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.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
by Anonymous Coward
on Monday June 22 2009, @06:02PM (#28430813)
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.
by Anonymous Coward
on Monday June 22 2009, @06:50PM (#28431669)
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.
Apologies for not including this in the previous reply, but have you also tried different condoms? I had the same problem for a LONG time, but between switching to Durex Pleasuremax (?) condoms, masterbating with condoms and (excuse my tongue) REALLY FUCKING GOOD SEX, that problem was solved.
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.
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."
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.
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.
The "obvious" answer that everybody is mentioning is that condoms reduce sensitivity. However, it is a fact that some men use condoms consistently, some men use them some times and not others, and some men avoid them whenever possible. "It feels like a garden hose" is a vague and general statement about condoms that offers little useful information about the nature of those differences. Something else must be going on. Are some men using condoms wrong? Are some men overestimating the reduction in sensitivity, perhaps because of preconceptions? Are some men underestimating the risks associated with unprotected sex?
"Wasted tax money" is a red herring designed to give people an excuse to titter and dismiss this research without thinking it through. The obvious applied goal of this research would be to get more men to use condoms when having potentially risky sex. If you can identify the relevant factors (between men, between their partners, between situations) you might be able to increase condom usage. That has the potential to reduce STI and HIV infections and unwanted pregnancies. The real problem with this research is that it threatens to suggest something other than "abstinence until marriage and then one opposite-sex partner for life" as a potential model for a safe and satisfying sex life.
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.
They smell bad, they distract from the spontenaity of the moment, they decrease sensitivity, they're never handy at the moment you want them, they're disgusting to take off, they're awkward to dispose of.
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.
The cause of and solution to all of life's problems... alcohol! Smell - Keep drinking Spontaneity - If you and her are sufficiently boosed, no biggy... hell even feel free to miss the hole a couple of times. Sensitivity - If shes boosed, means you can pound harder. Can't find one? - Douche her with it later (really sorry about this one) Disgusting to take off and dispose of? - Drink more and then you'll be playing the awesome game of seeing how many you can get to stick to the hotel ceiling! Stds - Either drench if it 95% straight afterwards and if that didn't work start drinking to forget about the AIDS.
Then for later on in life or after the mistake: Children - Drink more it'll numb the pain.
This Post was sponsored by Duff beer... Ohh yeah!!
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.
by Anonymous Coward
on Monday June 22 2009, @07:52PM (#28432453)
They smell bad, they distract from the spontenaity of the moment, they decrease sensitivity, they're never handy at the moment you want them, they're disgusting to take off, they're awkward to dispose of.
That's no way to talk about women. Maybe that's your problem.
Another issue, and one might say more important, is that there are so few options for men for birth control. Let's see, we have... condoms or sterilization. Great. One isn't reliable and the other can have serious side effects. How about we put that money into researching new and improved methods that have fewer and less severe side effects? Personally I would absolutely take hormonal treatments if the side effects were reasonable. It drives me crazy that as a society we are complacent with half our population not having a reliable and effective means for preventing unwanted pregnancy. Better yet things like RISUG would be absolutely wonderful, yet they don't get researched in western bureaucracy because it wouldn't be profitable enough than having people constantly paying for condoms or hormones. The injustice that has befallen us males is absolutely cause for a revolution in how we conduct health care in our society.
If it's to study "why men don't like condoms", as it is being widely reported, then yes, the study is a waste of money. The reason is obvious to anybody that's ever used one.
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.
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.
Condoms are the biggest con around. You have to buy them in a three pack, you use one to test for fit, then you notice they have a use-by date only four years away!!
Condoms are the biggest con around. You have to buy them in a three pack, you use one to test for fit, then you notice they have a use-by date only four years away!!
It called the "hooker pack". One to test, two to double bag it.
Because bareback is the way mother nature intended and it feels a hell of allot better. My first girlfriend at first insisted on using condoms each time and I had no problem with that. Then one night right in the heat of the moment my rubber broke while putting it on. She pretty much just said to hell with it and we did it with no condom. At that point we liked the feeling so much better that we stopped using condoms and I just pulled out every time. After a scare she decided to go on birth control which increased the fun as I could now finish the job without worrying about being a father. She put on some weight (like 7 pounds) and that was enough for her to quit the pill. We went out for three years and contraception was only used for a total of about 6 months of that with no pregnancy. Not too bad. Although after her I always use rubbers after learning a friend got his girlfriend pregnant even though he pulled out.
