Jump to content

Talk:Condom/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Hypoallergenic condoms

Can condoms made of guayule or Taraxacum kok-saghyz be mentioned ? Some companies are all ready producing these, see http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/allergic-to-rubber-gloves-and-condoms-heres-some-good-news/article1037228/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:12C7:F000:213:20FF:FE3B:A79E (talk) 09:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

New source

I found a new source saying that 2.7 percent of women will test positive for semen residue if no breakage or slippage is reported after intercourse with a condom. Previously it said 1-2% percent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joey13952 alternate account (talk • contribs) 05:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Causes of failure section: size DOES matter

As of 25/July/2015, the article includes (in the subsection Causes of failure):

Standard condoms will fit almost any penis, with varying degrees of comfort or risk of slippage. Many condom manufacturers offer "snug" or "magnum" sizes. Some manufacturers also offer custom sized-to-fit condoms, with claims that they are more reliable and offer improved sensation/comfort.[28][29][30] Some studies have associated larger penises and smaller condoms with increased breakage and decreased slippage rates (and vice versa), but other studies have been inconclusive.[31]

However, if you Google

condom size site:gov

or

condom size site:gov.au

you can immediately find research and several government sources warning that users should find appropriately sized condoms. My own 'original research' makes me certain that correctly sized condoms are essential to avoid painful ring-barking that encourages the male to finish asap, which is hardly likely to endear women or men to condoms. Similarly, it is highly desirable to avoid excess diameter to avoid slippage. Personally I'm shaped like a lighthouse (thicker at the base), so I've experienced both problems, and in each of the 3 decades that I have needed to purchase condoms I have found that most condoms are too uncomfortable for me to wear. I have, ahem, watched enough porn to note that my penis size and shape is not uncommon. I appreciate that cynical wikipedians might assume that different sizes of condoms are nothing more than market differentiation (and that no-one could have a penis significantly larger than their own :-), but I assure you this is not true. Given the importance of getting info out there, and that I am too busy to create a special purpose account, could an editor please just change the above par to what follows, citing as necessary. (I don't know if the last sentence is currently true, but I've got other things I need to do.)

Most condom manufacturers offer different sizes, and government medical advisory services recommend that condoms users find a brand and size that fits them. Some manufacturers claim that their better-fitting condoms are more reliable and offer improved sensation/comfort.[28][29][30] Some studies have associated larger penises and smaller condoms with increased breakage and decreased slippage rates (and vice versa), but other studies have been inconclusive.[31]


Given that the article already contains much un-cited material, could an editor also just boldly add the following at the end :

A fundamental cause of failure re condoms is that some men and some women have had previous experiences with condoms that they did not enjoy, and therefore avoid using condoms. Bad experiences with condoms are less likely if:
  • Users always apply an appropriate lubricant to the outside of the condom after it has been rolled onto the penis. This is because a penis inside the condom will not be able to feel if the vagina or anus has insufficient lubrication, and the woman (especially if she thinks the man is close to coming) may be reluctant to warn the man. Vigorously rubbing dry latex against dry skin can cause soreness, which leads to less arousal and less vaginal lubrication. Even a mainly aroused woman may momentarily become less aroused, especially during sustained sex; if this happens without lubrication then a vicious cycle can be established causing both partners to detest condoms.
  • Men 'practice' sex with a condom, i.e. they learn to masturbate with a condom on before using it with a partner.
  • Men experiment to find a brand and size of condom that fits the man. (If the condom is painfully tight at the base, it may assist to unroll it to it's full length and instead bunch up the excess length around the neck of the penis.)
  • Users note the benefits of condoms, e.g. that
    • condoms can assist delaying ejaculation thus helping longer love-making,
    • a 'belts & braces' approach to contraception of using both condoms and oral contraceptives avoids a minefield of issues re unwanted pregnancy, and this can make for more relaxed love-making.

