Talk:Condom/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Fun

Someone else changed the page, with this notation as to the change:

Those who care to have sex again will withdraw the penis rather than going to the extreme of removing it....

That gave me such a good laugh that I just wanted to preserve it in the talk here. . . Thanks, Someone else. --jaknouse

Condom disposal

Where and how does one dispose a used condom ?

While some people flush them down the toilet, this practice is generally discouraged as the condoms may block up the pipe. It can be quite embarassing to have to explain how a condom got stuck in ones pipes.-- Ec5618 16:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

However most flushed condoms cause no problems, and is the preferred disposal —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.91.162.51 (talk • contribs) .

Prefered by you perhaps, however the recommended method is to discard them in the trash, covering them with tissue/toilet paper and/or enclosing in a bag first. Nil Einne 11:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

When tied and flushed, they fill with gas and can interfere with the skimmers in the sewage treatment plants; trash 'em.

We visited a sewage treatment plant once and they told us not to flush condoms down the toilet, because it is a pain to collect them from the filters... or something like that. Blueiris 08:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Sabotage

Can the recent edit about condom sabotage by sex workers be supported by any evidence? If not, it should be deleted as an urban legend. --Icarus 03:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm the one who added that statement. Sorry it took me so long to reply. I can't recall the link at the moment; the site was linked from cruel.com as Cruel Site of the Day a couple years back. As far as I could see, it was exactly as I've described. I joined the forums and tried to open a dialogue about the ethics of sabotaging condoms without the male partner's knowledge but I was not listened to. If I ever find the link again, I will definitely add it to the discussion page for reference. So again, this is not a parody, but I suppose you have only my word for that. Cheers, Kasreyn

P.S. the article says nothing about sabotage by "sex workers". The sabotage advice on the website I encountered was shared between married women who wanted to have more children, while their husbands did not.

Did some quick looking - there is a closed article (ie, you need a subscription) that might detail condom sabotage by sex workers at [1]. I found one link to a (now dead) user thread at Baby Center that referenced condom sabotage at http://bbs.babycenter.com/board/preconception/gettingpregnant/7129/thread/1063197, apparently some people on the thread were detailing "accidental" pregnancies through sabotage. Other than that, one scare at a university in Halifax that free condom supplies were being sabotaged. So basically - potentially true, but looks impossible to substantiate. DonaNobisPacem 08:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm. I followed your link, and bbs.babycenter.com seems to ring a bell in my memory. I think it may be the site indeed. If so, it has changed much, and has a new set of admins and moderators. Currently it seems to have a very anti-sabotage/deception attitude, and there are several threads where pregnant women asking for help with "tricks" (euphemism for condom sabotage or stopping bc) are scolded by the moderators. [2] So perhaps all the negative publicity I remember the board getting caused them to change their attitude. That does away with my only concrete example of a condom sabotage web forum, however, the fact that women coming onto the forum there all seem to already know what "tricks" are and where they should look for them... so whether or not babycenter is actually divulging such information, there remains a healthy amount of wannabe-mothers who are willing to sabotage and deceive. The reference to "at least one website" can be removed from the article if you wish, but I insist that the fact that people - of both sexes - sabotage condoms remain in. It's necessary for wikipedia to fairly list all the ways condoms can fail, and deliberate sabotage and misuse is one of those ways. Best wishes, Kasreyn

Re: recent edit, my original statement about there being "a website" was because I have only ever found that one website. Changing it to "websites" might invite the criticism that we are trying to make it look more common than it is. What if someone comes along and demands evidence of the existence of these sites? Over-generalization isn't good for an encyclopedia. Just some thoughts, not planning to do a revert, but I don't want the section to wind up being removed because it became insupportable. It's important that at least a note on the possibility of condom sabotage as a failure mode remain in the article. -Kasreyn 04:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Might be a small difference... but a thread in a forum in my mind is different from a "website" existing to advocate for such a practice. Since the thread is closed it's also hard to verify. Not sure what we should do... how relevant and important do you guys think this is? moink 21:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I feel the fact that there is such a thing as sabotage to be very relevant, but I'm not attached to any particular source. I'm concerned over the sourcing as well, and I don't want the article to appear to be engaging in original research. Below are my attempts to find sources. Best wishes, Kasreyn 22:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Sabotage Sourcing

Moink, regarding your recent note that there is no source for the claim of websites endorsing sabotage (good catch!), I'm doing some looking. So far I can't find any current threads at babycenter with sabotage advice being handed out. It appears they really have turned over a new leaf. They have also apparently deleted or hidden all the old posts from back when the site was used to give out sabotage ideas to women who wanted children. I admire their turning over a new leaf, but not their sweeping their old behavior under the rug.

There is one user, "Olenka9", who seems to have a very bitter attitude towards men, and provides advice on trickery here: [3] (look for first reply by olenka9), but the regulars and administrators usually scold Olenka. Therefore while it might be possible for people like Olenka to provide sabotage advice on the forum, it would not be appropriate to insinuate that the website endorses it. Sadly, the site lacks user search functionality so I can't browse this "olenka"'s comments to see if she's provided more advice on sabotage.

Here is an example of someone asking for advice on trickery ("forgetting" to take BC pills; not really condom related though).

On the same topic as the one with olenka9 above, a user provides another example of ways to become pregnant against a partner's wishes: "next time you are ovulating take control, You on top, he can't pull out. Or wrap your legs around his butt so that he can't pull out."[4] As far as I can tell this user was not reprimanded by anyone. This is also not condom-related, merely advice on how to defeat the notoriously failure-prone "pull-out method".

This thread is by a woman who is flushing her BC pills and deceiving her husband in hopes of having another child which he does not want: "I know its lieing tohim, but it is my body." Also, "I know he will be upset that the 'BC FAILED', but I also know he wants another baby, he just dont want it yet."

P.S. in this thread on the forum, no one shows the slightest bit of upset over this manipulative and condescending attitude towards the husband (the conceit that she knows better than him what he wants!); in fact, the poster is congratulated and encouraged. Kasreyn 22:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Ugh. I'm going to stop for now. Between this sort of attitude and the quotes like "besides, making babies is what women were made for!", I feel like I need a shower. I will continue my sourcing quest later. Cheers, Kasreyn 22:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all that work! Sabotage definitely happens, but the article seems to make it seem like there's some sort of active group that advocates for such a thing. I followed all your links and they made me feel the same way you do. Wow, some of these people are seriously delusional. Anyway, I'll think about how to reword the info in the article. Perhaps this belongs somewhere else, like contraception, where we could link to those crazy people flushing their pills. moink 22:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Your most recent edit seems to have fixed the problem. You're right that it's better to use the source to address "motivation" rather than advocacy, because we really don't have any proof of advocacy. Thanks, moink! Kasreyn 22:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Reliability of the sabotage source

Hi. I notice that the sole citation for the "sabotage" section is to some web-based discussion forum. This seems to be a horribly weak citation. In particular, note this admonishment in WP:RS:

Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as primary or secondary sources. This is in part because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them, and in part because there is no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking. In addition, in the case of wikis, the content of an article could change at any moment. For exceptions, see the section on self-published sources.

Can a more reliable secondary source for that section be found? Has there been a study on this issue? (I'm raising this question here because that paragraph seemed a bit oddly biased to me and a few of my friends, as it seemed to impute deceptiveness about condoms to women when in large portions of the world today women don't even feel empowered to insist on any birth control. I do realize that a well-cited claim can be NPOV, which is why I am asking for better sources.) Lur 15:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm aware the source is very weak, as I admitted above... I have been trying hard to find a better source for the claim, but haven't had much luck yet. Back when I monitored the board in question, new members would frequently join the board and immediately ask for help on how to do this; it may have just been my interpretation, but it seemed like it was widespread knowledge that such information was available there.

