![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Q: Does anyone want to mention the latex "condoms" used to cover rifles during amphibious operations in world wars? Or is this apocryphal. I've heard many different versions of this: one says that soldiers used actual condoms on their rifles, another said that the government purchasing these covers specially made from a condom company (12 inches long, leading to a joke about Churchill asking for them to be labbeled "Condoms, British, medium" or somesuch), and other versions have the soldiers merely using plastic bags or other covers. Can anyone clarify and update as necessary?
A: Yes it is true, i'm not sure of the exact size off hand, but it started like this, most used normal bags, 1 guy didn't have a bag so he reached down into his pocket and grabbed his condom, put it over the end, and then he used his spare lace(not sure if they still do but they were given 1 backup if i heard correctly just incase it ripped so they wouldn't get a limp boot) and tied it around the opening of the condom. So there's your answer, i havn't heard from a reliable resource yet that it was used on a regular basis, normally they used bags.
-Blue Face inc.
Why did you immediately revert my (female viewpoint) comment re: caps and diaphragms, O pompous twat?...oh, I see, I didn't mention dirty bum sex, did I !!!!!
"However, at least one website exists whose purpose is to provide females who want another child against their male partner's wishes, with advice on condom sabotage."
Can we add a reference to this? If not in the article, at least in the discussion. It is not obvious this is credible (does the site exist? Is it just a parody?).
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
A friend of mine said that her partner had used a condom, and she was on birth control pill, but she had still became pregnant. -- JesseG 03:30, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Where and how does one dispose a used condom ?
Most people flush them down the toilet, as I do.Regardless of warnings not to,it works with no problems.
Did people really try to knit condoms? Not that I'm doubting the research of whoever put that in, it's just weird.
Calieber 17:55, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)
May it be possible to add something about the etymology?
I am actually reading "Looking for Dr. Condom" right now. It proves pretty conclusively that condom doesn't exist (and also disproves many other theories, e.g. that it was named after a town in France, named after the latin condus named for the persian kendü). Zacharias P. Thundy states in "The Etymology of Condom" by (American Speech 60, No. 2, 1985) that condom is derived from condamina or house. After I finish my essay I should probably put up a bigger version of this. 22:34 20 December 20 2005 (UTC)
The female condoms I'm quite familiar with do not advertise that they "slide on the penis". That is only applicable to circumcised sex. I believe the "slide on" sentence should be removed, unless further explaination is given as to the mechanics. Tightly circumcised men often cannot use these types of condoms without adding large amounts of lubricants, or just jamming the thing into the vagina quite easily with our nerve-deadened genitals. DanP 22:18, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
it's also
1. many times stronger than latex, making it possible to manufacture condoms that are half as thick ==> more sensitive
2. polyurethane is MANY times more transcalent. this is extremely important since feeling the difference in temperature between penis & vagina is an essential part of sexual sensation
I do not think that instructions for effective use of condoms qualifies as encyclopedic material. Does one go to, say, the sexual intercourse page and find instructions for effective conception? I think the page should simply document what a condom is, and not how to use it.
Furthermore, I am going to insert a section about objections to condom use.-- Mm35173 14:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
I think it certainly qualifies as material for Wikibooks.
AirBa 16:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
The idea that 'the Pope' thinks use of condoms is 'sinful' is such a boring canard, so endlessly repeated, that it deserves to be addressed. Yet it is such a convenient straw man and so widespread that it has obtained the status of an urban legend.
It is certainly true, as stated in the article, that the use of condoms is forbidden to 'husband and wife' [3] - presumably, Catholic married couples - as is the use of any other contraceptive or abortifacient.
Bearing in mind the Catholic viewpoint that sex outside of marriage is 'sinful', in and of itself, this leaves the question of how the Church regards their use in those types of relationships.
We start with homosexuality, since that is the easiest category to resolve. Since the objection is not to condoms, per se, but as birth control devices, the question of their use in same-sex intercourse answers itself automatically: there is no moral consequence to the decision to use condoms in homosexual relations, since there is no question of 'birth control'. As is well known, the Church condemns homosexual relations, but the question of condom use is a nullity and does not enter into it.
There still remain various types of opposite-sex relations: the unlawful categories of adultery, fornication, prostitution and rape; and lawful relationships in non-Catholic heterosexual marriages.
With regard to the 'unlawful' categories mentioned above the Catholic position is this: adultery, fornication, prostitution and rape are all grave sins; and the question of attempted contraception is so trivial by comparison, that to scruple at condom use in such circumstances is an instance of "straining at a gnat and swallowing at a camel", as Jesus once said, in a somewhat different context. It is like a thief saying that he considerately used a picklock to open the door instead of busting it in.
Thus, the question of condom use in the categories just mentioned is either a nullity or a best a very minor side issue, not worthy of consideration apart from the main 'offense'.
The sole category remaining to be considered is, lawful relations between non-Catholic married couples. The Church does not claim that such relationships are 'sinful'; indeed it has never claimed to possess any prescriptive moral authority over non-Catholics, directly. So there is not a clear position in this area. However, the Church regards non-canonical marriages as falling under the so-called 'natural law', a kind of unwritten Platonic shadow of Catholic morality. But what the Church thinks the 'natural law' says about condom use has never been defined. In any case, it is unclear why any non-Catholic would feel bound by the teachings of the Church.
