This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Add [SK] .. it isn't included in multi-lng list—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.229.220.155 ( talk) 01:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC).
the section on preventing STDs includes what is most likely just an ad, "An article in The American Journal of Gynecologic Health[19] showed that "all women who correctly and consistently used Reality® were protected from Trichomonas vaginalis" (referring to a particular brand of female condom)."
Umm, is the lubricated side of the condom supposed to be inside the condom or outside the condom? Meaning, dry inside, wet out, or wet inside, dry out? I would REALLY appreciate it if someone answer this soon.
-G —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.117.157.7 ( talk • contribs).
Wet outside, dry in. It lessens friction and prevents tearing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ATNighthawk ( talk • contribs) 18:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I removed the the following passage from the causes of failure section as non-use is in no way, shape, or form a failure of the condom. Passage follows:
Again there is no mention of a condom failing in that passage. L0b0t 23:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
People who intend to use a single contraceptive method as their form of birth control are considered "users" of that method. In withdrawal, for example, men who intend to withdraw - but don't always manage to pull out in time - are included in the typical failure rate of withdrawal. Similarly, with oral contraceptives, women who forget to take the pills are included in typical failure rate of the pill. Somewhat obviously, the pregnancy rate amoung forgetful pill-users is significantly lower than that amoung forgetful withdrawal-users.
The inclusion of such people in calculating typical failure rates allows people to compare the difficulty of using a method, and whether it still offers any protection if they sometimes forget to use it (hormones still offer some protection if not taken for a day, while things like withdrawal and barriers do not). Lyrl Talk Contribs 13:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Stephen Ambrose's book D-Day has interviews with a couple of soldiers who talk about using condoms to protect rifle barrels from water and debris. I've read it in a couple other places since, but that was the first place I saw it. I was about nineteen and it seemed the funniest thing in the world to me. 71.199.115.160 06:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)Tom Miller
I removed the following from the article:
As the edit adding the "dubious" tag noted, condoms would be quit ill fitting and difficult to use. With all due resepct to the ledgend of James Bond and the British, I can hardly imagine anyone going into battle with ten condoms per person. I am removing it pending citation. --19:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
A "condom" over each finger is possible provided it was one of those "finger cots" see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finger_cot but that doesn't prevent contamination from reaching the palm of the hand or up the wrists as would a surgical glove. A standard condom would obviously be too large for a finger, and covering the whole hand would obviously be impractical. -- Greenbomb101 14:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Why is that listed in the info box? Is weight gain a purported side effect of condoms? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.12.162.53 ( talk • contribs) .
I noticed a passage under the "Invisible" condom section that is clearly vandalism, but cannot find it in any of the edit pages to remove it. Maybe someone else knows how this was done? 74.64.60.85 22:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
It was pretty slick, but I got rid of it. Selected the blank area at the end of the real text and deleted it. Poof! It's sad that someone would go to the trouble to add something so stupid in such a clever fashion.
There was also a bit about some guy using anal condoms, and his details such as address and phone number were given too. It was pretty ridiculous, I was gonna remove it but someone beat me to it haha.
-- Littmann 07:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
HAHA? Wikipedia is not a place for jokes. Please leave them for other sites. Best Wishes.
219.89.103.84
01:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
The referenced article in the Independent is a good example of a widespread urban legend which should be addressed here. The logic of it is very simple. The Catholic condemnation of condom use as 'sinful' is based on their use as contraceptive devices; which, in the Church's opinion, trumps their use as barriers to the transmission of STD's. These objections do not apply, ipso facto, in the case of homosexual relations.
I removed a reference to a German scientisit creating a "spray-on" condom. It sounded fishy and was unsourced. If it is legitimate and you would like to add it back please give a source.-- Eric 23:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)-- 69.138.54.21 23:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't polyurethane condoms get their own section, if they're not latex?
Should the question of getting the right sized condom get more coverage? Xiner 21:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Image:CondomUse2 alternative.jpg has been in this article for some time. Recently, an anonymous editor has replaced it (twice) with Image:Posecondom.jpg. I prefer the first picture. What are other's opinions? Lyrl Talk Contribs 22:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
The posecondom one shows the wrong use of condoms. You should always squeeze out the air from the tip. Although the user holds the condom by the tip, he should have contineued to hold on the tip as he rolled the condom on. Ole-p 21:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I have seen in this and many dictionaries that the origin of the word "condom" is not known. It seems to me very likely that it is derived from one of the first discoverers of Latex, Charles-Marie La Condamine, a French scientis and explorer who discovered latex in Peru in 1735. See this link: http://www.iisrp.com/WebPolymers/00Rubber_Intro.pdf
It seems quite reasonable that tubes made of latex could have found general use and might have been called condoms from his name. It would be a small leap from there to the devices we now have for contraception. I am surprised that no connection to La Condamine seeem to hav ebeen made relative to the term condom.