I'm willing to shorten the section, and I tried not to make the section criticize women more than men (though from everything I've heard, it's almost entirely women who do this); if you can think of any specific improvements I'd be glad to hear them. In the meantime, I will go hunting for a better source. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Kasreyn 18:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Unfortunately, today happens to be my last day editing before a trip during which I won't be able to get online... it may be a week or two before I reply again. I will try to find some sources and post them before I go. Kasreyn 18:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, here's what I have so far:

• Two reports about an unknown student sabotaging public condom supplies at Oxford University: [5] [6] The university withdrew its public condom supply and some of its colleges went over to a token-dispensed system because they found someone had gone through the public boxes of condoms and punctured each with a pin. What a jerk.
• As I mentioned above, I originally discovered the Babycenter board via Cruel Site of the Day. I just found the original CSotD posting which led me there in 2004: [7] Warning, CSotD is a rather cynical and nasty site. Search for "I married miss conception" for the posting which referred to the babycenter board. All the threads linked have since been hidden by babycenter admins. This is because the CSotD posting led to a massive trolling/flamewar from netusers who were infuriated at their giving out sabotage instructions. I can personally assure you that the boards linked did indeed give instructions on "scooping techniques" and other methods, but as far as I can tell, babycenter has mended their ways and no longer does this.
• This link [8] leads to a pdf file from the Family Violence Prevention Fund, which notes the existence of the sabotage of "birth control", but does not specify whether it is condoms, pills, or whatever being sabotaged.

It's extremely difficult to find sources on this subject. I don't know whether this is because condom sabotage is rare or because it is so rarely detected (ie., perhaps it's very successful and it's concealed within the natural failure rate of condoms). Regardless, I think the Oxford links at least show that it is definitely happening, to whatever degree we do not know, but I think Wikipedia readers deserve to be aware that their risks include not only manufacturing defects but also the possibility of unethical sexual partners and/or random saboteurs seeking to impose their worldview on strangers (a la the Oxford mass-sabotaging incident). Kasreyn 18:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

please stop making this article evil!

There is a horribly pro-condom/anti-life view being expressed in this 'article' please stop re-adding it, I've already fixed the article, now don't change it anymore!--64.12.116.197 18:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality isn't evil. Please stop removing vital information from the article. While you are free to be of the opinion that condoms do not prevent disease, it seems from your statement above that you hold this view because you would prefer it if no-one used condoms, not because you have serious scientific data to back up your claim.

You are free to believe condom use is evil. But do not remove content, and do not introduce lies. If you have decent sources to suggest that condoms contain large holes, please share. Otherwise, you may want to discuss adding a few words to the 'Anti-Condom Trends' section, to clarify the reasoning of anti-condom people, such as yourself.

Thank you for using wikipedia, but be advised that vandalism is not allowed. Keep violating WP:NPOV and you will be blocked. -- Ec5618 18:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

LMAO. You're out on the extreme lunatic fringe. Most rational people don't consider condoms to be "anti-life". Keep violating WP:NPOV and you will be blocked. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 18:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Note to all: don't feed the troll. Just the bare effort needed to revert his vandalism. In time he'll grow bored. Admins, please give us a hand if he breaks the 3RR. -Kasreyn 18:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

All of the "facts" you think you're adding are little more than religious propaganda that are all demonstrably false. Stop vandalizing Wikipedia with false information. All, please register an account and sign in if you want to be taken seriously; many people consider it beneath them to even debate with anonymous users and instead just revert on sight. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 18:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Proper use

The four pictures, giving step by step hints on how to put on a condom, lead in the german version to a constantly Edit War fought by anonymous who deleted this picture, albeit discussions showed a majority that wants to retain it. To prevent (or at least embank) this Edit War I did the image processing aside. If this is an issue here too, you may invited to take into account using this image instead.

-- Pemu 22:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Pemu, that picture is still very offensive, just in a different way, also any use of it would be redundant because we've remove the how to use section instead replacing it with a small paragraph direct you to where ALL the information on the application of condoms is stored. Chooserr 00:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing offensive about the image. Also, Wikipedia isn't intended to be censored. 156.34.75.213 08:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The images aren't offensive to me, but they could be more clear, I think. In the middle two, it's hard (pardon the pun) to see what is being done. Thumbelina 22:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Factoid

I've seen it said (I just wish I could source it...) that passing out condoms has 0 effect on %teen sex activity... (I'll reserve comment on what the religious anti-sex loonies think of that.) Trekphiler 23:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Please avoid trolling on talk pages. Cite a source if you want to make a valid point; and please review Wikipedia's civility guidelines re:religious slurs.DonaNobisPacem 23:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Odd how he merely mentioned "religious anti-sex loonies" in general, not naming any names, and then you instantly leap down his throat feet-first. Methinks the Wikipedian doth protest too much.  ;) Have you anything to say regarding the substantive matter of his discussion comment (effect on teen sexual behavior), or would you censor that as well? I wouldn't get too worked up by people displaying their biases on the talk page if I were you; it's hard enough getting everyone to refrain from it on the article itself. He wasn't insulting you directly until you designated yourself as an insultee. So can we all please chill out? -Kasreyn 08:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

A factoid is something passed off as a fact, but is actually a lie such as the term "Safe Sex"... Chooserr 00:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect. "Safe Sex" is a political spin word, a frame-word, a marketing term, a propaganda phrase if you will. "Condoms cause penile cancer", now that's a factoid: it has a (small) grain of truth, but it's taken out of context and overinflated to appear far more weighty than it really is. "Safe Sex" doesn't even pretend to reference facts so much as a recommended course of behavior. -Kasreyn 06:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Uhm, safe sex refers to the fact that sex with condoms is safer, in terms of STI's, than sex without condoms. I don't see how this is particularly misleading, much less propaganda. Alienus 07:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against the use of the term, I just believe in being honest with myself. I'm personally in favor of having the government provide a free condom dispenser on every street lamp in every city in America. But "Safe Sex" is much like "pro-choice" and "pro-life", it's a biased term which comes laden with its own freight of assumed points of view. It is a term of persuasion, not merely description. To a devout evangelical, no sex before marriage is "safe" because (to them) it results in eternal damnation - and how can a condom prevent that? The "safe" in "safe sex" implies that only medical safety, and not social or spiritual safety, is involved, and therefore "safe sex", while a useful descriptive term, is not fair to all sides. -Kasreyn 20:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I think safe-sex is overall a sad term though, just like on one of the commercials I saw, that said, "may increase risk of pregnancy" couldn't they have said "chances of pregnancy"? Chooserr 07:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The "safe" in "safe sex" implies that only medical safety, and not social or spiritual safety, is involved, and therefore "safe sex", while a useful descriptive term, is not fair to all sides. Since it is used in medical context (preventing STD) and not a metaphysical one, I would think no one needs to feel offended. It clearly is limited to a medical discussion.--Nomen Nescio 19:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

STI's??

