Talk:Condom/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Effectiveness study results

Consider the following sentence, occurring under the header Effectiveness: The typical use pregnancy rate among condom users varies depending on the population being studied,that is how you were born the condom broke, ranging from 10–18% per year.[46] The perfect use pregnancy rate of condoms is 2% per year. I think the meaning of the phrase 'x% per year' is unclear here. Condom failure would be just a percentage IMO, e.g. 2 out of 100 times = 2%. The 'per year' part is either redundant or not well explained. Unfortunately I couldn't retrieve the original study. I suggest using this source: http://www.americanpregnancy.org/preventingpregnancy/malecondom.html. This source indicates a typical use failure rate of 14-15% and an effectiveness of over 95% with perfect use.(Thepillow (talk) 09:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC))

Sentence with no end

In the section about rubber manufacturing (History chapter), there is a sentence that ends like this: they could stretch and did not tear quickly when. Tear quickly when what? (Thepillow (talk) 09:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC))

Snugger Fit

I think something should be mentioned about snugger fit condoms, if not an entire article dedicated to them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dontknowhow89 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

A section about sizing should be added. Wikipedia is a popular source for information and I'd consider it highly preferably if Wikipedia could feature definitive information on condom sizing as many sites are unreliable. Almost all distributors and manufacturers of condoms measure the length and width the condoms. Condoms are essentially a cylindrical bag and therefore principles that apply to circles are involved. Circles are not measured with width, they have diameter. There is a very important difference with width and diameter in relation to condoms. The "width" is measured by flattening a condom and measuring the flattened width. Anyone with a basic understanding of mathematics and anatomy will realize that the width of a flattened condom has no direct relationship to a penis. This method of measurement only has any validity when it is multiplied by two, this will equal the circumference of the condom. This is important as the two easily measured things on a penis are the circumference (girth) and length. This information is not immediately obvious. It is an easy mistake to think that when manufacturers and distributors of condoms are referring to diameter when reading about the condom's "width"; no one flattens their penis to measure. If anyone misunderstands the dimensions of the condom, they may be using an I'll fitting condom which will cause problems with it's effectiveness. If the "width" of a condom is described as half the circumference of the condom and accompanied by a chart that can be acquired from any sex advice site, you will have the most useful condom size guide on the entire net. The thickness of the condom should be mentioned in calculating the inner circumference of the condom however it is negligible. If a condom has a width of 2.5" it's circumference is 5" which is reliable enough information considering the elasticity of condoms. No site I have found mentions these facts on the width of condoms. I cannot stress thew stupidity of this. The mathematical principles of a circle/sphere are relevant to a condom and therefore width in this manner is completely useless, mainly because no one measures the width of a circle, you can't technically, it has a diameter instead due to the inclusion of pi.

Spray-On Condom

The information about the spray-on condom is inaccurate. The project is delayed, if not stopped for good. Should be corrected or rather added. Reference is here. Wikisisou (talk) 22:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Condoms around the world

I found this http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/personal/10/31/mf.safe.sex/index.html about efforts to get people to use condoms in various countries (Ethiopia, India) - but I'm not sure exactly where this belongs. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

In Britain they may be called French letters

They may have been called that in the past (I believe in the 1940's), but today if you walked into a chemist in Britain and asked for a french letter, most wouldnt understand and condom is the most popular name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sailor iain (talk • contribs) 23:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Condom use among pedophiles

Have there ever been studies on the percentage on pedophiles and/or rapists that use condoms ? The idea is that the more people have sex in unhibited, illicit or illegal ways, the less they are likely to use condoms. Gang members and average criminals have reportedly used less contraception than the average population, is least in terms of the ratio on condom/per/intercourse. ADM (talk) 12:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Effectiveness

This index relies on several assumptions, such as "typical" number of times a person has sex per year, and yes, as noted below,proper use of a condom. What is more relevant is "WHAT IS THE EFFECTIVENESS PER COPULATION". That is assuming healthy sperm and actual, proper use of a condom. I figure that is fairly low, resulting form leakage (poor material) or breakage (if not noticed and the condom is not replaced) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.190.37.139 (talk) 23:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

On the "strange wording" issue in this section, the statement that non-perfect use includes those who "simply [do] not bother to use a condom" strikes me as rather odd. How can somebody using a condom contribute to the stats on the failure rate of condoms? Jacob (talk) 17:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

One way to look at is something like Viagra pills, if somebody misses one pill they are still "Feeling good" as using the pill. Likewise, if they are in a study group where they are using condoms for pleasure, or they say that condoms is the method they are using, etc. Then instances where they didn't actually use a condom count as failures to use the method correctly (rather than a change of method). (This topic came up before in one of the birth control articles, but I can't find the thread to link to at the moment.) (or put another way - it is the difference between intention and action). Zodon (talk) 23:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the sentence "Even if no breakage or slippage is observed, 1–2% of women will test positive for semen residue after intercourse with a condom" is misleading because it refers to a test of Prostate-specific antigen residue rather than semen residue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.103.35 (talk) 15:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