So its a big fucking no duh as to why men don't want to use rubbers. I still wish I could be that naive and uncaring but I have to be smart.
PULL OUT!? are you retarded or did you go to a private school?
Do they not teach you kids that you can squeeze out juices prior to finishing, for the purpose of lubrication? Good grief. Well, good for you and your girlfriend.
I got my wife pregnant while using spermicide, so that just goes to show that even with protection you can end up with what the mother nature intended for you. (And also that my little spermies are unstoppable!!!)
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.
from Drs. Erick Janssen and Stephanie Sanders, both of the Kinsey Institute.
Erick: Hey Steph, I'll give you $100,000.00 if you sleep with me a few times. Stephanie: How many times is a few? Erick: Until we reach statistical significance. Steph: Cash? Erick: Sure.
Two weeks later, Erick pockets the other 300 Grand.
... 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.
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. 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.
by Anonymous Coward
on Monday June 22 2009, @07:55PM (#28432491)
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!)
$400k isn't worth even contemplating. To put it into context $15 billion dollars is roughly $1 per week per person living in the US. $400k is such a tiny amount of money that it would cost more to find things that small to cut than it would save to actually cut them.
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.
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.
Are you serious? (Score:5, Funny)
It's because all men secretly want to pay child support.
Re:Are you serious? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
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.
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.
Parent
Re:Here it is for 5c (Score:5, Informative)
Good luck!
Parent
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.
Parent
Re:Here it is for 5c (Score:5, Funny)
Aside from the finding that circumcising heterosexual men reduces the risk of HIV
In another study (sorry can't find the link) they found that if you remove the entire penis, then risks of HIV infection drop even more dramatically!
I say, let's emasculate babies at birth!
Parent
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."
Parent
Re:Here it is for 5c (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
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.
Parent
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.
Parent
Ask Richard Jeni (Score:4, Funny)
Perhaps (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe because it feels like you're trying to mate with a garden hose.
Re:Perhaps (Score:5, Interesting)
The "obvious" answer that everybody is mentioning is that condoms reduce sensitivity. However, it is a fact that some men use condoms consistently, some men use them some times and not others, and some men avoid them whenever possible. "It feels like a garden hose" is a vague and general statement about condoms that offers little useful information about the nature of those differences. Something else must be going on. Are some men using condoms wrong? Are some men overestimating the reduction in sensitivity, perhaps because of preconceptions? Are some men underestimating the risks associated with unprotected sex?
"Wasted tax money" is a red herring designed to give people an excuse to titter and dismiss this research without thinking it through. The obvious applied goal of this research would be to get more men to use condoms when having potentially risky sex. If you can identify the relevant factors (between men, between their partners, between situations) you might be able to increase condom usage. That has the potential to reduce STI and HIV infections and unwanted pregnancies. The real problem with this research is that it threatens to suggest something other than "abstinence until marriage and then one opposite-sex partner for life" as a potential model for a safe and satisfying sex life.
Parent
Re:Perhaps (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
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.
Parent
Because.... (Score:5, Funny)
Because it feels like picking your nose while wearing a latex glove....?
I will take that $400k now, thanks.
Greater Good (Score:4, Funny)
Geeks all over the US can finally say (Score:5, Funny)
"Come on baby, it's for science!"
Parent
I'd think it was obvious to any man (Score:5, Interesting)
They smell bad, they distract from the spontenaity of the moment, they decrease sensitivity, they're never handy at the moment you want them, they're disgusting to take off, they're awkward to dispose of.
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.
Re:I'd think it was obvious to any man (Score:5, Funny)
The cause of and solution to all of life's problems... alcohol!
Smell - Keep drinking
Spontaneity - If you and her are sufficiently boosed, no biggy... hell even feel free to miss the hole a couple of times.
Sensitivity - If shes boosed, means you can pound harder.
Can't find one? - Douche her with it later (really sorry about this one)
Disgusting to take off and dispose of? - Drink more and then you'll be playing the awesome game of seeing how many you can get to stick to the hotel ceiling!