Seriously: What the fuck. Is that actually what the medical establishment is calling it now? What kind of nimrods are they? How can you educate the public about the dangers of something if you keep changing its damned name? This is the dumbest thing I've ever seen. "STD" might be 0.001% less scientifically accurate than "STI" but it already has widespread recognition making it a useful piece of terminology for spreading information. The public awareness campaign can only be harmed by the confusion this sort of blinkered foolishness will produce. Someone explain to me why it should be changed on Wikipedia, and give a GOOD reason, not just "everyone else is doing it". -Kasreyn 06:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Although the distinction infection versus disease is correct it is absolutely impracticle to discuss infection in the manner of this article. Since most people are infected by pathogens, in the pulmonary-digestive-urinary tract, these seldom result in disease. To suggest infection warrants medical treatment misrepresents current (non-US?) medical practise where usually asymptomic infections are rarely detected. To test all subjects on all possible infections would be impossible. Generally speaking, people will turn to their physician after symptoms have developed, in casu when disease is present, or when previous bedpartners are diagnosed with a STD.--Nomen Nescio 17:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Kasreyn, not all diseases are caused by infections, not all infections cause diseases. "Disease" and "infection" are two different words, and they mean different things. The official, or even just prefered, medical terms often change to reflect differences, or refinement of understanding in the medical community. For instance, "Fetal Alcohol Syndrome" is now called "Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder" because it's a spectrum disorder, not a syndrome. It might seem like hair-spliting to you, but it matters to those who work in the field. As for why should Wikipedia go with the current accepted terminology, rather than that which you are most familiar with? Because it is more correct and more accurate. As an encyclopedia WP is committed to presenting what is the current authoritative view of the truth. This is more important than whatever public service advantage might be served by propagandizing with incorrect terminology. Just as WP does not serve it's intended purpose by presenting falsehoods as established facts, so it will also use the correct technical terms. Please also consider familiarising yourself with other WP policies such as WP:CIVIL. Pete.Hurd 04:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Although your comment is correct, you must be aware that diseases resulting from sexual activity have a tendency to be related to infection and are not the result of other aetiologies.

As to STI, my books (Mandell's Principles and Practices of Infection Diseases or this site, Cecil Textbook of Medicine, The Oxford Textbook of Medicine, Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine, Intensive Care Medicine, The ICU Book) use STD. Clearly STI is a uncommon medical term. --Nomen Nescio 04:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Condoms and disease

There are statistics here telling you how likely it is to contract AIDS by using a condoms as opposed to not using one, but I heard that condoms provide protection primarily for women. I can't say exactly how, for I don't know all the workings, but I was told it stops the spreading of AIDS from Male-Female, but does little to stop the spreading from Female-Male. Can anyone confirm this? Chooserr 00:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

First time I hear of this. Feel free to supply a source for what sounds like an urban myth.--Nomen Nescio 18:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

My memory is that the transmission rate male -> female is about twice female -> male for unprotected penis in vagina sex in the United States. This was in a study reported in the Morbitity and Mortality Weekly Report of the Centers for Disease Control about ten years ago. But, by all means look for a more current study in the scientific literature. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Chooserr changes

Chooserr, since you know by now that your edits are objectionable to some here, why don't you try discussing here first to see if you can get consensus?--SarekOfVulcan 23:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean about my edits starting fights and/or being objectionable, but I don't think that I should have to "discuss" on the talk page because, it always takes so long for someone to reply, I explain my edit in the summary, and it limits my freedom. Chooserr 01:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Does December 26 ring a bell, for example? The rest of us have the same freedom to revert that you have to write, and it takes a lot less effort to do it. So why not discuss it first and save everyone, including yourself, a lot of aggravation?--SarekOfVulcan 01:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Not really off the top of my head...good think you provided a link. I don't really see what you are saying with it though. Chooserr 01:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Basically stop imposing illogical Catholic beliefs on the article. It isn't needed or wanted. 84.67.236.6 21:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Planned Parenthood

I don't want to violate the 3rvt rule or even get to a 3rd revert so I will try to ration out my reasoning for removing the link. My first point is that anything coming from that site will be biased. My second is that that link doesn't even pertain to condoms, nor their application. Chooserr 03:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Lifestyles removed.

Lifestyles is a brand of condom. You removed it without any reason whatsoever, Choserr. Please reinsert this link. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed it because it's a stub and I don't know how to properly nominate it for deletion. It isn't a source, or even a proper link. Chooserr 22:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Please reinsert it, and I will teach you to use AFD. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It's been reinserted by an anonomous ID, but I still hope you'll teach me how to use AFD because I can't make heads nor tails of the instructions. Chooserr 22:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Should I shout Vandalism?

The IP/User 70.230.178.219 has changed the statistics for the Condoms test adding an extra condom so instead on "out of 32" it is "out of 33" this is not a content dispute...he didn't even give a summary. I do not wan't to violate the 3rvt rule so can someone fix this VVVVVvandalism??? Chooserr 23:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no objection to changing it back, but how do I know if it is 32 or 33? AnnH ^(talk) 23:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I checked the link that was supplied as a citation, and it was 32. This is why Cites Are A Good Thing. :-)--SarekOfVulcan 23:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

References

This page really should be more careful about citing sources. Chooserr is currently yelling something about a statement being sources, but as there are no footnotes, for any of the claims on this page, I'm not sure where to check.

-- Ec5618 00:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

It is the last link Chooserr 00:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the wording to May not be as effective in protecting against STIs., as per the wording in the source. Your wording ("Less likely to stop STDs") seems POV and somewhat inconsistent with the rest of the article, which uses the term STIs. The reference you provided is not to a scientific paper, which is unfortunate. If a more authoritative source can be found to contradict your addition, the information will be removed.

I stand by my original comment; this page needs decent references. -- Ec5618 01:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that sounds good enough. I've currently deleted the ties section though, because it sounded very POV, and gave the impression that the were 100% effective. Maybe a direct quote from a POV source isn't the best thing - with some rewording it can be readded. Chooserr 01:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree with this. Perhaps the reference in the "Ties" section should be moved to pro-condom, but simply deleting it seems like POV blanking. Also, "have proven impenetrable" is not weasel words, it's a quote from a source. -Kasreyn 02:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Well if it was POV blanking I wouldn't talk about it here, but the quote is what I'm getting at...it is POV. That is why maybe we should rewrite that little section. Chooserr 02:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Observant

It didn't say "by some catholics who consider themselve observant" in the first place. I'm just making it read "Observant Catholics", observant meaning "Diligent in observing a law, custom, duty, or principle: observant of the speed limit." the prohibition of birth control being both a law, and custom of the Catholic Church. Chooserr 07:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

There's more than one level of observance and more than one view of what constitutes observance. Judging Catholics as non-observant because they use condoms is POV. Alienus 08:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Fine than you have to state specifically "semi-observant" because they aren't totally observent wouldn't you? I mean seriously you can't just say there are varying levels of observance. You have to be observant of all, because that is what the word implies. It is definitive.

I'll make an analogy with the first definition of the word. A guy is walking down the street, he comes to an intersection and steps out into traffic being observant of the birds fluttering in the trees. Would you consider the guy smeared over your bonnet observant? Would it be POV to say he wasn't? Chooserr 08:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Look, why include the word at all, if it causes this disagreement? The sentence works just as well without that word, heck without that whole parenthetical. It's kind of incongruous anyway, given the paragraph that follows, which is the only other content of that section. There should be another way to frame the information about that study. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Aargh! That's twice I hit "Enter" while reaching for a quote mark and accidentally saved with an incomplete edit summary. Alienus, I was trying to direct your attention here. That paragraph is controversially worded, and a crappy lead-in to what follows. We don't need it. That's why I deleted it. There's already a different section talking about religious attitudes. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Thickness

"Natural latex can be cured to be 0.046mm in thickness, while polyurethane can be set at 0.02mm thickness." Is this a limitation of technology or a regulatory limitation? --Gbleem 02:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Thickness

"Natural latex can be cured to be 0.046mm in thickness, while polyurethane can be set at 0.02mm thickness." Is this a limitation of technology or a regulatory limitation? --24.94.190.164 04:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Effectiveness sections muddled

The article's effectiveness information is currently scattered everywhere, in multiple sections. Some discuss effectiveness against STD's, some against conception, some both, and some muddle the two. Contradictory figures are quoted without so much as a linking "however". A separate section on "condom failure" exists, for reasons which completely escape me, with yet another set of figures on effectiveness.

