful)
But, despite your "insightful" comment, it is in fact a very important thing to be studying, follow up research to remedy the problems could very well save multiples of that amount on things like STI education.
Re:Cheaper than treating AIDS for 1 1/2 people (Score:1, Insightful)
Why the hell do I have to pay for someone who chooses to get a disease? 98% or HIV infections are folks who made the choice to have unprotected sex or do IV drugs.
Re:Here it is for 5c (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
I mean, if my sons want to be circumcised one day, that's up to them. I'll even pay for it. they can get general anesthesia and take pain relievers while they're recovering. I'm not worried about them having a 0.5% increased chance of contracting STDs until they're at LEAST 12, though, so I saw no reason to have them surgically altered at birth.
Re:I'd think it was obvious to any man (Score:5, Insightful)
They smell bad,
A lot of Durex's higher end stuff doesn't smell at all.
they distract from the spontenaity of the moment,
If you're partner is willing, you can make it a part of the moment. No loss.
they decrease sensitivity,
While this is true, the good, thin and reliable latex condoms don't mitigate it by that much. From what I've heard, polyurethane condoms are an excellent alternative with CRAZY sensitivity, but it's a bit risky considering that its effectiveness is not as "guaranteed" as latex condoms.
they're never handy at the moment you want them,
Ever trying putting it in your wallet or a cool place? If you're girlfriend's a long-term, have you considered leaving a set at her place?
they're disgusting to take off,
Subjective.
they're awkward to dispose of.
Also subjective.
Despite that they're a good trade when weighed against the possibility of 18 years of child support, or your penis turning green and falling off.
Exactly. It's all subjective.
am i the only one.... (Score:2, Insightful)
that has complaints about the false sense of security that condoms offer?
how many of us have experienced condoms breaking during intercourse? what about when they start rolling back just a little, and then come off during intercourse?
alternatively, i have also tried a few different types of condoms, and the ones that i thought were best were the sheepskin type and a micro-thin type. in all seriousness, they were not noticeable... but i still don't trust them enough.
Re:Cheaper than treating AIDS for 1 1/2 people (Score:2, Insightful)
We live, we F*CK, we die
Women need to help (Score:3, Insightful)
Pretty naked girl overrides sanity
The savvy ones can use that power to order a guy to do anything. If they can keep you wondering, they can get you to agree to use one. The pretty ones with good self esteem also realize that they have other choices if you don't want to cooperate.
Re:Perhaps (Score:4, Insightful)
What is it with you guys marrying these women that hate sex.
I found me a good old fashioned nympho. I get it twice a day, more if I want it. She is an absolute sex freak.
Is she a full 10 barbie doll? nope. She's a 6.8-7 but I'm far happier than my friends with the high maintenance arm candy they rarely get to touch.
Who cares if she looks good in lace once every month, go find an average girl that is not screwed up in the head and likes sex, you will be far far FAR happier.
Dating a hot chick is a waste of money and time.
Re:Easy Answer (Score:4, Insightful)
Not to mention the fact that putting the thing on and taking it off afterwards are instant romance-killers. Just when you're getting all worked up and ready to dive in, you have to stop, fumble around looking for the damn things, then spend a solid 30 seconds messing with it because your dick is ever so slightly fatter than the average dick, then when you're all done and dusted, you have to take it off and clean yourself up.
Whereas the alternative is, more or less, get all hot and bothered, get down to it, then roll over panting and sweating. If you're doing it right.
That's without even considering the "It feels better" argument.
Still, unless you don't mind having kids or seeing your dick fall off 3 weeks later, they're a necessary evil.
Re:Government (Score:3, Insightful)
Sometimes, not spending money is a false economy. This is probably one of those times. Even if you disregard human misery, inefficiencies in contraception are extraordinarily expensive when counted across populations of any reasonable size.
Re:Here it is for 5c (Score:4, Insightful)
Logic sucks, doesn't it?