STD protection

How is it that there is simply "Yes". The body of the article implies that ti is quite imperfect (85% for the VIH) ? I find this very misleading 92.129.183.192 (talk) 20:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Assume you are talking about the birth control infobox in the lead. The box provides a summary of common information about methods. Condoms provide significant levels of protection against STDs. (Many other methods provide little or no protection.) Of course the level of protection varies depending on the STD and on how well the method is used. As you note, the body of the article provides more detail. Zodon (talk) 00:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

According to a 2000 report by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), correct and consistent use of latex condoms reduces the risk of HIV/AIDS transmission by approximately 85% relative to risk when unprotected, putting the seroconversion rate (infection rate) at 0.9 per 100 person-years with condom, down from 6.7 per 100 person-years.[52]

The workshop that is ref 52 gets this data from "Davis KR and Weller SC. The Effectiveness of Condoms in Reducing Heterosexual Transmission of HIV. Fam Plann Perspect. 1999; 31(6):272-279." is specifically about heterosexual sex. The paragraph should state this.

NB Davis and Weller also published a new review in 2002 at http://apps.who.int/rhl/reviews/CD003255.pdf also citing an 80ish percentage number for heterosexual transmission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.240.0.109 (talk) 06:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Picture of penis with condom

They could do away with the penis picture or make it more ad block friendly. I want to read that section but do not want to look at a penis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.60.130 (talk • contribs)

This edit added a picture of a penis that is claimed in the caption to have a condom on it. The picture is of much lower quality than most of the pictures in the article (poorly exposed, poorly framed, not clear that it has a condom or that condom applied properly). Since it is not a clear depiction of a condom it doesn't add to the article, and the low quality of the photograph detracts from the overall article quality.

No reason was given for its addition. "Wikipedia is not censored" (the edit summary given with the addition) does not provide a reason for adding information to the article, and does not address the problems with this image. Zodon (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

User who kept removing the image of the condom was blocked as seen here [1]. It was cleary stated in the edit summary that wikipedia is not censored WP:CENSORED and removing the image of a condom in use on the condom page is censorship. WP:OWN if this image is deemed not to be needed only after the talk and reasons show the image be removed not before. Yourname (talk) 22:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Current picture is good for the purpose, but I'd still press for a better quality picture and one more suited to an encyclopaedia. The crumpled up, crusty looking 80's bed sheets aren't ideal, nor is the resolution. In the mean time, it must stay as this encyclopaedia isn't censored.--218.143.102.89 (talk) 01:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The current picture does nothing for the purpose of illustrating the usage of a condom that the right hand side panel of illustrations does not do. Furthermore, the picture is of poor quality and composition. That Wikipedia is not censored is no excuse for unnecessary personal additions in the guise of illustrative content. I recommend its removal. 38.117.185.152 (talk) 20:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Reverting changes made by Yourname. Block log shows evidence of wiki-vandalism [2]. Regarding the non-censorship of content, at question here is not whether the removal of the image is censorship, but rather whether the addition of the image is necessary. The illustration on the right hand side do adequate job of demonstrating the process of putting on a condom, whereas the picture on the left does not add anything. Zodon's concerns are reasonable regarding picture content. Aintaer (talk) 16:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Use picture

The "use" section of this article has for some time contained a line drawing showing in four panels how to apply a condom. This drawing was recently replaced with an eight-panel series of photographs: Image:Pullcondom.jpg

I believe the line drawing is superior for two main reasons:

• It provides the same quality of information in half the number of panels. Many readers would have to scroll to view all eight panels of the photo series, while the line drawings can be viewed all on one screen.
• Some readers are made uncomfortable by images of genitalia. If a photo contributes something important to an article, it should be included. But if the same information can be provided by a non-graphic image, the article quality can be maintained while making it accessible to a wider audience by using the non-graphic image.

Lyrl^Talk _C 21:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that, in terms of technical quality, one image is any better than the other. Given the nature of the topic and the issues above, I think therefore the drawing should be used. Wikipedia may not be censored, but there is no need to illustrate something in a manner which is more off-putting (to some) than necessary. --TeaDrinker (talk) 20:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that the photograph is slightly clearer, but I don't have a strong preference for it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the "drawing" File:CondomUse2 alternative.jpg was in fact made by processing the 4 photograph sequence File:CondomUse.jpg. I would personally choose this unprocessed version as the illustration for the page. I feel it is clearer. Generally, for illustrating sex acts the consensus comes down in favor of artwork of some sort, as photographs are so strongly associated with internet porn (with its unsafe joyless sex and credit card scams!). But putting on a condom is the last thing anyone associates with pornography. --Simon Speed (talk) 21:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Citations in infobox

A user has requested sources for the 10-18% pregnancy rate given in the infobox. I have, for the moment, added cites for those figures using the sources in the "Effectiveness" section. As I don't believe cites are necessary in an infobox where the information is sourced elsewhere in the article, I'd prefer to remove them, but I'm looking for consensus here, since I'm averse to removing cites that have been requested. What do others think? --RexxS (talk) 20:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, when the infobox template was first introduced, several of the articles had cites inside the template. After a few months, they were all removed. Considering that the birth control infoboxes have been stable without cites for a couple of years now, I'd say that's a pretty strong consensus against them.