This is a muddled mess. The article needs exactly one section, describing effectiveness. That's it - effectiveness. "Failure" is another word for "ineffective", so the two sections are redundant.

This combined section should be very near the top - preferably immediately below the contents section. Why? It's what most readers of the article will be very likely to be interested in learning. Why bury it, when it's the most important section of the article?

This merged section should have two internal sub-sections: Effectiveness against STD's, and Effectiveness against conception. We should draw a clear distinction when we are noting effectiveness rates assuming "best use" (translation: as directed) and when we are assuming "typical" (translation: ignoramus) use, because these do matter and are important distinctions. We should make it clear when a cited report is based only on a specific kind of condom, such as non-spermicidal vs. spermicidal, or sheepskin vs. latex, or whatever. Different readers may have different assumptions about what a "condom" is, depending on what is available in their area, and we shouldn't give them a false impression of effectiveness.

In general, the article at the moment is a bit of a mess thanks to endless warring by anti-condom and pro-condom partisans. Rather than attempting to reach consensus, both sides seem determined to simply outnumber the other with more figures. It does a disservice to Wikipedia readers, who simply want to be able to come here and find out if their condom will keep them safe and un-pregnant. We ought to have an article that will tell them simply and up-front what the risks are. It's been very difficult to reach a consensus on those risks, but if the figures are collected into a single section and carefully detailed, perhaps that might reduce the frequency of reverts.

Please comment below, I'm very interested in hearing what people have to say about this. If no one objects within a week, I'll being making the changes. Thanks. -Kasreyn 09:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Strange statement

Can someone else help me out:

At the same time, anti-condom movements like barebacking are remarkable social trends of simple, yet unsafe, defiance of an unnecessary precaution.

The above text seems to suggest condom usage is an unnecessary precaution? Am I reading this wrong? Nil Einne 10:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The entire section on "barebacking" is off-topic and original research, in my opinion, and I said so quite some time ago. You won't hear me complaining if you just remove the section. -Kasreyn 05:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, User:FreplySpang, for fixing that poor, poor sentence. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

pictures illustrating condom use

I see that this issue has already been discussed briefly, but I'd like to bring it up again. I agree that Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, but it seems to me that how to put on a condom is encyclopedic in itself, in the sense that people who don't plan on ever wearing a condom themselves might still want to know how a condom is used. What do others think about putting those pictures back in the article? --Allen 03:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

If people really want to see it, they can link to the Wikibook article on it. The article here is about what a condom is, and the function it is intended to perform - and the current article provides a detailed explanation of both, and also provides pictures of condoms. To keep the article size down, and also in accordance with WP:Not, it makes sense to leave the detailed pictures on "how-to" apply it where they are. DonaNobisPacem 06:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

"Abstinence only"

Is there a source to back up the claim re: abstinence only programs under "religious views" in the article?

....though most studies of sexual behavior in teenagers suggest that so-called 'abstinence only' programs do not discourage sexual activity, they merely make participants less likely to use other forms of contraception.

First, "most studies" without a source cited makes me nervous.....second, the school district in my city (a liberal Canadian one) has actually invited in an abstinence program to be offered at the high schools based upon the fact infection rates were rising under standardized sex ed (with focus on condoms/safer sex). As well, in Africa, one of the few countries with a falling AIDS rate is Uganda, which uses the ABC (abstinence, be faithful, condoms) program - from [9] This complementary approach is what the United States is advocating in its 15 target nations of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, said Peterson. It is "very much a balanced program" in which abstinence and faithfulness are advocated to promote healthy sexual lifestyles while condoms are promoted for high-risk groups. In Uganda, it is also a big a, big b, small c focus - condoms have consequences (ie, they don't offer a full guarantee for protection).

Both of the above facts (although the first, about the local school district, is indeed very close to, if not original research, so can't be cited in the article) seem to run counter to the claim - if disease rates are rising under conventional sex-ed programs, the above claim would be unsubstantiated unless it could be shown they rose faster under abstinence only programs. Is there any such documentation? And is that a world-wide view, or only Western studies? DonaNobisPacem 06:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, there are two aspects that sometimes people fail to adequately separate: the effectiveness of abstinence vs. other methods in preventing the spread of STD's, and the effectiveness of abstinence vs. other contraceptives in preventing pregnancy. The quote you refer to does not make it clear which it is referring to, but you're rebutting it only on the STD issue, so there seems to be a mismatch.

Always remember that there are other ways STD's can spread than by sex - abstinence could be doing a great job of preventing the spread of STD's, but if the kids at that school also have an increasing trend of sharing needles to do drugs, for instance, you might still get a distinct rise in infection rates. What's needed is a study that can show which cases of STD's resulted from intercourse and which resulted from other infection vectors. Cheers, Kasreyn 12:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I would also add that there's more to sex than sex. You can spread an STD without even losing your virginity, technically. Alienus 17:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Removal of material by Chooserr

(moved from my Talk page, where it doesn't belong)

Alienus,

I'm going to revert your edit to the condoms page, but I hope you will look at my firmly grounded reasons before rushing off to start a revert war.

• My first reason is simply that that section isn't needed for neutrality. It goes off in another direction not mentioning condoms once, but instead how Planned Parenthood feels about religions which it believes are hurting people thorough their beliefs about sex eduction.

• My second is that the link at the head of the section would give information about this unrelated bit of information if someone were to follow it.

• My third is that it's wording is confusing, and if you were to read the first and second sentences you would, I hope, agree that it makes little sense.

• Also the last sentence is rather offensive, but it would take a lot of space to explain that.

Chooserr 21:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The section is a direct response to the religious view, and is needed for balance. If you're claiming it's not relevant, then you have no idea what you're talking about. If you have comments about the wording, improve the wording. And as for that last sentence being offensive, tough. If the truth offends you, it's your problem. I am reverting again.

At this point, your attempts to remove material have been rejected. Do not attempt this again unless you can show that a consensus of editors supports you. If you try to edit war, I will have you banned. Alienus 22:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not up to me to show a consensus for the continued inclusion of this text. The fact that it's been here all along proves that there's a consensus to keep it. If you want to remove it, the burden of proof is on you to show that it needs to be removed. So far, you have not even come close to meeting that burden, and you've been edit warring. At this point, you're at your 3rd revert and will be reported if you do one more. Don't edit war; you will lose. Stay here and talk. Alienus 22:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Alienus, I will answer your last comment first because it is so misguided. The fact that the section has been up for a long time doesn't mean that there is a consensus just that it has been overlooked. I remember distinctly hearing on the news about a wikipedia article that stated a reporter was involved in the JFK assasinations, and another time (on this very article) of a user who removed "a useless piece of shit" that had been hanging around.

Now that that is settled I would like to address your lack of sources for the last section, and the reason why it is necessary when it doesn't even pertain to the subject matter but instead digresses into the issue of sex education. The section is perfectly neutral without it, because it is not saying that the religions' beliefs are correct, just that it is their view point on the matter. Chooserr 22:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Since our favorite roving anti-choice admin has already removed that sentence, without even bothering with the courtesy of requesting a fact check, I'm just going to let this slide for now. Alienus 22:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The reason you are "letting it slide" is that you can't argue your case. How can you argue that an irrelevant section belongs, especially in its former form with unsourced information? Chooserr 22:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of someone else's reasons is a risky proposition, especially when you lack a crystal ball. Consider that the solution to unsourced information is to source it, not delete it. Also consider that the relevance of material may not be apparent to paricularly biased readers. Alienus 22:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Consider first that the whole section is irrelevant, and second that source needed templates are apparent throughout the whole article. If you really wanted to "source it, not delete it" maybe you should try fixing those. Chooserr 23:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I'm too busy fixing your language problems, your POV injections and other errors. The idea behind requesting a citation first is that it avoids removing text that can be cited but simply hasn't. It's a good idea. Alienus 23:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't agree with that because while it is good in theory it should be noted that someone could add unsourced information, such as, "a new study states that condoms have a 76% rate of failure" and never get around to it. Do you see where I am coming.