Cspalletta 15:18, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
The official position of the Church is permanently and infallibly defined here [4]:
Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means.
- H.H. Paul P.P. VI, Humanae Vitae (1969) -- Mm35173 20:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
I didn't see any mention of what I see to be the MAIN reason for a dislike of condom use in society, which is that it provides a false confidence. (unsigned: 216.49.220.19
I am removing the condom use instructions, because they are prohibited by WP:WWIN. We do not give medical advice, and a condom is a medical device. -- Mm35173 18:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC) I will put the removed section here in case the policy changes.
The use of male condoms involves the following:
General instructions for putting on a male condom are as follows:
All 12-packs of condoms come with these or similar instructions, and may contain additional information; be sure to read these instructions if you have never used a condom before.
Some men who feel a particular size condom is hard to put on because it is too small have reported that they partly unroll the condom, stretch it with both index fingers, insert the penis (asking their partner to expel air from the tip), remove fingers and unroll. This procedure is not recommended as one's fingernails can come in contact with the condom. Consider buying a larger condom, or practising the approved method above.
Is it true that because of stronger regulations condoms in Canada have or had to be noticeably thicker than anywhere else in the world (four times thicker) ? Please include info if you have it.
Would it not be more true to fact to change
to
It is known that condoms offer virtually no protection against HPV and genital warts, less reliable protection against diseases such as herpes, trichomoniasis and chlamydia, and are not gauranteed to protect against STDs that are passed through bodily fluids, such as HIV and gonorrhea - the AIDS virus, due to its small size, is actually able to move through the latex structure (as are individual sperm able to on a relatively high frequency). It would seem to me that the article is misleading in that it seems to indicate that they are mostly effective in STD protection, which is not really the case.
Taking into account the viewpoint of Icarus:
This may be true as such, but it is still a part of informed consent and NPOV FACTUAL INFORMATION (ie, encyclopedic content) that condoms are often innefective in the prevention of transmission of STDs, contrary to popular belief. Upon learning this, a person may wish to abstain, or explore the matter further; thus I think it is valid to include this information in the article content.
DonaNobisPacem 03:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Changed
to
as proposed, based on above info/observations. DonaNobisPacem 17:23, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't agree with your changes. What's "many"?-- SarekOfVulcan 00:01, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Read above - out of the seven listed, 2 are not protected against with condoms, 3 have unreliable protection, and 2 are fairly reliably protected against (that info came from a pro-condom site, not a conservative anti-contraception site). Perhaps less controversial would be
DonaNobisPacem 02:23, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
I really suspect that condoms protect against more than 2 STDs.-- SarekOfVulcan 07:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Have there been any published polls in regards to how effective the general public (of various countries/locations... or at least one location (USA?)) believes that condoms are in protecting against STDs? I'm curious, and perhaps it could be useful to mention in this section. I don't know, but I get an impression that condoms are widely believed to be far more effective than they actually are. Peoplesunionpro 20:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Alrighty - someone posted the link to the US Centre for Disease Control fact sheet on condoms/STD protection [ [5]]. If you read the whole text (not just the big boxes)it basically asserts what I said above in terms of what it protects against - particularly when it comes to discharge diseases, which have conflicting studies on the effectiveness of condoms. One thing to point out - HPV can be spread without any genital contact (eg, kissing, skin-to-skin contact), but it seems unclear in sources I've looked at if the types (there are around 100 variations) spread through non-sexual contact are serious. I remember at a presentation I attended almost two years ago they stated that they were the nasty varieties. Anyways, I digress. The point: condoms are still risky business when it comes to STD protection, and I think the article downplays that a bit. DonaNobisPacem 08:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
This section is extremely POV - comments like "While the denial of this is a valid concern among those who hold these beliefs, denying those of differing faith sexual education on religious grounds infringes upon the universal right of religious freedom" are not giving information on religious attitudes towards condoms - it is a commentary on their beliefs against condom usage. Have deleted this comment. Also the section on Catholic belief is misleading as to their stance - as is currently worded, it seemed to give the impression they do not care what happens outside of canonically valid marriages. Will reword that section soon. DonaNobisPacem 23:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Have also removed "Teens participating in sexual activity experience the vast majority of condom failure, usually due to lack of sexual education.", which has nothing to do with religious attitudes, and changed
to
as the second portion is again a commentary and not a statement on religious attitudes. The NPOV part to remember is that to religious groups, condom instruction is not good, and so they don't feel it exacerbates the issue; condom advocates feel it does exacerbate the issue; and so to take the neutral view is to simply state the religious attitude and allow the reader to determine their own opinion of it. DonaNobisPacem 23:07, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Simply removed the following:
as in hindsight, as a standalone statement, it doesn't really fit the section anymore, as it is beliefs on sex, not condom usage. Will integrate this into the Catholic teaching statement, to better explain their position. DonaNobisPacem 23:12, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Not sure why the revert - the point is to provide the views of religious organizations and why they hold them, not to comment on them. And the comment on teen failure belongs in "usage," not in the religion section. Please explain.