Sometimes when a cite is requested, I'll add a wikilink to where the information is cited (e.g. the "secondary applications" wikilink in the lead). I'm not sure that's needed in the infobox, but linking to the effectiveness section is an option if others want a softer response than just deleting the cites. Lyrl^Talk _C 16:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that's an excellent idea. I've commented out the refs and wikilinked to numbers to the "In preventing pregnancy" section. Hopefully that will meet all concerns. Feel free to alter it if you're not happy with how it is now. --RexxS (talk) 16:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Condom template

I've made Template:Condom. I would appreciate any feedback on formatting, article inclusion, and whether it would be useful on this page. Lyrl^Talk _C 16:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Should be fixed!

STD's (Sexually Transmitted Disease) are what they used to be called. I am hopeing that someone may be able to fix this error on the page and change it to STI's (Sexually Transmitted Infections) which, is what they are currently refered to.--59.101.59.177 (talk) 07:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article is called sexually transmitted disease and the folks who work on that page believe it is still the most common term. Any change in Wikipedia usage should probably start over at that page, not here. Lyrl^Talk _C 13:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Poorly manufactured condoms in Africa

Zambian authorities have withdrawn defective condoms from the market. A test on the condoms imported from India revealed that they have holes. The entire batch of scented condoms imported by a Zambian company, Melcome Pharmaceutical, had been confiscated by Zambia Bureau of Standards. Perhaps the matter of poorly manufactured condoms in third-world countries could be mentioned within the existing article. [3][4][5][6] ADM (talk) 03:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't decide about this. Including information about manufacturing quality is reasonable, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and we wouldn't want to overemphasize a one-time thing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Study method?

Both in the introduction and the "In prevenenting pregnancy" section, the unit of measure of the pregnancy rate is percentage of pregnancies per year. This information would be much more interesting if you also knew how often they had sexual intercourse, as you could then tell the actual fail percentage of the condom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pål Ræv (talk • contribs) 13:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The average couple in most birth control studies has sex twice a week. Per-intercourse failure rates would be meaningless, however, because of the huge variability in female fertility. During some parts of the menstrual cycle, a single act of unprotected intercourse results in pregnancy more than 60% of the time. During other parts of the menstrual cycle, a woman could have unprotected intercourse all day long with virtually zero risk of pregnancy. Lyrl^Talk _C 19:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Catholic Views on Condoms

The article had said: "The Roman Catholic Church directly condemns any sexual acts aside from married intercourse, and also condemns all birth control methods it classifies as "artificial".[95]"

While this is true, I think it is highly misleading in that it implies the catholic church accepts married intercourse as an exception to its ban on sexual activity, when in reality the permissive acts are only a small subset of married intercourse- opposite sex couples only, vaginal intercourse only, ejaculation in the vagina only, no foreign objects (no syringes or tubes to inject semen for fertilization, even if obtained from the husband, during sex; no dildos et cet), no intent to reduce conception chance (i.e. attempting to abstain from ejaculation), et cet. I've changed this to a longer sentence that is a more accurate. They oppose intent to prevent conception, foreign objects in sex (including those lowering conception chance), and technique during sex that lowers conception chances (whether purposefully or not). Their positions are pretty muddled, so it would be difficult to give a concise statement that is accurate and citeable, but I believe the above is essentially correct.--Δζ (talk) 05:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that you've gone far beyond the named source and are inappropriately projecting your own negative opinion into this. It would be just as true to say that the Roman Catholic Church strongly praises sexual activity under appropriate (according to them) circumstances as it is to say that they strongly condemn sexual activity under inappropriate (according to them) circumstances.

In addition to going far beyond the named source in the level of detail, the wording you've proposed leaves the reader with the incorrect sense that the RCC thinks that sex is inherently bad or dirty. The linked source, on the other hand, shows them using words like noble, honorable, meritorious, and worthy to describe sexual activity. I think that the previous simple statement of facts was less misleading than the change that you made.