Also the last sentence in your version doesn't make sense because it says that some religious organizations aren't opposed to teaching about condoms. They just want to teach primarily or exlusively about abstinence. Do you see how exclusively is an odd word to add there? Chooserr 23:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's the direct quote from your version, "Other religious groups do not oppose contraceptive education outright but want abstinence to be the primary or exclusive content of such programs."

That doesn't follow. Once text has been marked in need of citation and sufficient time has passed for others to have had their change to cite it, deletion becomes justified. The whole point of the tag is to mark the section for future deletion if nobody can fix it.

As for the last sentence, there is no conflict. There are religious groups that do not oppose the use of condoms by married couples, but expect schools to teach only abstinence. Contrast this with your church, which opposes condoms outright. Alienus 23:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

No, Alienus. There is because to quote you now in part, "do not oppose contraceptive education" not contraceptive use. Chooserr 23:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

On this, I have to agree with Chooserr, and I removed the "or exclusive" part during my last edit. The sentence contradicts itself by saying 'groups that do not oppose contraceptive education want exclusive abstience-only programs.' This is the "other religious groups" section, where the abstience only religious groups were mentioned in the previous sentence.

As for the original complaint by Chooserr, I am going to have to side with Alienus for the time being. Part of being NPOV is to show all POV in balance. If there are groups that are pro- and con-, their POVs should be acknowledged, as long as it is clear who exactly is making what claim. Showing one side only doesn't seem balanced. But I'll review the whole article again to see if this one section is excessive pro-POV.--Andrew c 00:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

That's fine by me. Alienus 01:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I think this issue has been made redundant by some high-quality work by Calton and Andrew C, so I'll just let it drop. Alienus 00:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

how-to external links

Chooserr, I thought the external link you removed, which was specifically geared toward gay men, was useful because it specifically addressed issues relating to gay sex and condoms. More importantly, though, if we're only going to have a link to one article on how to use condoms, I think that the article should be written in English. So I'm modifying the Planned Parenthood link to point directly to its subpage on condom use. --Allen 02:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Well I didn't think it was important, but I'm not gay. I just thought that it was an excessive link because there was already one addressing application of the condom. I would personally like to see a more balanced list of links, including those critical of condoms but it seems impossible for me to find them on my own. Chooserr 04:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Can't find what's not there. The only anti-condom stuff you could dig up is unreliable due to its origins; mostly your church. Alienus 06:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Alienus to act like there is no controversy over the use of birth control methods such as Condoms is sticking your head in the mud. And if external links concerning "anti-condom stuff" is necesary to balance out the opinions (the same excuss for the totally unrelated section on sex education, and planned parenthood) I would see it as bettering the encyclopedia. Overall by your comments I can only assume that your hatred for religion and overly pro-abortion, pro-birth control stance you can't even maintain a semblence of neutrality. Calling the Church an unreliable source is a clear illustration of this. Chooserr 06:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Controversy in what way? Controversy in the "Should it be done?" sense? Well, yes. Of course there is controversy over that. But there is absolutely no controversy over whether using condoms is safer sex! ColdSalad 01:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

If only it were that simple, friend, but just as there were people who insisted the Earth was flat long after a vast array of evidence demolished the theory, so there are those today who claim, in support of various religious and political agendas, that condoms are not safer. They are idiots or liars, of course, you and I know that, but in terms of public debate, we can't say there isn't "controversy", because there isn't one outside observer standpoint from which we can a priori make that judgement. Any outspoken and prolonged disagreement is technically a "controversy", despite (and usually because) one or both sides aren't listening to the other. -Kasreyn 10:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Allen. Can we restore the link? I seriously do not think the content is redundent, and focus on a specific population (gay) not covered specifically by other links. Here is the link for others to review:

• Spotlight: How to Choose and Use Condoms — directed at gay men, but contains advice applicable to all.

--Andrew c 17:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

So what is the verdict? Should we reinstate this link, or keep it out?--Andrew c 01:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

It should never have been removed. I say reinstate it. Alienus 01:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I lean towards reinstating it, though I don't really care. My main concern is the link to the Wikibooks use of male condoms page; as long as that's in there, the readers should be able to figure things out. As in, more links is probably better, but our main duty to our readers is fulfilled with the Wikibooks link; anything more is gravy. -Kasreyn 20:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

This page needs a picture of a penis with a condom on it

It's ESSENTIAL to show usage. How the fuck do you show what a condom is and how to use it if there's no pictures? --CalPaterson 22:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

We've already had this discussion. I agree with you, but the consensus went the other way. The decision reached was to leave a link to the Wikibooks page on condom usage (which you can find here). As long as that link is there, anyone interested in learning how to use one is just a click away. And it has all the pictures needed. I personally disagree with that division of information, but it was a case of majority rule as I recall. I don't think it's really that much of a problem. -Kasreyn 04:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Female Condoms

This section appears to need work.

Firstly, since the usage of male condoms was decided (against my objection) to be off-topic and was removed to wikibooks, the same reasoning must apply for the female condom. How shall we go about creating a wikibook entry for usage of the female condom? Once complete, I will remove this content and replace it with a link to the wikibook entry.

Secondly, the section is unsourced and tacitly supports a claim that female condoms are "the only available form of woman-initiated protection against HIV", which is laughably wrong. A woman can protect herself against HIV by refusing to have sex, and she can protect herself against HIV by demanding that her partner wear a male condom. Both these acts are woman-initiated. The YWCA appears to be mistaking woman-worn with woman-initiated. A woman can demand that a man wear a male condom. If he refuses, she can relent (and choose to forego protection, at her own initiation) or she can refuse (which she also initiates). If he then continues to try to have sex with her, we're no longer talking about choice, we're talking about rape. The entire panoply of protection methods can be "initiated" by a woman, even the ones which require male action, by demanding them in exchange for sex. A woman can demand that her husband get a vasectomy to prevent pregnancy. If he refuses, she can stop sleeping with him. I could go on all day with examples of ways women can "initiate" their own sexual protection against STD's and pregnancy.

To fix this section, I'd say what's needed is a direct quote of the "woman-initiated" line from whichever YWCA official said it, so it's clear that Wikipedia is not making such an foolish claim. I would add a counter-argument, but the section is already ridiculously full of original research needing citations. I will attempt to find a quote from another organization countering the YWCA fallacy.