If mention must be made of the education issue, some mention could be made to the effect that "contraceptive advocates feel that religious opposistion interferes with effective education." DonaNobisPacem 02:28, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
OK, hopefully I have a happy rewrite of this section. A good source for the overall views of the religions listed is presented at http://users.drew.edu/sgreene/. DonaNobisPacem 07:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Sarek - I think my first rewrite was more of a deletion spree, with little of the rewriting that was necessary... DonaNobisPacem 08:00, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
FCYTravis - some Christian denominations, for example, permit contraception within marriage but promote abstinence outside of marriage (for instance, with teens). These groups favour increased focus on abstinence in schools, while still allowing for contraceptive education; and do not oppose public contraceptive education for adults. DonaNobisPacem 08:14, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Is it absolutely neccesary to use such a graphic depiction of applying a condom? Giving such instruction is itself highly questionable, but in the interest of modesty, showing the human penis is even less responsible.-- Thomas Aquinas 22:10, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Under "Proper condom use": "There is generally a porno picture on the condom for the male to look at for his penis to become erect." What?!?! If this is true, it's definitely not GENERALLY, because I've never seen it. Not to mention it isn't really relevant to the preceding sentence. Trojanpony 10:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Not just strange sentence. Strange article! It's as if monkeys sat at typewriters... Oh wait... Seriously, has anyone taken a look at this objectively? In the Prevalence section "In various cultures, a number of social or economic factors make access to condoms prohibitive". Hello? Which cultures? What factors? This sentence is totally vacuous and ought to be removed.
The Drug Use and Anti-Condom Trends sub-sections are a badly written collection of random thoughts, rather than informing about condom use. "There are several situations and groups who knowingly choose to not use a condom during sex for various reasons" - that's informative! The large section on barebacking (the middle of three paragraphs) doesn't even mention condoms - it's someone's rant about gay sex.
The French Letter section (maybe should be re-titled Slang Terms - and have French Letter as one of those terms) completely fails to mention "rubber Johnny" or "Johnny" as a popular English term, and rubber is mentioned only once (in the first paragrpah) in the context of a slang term, without attributing it as a mainly American slang word.
I looked up this article because I was describing the factory in NW London (in Park Royal) where a friend of mine used to work, lubricating Femidoms when they first came out. There is no mention of this factory, which exclusively "... manufacturers all FCs in a state-of-the-art facility in London, England." [6]. JanesDaddy 17:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Well people we ought to remove the application part, because anyone who is intent on buying and using these barbaric devices can find out from the directions if they are capable of reading (though they probably can't in which case it doesn't do much good spelling it out here). Chooserr 07:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
What's wrong with it? For one, all its allegations are unsourced. For two, that "so-called HIV" line is unacceptable pseudoscience quackery. HIV is a scientific fact accepted by all but a few nutballs, and that line really makes me question the accuracy and neutrality of the entire diagram. FCYTravis 08:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Firstly, the section on "barebacking" is venturing way off-topic. I'm not saying it doesn't deserve treatment. It should be reduced to a small paragraph with a link to the main article on barebacking.
Secondly, the sentence that reads '"Also, since many of them have just come out of a long term relationship, they are starting over and they are too uncomfortable with their new partner to ask them to use a condom"' is expressing a particular set of assumptions which wikipedia shouldn't make. It's true that a new partner makes some people uncomfortable about requesting condom use. Alternatively, just as many people feel uncomfortable having unprotected sex with a new partner. I don't even see the point in having a long meandering paragraph about the middle-aged sex lives of Baby Boomers. What's that supposed to teach us? I'll be editing the section soon but I'll wait for comments. - Kasreyn
I was reading the history bit where it said that condoms were outlawed in certain places...are there any countries, states/provinces, counties, or cities/towns in which they are still illegal. It would make an interesting addition. Chooserr 00:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Silicon and talc as carcinogens? Exqueeze me? You might as well say food contains bones you can choke on and die, Silicon and talc are minerals, and I think that if talc caused cancer, every baby born since the 1900s would be dead because BABY POWDER is talc. FCYTravis 00:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
What of silicon...? Also some are more prone to get cancer than others, and while Baby Powder might have talc it doesn't go within you. So the risks should be out lined even if must say "it's a possibility...". Chooserr 00:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm guessing here that you've never changed a baby girl's diaper.-- SarekOfVulcan 00:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
No, I can't say that I have. Chooserr 00:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Maybe since wikipedia obviously isn't the place for the proper use section, we could add a small paragraph telling the reader to redirect to the wikibooks section where it would be more appropriate to find out how to apply the condom. It isn't erasure, and it would be clearly visable with it's own section... Chooserr 01:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm going out shortly, and won't be involved in this, but I've just seen these two edit summaries. SarekOfVulcan, I don't think you should consider it as Chooserr's personal statement weighed against the official NIH statement. He was referring to the American Cancer Society, which in turn mentioned recent research. I quote from the extract:
I think it would be fairer and more NPOV to quote, with reference, those who say condoms can protect against HPV and those who say it can't. This should not be treated as a case of one Wikipedian going against established medical research. By the way, I have also seen references to studies saying that condoms offer little or no protection against HPV. AnnH (talk) 08:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm not doing anything I oughtn't. I'm trying to better wikipedia, and I have half a dozen stalkers who consistently oppose me on any edit I make no matter what it page it's on View "Cow Tipping"'s history for example. Chooserr 09:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