I also question whether the issue of marriage is even relevant to this article. "Using a condom to prevent an out-of-wedlock pregnancy" doesn't seem to produce a materially different reaction from the RCC compared to "using a condom to prevent an in-wedlock pregnancy". WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that my comments are far beyond the sources, however; such sources are readily found by catholic scholars, and generally the catechisms themselves establish every one of my contentions. I was only mentioning them to take issue with the then-present presentation of the issue- personally I find the detail irrelevant and agree its beyond the sources, but I'd rather have a correct unsourced statement than an incorrect or misleading one. We could just take it all out though, which is what I'd prefer, and stick to what they say about condems, which has nothing to do with marriage. The issue originally was what was actually stated by the article which was misleading- that married intercourse is not condemned. I personally don't see what marriage has to do with this at all- condoms are not allowed, the marital status is irrelevant. And yeah, the church finds all attempts to prevent pregnancy to be grave sins, married or not.--Δζ (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Currently the article states: "The use of condoms to combat STDs is not specifically addressed by Catholic doctrine, and is currently a topic of debate among theologians and high-ranking Catholic authorities. A few, such as Belgian Cardinal Godfried Danneels, believe the Catholic Church should actively support condoms used to prevent disease, especially serious diseases such as AIDS.[96] However, the majority view—including all statements from the Vatican—is that condom-promotion programs encourage promiscuity, thereby actually increasing STD transmission.[97][98] This view was most recently reiterated in 2009 by Pope Benedict XVI.[99]" I think this is misleading, as it suggests there is uncertainty whether condoms are acceptable under present doctrine for STD prevention, and especially because it suggests that utilitarian perspective of condoms increasing promiscuity and therefore STD incidence is the basis for the church's opposition to condoms for this purpose (really its just that condoms and their use are bad because they lessen the chance of conception and people know this when using them even if they don't have such intent). Is there any objection to simply changing this to include a statement that condoms for STD prevention are also banned as they prevent (or are intended to prevent/known to lessen) conception? The views on policy change should be left in, but it should be clarified that condoms are expressly banned and STD prevention as an intent is irrelevant. (Even if the partners were sterile and thereby weren't using the condom to lessen conception chance but only to reduce STD risk, the act of sex would still be a grave sin, though not for the use of the condom but for the sex itself- as sterile people may not have sex.) --Δζ (talk) 17:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Your assertions simply aren't true. There is no rule that says sterile people may not have sex; the example of Sarah being claimed to conceive in her old age, despite being both barren and postmenopausal is routinely cited as "proof" that it is not only acceptable, but divinely rewarded.

Instead of pushing your personal beliefs, why don't you look at the authoritative sources, and try summarizing what they directly say, instead of trying to summarize how some people misunderstand or misapply them? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it is my burdon to support my claims. I will try and do so shortly. I don't understand why you presume I don't look at authoritative sources or why I'm pushing my personal point of view- asides of course from my point of view that I'm correct and that my edits are acceptable. The fact that you've presumed these things and stated so makes this discussion seem to be more antagonistic than it need be. If you want sources or wish to challenge something, you may simply do so without inferring extraneous motives or incompetence. If I've misunderstood you, I appologize, but if not, I'd appreciate it if in the future you'd simply request sources or challenge edits without inferring motivation or avoidance of proper sources- at least where such isn't shown to be relevant and derived from identified edits I've made, which would at least allow me the ability to contest the relevant claims (I don't know how the preceding claims are relevant in this case nor how you've came to this conclusion, for example).

Hopefully I'll be able to get some citations soon. In the meantime, I presume you object to the proposed changes in their entirety, since you've not indicated your position as to them with any particularity, and hold of on the edits, however; I only intend to post here those citations needed to rebut your challenges, so do indicate any further issues or I'll presume you have none.

Thanks, have a pleasant Valentine's Day :D.--Δζ (talk) 23:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Considering the recent developments here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11804398 I suggest some minor edits to the entries on the catholic position on condoms. In particular adding to the line "The Roman Catholic Church responded by issuing the encyclical Casti Connubii affirming its opposition to all contraceptives, a stance it has never reversed.[1]:228-9" the text "though it may be softening its position in light of the African AIDS epidemic".205.200.192.164 (talk) 00:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Contradiction?

The fourth paragraph of this section begins by explicitly claiming that "thinner condoms are as effective as thicker ones," yet goes on to say that some people think thinner condoms may be more prone to breakage. Which is it? 74.227.22.243 (talk) 00:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Emberwing, 22 September 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} The link for source #49 is the victim of link rot. If possible please use the following link in it's place: www.niaid.nih.gov/about/organization/dmid/documents/condomreport.pdf

My apologies if this is not the area to make this request. I was hoping to do a quick fix myself but I lack the authority; I simply don't have the time to review all the proper procedural guides at the moment.