In the meantime, I will attempt to improve the clarity of the section and am adding a cleanup tag. Kasreyn 23:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. I found a direct quote from the YWCA official, and replaced the "noted" with a "claimed" and a direct quote to avoid original research. I've also added the necessary tags. -Kasreyn 23:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

While I don't see anything wrong with the current, updated wording and sentence structure, I think you might be might be missing the point. It appears the primary issue is developing countries and especially among the poor and uneducated in these countries. While it's true that technically, the women can demand (male) condom usage and refuse sex otherwise, the nature of their societies may make this very difficult in practice. Teaching women to do so, is likely to be far more complex and difficult then teaching them to use female condoms. Also, if the women's two choices are to be raped or to willingly have sex without a condom, the second choice may be preferable in situations where the women has little ability to take any action when she is raped (indeed, in some cases it may not even be considered a rape if she were married to him). So while you have a point, I think you're also missing the wider issue which is what I think the YWCA is trying to say. NB, I'm not saying I necessarily agree completely with this view and I don't really know enough about these socities to say how accurate and common my assessement of the situation in them is. However I do think the issue is a lot more complicated then you seem to think and it's not just a case of the YWCA being silly. Nil Einne 06:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Source citations provided for female condom article

In regard to the cleanup tag placed on the Female Condom sub-article in April 2006, source citations from two separate sources have been inserted to resolve the questions raised. Please review these citations and consider removing the cleanup tag. These citations include a reference link to the presentations summary page of the 2005 PATH Global Consultation on the Female Condom - where peer-reviewed research on issues of the female condom's safety, effectiveness, acceptability, and cost was presented - and a reference link to the September 2005 press release announcing the introduction of the FC2 Female Condom.Bryan Callahan 21:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Editing failure section.

There is a lot of misinformation out there about the different percentages given when discussing the failure rates of condoms. Some cite 3%, some cite 15+%. The wikipedia article mentioned the rates but did not explain the differences well enough. I edited the section to put a link to a verifiable source about the rates and also explained the differences between "pefect use" and "typical use".

I also added information about HPV and that condoms do not provide a barrier to those areas that are not covered by the condom. DanielZimmerman 18:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Condom Geographical position in France

Condom is a very little town in France which is not located on the east coast. Take a look here. Indeed Condom is in the South-West part of France. Small contribution but still contribution. 8:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Is the condom named after that town? If not then that fact has nothing to do with an article about the prophylactic called "condom". If it is so, then it should be included. DanielZimmerman 20:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

My re-write

I reworded the first paragraph to the best of my abilities to prevent possible misconceptions about the effectiveness of condoms, for while they may be effective in reducing both the chances of pregnancy, and of STD infections it is a far leap from "prevent", which seems absolute, and fool proof to "reduce", which accurately portrays a chance of failure. Chooserr 02:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I hope I puncutated the sentence correctly.

Your changes were unacceptable. Al 02:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Alienus, as you usually say wait for a consensus. So now I'll revert you as you also seem to do quite often. Chooserr 02:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

All you needed to do was change one single word. Prevent to reduce. But instead, you took out the part about "that is used during sexual intercourse to prevent", and made the part about STDs more confusing. I'm going to revert to an earlier version, and then change the word you mentioned. --Andrew c 02:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Andrew C,

That is fine by me. When I read what Calton had written I was going to instate this version "A condom is a device, usually made of latex or more recently polyurethane, used during sexual intercourse, which has the capablity of reducing the chances of pregnancy and/or certain sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) such as gonorrhea, syphilis and HIV."

Also I don't see why the bit about carrying water is important. Its like saying that you could use a shovel as a saw - possibly you could fell a tree with it but it is hardly practical. How many times to you "pro-choicers" decide to carry water around in a condom? Chooserr 02:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, changing "prevent" to "reduce" is misleading. I've never used a condom to reduce the chances of pregnancy; my goal was always to prevent it outright. Of course, like everything else, condoms are imperfect, so there is still some chance of pregnancy. Then again, even the policy of abstinence has a significant chance of pregnancy. In short, the word should be "prevent". Al 02:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how using "prevent" is misleading compared to the word "reduce". Also I don't see how "the policy of abstinence has a significant chance of pregnancy" but who needs to make sense these days? Chooserr 03:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that most people use condoms to prevent preganancy/STDs but also agree that using the word reduce is better to make it clearer and less misleading that it doesn't actually prevent. Also, the policy/practice of abstinence does in fact have a significant chance of pregancy. Just as with condoms, whose failure rate is quoted as 3% if perfectly used, abstinence may have a 0% failure rate is 'prefectly used' but in the real world, abstinence doesn't actually achieve this because a lot of people intending to be abstinent end up having sex. Of course, they are no longer abstinent when they have sex, but that's why we talk about the policy/practice. Rather interestingly, evidently a condom failure (breakage or even if one was intended to be used but wasn;t) by a couple who were supposed to be abstinence is a count against condoms but not abstinence according to some religious nutters, even though the abstinence may partially be the cause that the condom failed if the parties were not exposed to sex education or because they had sex in a very spur of the moment fashion (as is likely by a couple who intend abstinance). Nil Einne 06:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Women who state that a policy of abstinence is how they avoid unwanted pregnancy still get pregnant. Most often, it's because they break that idealistic policy but fail to use contraception. Sometimes, it's because someone breaks that policy for them. Either way, as a stated method, it's not highly successful.

If you don't see how "reduce" is misleading, then you're going to have to look up the words. Al 03:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

and why shouldn't they have to live with the consequences of their actions? instead of taking away from another, smaller, person the right to be allowed to live as well?--F.O.E. 13:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how best to improve the article, not for pushing a point of view or standing on a soapbox. Kasreyn 17:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

"Reduce chance" or "reduce risk" appears to be a good compromise in my opinion. We do have a risk of confusing motives (ie goals) and effects for our readers. The goal is complete prevention. The effect is reduction of risk or chance. I'd say that the question is whether readers will expect to see information on motivation or effectiveness in the intro, and my guess is that they'll be expecting to see information on effectiveness. Therefore how about we use "reduce" in the intro and cover motivation elsewhere? Btw, another alternate description would be "avoiding" pregnancy, which doesn't specifically describe effectiveness at all. Kasreyn 15:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

A recent edit removed the fact that condoms are used during sex. The result was that the article no longer made sense. Now the same person is trying to remove the fact that condoms are used during sex so as to avoid pregnancy or disease. Once again, the removal has harmed the article. A logical ordering is to state the goal of an action, then discuss how effective it is. To reverse this leads to muddling. Al 18:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and to make things clear, someone who wants to emphasize the unreliability of condoms, perhaps due to a religious objection to their use, might see things differently. This difference is called bias and it must not be allowed into this article. Al 18:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I showed you the version I was going to instate (which talked about sex) so please don't accuse me of being biased or trying to make the article nonsense. I've worked hard on bettering this article. The current version that I saw before the change seemed to say that it was foolproof. My version states that it is only used to reduce risk and is not perfect. Also the bit about using them to carry water shouldnt' be included. Chooserr 01:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to side with Chooserr on one thing: I've never ever heard of the water-carrying thing. Every time I read it, my eyebrow involuntarily ascends my forehead somewhere into my hairline. This claim needs to be sourced. Kasreyn 03:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

That part about other uses doesn't have to be in the lead, though it does belong somewhere. These other uses are easily cited. Consider this text:

Condoms are a popular choice of water-holding devices to keep in pocket-sized wilderness survival kits. They take up less room and weight than any other workable water-holder I know of. [10]

See? Al 03:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't oppose including it, but it's certainly a very minor use. It definitely doesn't belong in the intro. I'd prefer to have it in a Trivia section, or an Other Uses section. Kasreyn 17:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Condoms reduce the chances of various unwanted consequences of sex, but that's not why people use them. People use them for the purpose of preventing these consequences, knowing full well that this purpose cannot be fully achieved by this or any other method. I've altered the text to reflect this. Al 02:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I see. they "can reduce" but they're "used to prevent". That makes sense. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I saw the blurb on WP:AN/I and thought I'd take a look and offer an outside opinion. I was really scratching my head at the holding water thing, even after reading Al's link above. Granted, most of my camping experience is with Boy Scouts and carrying water in a condom is not exactly a Scout skill ... but regardless of that, even if using a condom to carry water is a legitimate thing and not one person's opinion, it doesn't really belong in the introduction, IMO. If it really is a legitimate use you want to cover in the article, I'd move the sentence and link down to the "Other uses for condoms" section. As for the main dispute - prevent vs reduce - why not split the difference and say, "reduce the risk of or prevent"? That wording would admit both realities - the hope is to prevent, but in reality, there is no such thing as absolute prevention. BigDT 05:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for joining us. As I said above, I'm fine with non-sexual uses of condoms being moved out of the lead. I just don't want accurate, cited information to be removed. The very fact that some people are scratching their heads at the uses of condoms in campting and such is good reason to include it.