It also directly opposes this other study, your not being NPOV if you are favouring one study over another are you...? Anyway I've been up all night am going to bed. So long as I don't wake up in the morning to "Condoms are great fucking devices you should try them." I won't be too bothered by what you do with the HPV section. Ignore the facts. Chooserr 09:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I have attempted a compromise, based on what I've read from the NIH manuscript. Also, Chooserr, I hope you mean no ill intent by adding me to your "Users to Watch" list. Uthbrian ( talk) 09:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm good with the link. I left a reply on your talk page. Uthbrian ( talk) 00:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Would you, as a non-biased party, mind adding a small paragraph to this page on the research conducted by the Cancer Society and their results to go along with the link? That one that's up now doesn't specifically adress their findings and tends to follow NIH's views. Chooserr 00:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Uthbrian ( talk) 02:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I noticed the request for comment and took the liberty of adding a line for balance. To the citation you already have about nitrosamines in condoms I added a link to a Medline abstract that offered different findings. On a related note, but somewhat off topic for this article, it also turns out that nitrosamines are present in baby pacifiers, baby bottle tips, and party balloons. One wonders why a condom study received more coverage in the popular media. Durova 22:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
The Talc Argument As a newbie, and well you know, human, I was interested in seeing the types disputes that might occur in a "user defined" encylopedia. I think that this dispute is among the most interesting because both sides present revelant scientific data that reinforces their respective views. So here is my comment: (I hope I am putting this in the right place, please be kind) I came into this argument with no preconcieved notion of who was "right", I just decided to look at the facts. Having trolled through Pubmed I found both sides of this argument to be equally represented. Having said that, I think that the following acticle adheres best to the scientific method [9] More general information can be found at the American Cancer Society's page and states their position, in general. [10]
I propose that given that the ACS's position on this matter, a more cautionary statement be given. Some thing like: "Some condoms are produced with dusting powders, such as talc, a suspected carcinogen. The risks of talc powder have been vigrously debated (cites), however a definative link between talc and cancer has not yet been established." But that is just my opinion. 22:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Erm...this is considered a very old fashioned phrase for condom in the United Kingdom, now only used humourously.
The reason I have reverted your edit which, I believe was done in good faith despite the comment, is that if something isn't safe for surgery, and used on a device used every day it should be included. Talc - part of the dusting powders listed - is also believed to cause ovarian cancer. Chooserr 00:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Recent research:
-- SarekOfVulcan 01:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Wait a minute... this seems to the point of absurdity. Condoms are an absolutely tiny portion of the solid waste generated every day. Is there a section on "Bibles and the Environment" - discussing the damage done to forests by clear-cutting virgin timber to make paper to print free giveaway Bibles on? Would you like me to start one to make a WP:POINT? C'mon now, this is just petty. FCYTravis 05:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
(shifting left). I agree with FCYTravis. The previous version was sensationalistic and not focused on condoms. However, there is an anon ip who disagrees and is reverting without discussion. FreplySpang (talk) 17:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
I've restored the full proper use section removed by Chooserr on the grounds that while Wikipedia may not be an instruction manual, in this case, it's possible for those who may never use condoms to wonder how they're used. — Locke Cole 08:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't wonder at all, and many have agreed that it doesn't belong here. That is why I've respectfully removed your edit. There is a link to the proper place for sex ed on wikipedia. Chooserr 08:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
There's 3 that listed their opinions there, I believe FYCTravis agreed on the edit history a while back - I don't know why he didn't participate there - and my vote counts so that is atleast 5 vs 1. But overall that isn't important because wikipedia isn't a democracy, it's an encyclopedia, and your edit is against policy. It has a clear link to the "how to apply a condom" page, along with a picture link. Easy access. So please don't revert it again. Chooserr 09:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Before adding potentially controversial edits, bring it to the talk page so that sources and info can be discussed. If you edit the article, make a note of sources in the article as per Wikipedia guidelines, or at least mention it on the talk page.
As for the talk page - comments about Bibles being torn up and flushed, or their environmental impact, are meant to provoke - please avoid them, and if you notice a comment like it, just avoid reponding (see Internet troll). Many new regular contributors of late have totally lost the desire for consensus-based results, instead just wanting to make sure their bit is posted - all that happens is an edit war. Anyways, I've said my bit..... DonaNobisPacem 21:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
As stated above on this page, the Catholic objection to condom use relates solely to birth control, not hygenic uses which do not involve birth control:
I accept DonaNobisPacem's argument that the link above is ambiguous as to whether the Church does or doesn't 'forbid' non-Catholic married couples from condom use, accordingly I am not persisting with the qualification 'catholic couples in canonically valid marriages'; although it is clear to me that the Catechism is intended to be taken or left alone, as a whole, and is accordingly addressed to 'Catholics', not for example to Protestants, Hindus, Muslims or Jews, who by definition can not accept many or most parts of it.
PLEASE DONT REVERT UNLESS YOU CAN PROVIDE DOCUMENTARY PROOF from official Church teaching - such as the recent Catechism or some Papal decree - that they object to e.g. homosexuals using condoms to reduce the risk of contracting AIDS. They don't. For that matter why should they object to condom use, as such, for oral or anal sex by anyone, of any orientation or marital status? It doesn't involve 'contraception'. Yes, I know they condemn homosexual acts per se, but that is not the issue in this article.
Again if you refer to the link above you will see why. BTW it is the only place contraception is mentioned in the entire 800+ page Catechism; and condoms aren't specifically mentioned, even once.
On a completely different matter - abortion is not 'contraception' since it destroys the thing (embryo, fetus, 'unborn child', whatever) that has already been 'conceived'; thus it is irrelevant piling on to mention abortion, therefore I have removed this reference.