Not only men (Score:2, Insightful)
As a woman, I'm not keen on them either. They seem to increase friction and chafing, even with lube. Oddly, the ribbed ones seem better on this front - perhaps because the ribs break the seal.
Re:Government (Score:4, Insightful)
Part of the reason there is poverty and hunger is that people that should NOT have kids still do. A man that is almost dead from starvation can still father a child...
Re:Here it is for 5c (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Here it is for 5c (Score:2, Insightful)
Male circumcision has been associated with a lower risk for HIV infection in international observational studies and in three randomized controlled clinical trials.
That's true, but what about the much larger set of studies that show no correlation between circumcision status and any STD?
Re:Here it is for 5c (Score:1, Insightful)
Just gonna go out on a limb here... but you do know that not having sex with people that have AIDS also lowers the risk quite a bit... Same with Genital Herpes and a load of other diseases and problems associated with sexual contact.
At the risk of sounding like a jerk, let me point out the obvious again... clip it and feel better knowing that it might lower your risk... not to zero. Or just skip out on the AIDS Orgy and know that you lowered it all the way to zero. I mean, was (s)he THAT Hot? Really?
What Really lowers the risk is THINKING BEFORE having sex. It's not really that hard, but skipping the 'get to know the person' stage seems to be a prevalent theme lately.
Re:Easy Answer (Score:1, Insightful)
i hate to break it to you, but, its sex, not science, anyone who gets the two confused has spent too much time in a lab/mothers basement. science is a wonderful tool which can answer and raise many questions about the world we live in, but it is not an answer for everything. in this case its the wrong tool for the job. i'll leave all the 'tool' related cliches and puns alone, they're just too easy.
Re:Here it is for 5c (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm highly skeptical considering circumcision has been around longer than we've known that HIV existed.
Sounds to me like a justification, not a proof.
Re:I'd think it was obvious to any man (Score:4, Insightful)
You can counter each point until you go blue, but the fact remains that most people find condoms unpleasant. People aren't idiots. If condoms were hassle free people would see the benefits and use them. As it is they see a lot of drawbacks as well, and for some it downright spoils sex, which is why they take risks.
A lot of Durex's higher end stuff doesn't smell at all.
I've yet to come across a condom that doesn't smell. By the way how high end is high end? How much am I expected to pay per orgasm?
If you're partner is willing, you can make it a part of the moment. No loss.
If your partner is trying to hold her nose from the smell, it's part of the moment alright - the moment that puts you off proceeding.
While this is true, the good, thin and reliable latex condoms don't mitigate it by that much. From what I've heard, polyurethane condoms are an excellent alternative with CRAZY sensitivity, but it's a bit risky considering that its effectiveness is not as "guaranteed" as latex condoms.
You still have something in between you and your partner. Anyone who says that the sensitivity does not decrease using a condom is lying (and possibly hasn't ever had sex). It's a question of how much sensitivity is reduced, and whether or not that reduction is a good thing. (It may be that reducing sensitivity can help prolong the act)
Ever trying putting it in your wallet or a cool place? If you're girlfriend's a long-term, have you considered leaving a set at her place?
Didn't they teach you never to put a condom in your wallet in sex ed class? Guaranteed way to damage it.
Having them somewhere convenient helps to some degree but you still have to get out the packet, get out the condom, unwrap it and put it on. Sometimes that extra minute can kill the mood.
Exactly. It's all subjective.
Hate to break it to you but sex is like food. There's no accounting for taste. It's all subjective just about sums up sex in general. However it's clear that many people find condoms off-putting.
Re:Here it is for 5c (Score:3, Insightful)
Why don't you chop off your whole penis then? If by just removing the foreskin you reduce the risk of HIV, following your reasoning, it would be good to remove the whole penis which should lower the chances of getting HIV almost to zero.