Again, the link for Source #49 concerning the NIH publication "Workshop Summary: Scientific Evidence on Condom Effectiveness for Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) Prevention" is outdated. A pdf of the same report can now be found at www.niaid.nih.gov/about/organization/dmid/documents/condomreport.pdf

Thank you

Emberwing (talk) 05:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for your help! --Stickee (talk) 05:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Julius Fromm was a Polish Jew, not German

Julius Fromm was a Polish Jew, not German —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.236.7.160 (talk) 22:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Possible removal of picture

I think the photo of the used condom lying on the street is completely irrelevant, has no informational value and does not contribute to the article. It is also slightly disturbing and makes reading that section of the article cumbersome. Please consider my first reason as grounds for removal, as I know wikipedia is not censored and does not remove info based on editors personal feelings. Dylan (talk) 19:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. I saw that and was just like "seriously?". I can understand a picture of an erect penis with a condom on it, that is totally NORMAL and EFFECTIVE for clearly demonstrating the main subject of this article. I'm sure many people have come across condoms on the street or elsewhere so there's no reason to illustrate this. 76.11.60.85 (talk) 20:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Unknown use

In the late 90s, Turqeys scientists have discovered that the fiber that composes one of the layers contains special cells that deviates light in such a way that it enables blind people to see if put over the eyes. However, this only works at summer and with lubricated latex condoms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.252.108.114 (talk) 21:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Issues with "Criticism within sexual situations" section

This section has no citations. Also, some of the issues brought up are mentioned more concisely and neutrally, with a citation, in the second paragraph of the "Use" section. Liracott (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Neogami, 2 October 2011

I believe this article needs a very minor change. In the section headed "Rubber and Manufacturing Advances", the second paragraph describes Julius Fromm as a "Pole". This is not an appropriate way to describe the nationality of an individual. This needs to be changed as It's an offensive slur. It would be much more correct to simply say, Polish inventor Julius Fromm developed a new, improved manufacturing technique... etc

Neogami (talk) 19:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Done Carl Sixsmith (talk) 19:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Concerning references to "double bagging"

The references given in the arcticle that claim that the practice of "double bagging" actually increases chances of pregnancy are more or less just opinions and do not cite original research. A cursory search turned up http://journals.lww.com/jaids/Fulltext/1997/02010/Multiple_Condom_Use_and_Decreased_Condom_Breakage.11.aspx which seems to point in the direction of two condoms working better than one. I also refer to http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/PPFA/truth_about_condoms.pdf which seem to have looked at the literature and consider this more of an urban legend..

I propose replacing in the section 'Causes of failure'

"Double bagging," using two condoms at once, also increases the risk of condom failure.

with

"Double bagging", using two condoms at once, is often and wrongly believed to cause a higher rate of failure due to the friction of rubber on rubber. However, this claim is not supported by research. The limited studies that have been done on the subject support that double bagging is likely not harmful and possibly beneficial.

Rzztmass (talk) 09:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

•  Done - with a small tweak for weight. However was better removed as it seemed leading and I removed the word wrongly as that also seemed undue and better removed. Youreallycan (talk) 00:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Odd phrase in religious criticisms section

"...the Vatican's principles on sexuality and preservatives ...". What on Earth is meant by "preservatives"? Considering there were quite a few typos in the paragraph, I am wondering if an editor accidentally used a completely wrong word. Read most of the two citations in the para., the info is legit, couldn't find this word or phrase though. Only read "most" though... Huw Powell (talk) 00:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

You haven't heard "preservative" as a synonym of "condom", really? It's a perfectly cromulent English term, though to my sense a tad unusual/old-fashioned/euphemistic today. Try the Urban Dictionary entry. I think it's the normal word for condom in romance languages, so it's no wonder the Pope used it, I guess. You may be lucky they didn't call it "the Vatican's principles on French letters", lol. Bishonen | talk 13:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC).

Edit request on 30 October 2012

The link to "TheyFit" condoms is not valid, the URL of the TheyFit website is http://www.theyfit.co.uk and there is also a Wiki entry at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TheyFit

81.151.170.40 (talk) 14:57, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Done [7]. benzband (talk) 20:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Lambskin condoms and STDs

A while ago I posted an edit saying that it is presumed that lambskin condoms are less effective than latex condoms at preventing STDs but that this has not been clinically proven.

It appears that in the interim it has been edited to say they have been clinically proven to be less effective. The editor posts a reference link to the book "Our Bodies, Our Selves" and to promotional materials by planned parenthood. I have the Our Bodies, Our Selves book. It does not provide any scientific data demonstrating that lambskin condoms are less effective. Nor does the planned parenthood link.

I understand from a public health standpoint how it may be perceived as "doing the right thing" to promote safe sex messages to claim that this has been scientifically proven when it has not been. I have searched extensively on medline and in other sources to find any actual data on this question. There does not appear to be any.