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Q: Does anyone want to mention the latex "condoms" used to cover rifles during amphibious operations in world wars? Or is this apocryphal. I've heard many different versions of this: one says that soldiers used actual condoms on their rifles, another said that the government purchasing these covers specially made from a condom company (12 inches long, leading to a joke about Churchill asking for them to be labbeled "Condoms, British, medium" or somesuch), and other versions have the soldiers merely using plastic bags or other covers. Can anyone clarify and update as necessary?
A: Yes it is true, i'm not sure of the exact size off hand, but it started like this, most used normal bags, 1 guy didn't have a bag so he reached down into his pocket and grabbed his condom, put it over the end, and then he used his spare lace(not sure if they still do but they were given 1 backup if i heard correctly just incase it ripped so they wouldn't get a limp boot) and tied it around the opening of the condom. So there's your answer, i havn't heard from a reliable resource yet that it was used on a regular basis, normally they used bags.
-Blue Face inc.
Why did you immediately revert my (female viewpoint) comment re: caps and diaphragms, O pompous twat?...oh, I see, I didn't mention dirty bum sex, did I !!!!!
"However, at least one website exists whose purpose is to provide females who want another child against their male partner's wishes, with advice on condom sabotage."
Can we add a reference to this? If not in the article, at least in the discussion. It is not obvious this is credible (does the site exist? Is it just a parody?).
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
A friend of mine said that her partner had used a condom, and she was on birth control pill, but she had still became pregnant. -- JesseG 03:30, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Where and how does one dispose a used condom ?
Most people flush them down the toilet, as I do.Regardless of warnings not to,it works with no problems.
Did people really try to knit condoms? Not that I'm doubting the research of whoever put that in, it's just weird.
Calieber 17:55, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)
May it be possible to add something about the etymology?
I am actually reading "Looking for Dr. Condom" right now. It proves pretty conclusively that condom doesn't exist (and also disproves many other theories, e.g. that it was named after a town in France, named after the latin condus named for the persian kendü). Zacharias P. Thundy states in "The Etymology of Condom" by (American Speech 60, No. 2, 1985) that condom is derived from condamina or house. After I finish my essay I should probably put up a bigger version of this. 22:34 20 December 20 2005 (UTC)
The female condoms I'm quite familiar with do not advertise that they "slide on the penis". That is only applicable to circumcised sex. I believe the "slide on" sentence should be removed, unless further explaination is given as to the mechanics. Tightly circumcised men often cannot use these types of condoms without adding large amounts of lubricants, or just jamming the thing into the vagina quite easily with our nerve-deadened genitals. DanP 22:18, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
it's also
1. many times stronger than latex, making it possible to manufacture condoms that are half as thick ==> more sensitive
2. polyurethane is MANY times more transcalent. this is extremely important since feeling the difference in temperature between penis & vagina is an essential part of sexual sensation
I do not think that instructions for effective use of condoms qualifies as encyclopedic material. Does one go to, say, the sexual intercourse page and find instructions for effective conception? I think the page should simply document what a condom is, and not how to use it.
Furthermore, I am going to insert a section about objections to condom use.-- Mm35173 14:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
I think it certainly qualifies as material for Wikibooks.
AirBa 16:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
The idea that 'the Pope' thinks use of condoms is 'sinful' is such a boring canard, so endlessly repeated, that it deserves to be addressed. Yet it is such a convenient straw man and so widespread that it has obtained the status of an urban legend.
It is certainly true, as stated in the article, that the use of condoms is forbidden to 'husband and wife' [3] - presumably, Catholic married couples - as is the use of any other contraceptive or abortifacient.
Bearing in mind the Catholic viewpoint that sex outside of marriage is 'sinful', in and of itself, this leaves the question of how the Church regards their use in those types of relationships.
We start with homosexuality, since that is the easiest category to resolve. Since the objection is not to condoms, per se, but as birth control devices, the question of their use in same-sex intercourse answers itself automatically: there is no moral consequence to the decision to use condoms in homosexual relations, since there is no question of 'birth control'. As is well known, the Church condemns homosexual relations, but the question of condom use is a nullity and does not enter into it.
There still remain various types of opposite-sex relations: the unlawful categories of adultery, fornication, prostitution and rape; and lawful relationships in non-Catholic heterosexual marriages.
With regard to the 'unlawful' categories mentioned above the Catholic position is this: adultery, fornication, prostitution and rape are all grave sins; and the question of attempted contraception is so trivial by comparison, that to scruple at condom use in such circumstances is an instance of "straining at a gnat and swallowing at a camel", as Jesus once said, in a somewhat different context. It is like a thief saying that he considerately used a picklock to open the door instead of busting it in.
Thus, the question of condom use in the categories just mentioned is either a nullity or a best a very minor side issue, not worthy of consideration apart from the main 'offense'.
The sole category remaining to be considered is, lawful relations between non-Catholic married couples. The Church does not claim that such relationships are 'sinful'; indeed it has never claimed to possess any prescriptive moral authority over non-Catholics, directly. So there is not a clear position in this area. However, the Church regards non-canonical marriages as falling under the so-called 'natural law', a kind of unwritten Platonic shadow of Catholic morality. But what the Church thinks the 'natural law' says about condom use has never been defined. In any case, it is unclear why any non-Catholic would feel bound by the teachings of the Church.