I find this kind of argument pretty much hilarious and so it would be if there wasn't people who would take it seriously and damage in a non-repairable way the penises of their sons. This kind of choice is one you just cannot revert and you are simply depriving THEIR choice to have their WHOLE body just as "god" or nature made it imposing your choices to them for their whole life.
I think that if my parents did something like that to me i would simply take them to court, but i understand that a foreskin-less man simply does not know what he is missing just like a blind man can't know what sight is and this is the only reason why there are not so many sons who take their parents in front of their responsibilities for useless choices that cannot be reverted for fear of "god", "hiv", "the toothfairy" and so on.
Re:Here it is for 5c (Score:3, Insightful)
I concede that the aforementioned benefit exists, but still think circumcising infants is unnecessary surgery. If the individual in question cares for the decreased risk, they can make the decision themselves to go in and get circumcised when they are old enough to give consent to such a medical procedure..
We wouldn't let parents give their children breast implants without the input of their children, would we? Do we allow parents to give their children tattoos? (I'm actually afraid of the answer to that). When surgery does not have a benefit (and circumcision does not until the individual is sexually active), parents should not be able to select it for their children.
Re:Easy Answer (Score:3, Insightful)
and listening to someone who calls themselves "meatbag pussrocket" and actually apologising to them, is YOUR shortcoming.
jesus.
True Lies (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course Fox News is reporting things even across the board, rather than engaging in yellow journalism. Their reputation is such that they don't need to research the grant itself or the ongoing project it stems from.
NIH has been funding AIDS related research for over 25 years. This includes behavioral research regarding risky behaviors such as unprotected sex. That's going to produce results long before any research into vaccines or cures.
The first question that comes to mind is how many saved lives would be worth US$432,500? The second is how much is the Kinsey Institute's time worth, keeping in mind it's going to pay the salaries of researchers, technicians and assistants for the duration? Along with that, consider that any research done under any academic umbrella ends up paying a significant cut off the top to the university. The amount varies, but I've had one university try to take 70% off the top.
Anyone that thinks they could do such things better for less are free to submit proposals to NIH. They make it very clear how to go about it. In order to be able to judge whether the amount quoted is unreasonable one would have to be able to evaluate such a proposal in its own terms, if not be qualified to put one together. I find it hard to believe that the person that Fox News calls "government watchdogs" (pluralizing being a perfectly allowable journalistic technique) is qualified to evaluate the text of the grant proposal to point out just what parts of it are wasteful, what parts are just overpriced, and what parts are reasonable, rather than pointing at the whole thing without reading any of it and making a sweeping claim.
Trojans=Tight (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd have to agree on the Trojans. Way too damn tight, and nothing sucks quite as much as having your little friend being squeezed and chaffed. I've found that Durex tend to fit a little better in that regard though, and besides, who the heck decided to name a condom Trojan... you know, like the group who supposedly snuck their little soldiers secretly into the enemy fortress.
Re:Easy Answer (Score:4, Insightful)
Because fucking with a condom on, is like eating a steak with one on your tongue.
Sure, you know you're doing something fun, but what good is it if you can't sense it?
I just don't usually use them...
Re:Perhaps (Score:3, Insightful)
Allow me to break it down for you.
Having sex with a condom = having sex with non-steady partner = being turned on by condomless sex.
Having sex without a condom = having sex with steady partner = being turned on by condom sex.
It all goes back to the classic dilemma - when you're in a stable relationship, you want the excitement of an unstable relationship. When you're in an unstable relationship, you want the reassurance of a stable relationship.
Men express these sorts of emotions physically with their penis.
I will take my $400,000 now please.
Re:Here it is for 5c (Score:5, Insightful)
OK, but in this scenario (repeated intercourse without barrier), the circumcision (reduces risk by 50%) won't help either. Let p be the baseline probability of infection; let n be the # of times of intercourse. The probability of being clean afterward with circumcision is (1-(0.5*p))^n which is approximately equal to (1-p)^n for any n larger than 10 or so. Seriously, plug in values for p and plot the two curves against n.