124.171.7.98 (talk) 09:52, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Condom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

A better solution

There is a better solution to condoms. Stop sexual intercourse completely. Abstain, and be free from HIV, syphilis, gonorrhea and STDs. Else enjoy sex only with your legally married wife / wives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.204.142.213 (talk) 19:47, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

It is still possible to get or pass on a disease if one has a spouse. Only one person has to be infected. Misty MH (talk) 07:58, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Condom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Condom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Condom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on Condom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Condom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:57, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Telegraph

The telegraph is a poor source. It was a plan, were these ever made? Putting here until improved.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

"In March 2010, the Swiss government announced that it was planning to promote smaller condoms intended for boys and youths of 12–14 years old following concern about the pregnancy rate among adolescent girls, and also about the potential spread of AIDS among this age group. This was due to the fact that standard condoms were too wide and consequently failed to afford protection to adolescent boys during vaginal and anal intercourse. Family planning groups and the Swiss AIDS Federation had campaigned to have a narrower condom produced for youths after a number of studies, including a government study researched at the Centre for Development and Personality Psychology at Basel University, found that standard condoms were unsuitable for boys in this age range, and that the condoms either failed during use or that the boys rejected them altogether because they were too wide, and consequently they used no protection at all.[1]"

References

  1. ^ Williams, Alexandra (2010-03-03). "Extra small condoms for 12 year-old boys go on sale in Switzerland". The Daily Telegraph. London. Archived from the original on 2010-03-06. Retrieved 2010-04-30. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Condom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:53, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2018

The Indian advertisement ban time given is incorrect. It is from 6 AM to 10 PM and not from 10 PM to 6 AM. हर्षित (talk) 19:34, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:01, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2019

In the third paragraph of the lead, change:

In United Kingdom the condom is the second most common method of birth control

to:

In the United Kingdom the condom is the second most common method of birth control

98.31.2.139 (talk) 19:34, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Done DannyS712 (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Edit request

In the second paragraph to the lede it says:

Male condoms are typically made from latex and less commonly from polyurethane, or lamb intestine.

It should changed to read as follows:

Male condoms are typically made from latex and less commonly from polyurethane, polyisoprene, or lamb intestine.

The supporting reference can be found here: https://www.teensource.org/hookup/do-latex-condoms-irritate-ur-skin-polyisoprene-condoms-r-latex-free-and-still-prevent-pregnan 66.90.153.184 (talk) 00:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done, but for the record, the source you gave is probably no good. But there's already a better one in the article body, so it's not needed in the lead anyway. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:26, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

"Male/female" change to "External/internal"

I would suggest that the language use in article of "male condom" and "female condom" be switched to "external condom" and "internal condom" by pattern, and be referred as "also known as male condom" or "also known as female condom". Because the usage of male and female in the names of the condoms may come with prejudice like the idea that internal condoms (the "female" ones) can only be used by females, and on the vagina, which is false, because it can be used by anyone also on the anus. Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/43nyqd/female-condom-anal-sex-where-to-buyCite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).https://www.health4men.co.za/resources/09/04/how_to_use_the_female_condom_for_anal_sex/Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).https://www.aidsmap.com/about-hiv/female-condoms-anal-sexCite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

And that the external condoms (the "male" ones), can only used by males and for the penis, which is false, because it can be cutted to be used as a dental dam and be used for sex toys as well, which are not "males" nor penises. Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).http://teenhealthsource.com/birthcontrol/external-condom/Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).https://www.healthline.com/health/how-to-use-condomCite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