Cspalletta 15:18, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
The official position of the Church is permanently and infallibly defined here [4]:
Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means.
- H.H. Paul P.P. VI, Humanae Vitae (1969) -- Mm35173 20:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
I didn't see any mention of what I see to be the MAIN reason for a dislike of condom use in society, which is that it provides a false confidence. (unsigned: 216.49.220.19
I am removing the condom use instructions, because they are prohibited by WP:WWIN. We do not give medical advice, and a condom is a medical device. -- Mm35173 18:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC) I will put the removed section here in case the policy changes.
The use of male condoms involves the following:
General instructions for putting on a male condom are as follows:
All 12-packs of condoms come with these or similar instructions, and may contain additional information; be sure to read these instructions if you have never used a condom before.
Some men who feel a particular size condom is hard to put on because it is too small have reported that they partly unroll the condom, stretch it with both index fingers, insert the penis (asking their partner to expel air from the tip), remove fingers and unroll. This procedure is not recommended as one's fingernails can come in contact with the condom. Consider buying a larger condom, or practising the approved method above.
Is it true that because of stronger regulations condoms in Canada have or had to be noticeably thicker than anywhere else in the world (four times thicker) ? Please include info if you have it.
Would it not be more true to fact to change
to
It is known that condoms offer virtually no protection against HPV and genital warts, less reliable protection against diseases such as herpes, trichomoniasis and chlamydia, and are not gauranteed to protect against STDs that are passed through bodily fluids, such as HIV and gonorrhea - the AIDS virus, due to its small size, is actually able to move through the latex structure (as are individual sperm able to on a relatively high frequency). It would seem to me that the article is misleading in that it seems to indicate that they are mostly effective in STD protection, which is not really the case.
Taking into account the viewpoint of Icarus:
This may be true as such, but it is still a part of informed consent and NPOV FACTUAL INFORMATION (ie, encyclopedic content) that condoms are often innefective in the prevention of transmission of STDs, contrary to popular belief. Upon learning this, a person may wish to abstain, or explore the matter further; thus I think it is valid to include this information in the article content.
DonaNobisPacem 03:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Changed
to
as proposed, based on above info/observations. DonaNobisPacem 17:23, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't agree with your changes. What's "many"?-- SarekOfVulcan 00:01, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Read above - out of the seven listed, 2 are not protected against with condoms, 3 have unreliable protection, and 2 are fairly reliably protected against (that info came from a pro-condom site, not a conservative anti-contraception site). Perhaps less controversial would be
DonaNobisPacem 02:23, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
I really suspect that condoms protect against more than 2 STDs.-- SarekOfVulcan 07:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Have there been any published polls in regards to how effective the general public (of various countries/locations... or at least one location (USA?)) believes that condoms are in protecting against STDs? I'm curious, and perhaps it could be useful to mention in this section. I don't know, but I get an impression that condoms are widely believed to be far more effective than they actually are. Peoplesunionpro 20:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Alrighty - someone posted the link to the US Centre for Disease Control fact sheet on condoms/STD protection [ [5]]. If you read the whole text (not just the big boxes)it basically asserts what I said above in terms of what it protects against - particularly when it comes to discharge diseases, which have conflicting studies on the effectiveness of condoms. One thing to point out - HPV can be spread without any genital contact (eg, kissing, skin-to-skin contact), but it seems unclear in sources I've looked at if the types (there are around 100 variations) spread through non-sexual contact are serious. I remember at a presentation I attended almost two years ago they stated that they were the nasty varieties. Anyways, I digress. The point: condoms are still risky business when it comes to STD protection, and I think the article downplays that a bit. DonaNobisPacem 08:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
This section is extremely POV - comments like "While the denial of this is a valid concern among those who hold these beliefs, denying those of differing faith sexual education on religious grounds infringes upon the universal right of religious freedom" are not giving information on religious attitudes towards condoms - it is a commentary on their beliefs against condom usage. Have deleted this comment. Also the section on Catholic belief is misleading as to their stance - as is currently worded, it seemed to give the impression they do not care what happens outside of canonically valid marriages. Will reword that section soon. DonaNobisPacem 23:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Have also removed "Teens participating in sexual activity experience the vast majority of condom failure, usually due to lack of sexual education.", which has nothing to do with religious attitudes, and changed
to
as the second portion is again a commentary and not a statement on religious attitudes. The NPOV part to remember is that to religious groups, condom instruction is not good, and so they don't feel it exacerbates the issue; condom advocates feel it does exacerbate the issue; and so to take the neutral view is to simply state the religious attitude and allow the reader to determine their own opinion of it. DonaNobisPacem 23:07, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Simply removed the following:
as in hindsight, as a standalone statement, it doesn't really fit the section anymore, as it is beliefs on sex, not condom usage. Will integrate this into the Catholic teaching statement, to better explain their position. DonaNobisPacem 23:12, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Not sure why the revert - the point is to provide the views of religious organizations and why they hold them, not to comment on them. And the comment on teen failure belongs in "usage," not in the religion section. Please explain.