Circumcision "gives you" about something on the order of 10 "free fucks" before your risk catches up; but at the point it catches up you basically have a very low chance (<<5%) of being clean anyway, so... yeah, not a viable strategy for an individual. It might be effective in an epidemic model, where lowering the transmission rate even slightly can change the graph topology, which is what the research is toward.
In short: possibly effective at treating entire populations which don't understand/accomodate safe sex; absolutely bollocks at helping an individual in a developed country.
Re:Here it is for 5c (Score:4, Insightful)
Sheesh. We "nutjobs" would take you guys a lot more seriously if you stopped calling this practice "mutilation" or "child abuse." It's long-ingrained in many cultures that love and dote on children.
See, this is an example of exactly the flaw with dogmatic beliefs. Just because something is a time honored tradition amongst otherwise perfectly reasonable people doesn't make it not a horrible practice.
I'm circumcised and enjoy sex a lot. Maybe I'd enjoy it "more" without it, but I don't really care.
Your attitude is common among circumcised males. Most people don't want to dwell on the fact that their parents cut off a piece of their body unnecessarily when they were infants. I've even had circumcised men get angry when it's suggested that they don't feel as much as uncircumcised men. It is, unfortunately, very obviously true. Ask any woman who has performed oral sex on both which one is more sensitive.
Circumcision may have only slight health benefits for men in the Western world today, but it also offers only very slight risks as well. Lots of us do it for religious or cultural reasons, and to my knowledge there's no greater incidence of sexual dysfunction or other problems like that in societies where that behavior is prevalent.
Unnecessary is unnecessary, no matter how minor the consequences.
And of course no discussion on the matter of the crazy dogma of circumcision and it's intersection with otherwise reasonable people would be complete without a link to Christopher Hitchens blowing his top at a rabbi for making light of a seriously fucked up practice: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wQbHT8PDuE [youtube.com]
Re:Brings up another issue. (Score:2, Insightful)
Most intelligent women would have difficulty in trusting a man to be honest about being on hormonal birth control - newsflash, guys lie to get sex. At the end of the day, women are the ones left holding the bag if an unplanned sexual encounter results in a pregnancy. Cue comments about child support payments, but most women, given the choice, wouldn't plan to be a single parent, and plenty of guys avoid child support through whatever means.
While condoms are a form of birth control, even women on hormonal birth control would ask their partner to use a condom if they have any doubts about STDs. The love glove is here to stay until all STDs are eliminated, or an alternative barrier product is invented.
Re:I research condom use in teens... (Score:4, Insightful)
... 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.
It sickens me to read mass media criticism of scientific grants based off of an abstract and a bucket full of spin. The GOP doesn't need this right now. They have other problems. Regardless, this is becoming one of their memes. Remember the complaint a few months ago about hundreds of thousands of dollars (or a bit more) spent on an "overhead projector," which turned out to be a planetarium with capabilities equivalent to the one in New York, used for astronomy and public outreach? Remember the mocking complaint about spending money to monitor volcanoes? That one had a well timed eruption in Alaska to give the GOP some media embarrassment, but in all of these cases we're seeing particularly unintelligent and uninformed people passing judgment on grants that passed through multiple layers of peer review with very low rates of proposal acceptance.
Re:Government (Score:5, Insightful)
The average aids patient in the US will spend $600k [msn.com] on treatment throughout their lifetime. Assuming the aids infection rate in the US is 50k people per year [washingtonpost.com], that's $30 billion dollars per year being lost to HIV related medical expenses. If this study comes up with some general guidelines that encourage a mere tenth of a percent more people to wear condoms, that's still preventing 50 cases of aids in the US each year. That's a potential savings of 30 million dollars per year on a one-time fixed cost one mid-sized mining truck. That's a 75x ROI in the first year alone.