Stds - Either drench if it 95% straight afterwards and if that didn't work start drinking to forget about the AIDS.
Then for later on in life or after the mistake:
Children - Drink more it'll numb the pain.
This Post was sponsored by Duff beer... Ohh yeah!!
Parent
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.
Parent
Re:I'd think it was obvious to any man (Score:5, Funny)
They smell bad, they distract from the spontenaity of the moment, they decrease sensitivity, they're never handy at the moment you want them, they're disgusting to take off, they're awkward to dispose of.
That's no way to talk about women. Maybe that's your problem.
Parent
it interrupts the flow of things and so (Score:5, Funny)
it can make your dick go limp
its the same as being in a sexually arousing situation and suddenly being asked to fill out form 1040A and pay your taxes right now
(with apologies to all of the IRS fetishists)
Re:it interrupts the flow of things and so (Score:5, Funny)
its the same as being in a sexually arousing situation and suddenly being asked to fill out form 1040A and pay your taxes right now
Are you really, really bad at putting on a condom, or are you really, really good at filling out your taxes?
Parent
Stimulus (spending) (Score:5, Funny)
Stimulus....package
Too easy. (not hard?)
STOP NOW!
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.
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.
Parent
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.
Because they are a con (Score:5, Funny)
Condoms are the biggest con around. You have to buy them in a three pack, you use one to test for fit, then you notice they have a use-by date only four years away!!
Re:Because they are a con (Score:5, Funny)
Condoms are the biggest con around. You have to buy them in a three pack, you use one to test for fit, then you notice they have a use-by date only four years away!!
It called the "hooker pack". One to test, two to double bag it.
Parent
DUH! (Score:4, Interesting)
Because bareback is the way mother nature intended and it feels a hell of allot better. My first girlfriend at first insisted on using condoms each time and I had no problem with that. Then one night right in the heat of the moment my rubber broke while putting it on. She pretty much just said to hell with it and we did it with no condom. At that point we liked the feeling so much better that we stopped using condoms and I just pulled out every time. After a scare she decided to go on birth control which increased the fun as I could now finish the job without worrying about being a father. She put on some weight (like 7 pounds) and that was enough for her to quit the pill. We went out for three years and contraception was only used for a total of about 6 months of that with no pregnancy. Not too bad. Although after her I always use rubbers after learning a friend got his girlfriend pregnant even though he pulled out.
So its a big fucking no duh as to why men don't want to use rubbers. I still wish I could be that naive and uncaring but I have to be smart.
Re:DUH! (Score:5, Interesting)
PULL OUT!?
are you retarded or did you go to a private school?
Do they not teach you kids that you can squeeze out juices prior to finishing, for the purpose of lubrication?
Good grief. Well, good for you and your girlfriend.
I got my wife pregnant while using spermicide, so that just goes to show that even with protection you can end up with what the mother nature intended for you.
(And also that my little spermies are unstoppable!!!)
Parent
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.
Parent
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.
Easy solution. (Score:5, Funny)
I discovered that housepaint is made from latex. Condoms are made from latex.
Now I keep a can of Sears Weather-beater next to my bed.
And this is how this happened... (Score:5, Funny)
from Drs. Erick Janssen and Stephanie Sanders, both of the Kinsey Institute.
Erick: Hey Steph, I'll give you $100,000.00 if you sleep with me a few times.
Stephanie: How many times is a few?
Erick: Until we reach statistical significance.
Steph: Cash?
Erick: Sure.
Two weeks later, Erick pockets the other 300 Grand.
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:Easy Answer (Score:5, Funny)
I could have answered that question for half of what they paid.
Parent
Re:Easy Answer (Score:4, Funny)
$423,500? They must be joking. They'll never get any firm results unless they come up with some hard, pulsating cash.
Parent
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.
Parent
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."
Parent
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.
Parent
No... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Vasectomy (Score:5, Funny)
Yeh there nothing like a stable relationship to
stop you from having sex.
Oh wait you meant using a condom.
Parent
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.
Parent
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.
Parent
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.
Parent
Re:Government (Score:5, Funny)
So, you're promoting childbirth to reduce starvation? Interesting.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fuck, he'll eat for a lifetime.
It's a modest proposal.
Parent