148.63.244.197 (talk) 18:56, 7 December 2019 (UTC)UserNamePedro

I agree, and thank you for addressing this. Because this is an English-language Wikipedia, I'd like to note that it's "can be cut to be used as a dental dam," not "can be cutted." I mention this not to be a grammar elitist but just in case it's an ESL error that might otherwise propagate into your future edits on this article. If it was just a typo, then ignore me. Triacylglyceride (talk) 21:51, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
No. Poor sources presented above. And we go by WP:Due weight. The term "male condom" is not as commonly used. Neither are the terms "female condom," "external condom" and "internal condom." It is why, per WP:Common name, we won't be changing this article's title to "External condom." What is called the "male condom" is usually simply referred to as "condom." The only time "male condom" is used in this article is to distinguish it from "female condom." And "female condom" is the common name for what may be referred to as an "internal condom" because it's made for women, regardless of people of other gender identities using the condom. Also, regardless of what else the standard ("male") condom is used for, it is designed to be placed on the penis. Again, WP:Due weight. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:11, 8 December 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:18, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry, has this been discussed previously that I was unaware of? Some of your disagreements seem based on different edits than were being discussed. I don't believe IP user (whom I'll call... Pedro? I guess?) meant to replace every instance of "condom" with "external condom." Just to replace every instance of "male condom" with "external condom," with the first use clarifying what is meant by it. The internal condom is not made exclusively for people who identify as women, as you state. The external condom is likewise not made exclusively to be placed on penises, as you state. I don't see WP: Due Weight applying here. Triacylglyceride (talk) 14:47, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
No, I'm not referring to anything that has been discussed before at this article (unless there's something in the archives about any of this). WP:Due weight applies per what I stated above. So does WP:Advocacy...since what the IP is proposing is advocacy. The suggestion of replacing every instance of "male condom" with "external condom" gives undue weight to the term "external condom." It is easy to see from a simple Google search that "male condom" is used far more than "external condom" is used. And when it comes to the academic literature? One should look on both Google Books and Google Scholar for use of "external condom" and see what they find. I know what will be found. It matters not that people may cut up the condom and use it for other means. That isn't the purpose of the condom. When it comes to use, we give most of our weight to how the condom is meant to be used. Lower in the article, we have an "Other uses" section for other uses, but we don't rewrite the article with those other uses in mind. That would be undue. Sources on the internal condom do, in fact, state that it was made for women and why. At this point in time, the vast majority of brands have "female" or "woman" in the title. There has been discussion over its name for reasons noted in this source, but where are the reliable sources stating that they are now being marketed to gay or bisexual men, trans men and non-binary people in addition to women? That gay or bisexual men, trans men and non-binary people may use the female condom doesn't negate the fact that this condom was created because of men (and teenage boys) neglecting or refusing to use condoms with regard to their female sexual partners. It was created to give some power to women (and teenage girls) on the issue of this type of protection. Also, regardless of the well-meaning intention, the female condom is barely used (which is also made clear in the source I just linked to, although that source focuses on the United States). Lastly, do see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 161#Gender-neutral language in human sex-specific articles. That discussion is recent and it does apply to things like this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:21, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

How about adding groups or organizations that are against the use of condoms. This article sounds like pro condom propaganda. How about adding links about condoms that tell about the disadvantages of condoms, like links to pro life condom warning page . 

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.88.152.212 (talk) 13:57, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Pro-condom propaganda? Eh? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:21, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
To the most recent IP user 72.88.152.212 -- no, for myriad reasons. You may suggest more specific edits if you want more specific rebuttals; I'd suggest doing so in a new section. (In truth, I would suggest not doing so at all, but it's your privilege at this time to suggest edits.) Triacylglyceride (talk) 14:47, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

"Eel Envelope" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Eel Envelope. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 04:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

"Freedom tickler" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Freedom tickler. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 04:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Alleged disadvantages

Why is there no mention about the dangers of depending on condoms? Condoms can easily break, slip of, or split. Why are there no links to organizations that oppose condom use like the catholic league or human life international? Condoms protect less against stds than against pregnancy because sperm is huge compared to std virus, and there is a 40 percent chance of becoming pregnant with condom use. Why is that not being mentioned. Do you really believe that people who act recklessly, for example by engaging in unprotected sex with multiple partners suddenly stop if handed a condom. People who are impaired by alcohol or drugs or caught in the throws of passion are not going to bother with the complicated steps to correctly use a condom why is that not being mentioned? it looks like it was written by the staff of a condom company — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.79.55.39 (talk) 15:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

See WP:FRINGE; all of the above goes against reliable sources about sexual health and is just repeating incorrect religious talking points. Telling people to stop having sex instead hasn't worked for millennia and it doesn't work now. Crossroads -talk- 04:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Bad article

