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.
Are you serious? (Score:5, Funny)
It's because all men secretly want to pay child support.
Re:Are you serious? (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:Here it is for 5c (Score:5, Informative)
Good luck!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
For a more intense sensation, you might prefer Iron Maiden brand.
I'm sure you've seen the advertisements: "Iron Maiden, for the really bad boy."
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: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: (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, pub
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They might not prevent someone from circumcising an infant, but a growing number of surgeons won't do it themselves. They consider it a cosmetic procedure, not to be done on someone without their consent.
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!
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: (Score:3)
Infantile phimosis, which is a partial/i> blockage of urination due to a narrowed opening (not a complete blockage) is treated with topical steroidal cream, or (as a last resort) minor corrective surgery to enlarge the opening.
What it comes down to is only uninformed, ignorant fools still circumcise infants.
Re: (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: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:Here it is for 5c (Score:4, Insightful)
Logic sucks, doesn't it?
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:Here it is for 5c (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Here it is for 5c (Score:5, Funny)
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: (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
Re: (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).
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: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]
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.
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: (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Re: (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:Perhaps (Score:4, Funny)
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.
I will tell you exactly what that something else is. It's all in the head (figuratively, the big one).
Most people, including men, want what they can't have. They want girl A when they're with girl B and vis versa. They think of a blowjob while they're having sex and sex while they're receiving a blowjob. They want to have a steady girlfriend who performs great in bed, but they get turned on by the thought of cheating on her. What you can't have is exactly what you want..
You can't have condomless sex, so it becomes more desirable. Start having condomless sex, and you want to have sex with a condom.
Of course most men don't really have a problem getting off no matter what, so this is mostly moot.
Re: (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 peni
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You think that's bad, wait for alimony and child support. High end prostitutes are cheap by comparison. (I actually saw a cost breakdown about that, showing cost per act of coitus with a high end prostitute vs. an ex wife. Sad, really)
Re:Perhaps (Score:5, Funny)
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: (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Try telling your wife she's not as hot as your friends' wives, and then see how often you get sex.
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.
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!"
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!!
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.
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: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.
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?
Stimulus (spending) (Score:5, Funny)
Stimulus....package
Too easy. (not hard?)
STOP NOW!
Lovemaking vs. Hoagie Stuffing (Score:3, Interesting)
Can you really call it "making love" if you have to put on plastic gloves like a freakin' subway sandwich artist? Really intimate...
Brings up another issue. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Brings up another issue. (Score:4, 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.
Re: (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.
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: (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.)
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.
Re:Because they are a con (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
But think of the fun you can have trying to make catapults with them.
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!!!)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
It kind of mirrored my experiences.
I was actually a reluctant but fairly consistent condom user but I kept dating these women who generally wanted me to stop using a condom and "just pull out". It seems strange but I would say about 75% of the time it was the *women* who instigated the reckless birth control. Of course since it felt like 10000 times better, I went along with it.
One woman, who until she got on the pill a couple months after we started dating, was a fairly strong believer in the rhythm meth
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Can anyone explain to me how killing a suspected terrorist and their neighbors with a few hundred thousand dollars of ammunition is a better investment than this study? Anyone?
Because a dead suspected terrorist is better than a live one? What did I win?
400 grand is less than a minute of military spending the United States. But no one is allowed to mention that fact in the "liberal" media.
Nor on slashdot. But suppose for a moment we were able to discuss such things. It still remains that 400 grand can easily be afforded by condom manufacturers who might have an interest in improving their product for some reason. So why is the US government to pay for condom research when there are plenty of private companies capable of doing the same? My take is that yes, a minute of military spending (which is generally considered
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.
Why do they only think of the men? (Score:3, 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: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.
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.
Re:Easy Answer (Score:5, Funny)
I could have answered that question for half of what they paid.
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.
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: (Score:3, Funny)
That's anecdotal, there is no scientific method in that statement. You can't trust pure sensation when science is involved.
PS correlation isn't causation.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
and listening to someone who calls themselves "meatbag pussrocket" and actually apologising to them, is YOUR shortcoming.
jesus.
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: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.
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."
you have a tastebuds on your penis? (Score:4, Funny)
i suppose its better than olfactory nerves
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.
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.
No... (Score:5, Funny)
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:Easy Answer (Score:4, Funny)
You need more practice, simple as that.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ooops, vasectomy not condom. That will teach me to read the subject line.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Try having some "private time" when, at any second, a little one could come running in.
You might want to carefully inspect your bathroom door for an example of a technological solution to this problem. Further, you might be surprised that these "locking door knobs" are actually both inexpensive and widely available.
Have you considered purchasing one?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (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: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.
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: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: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: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.
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sometimes, not spending money is a false economy. This is prob