Until such time as someone can produce actual scientific data evidencing that lambskin condoms are less effective, this must remain a presumption and not a proven fact. If someone wishes to edit this page and state that they have been clinically proven to be less effective, it should be done with a reference to a scientific study with data that shows that. References from generic popular "safe sex" materials that echo the common belief that they are less effective are not data. These are just popular beliefs.

It is certainly advisable and prudent to ACT as though this has been proven, but the fact is that it has not been proven. It is a presumption that we make based on other things that we know and for which scientific data are lacking.

If I'm wrong, I would be delighted if someone would post the actual scientific/clinical proof that they have about this. Wikipedia should be accurate. The articles should not make statements that we believe will be good for public health regardless of whether or not they are true. They should simply be true, for good or for bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Somekindofusername (talk • contribs) 08:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Origami Condoms

Here's something Bill Gates found: Origami Condoms! Check out their IndieGoGo page, in the meantime. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 02:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Push for FA status

I cleaned up the "other uses" section, which had some terrible citations (including one that out-and-out said "personal experience") and variable levels of specificity (smuggling drugs vs. smuggling alcohol into Gulag camps).

This is one of the items on the to-do list for FA status. I'm working my way through the list -- if there are no objections in the next day or so, I'll check "other uses" off of that list and get started on the next step.

Any comments on "other uses" and other FA considerations are welcome here! Triacylglyceride (talk) 05:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

This is the edit Triacylglyceride is referring to.

I'll alert WP:MED to this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 05:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

This article requires significant work. There is a fair number of unreferenced statements and a fair bit of popular press / primary sources that need replacement with secondary sources or removal. Have removed a few spammy / fringe statements. And organized per WP:MEDMOS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:25, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Awesome work; I'll take a long look at MEDMOS for my future edits. I've been primarily working off of the to-do list; great to have experienced eyes. I've taken out the bulk of the "major manufacturers" section -- it was basically the section from History of Condoms rendered into an unreadable list. Triacylglyceride (talk) 01:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The following line was slipped between the 50s and 60s of the history section:

>In the 20th century the invention of plastic and other man-made materials did not lead to an improvement in the quality of condoms. However the deterioration of the rubber became less rapid. Condoms became not only thinner but also more reliable. In 1995, plastic condoms went on the market in the USA.

It is self-contradictory (did not lead to an improvement... thinner but also more reliable), breaks the chronological order, and the note about plastic condoms gets discussed more specifically (polyurethane instead of "plastic") later. I am removing it entirely. Triacylglyceride (talk) 03:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2013

In the cultural barriers to use section please add the following text to the end of the section:

Middle-Eastern nulliparous couples, because of the strong desire and social pressure to establish fertility as soon as possible within marriage, rarely use condoms.

128.54.40.166 (talk) 23:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

References

Adjusted references and  Done Mlpearc (open channel) 02:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

STD/STI protection

As the article states, condoms lessen the chance of transmitting a great many STD/STIs, but yet in the lead HIV is highlighted. I tried to remove this citing WP:UNDUE, but a User disagrees with this. Can anyone justify overriding WP:UNDUE in the lead for this particular STD/STI? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 04:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

See here and here for the dispute that Scalhotrod is referring to. Like I stated, Scalhotrod, it is not WP:Undue weight to include mention of HIV in this way. When it comes to sexually transmitted infections/diseases (STIs/STDs), the effectiveness of condom use has been especially focused on and studied with regard to HIV/AIDS, more so than any other STI/STD, as is somewhat reflected by this section in the article. The WP:Lead is for summarizing the most significant aspects of an article. Summarizing the STI/STD aspect by including an example of an STI/STD in the lead, especially the most prominent STI/STD with regard to condom use, satisfies WP:Lead and WP:Due weight. You or I could query WP:MED to weigh in on this matter; anything else I state on this subject will be redundant. Flyer22 (talk) 04:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

In the Lead it is UNDUE and you have just admitted to your bias. There are several STI/STDs that are mentioned in the article "AIDS, genital herpes, cervical cancer, genital warts, syphilis, chlamydia, gonorrhea", but you feel that HIV is the most important and thus should be mentioned in the Lead. By highlighting one over the others, this is UNDUE. I am not saying that HIV is unimportant, just not deserving of the special attention you are giving it in the Lead. The article is about "condoms", not STI/STDs. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 07:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

It is not WP:UNDUE (I've never even seen anyone define WP:UNDUE in such a way), and I have explained that well. I'm going by best practice -- to give an example of what we are talking about when we state "sexually transmitted diseases," which any good WP:GA and good WP:FA reviewer would echo. And I'm going by the research with regard to condom use. And I'm going by WP:Lead. No bias anywhere in that. And like I stated, not much more for me to state on this matter. So I'll go ahead and alert WP:MED to this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 07:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