Heck, if ONE PERSON avoids getting aids due to wearing a condom after reading this slashdot article, the program has recouped. And that's just in raw drugs cost alone, let alone lost work hours / family troubles, giving it to other people, etc. HIV is so hugely expensive that anything we can do to reduce infection rate is basically worth it against our bottom line.
Re:Easy Answer (Score:1, Insightful)
Dude, seriously? I'm no Don Juan, but provided I don't have to hunt for it beforehand putting on a condom is about a ten-second process, one-handed (and that's including opening the package). Some paper towels for afterwards, which you already need anyway, and you're set.
Re:Here it is for 5c (Score:3, Insightful)
We "nutjobs" would take you guys a lot more seriously if you stopped calling this practice "mutilation" or "child abuse". It's long-ingrained in many cultures that love and dote on children.
The people who circumcise their daughters don't love them any less than your people love their sons, and the practice is probably just as ancient, but I doubt you'd object to someone calling the practice "female genital mutilation".
I'm circumcised and enjoy sex a lot. Maybe I'd enjoy it "more" without it, but I don't really care.
And what about the guys who do care?
Re:Another political cheap shot at public expense (Score:3, Insightful)
I pay taxes too. So if it makes you happier, feel free to imagine that it is my tax dollars and those of other "like-minded" individuals that are paying for this project, while your tax dollars pay for the activities (of which I suspect there are quite a few) that you favor and I do not.
You mean, aside from the fact that enhancing condom use will save you me, and everybody money by reducing costs associated with unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases such as Hep B and HIV? And aside from the fact that the research was approved by an expert peer review panel of scientists with the actual knowledge and experience to judge the scientific merit of the project and the benefits for public health?
Re:Here it is for 5c (Score:4, Insightful)
Circumcision remains medically slightly beneficial, but only slightly.
No, it's not "slightly medically beneficial", that's rationalization. No medical organization that I know of advocates circumcision for any reason other than the actual medical reasons, i.e. too much foreskin or some other problem. Circumcision is not a substitute for using a condom.
Re:Here it is for 5c (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Vasectomy (Score:3, Insightful)
As a father of three, I can confirm the door locks work very well to shield innocent children from the horrors of adult fluid exchanges. The do not, however, sufficiently block out the sound of breaking dishes, overdriven home theaters, screaming, bawling fights over toys, and persistent knocking on the door to inform us of the most recent disaster cooked up, always by the OTHER sibling.
Re:Here it is for 5c (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Brings up another issue. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Here it is for 5c (Score:4, Insightful)
Apparently you can still infect others during that window period, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darren_James
Whether Darren got it from Roxx or the other way round, allegedly both had tests done before.
If you want to use logic, monogamy works pretty well in preventing the spread of STDs while still allowing the reproduction of the species.
Re:Vasectomy (Score:2, Insightful)
"Mommy? Are you in there? Mommy, are you coming out soon? *Sibling* woke up from his nap on the floor and is eating the cat food. Mommy? Where's Daddy? Hello? I hear you in there." *bang* *bang* *bang* on the door.
Re:Perhaps (Score:5, Insightful)
I kind of feel sorry for your wife, you make her sound like a car.
Attractiveness is more than just looks and not bragging rights.
There are some women who look great but are not anything like attractive once you get to know them. Even the ones that are will not look so great after 20 years and a few kids and neither will you.
Physical looks are not that important what makes a woman attractive is who she is, I know I married a beautiful woman and she's better than a ten in my eyes, i don't care how anyone else would rate her and the interesting thing for me is her score improves the longer I know her.
Re:Are you serious? (Score:3, Insightful)
You left out "hear the lamentation of the women." Nothing more manly than hearing lamentation.
Re:Here it is for 5c (Score:1, Insightful)
Oh, and I don't like to wear condoms because then I always have to crawl out of bed to the bathroom and clean off. It's much less of a mess when I can leave my deposit.