As for "reduce the risk of or prevent", with all due respect, I don't think that works. Again, there's a distinction between purpose and result. The purpose is to prevent, the result is to reduce the risk. In the lead, we should stick to the purpose. There's plenty of place later in the article to discuss just how well condoms do or don't work. Al 05:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I would point out one thing - The Trojan website says "reduce" (the condom people, not the football team) BigDT 05:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I read that, and they're clearly discussing the result, not the purpose. Al 05:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the bit about water from the introduction and added it along with a link in the "Other uses ..." section ... good night all BigDT 05:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

That's perfectly fine. Night. Al 05:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

To Moink

Please see the section above on "sabotage". I originally inserted the claim that there was a "site". It was later edited to "sites" against my advice. I only know, as in with concrete knowledge, of one site that passed out such advice. I merely suspect there are others. The section on "sabotage" above will explain how this section of the article came to be. Cheers, Kasreyn 20:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Condom usage and lubrication

I came across this link and I think details from it should be added, assuming there is no conflicting info [11]. However I'm too tired (I've already added it to the anal sex article). Nil Einne 06:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Condom pores

I believe we should make some mention of the misnomer that undamaged condoms have pores large enough for HIV to pass through. While the article kind of hints that this isn't true, since this completely discredited claim is still repeated, I think we should mention it or at least mention that it isn't true (say something like, the vast majority of undamaged condoms do not have pores large enough... and are effective barriers...). These links may help http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a940506.html http://www.who.int/reproductive-health/rtis/male_condom.html http://www.iaen.org/qa/answer/10756/ Nil Einne 06:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Infobox for individual birth control method articles

Let's all work on reaching a consensus for a new infobox to be placed on each individual birth control method's article. I've created one to start with on the Wikipedia Proposed Infoboxes page, so go check it out and get involved in the process. MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 12:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I see a problem with this, though not a major one: Condoms are not only a method of birth control, but also a primary countermeasure or protection against STD's. As in, they have dual functions. Would it be possible to have multiple infoboxes, or would we wind up deciding on one and structurally marginalizing the other function of the subject? Cheers, Kasreyn 15:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It's probably best to keep this discussion on the proposed infobox page, since there are so many birth control methods, and we don't really want the talk scattered all over the various article talk pages. MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 16:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

External links

Hi There, I recently added a couple of external links. I believe the source is reliable and the content really is of high quality. I'll sum them up and hope we can agree at least a couple of them should be in the list of external links.

Usage instructions movie normal condoms. A high quality usage instruction movie in two different formats. Better of quality then the link to a condom usage instruction movie already in the external links.

Do's & Don'ts when using condoms A list of things you should do and should not do with a condom.

[http://www.condomerie.com/condoms/condom_history.php History of the condom] An article which describes the history of the condom.

Church and condoms An arictle about the role of the catholic church and condom use.

Discovering the Rubbertree An article by biologist Willem Meijer about the discovery of the Rubbertree.

Measering System for Condoms How condoms are measure and the size of the condom (especially the circumference) is very important for safe usage.

These all appear to be commercial links to my eyes, especially if added en mass to the article. Wikipedia is not a collection of links or a replacement for google. If these topics are important to the article, we can discuss what link is best to represent it. --TeaDrinker 15:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I can understand that these articles can appear commercial cause they where added at once. They are however not. But I can find myself in a discussion on which link would fit best. The last link I already deleted. I think it doesn't add to much to the subject. The instruction movie however I think is much better of quality then the one which is in the current article. Do's & Don'ts can be seen as a service from the company as it seems, so that can be left out also. The measurement system is, in my eyes very important when choosing the right condom. This however only makes sense within the context of a webshop, so that also can be left out, if that is experienced as a commercial link. I have to state however that condom circumference is very important and that a part of the article maybe should discuss this. The three articles (history of the condom, Church and condoms, and Discovering the Rubbertree) are however articles that are great links with great informational value.

The links that I think of as valueable I've made BOLD. The ones that can be left out, I've made Italic. I'd like to hear what you think of this selection. --Incorrectio 08:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Gold One

I have heard that the italian term "goldone" is derived from "Gold One", first brand of condoms imported in Italy during WWII. I don't have any reference, though - could somebody have a check? Lo'oris - ロホリス 12:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

duplicate categories?

I don't think any other birth control articles are in both a sub-category (such as 'barrier contraception' or 'hormonal contraception') and also in the top-level category 'birth control'. Is there a special reason for condoms to be in both categories? Lyrl ^Talk _Contribs 23:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Failure rates?

Some of the info in the article on failure rates is rather strange... for instance, the claim that 21% of women who "use" a female condom will become pregnant "within the first year". There are a lot of unspoken assumptions in this. What is the frequency of sexual intercourse per year? Does whatever study this 21% number come from, also note the specific frequency or total number of acts of intercourse in that year? One can surely expect a vast difference in expected failure rates between a woman who has sex five times in a year, and a woman who has sex 100 times in the same year. (Specifically, we would expect the second woman, all other factors being equal, to be twenty times likelier to become pregnant).

In short, basing claims on a per-year forecast seems very strange when there is a much simpler and more meaningful standard: per intercourse. Can anyone find any information on the per-use failure rate of female condoms? That would be a much more useful piece of information for our readers, as they can then multiply the per-use failure rate by their own level of sexual activity in order to more accurately judge the risks they face. Kasreyn 02:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello Kasreyn,

I'm sorry I don't know the exact study in which this took place, but I've found quite a few links that say it has a 21% failure rate, and often then seem to say that it means 21 out of 100 women become pregnant - not just 21 out of a hundred breaks. So...I don't know what else to say. I can give more links if you want.

Also thank you to everyone who corrected my spelling errors.

Chooserr 08:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Per-use failure rates would depend on which part of the menstrual cycle the intercourse occured in. Studies have shown pregnancy rates as high as 80% in the first cycle - 60% from a single act of intercourse - for couples trained to identify the most fertile days. A condom break, or a failure to put on a condom, on a fertile day would result in a high risk of pregnancy. And many couples use fertility awareness as a method of birth control, having unprotected intercourse for half or more of the menstrual cycle without fear of pregnancy. A condom break, or a failure to put on a condom, on an infertile day would not result in a risk of pregnancy.

The high variance of fertility during the menstrual cycle is why rates are calculated per year and not per act of intercourse. (This is true of all studies of birth control methods, not just condoms.) Reliable studies include thousands or tens of thousands of cycles of exposure, and so can average out differences in frequency and timing of sexual activity.

Also realize that typical failure rates include all couples who intended to use that method of birth control. Some of those couple did not actually use the method at every act of intercourse. Lyrl ^Talk _Contribs 00:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Perfect use failure rates - 2% or 3%?

It looks like the 16th edition of Contraceptive Technology listed a perfect use failure rate of 3% per year for condoms. And lots of webpages used that source.

The latest (18th) edition of Contraceptive Technology lists a perfect use failure rate of 2% for condoms, and that is starting to appear in more recently created/updated websites. I assume the authors had good reasons for changing the rate (newer studies, etc.) and would support changing the rates listed in this article to match.