This is a badly written article. The passage: "Ongoing military utilization began during World War II, and includes..." should read: "Military use began during World War II and included...". I'd like to change it but apparently I can't because it's "a good article". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.34.233 (talk) 11:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Nucleus video that demonstrates proper condom use

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gojlBwGEBw4&list=PL48F4E044565B097A&index=8&has_verified=1 This may be useful. MightyArms (talk) 00:21, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

"TheyFit" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect TheyFit. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 24#TheyFit until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm Bacon 02:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Medicine

If condoms are a medicine as listed in the article wouldn't they be required to contain drug facts? Only a drug can legally prevent a disease. Also they would of have to have gone through millions of dollars of testing, and if they are as cheap as this article states I doubt that would of been worth it. --2605:A000:1E02:C0F7:919D:D480:3E3A:5617 (talk) 05:46, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

No method of birth control is ever 100% accurate, just as a note. MightyArms (talk) 03:06, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Relative popularity of condoms in UK and US

I think it would be more interesting and relevant just say condoms are the second-most popular contraceptive in the world (available here). --Tserton (talk) 07:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2021

The use of a condom is contingent its respective sexual organ not the identification of the individual. As such, it is factually incorrect to use "male" or "female" when referring to condom use. Condoms are neither "male" or "female", but internal or penile. Furthermore, many sources in this article reference studies regarding penile condoms but imply their application to both internal and penile condoms. It may even be better to refer to penile condoms as being "external"; that may decrease readability howevr. As well, many of the claims made of pregnancy and sexual acts in this article are overwhelmingly heteronormative, and imply many, if not all, sexual acts can lead to pregnancy (i.e. that all sex is penetrative and both partners have either/and a fertile penis (and testicles) and/or vagina (and uterus)) which is patently incorrect. These suggestions seek to rectify these implications by making it clear which sexual organ it refers to. As well, in general efforts to work towards a neutral voice, the following changes are suggested for this page: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pekowaffer (talk • contribs)

[Long and unecessary duplicate removed - the gist of it is replace every instance of the above with the proposed terms] RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:50, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. On Wikipedia we do not right great wrongs and we use the WP:COMMONNAME especially since that is what the reader is likely to recognise. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:52, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2021

Penis ballon 162.252.94.177 (talk) 14:16, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Run n Fly (talk) 14:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

The instructional photograph with the dildo has a visible air balloon at the tip. This contradicts the condom use recommendations of CDC and those of NY state. Please change the photograph to one with a condom applied without air at the tip.

 Not done: That is the reservoir tip, which I assume is explained in the article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:30, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit requeset on 8 April 2022

In Types sizes are discussed as ranging from 45 mm to 60 mm, this should be changed to 45 to 72 as companies like my.size have since introduced bigger condoms as can also be seen on this list Ash at times (talk) 13:55, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

 Partly done: I just removed the over-specific sizing listed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2022

The male condom is rolled onto an erect penis before intercourse and works by forming a physical barrier which blocks semen from entering the body of a sexual partner.[1][2] Male condoms are typically made from latex and, less commonly, from polyurethane, polyisoprene, or lamb intestine.[1] Male condoms have the advantages of ease of use, ease of access, and few side effects.[1] Individuals with a latex allergy should use condoms made from a material other than latex, such as polyurethane. 2001:8003:2352:1300:C79:E317:9969:F8F8 (talk) 11:06, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference Hat2007 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Sp2011 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
 Done —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 17:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)


Sizing?

It would be good to have a description of the proper method of measuring for condom size. Personally, I've recently discovered that I've been under the misconception that the size (eg. 50mm) is the diameter, but apparently it's half the circumference?

JanGB (talk) 10:07, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Application vs. foreskin

The text and illustration regarding putting on a condom makes no mention of how to manage the foreskin to prevent it from sliding back (uh, that is, forward) resulting in half the condom flopping about beyond the end of the penis. Somenoe please improve?

JanGB (talk) 10:07, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Condom/Archive_5&oldid=1238930526"