If mention must be made of the education issue, some mention could be made to the effect that "contraceptive advocates feel that religious opposistion interferes with effective education." DonaNobisPacem 02:28, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
OK, hopefully I have a happy rewrite of this section. A good source for the overall views of the religions listed is presented at http://users.drew.edu/sgreene/. DonaNobisPacem 07:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Sarek - I think my first rewrite was more of a deletion spree, with little of the rewriting that was necessary... DonaNobisPacem 08:00, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
FCYTravis - some Christian denominations, for example, permit contraception within marriage but promote abstinence outside of marriage (for instance, with teens). These groups favour increased focus on abstinence in schools, while still allowing for contraceptive education; and do not oppose public contraceptive education for adults. DonaNobisPacem 08:14, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Is it absolutely neccesary to use such a graphic depiction of applying a condom? Giving such instruction is itself highly questionable, but in the interest of modesty, showing the human penis is even less responsible.-- Thomas Aquinas 22:10, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Under "Proper condom use": "There is generally a porno picture on the condom for the male to look at for his penis to become erect." What?!?! If this is true, it's definitely not GENERALLY, because I've never seen it. Not to mention it isn't really relevant to the preceding sentence. Trojanpony 10:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Not just strange sentence. Strange article! It's as if monkeys sat at typewriters... Oh wait... Seriously, has anyone taken a look at this objectively? In the Prevalence section "In various cultures, a number of social or economic factors make access to condoms prohibitive". Hello? Which cultures? What factors? This sentence is totally vacuous and ought to be removed.
The Drug Use and Anti-Condom Trends sub-sections are a badly written collection of random thoughts, rather than informing about condom use. "There are several situations and groups who knowingly choose to not use a condom during sex for various reasons" - that's informative! The large section on barebacking (the middle of three paragraphs) doesn't even mention condoms - it's someone's rant about gay sex.
The French Letter section (maybe should be re-titled Slang Terms - and have French Letter as one of those terms) completely fails to mention "rubber Johnny" or "Johnny" as a popular English term, and rubber is mentioned only once (in the first paragrpah) in the context of a slang term, without attributing it as a mainly American slang word.
I looked up this article because I was describing the factory in NW London (in Park Royal) where a friend of mine used to work, lubricating Femidoms when they first came out. There is no mention of this factory, which exclusively "... manufacturers all FCs in a state-of-the-art facility in London, England." [6]. JanesDaddy 17:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Well people we ought to remove the application part, because anyone who is intent on buying and using these barbaric devices can find out from the directions if they are capable of reading (though they probably can't in which case it doesn't do much good spelling it out here). Chooserr 07:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
What's wrong with it? For one, all its allegations are unsourced. For two, that "so-called HIV" line is unacceptable pseudoscience quackery. HIV is a scientific fact accepted by all but a few nutballs, and that line really makes me question the accuracy and neutrality of the entire diagram. FCYTravis 08:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Firstly, the section on "barebacking" is venturing way off-topic. I'm not saying it doesn't deserve treatment. It should be reduced to a small paragraph with a link to the main article on barebacking.
Secondly, the sentence that reads '"Also, since many of them have just come out of a long term relationship, they are starting over and they are too uncomfortable with their new partner to ask them to use a condom"' is expressing a particular set of assumptions which wikipedia shouldn't make. It's true that a new partner makes some people uncomfortable about requesting condom use. Alternatively, just as many people feel uncomfortable having unprotected sex with a new partner. I don't even see the point in having a long meandering paragraph about the middle-aged sex lives of Baby Boomers. What's that supposed to teach us? I'll be editing the section soon but I'll wait for comments. - Kasreyn
I was reading the history bit where it said that condoms were outlawed in certain places...are there any countries, states/provinces, counties, or cities/towns in which they are still illegal. It would make an interesting addition. Chooserr 00:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Silicon and talc as carcinogens? Exqueeze me? You might as well say food contains bones you can choke on and die, Silicon and talc are minerals, and I think that if talc caused cancer, every baby born since the 1900s would be dead because BABY POWDER is talc. FCYTravis 00:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
What of silicon...? Also some are more prone to get cancer than others, and while Baby Powder might have talc it doesn't go within you. So the risks should be out lined even if must say "it's a possibility...". Chooserr 00:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm guessing here that you've never changed a baby girl's diaper.-- SarekOfVulcan 00:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
No, I can't say that I have. Chooserr 00:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Maybe since wikipedia obviously isn't the place for the proper use section, we could add a small paragraph telling the reader to redirect to the wikibooks section where it would be more appropriate to find out how to apply the condom. It isn't erasure, and it would be clearly visable with it's own section... Chooserr 01:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm going out shortly, and won't be involved in this, but I've just seen these two edit summaries. SarekOfVulcan, I don't think you should consider it as Chooserr's personal statement weighed against the official NIH statement. He was referring to the American Cancer Society, which in turn mentioned recent research. I quote from the extract:
I think it would be fairer and more NPOV to quote, with reference, those who say condoms can protect against HPV and those who say it can't. This should not be treated as a case of one Wikipedian going against established medical research. By the way, I have also seen references to studies saying that condoms offer little or no protection against HPV. AnnH (talk) 08:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm not doing anything I oughtn't. I'm trying to better wikipedia, and I have half a dozen stalkers who consistently oppose me on any edit I make no matter what it page it's on View "Cow Tipping"'s history for example. Chooserr 09:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