How do others feel about this? Lyrl ^Talk _Contribs 17:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Well its pretty small anyways, but I wasn't sure why it is being changed. Is there anyway you could find the study in which has spurred this latest change? I'm not too good with google anymore...or at least I can't find what I want with it.

Chooserr 08:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I indented your comments by putting a colon (:) in front of them - it makes it easier to see when different people make comments. I hope that is OK.

Contraceptive Technology is actually a book, so I don't have access to it online (though they do have a website related to the book. I suppose I could go to the library and see if they have a copy? Other than that, I'm not sure how to find out why they changed.

It seems to be a very highly respected book, however, quoted by all sorts of medical websites, and that popularity is what made me trust their new number. Lyrl ^Talk _Contribs 00:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

What is their specific definition of failure rate? In some studies, failure is considered to be reported breakage or slipage of the condom, while in other studies, a measure like presence of sperm or prostate specific antigen is defined as failure. Of course, it might also refer to perfect use pregnancy rates. One study which assessed all three is

• Walsh, Terri, Ron Frezieres, Karen Peacock, Anita Nelson, Virginia Clark, Leslie Bernstein, and Brian Wraxal. 2004. Effectiveness of the male latex condom: Combined results for three popular condom brands used as controls in randomized clinical studies. Contraception 70:407-413.

reports

• Consistent use breakage: 0.4%
• Consistent use slippage: 1.1%
• Consistent use PSA detection: 1.2%
• Six mentral cycle pregnancy rate for consistent use: 1% (roughly 2% in 12 months, assuming monthly cycles)

I'm not sure how much detail is needed in the article, but keeping these things in mind is useful when reading though something as vague as failure rates. --TeaDrinker 04:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

They've published a table from the book on the web, and it defines failure rate as "% of Women Experiencing an Unintended Pregnancy within the First Year of Use." Lyrl ^Talk _Contribs 17:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and changed it to 2%. I was debating citing it in the table, but it looks a bit ackward (since the percent is preformated it looks like 2^[1]%, which may be confusing). We should probably find some way of citing it in text.

Well I don't have a lot of information at hand, and this book might be reliable, but really is there anything to cross reference with this book? Or are all the sources just taking their word for it now? Chooserr 01:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

There is the study TeaDrinker found (I'm retyping it here - actually copying from User:Diberri's PubMed tool - so it's available in citejournal form:

Walsh T, Frezieres R, Peacock K, Nelson A, Clark V, Bernstein L, Wraxall B (2004). "Effectiveness of the male latex condom: combined results for three popular condom brands used as controls in randomized clinical trials". Contraception. 70 (5): 407–13. PMID 15504381.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - 1% failure rate in six months.

And I also came up with a couple more with a PubMed search:

"Avanti: similar efficacy to latex, more breaks". Contracept Technol Update. 18 (10): 123–5. 1997. PMID 12321211. - 3.1% failure for Avanti (polyurethane), 1.2% for latex in six months

Steiner M, Taylor D, Feldblum P, Wheeless A (2000). "How well do male latex condoms work? Pregnancy outcome during one menstrual cycle of use". Contraception. 62 (6): 315–9. PMID 11239619.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - 0% failure rate amoung 234 women followed for one cycle. (Because this was a very short and small study, however, the confidence interval includes up to 10% per-year failure rate.)

Faúndes A, Elias C, Coggins C (1994). "Spermicides and barrier contraception". Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 6 (6): 552–8. PMID 7893963.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - says different studies find failure rates of 2%-13% (presumably the 2% is the perfect-use rate, and 13% is typical-use, as I've never seen perfect-use condom rate as high as 13%!)

Dicker D, Wachsman Y, Feldberg D, Ashkenazi J, Yeshaya A, Goldman J (1989). "The vaginal contraceptive diaphragm and the condom--a reevaluation and comparison of two barrier methods with the rhythm method". Contraception. 40 (4): 497–504. PMID 2582773.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - 3.2% pregnancy rate after 2 years (note this is actual failure, not perfect-use, although the study does note "All [participants] were highly motivated.")

I did not find any studies on PubMed with higher perfect-use failure rates for condoms. The rates found in the above studies (1% over six months, 0% over one month, and 3% over 2 years) all support the 2% over one year assertion. Lyrl ^Talk _Contribs 23:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Religion and condoms section?

Does this really help the article? The religions that oppose condom use (Catholicism, Orthodox Judaism, Quiverfull movement, and the article says Hindu but I've never heard of that) - all oppose a variety of methods of birth control, not just condoms, and have greatly differing rationales. It seems appropriate to discuss in a general article such as birth control, but none of these religions have teaching specifically on condoms, so I'm not sure about that discussion in the condom article.

This section also ends in a sex education debate. Because condoms (as STD protection) are a central part of most comprehensive sexuality education programs, I can see this discussion contributing to the article. Would there be support for changing the religious section to a sex education section? Lyrl ^Talk _Contribs 00:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I don't see why we can't just copy some of the information if it is needed on another page, but why must we remove it when it directly pertains to the matter at hand (condoms) instead of going into all the other forms as would a general religious attitudes to birth control article or even sexual education article. Chooserr 20:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

No religion has a teaching specifically on condoms. I don't see how it pertains to the matter at hand - except through religious opposition to programs that promote condom usage. So I would find a section on programs that promote condom usage, which would include discussion of religious opposition, to be relevent. But a general discussion of "religious attitutes toward condoms" (which again, no religion has a teaching specifically on condoms) is what I'm not sure about. Lyrl ^Talk _Contribs 01:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikibooks article nominated for deletion

The Use of male condoms article on Wikibooks (linked to in the 'causes of failure' section) has been nominated for deletion. In case anyone was interested. Lyrl ^Talk _Contribs 23:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

What exaclty does 'causes of failure' mean? Someone reported that they took the advise and it failed? If that is the case then it should be re-written in wikibooks and improved not thrown out the window. However if you are suggesting that if it is deleted we should "save the information" on this page than I'd say - I don't think it's a great Idea. Chooserr 15:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The Wikibooks article covers only usage, not failure. The link to the Wikibooks article appears in the "Causes of failure" section of this Wikipedia article. Sorry about the confusion.

I only posted the information as a notice, since Wikipedia editors might be interested in the state of the Wikibook article, but not be active on Wikibooks to notice the deletion nomination. Not to make any suggestions about where the information should go. Lyrl ^Talk _Contribs 22:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The Cave

I notice that someone had cited the 15,000 year old cave section, and someone else removed the citation needed tag. But I'd at least like to know the name of the cave. Can whoever added that comment in the first place please tell us the name so we can add it to the article? Chooserr 18:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

All I know is what the cite says. The web cite does reference a book, if someone is interested enough to get it from a library:

Parisot, Jeannette. (1987). Johnny Come Lately: A Short History of the Condom. Translated and enlarged by Bill McCann. London: Journeyman Press Ltd. ISBN 1851720006

Lyrl ^Talk _Contribs 22:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

On further investigation, it might be "Grotte des Combarelles." However, many websites claim those paintings date to 100-200 A.D., and the about.com page says that, while graphic, the paintings don't actually depict condoms use. Hmm. Lyrl ^Talk _Contribs 23:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

2% per year

"The method failure rate of condoms is 2% per year."

I'm really curious what's meant by per year. Does this mean if you have sex with a girl for a year then the chance of her getting pregnant is 2%?

That is more or less it exactly. See the above section titled Perfect use failure rates - 2% or 3%? for the discussion of this number. --TeaDrinker 16:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)