And as for AIDS, that's covered by HIV...since HIV is the virus that causes AIDS; that's why I noted "HIV/AIDS" above. But the lead should definitely state "HIV/AIDS" instead of just "HIV," especially since full-blown AIDS can be contracted. Flyer22 (talk) 07:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• HIV is special and deserves mention in the lede. The weight of the literature about condom use establishes HIV as needing special recognition. It would be undue to overlook this body of literature, when HIV is more covered than the other STIs put together. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
• I don't think this mention is overweight at all. For someone that is either young or has lower english comprehension skills, an example will provide an immediate frame of reference to the positive effects of condom use v. the generic STDs. My only critique would be that the link for HIV is to the virus whereas HIV/AIDS is the disease. I think it should link to the latter since you specify condom using preventing disease. Ian Furst (talk) 18:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I can see the practicality in that. Although WP is not a soapbox, I can understand the merits of Blue and Ian's points. Fair enough, I withdraw my objection if the link change is made. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

What Bluerasberry and Ian Furst stated on the matter is what I reasoned, except they did so in fewer words. Another option would have been to provide more than one example in the lead, which is what the Female condom article does. However, the female condom is not as well studied and is not as endorsed as the male condom has been/is, and I don't know how much HIV/AIDS or any other STI/STD has been studied with regard to it. Anyway, I changed the link to HIV/AIDS, per my and Ian Furst's suggestion on that. Flyer22 (talk) 20:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• Agree with what's been said about this being due weight; I thought this cite to the CDC site on condoms which singles out HIV infection (i.e. HIV/AIDS) in the context of STD prevention - illustrating that HIV/AIDS is not unduly emphasized in this context. -- Scray (talk) 12:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Content

Our text was "In the United States, possession of condoms is often used as evidence to charge women for engaging in prostitution."

Ref says "Yet city police are allowed to confiscate those very condoms as evidence of prostitution."

Yes it does not state "often" and than it states below " last year they will no longer use condoms as evidence in prostitution cases" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

This is noted as the first state to stop the practice. Hence it is widespread.

For example: http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/12/condom-possession-sex-workers-evidence-prostitution Hcobb (talk) 22:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

It says that there is legislation to make it illegal for the first time. It states that a number of prosecutors already do not allow it as evidence "The practice has come under criticism across the country, with prosecutors in San Francisco, Brooklyn and Nassau County in suburban New York City announcing last year they will no longer use condoms as evidence in prostitution cases." It also says "condom evidence was rarely of any value to a prosecution" So the ref does not support the content in question.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

We could add that police in the United States sometime accuse women who are carrying more than a few condoms of being prostitutes. And that there are efforts underway to end this practive. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:35, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

So if the AP isn't a very good source, then what about the Federal Government of the United States of America? Is that a good source?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3664300/ Condoms as evidence of prostitution in the United States and the criminalization of sex work

Hcobb (talk) 22:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

That is an excellent source. Great find. Feel free to adjust as you see fit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2014

The sentence "Other manufacturers, such as Durex, also produce smaller than average condoms such as Durex Love which is aimed at this end of the teenage market." should be removed because it's false, and has no citation to back it up. Here are two sources that show this is untrue. Durex Love should be replaced with "Durex Close Fit" or any other small fit listed on the charts.

http://contraception.about.com/od/malecondom/a/CondomSizeChart.htm http://www.condom-sizes.org/condom-size-chart/condom-size-chart Leafy953 (talk) 01:04, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I have Removed the entire paragraph that contained that sentence, since it is unsourced. Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires all content to be verifiable through reliable sources. Any content that is unsourced and challenged should be removed. With regards to changing it to "Durex Close Fit", About.com and Condom-sizes.org do not necessarily meet Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source. Further, they do not verify the information about "appeal to teenage market". Thus, I have simply removed the entire paragraph. Best, Mz7 (talk) 17:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Condoms decrease (allegedly, if you wish) male sexual pleasure

This issue is sort of swept under the rug, as if we should avoid talking about it because to talk about it will decrease condom use. I think this issue needs a section of its own. Many men compare a condom to "wearing a raincoat while taking a shower." There have certainly been efforts to improve the pleasurable aspects of condoms (textures, looser at tip, thinner), and these are mentioned, but the main point, that many men don't like them, I think deserves open treatment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deisenbe (talk • contribs) 14:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