It also directly opposes this other study, your not being NPOV if you are favouring one study over another are you...? Anyway I've been up all night am going to bed. So long as I don't wake up in the morning to "Condoms are great fucking devices you should try them." I won't be too bothered by what you do with the HPV section. Ignore the facts. Chooserr 09:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I have attempted a compromise, based on what I've read from the NIH manuscript. Also, Chooserr, I hope you mean no ill intent by adding me to your "Users to Watch" list. Uthbrian ( talk) 09:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm good with the link. I left a reply on your talk page. Uthbrian ( talk) 00:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Would you, as a non-biased party, mind adding a small paragraph to this page on the research conducted by the Cancer Society and their results to go along with the link? That one that's up now doesn't specifically adress their findings and tends to follow NIH's views. Chooserr 00:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Uthbrian ( talk) 02:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I noticed the request for comment and took the liberty of adding a line for balance. To the citation you already have about nitrosamines in condoms I added a link to a Medline abstract that offered different findings. On a related note, but somewhat off topic for this article, it also turns out that nitrosamines are present in baby pacifiers, baby bottle tips, and party balloons. One wonders why a condom study received more coverage in the popular media. Durova 22:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
The Talc Argument As a newbie, and well you know, human, I was interested in seeing the types disputes that might occur in a "user defined" encylopedia. I think that this dispute is among the most interesting because both sides present revelant scientific data that reinforces their respective views. So here is my comment: (I hope I am putting this in the right place, please be kind) I came into this argument with no preconcieved notion of who was "right", I just decided to look at the facts. Having trolled through Pubmed I found both sides of this argument to be equally represented. Having said that, I think that the following acticle adheres best to the scientific method [9] More general information can be found at the American Cancer Society's page and states their position, in general. [10]
I propose that given that the ACS's position on this matter, a more cautionary statement be given. Some thing like: "Some condoms are produced with dusting powders, such as talc, a suspected carcinogen. The risks of talc powder have been vigrously debated (cites), however a definative link between talc and cancer has not yet been established." But that is just my opinion. 22:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Erm...this is considered a very old fashioned phrase for condom in the United Kingdom, now only used humourously.
The reason I have reverted your edit which, I believe was done in good faith despite the comment, is that if something isn't safe for surgery, and used on a device used every day it should be included. Talc - part of the dusting powders listed - is also believed to cause ovarian cancer. Chooserr 00:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Recent research:
-- SarekOfVulcan 01:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Wait a minute... this seems to the point of absurdity. Condoms are an absolutely tiny portion of the solid waste generated every day. Is there a section on "Bibles and the Environment" - discussing the damage done to forests by clear-cutting virgin timber to make paper to print free giveaway Bibles on? Would you like me to start one to make a WP:POINT? C'mon now, this is just petty. FCYTravis 05:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
(shifting left). I agree with FCYTravis. The previous version was sensationalistic and not focused on condoms. However, there is an anon ip who disagrees and is reverting without discussion. FreplySpang (talk) 17:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
I've restored the full proper use section removed by Chooserr on the grounds that while Wikipedia may not be an instruction manual, in this case, it's possible for those who may never use condoms to wonder how they're used. — Locke Cole 08:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't wonder at all, and many have agreed that it doesn't belong here. That is why I've respectfully removed your edit. There is a link to the proper place for sex ed on wikipedia. Chooserr 08:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
There's 3 that listed their opinions there, I believe FYCTravis agreed on the edit history a while back - I don't know why he didn't participate there - and my vote counts so that is atleast 5 vs 1. But overall that isn't important because wikipedia isn't a democracy, it's an encyclopedia, and your edit is against policy. It has a clear link to the "how to apply a condom" page, along with a picture link. Easy access. So please don't revert it again. Chooserr 09:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Before adding potentially controversial edits, bring it to the talk page so that sources and info can be discussed. If you edit the article, make a note of sources in the article as per Wikipedia guidelines, or at least mention it on the talk page.
As for the talk page - comments about Bibles being torn up and flushed, or their environmental impact, are meant to provoke - please avoid them, and if you notice a comment like it, just avoid reponding (see Internet troll). Many new regular contributors of late have totally lost the desire for consensus-based results, instead just wanting to make sure their bit is posted - all that happens is an edit war. Anyways, I've said my bit..... DonaNobisPacem 21:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
As stated above on this page, the Catholic objection to condom use relates solely to birth control, not hygenic uses which do not involve birth control:
I accept DonaNobisPacem's argument that the link above is ambiguous as to whether the Church does or doesn't 'forbid' non-Catholic married couples from condom use, accordingly I am not persisting with the qualification 'catholic couples in canonically valid marriages'; although it is clear to me that the Catechism is intended to be taken or left alone, as a whole, and is accordingly addressed to 'Catholics', not for example to Protestants, Hindus, Muslims or Jews, who by definition can not accept many or most parts of it.
PLEASE DONT REVERT UNLESS YOU CAN PROVIDE DOCUMENTARY PROOF from official Church teaching - such as the recent Catechism or some Papal decree - that they object to e.g. homosexuals using condoms to reduce the risk of contracting AIDS. They don't. For that matter why should they object to condom use, as such, for oral or anal sex by anyone, of any orientation or marital status? It doesn't involve 'contraception'. Yes, I know they condemn homosexual acts per se, but that is not the issue in this article.
Again if you refer to the link above you will see why. BTW it is the only place contraception is mentioned in the entire 800+ page Catechism; and condoms aren't specifically mentioned, even once.
On a completely different matter - abortion is not 'contraception' since it destroys the thing (embryo, fetus, 'unborn child', whatever) that has already been 'conceived'; thus it is irrelevant piling on to mention abortion, therefore I have removed this reference.