High quality references are needed per WP:MEDRS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:20, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Deisenbe and Jmh649 (Doc James), there are certainly various WP:Reliable sources, WP:MEDRS-compliant ones as well, that report that some or many men find condoms uncomfortable and therefore something that decreases their sexual pleasure; a lot of men, because they prefer direct skin-to-skin contact, would rather not wear condoms when engaging in sexual activity with someone. See, for example, this 2001 encyclopedia book source (Encyclopedia of Women and Gender: Sex Similarities and Differences and the Impact of Society on Gender, Volume 2, page 1040), this 2005 scholarly book source (page 102), this 2012 scholarly book source (page 300; 320 for the URL link), and this 2013 scholarly book source (page 401, and the top part of page 402). Some sources, such as this 2013 scholarly book source (pages 163-165), document the type of surveys used to gauge reactions to condom use; some of the questions concern how comfortable condoms are, and includes questions regarding women who might find condoms uncomfortable or less desirable. Other sources, such as this 2013 scholarly book source (pages 140-143) about gay men and AIDS, report that condom use increases or decreases sexual pleasure for men; for example, it notes some men associating condom use with sexual excitement. As for condoms medically reducing sexual pleasure, that first 2013 scholarly book source I cited in this paragraph states, "The male condom decreases spontaneity, may pose sizing and erection problems and may reduce male sensation. In one study, more than 75% of men and nearly 40% of women reported decreased sexual sensation with condom use (Crosby et al., 2008)." And the 2012 book source I cited states, "in one study, 37% of men reported condom-associated erection loss on at least one occasion (Graham et al., 2006)." It also cites Crosby. I'm not sure whether or not the Crosby study was speaking from a social and/or medical point, and I'm not sure that we should give any WP:Weight to one study on the matter. Unless, of course, the study is shown to be WP:Notable (as seemingly the Crosby study is)...and there are only a few studies about condom use and decreased sexual pleasure in a medical sense (erection, etc.).

Perceptions about condom use are currently addressed at the beginning of the Society and culture section and in its Cultural barriers to use subsection. The beginning of the Society and culture section, part of which was recently expanded by Stevertigo, is meant to be an overview of its subsections, but some of it is currently unsourced. Flyer22 (talk) 03:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Materials

Latex is supposedly porous (see Sex_toy#Materials_used_in_sex_toys, so I'm wondering whether it is really a good material to block passing on sexually transmittable diseases.

Can someone clarify this ? I'm not sure whether condoms use "latex" as material even (as this is a liquid I believe), or whether it is "vulcanized latex" or "vulcanized rubber". Please clarify this in this article, and also mention the distinction and porosity of each at Sex_toy#Materials_used_in_sex_toys Also mention the distinction to "thermoplastic rubber" (TPR) and the difference in porosity.

KVDP (talk) 08:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2014

Environmental Impact of Condoms

In 2011, 45,000,000 condoms were sold worldwide. With each condom weighing roughly 1.8g, humans can generate up to 81,000,000,000 grams of uncessacary condom waste. This waste is extremely harmful for the environment when flushed down the toilet. Condoms can clog sewage pumps, and condoms can break down into what comprises it. . Research has even shown whole fish being trapped inside flushed condoms.The most abundant chemical in a condom is latex. This is a natural substance and can be found in many different forms of plant life. Rubber latex is the type that is primarily used for condoms. Rubber latex can be chemical broken down by water, called hydro-degradation, and by sunlight, called photo-degradation. There are two possible outcomes of latex reacting with water. The lighter particles form semi-volatile degraded particles. The polarity of the water pulls the latex apart. The sunlight heats the particles up until they evaporate. This is extremely harmful because this chemicals are toxic for the atmosphere once they become airborne. The heavier particles do not break apart, in turn becoming apart of the fish in the water diet's. . The next common chemical found in inside the condom is spermicide. In chemistry, it is better known as nonoxynol-9. In small doses, it is basically harmless. However, spermicide does not degrade easily thus the molecules have the potential to build upon each other. If a large enough dose is introduced into a fish's diet, the fish with become sterile. This is a serious risk if we are putting up to 81,000,000,000 grams of condoms into the water annually. Also this means we could be ingesting the chemicals though eating the fish or drinking tap water that is not sufficiently cleaned. . The last toxic chemical used in the condom is the lubricant. Oil-based and water-based lubricants are sold worldwide. The oil-based is far more harmful for the environment. Oil is less dense then water, thus it will remain on top of the water. In other words, it is insoluble. A major ingredient in the formation of lubricant is perchlorate. This chemical can be broken down by water, to create a poison like acid that travel through water supply systems. The incident at Lake Mead is all that is needed to show what the potential of a perchlorate build up in a water supply can do. This leads to a solution. Simply throwing the condoms in the trash is that is needed to avoid all of the risks mentioned above.

References

Jlewi79 (talk) 04:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

 Not done: I don't think this is of sufficient relevance to be included in the article. Also, it reads more like an essay or personal paper than an article, which makes in unfit for inclusion. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 14:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

How does the environmental harm of condoms compare with that of tires? With medicines excreted in urine? With the environmental impact of the babies not born through condom use?

No info on how many condoms flushed vs. discarded.

Is discarding them in the trash free of environmental impact? deisenbe (talk) 02:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)