68.21.231.254 23:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC) Tom Hayden
Despite its widespread reporting on MSN, Yahoo!, BBC, and others, I believe this news story is a hoax. Primarily, the organization that supposedly conducted this study, the Indian Council of Medical Research, has no mention of the study on its website. Secondly, the report gave data only for penis length, which has nothing to do with sizing (nobody unrolls a condom all the way). Actual condom sizes vary in diameter - which apparently wasn't measured in this supposed study. Unless more convincing evidence of this study is presented (like a PubMed citation, or a link associated with the ICMR), I'm removing the reference to it from this article. Lyrl Talk Contribs 00:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
i added a citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.94.230 ( talk • contribs) 16:36, 27 December 2006
Note discussion at Talk:Birth control#"pregnancy rate" rather than "failure rate" re replacing occurrences of "failure rate" with "pregnancy rate". I would also like to see the same change on this page. Please make any comments there. -- Coppertwig 04:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Please note ongoing discussion on this at the above-mentioned talk page, specifically mentioning the Condom page. -- Coppertwig 00:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Is there any info on the pregnancy rate/whatever of lambskin condoms? Or at least the risks of failure (slpping, breaking). As the pores are too small for sperm, they should in theory be as effective as latex condoms for birth control but it depends greatly on the various failure factors. Obviously if there is some info, it should be added 203.109.240.93 12:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The article currently has a sentence Condoms may fail due to faulty methods of application or physical damage (such as tears caused when opening the package), bursting caused by latex degradation (typically from being past the expiration date or being stored improperly), and from slipping off the penis during intercourse or after ejaculation. Sometimes pregnancy may result even without an obvious failure at the time of use. The last sentence - that pregnancy may occur even if the condom does not fall off or noticeably tear - I thought was obvious (factory defects, or a tear or break too small to notice), but it has been fact tagged.
Doing Google searches for a source for that statement, I find a number of cites that claim 97%-98% effectiveness "if the condom does not break" ( one example, scroll down to "condoms"). I don't think this statement is technically accurate, though. If I understand correctly the "correct use" failure rate does include some level of breakage and slippage. While incorrect use increases the risk of breaking and slipping, these things happen to even the "perfect" users tracked by the "correct use" failure rate. So I'm hesitant to use these sites as sources. But I haven't come up with anything else so far. Any suggestions? Lyrl Talk C 04:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
From WP:V: Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. and Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source. and Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require stronger sources. This strongly implies that material that is unlikely to be challenged, and that is unexceptional in nature, do not need sources. Nowhere in WP:V does it state that every sentence in an article needs to be cited.
Placement of a fact tag is generally to be taken as a challenge to said material. In this case, however, as explained above, I believe the tag placement was caused by a misunderstanding of what the sentence said, and indicates need for rewriting the sentence rather than need for a source. Does that make sense?
In this particular case, my concern is that the claim is so obvious that the best (scientific) sources don't bother to mention it. I can certainly find a number of unscientific sources for the claim (one example in my first post in this section). So, I see three ways we could proceed:
Lyrl Talk C 22:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi there guys.
The issue at hand with the sentence I tagged ("Among couples that intend condoms to be their form of birth control, pregnancy may sometimes occur even if they do not notice slippage or breakage at the time of use") is this: Other than deliberate sabotage, which is mentioned elsewhere in the article, it is not obvious to me how a pregnancy might result after using a condom properly without any obvious signs of problems. (I hate to admit it, but I have yet to use one for intercourse.) Wouldn't there be some visible breakage, slippage or overflow? I feel that the sentence should be expanded to show how this might happen, and cited if it's not based on something mentioned elsewhere in the article, or it should be removed entirely. Wikipedia should not be pushing an abstinence-only POV (or any other POV) by saying "well, this might not work even if it looks like there are no problems" without further explanation and/or citation. Other than that, I am very pleased with this article. I suspect some people out there are counting on this article's quality. :-) Grand master ka 01:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
In the effectiveness section it states "... Actual effectiveness is the proportion of couples who intended that method as their sole form of birth control and do not become pregnant; it includes couples who sometimes use the method incorrectly, or sometimes not at all. Rates are generally presented for the first year of use. "
This section used to be worded much better, imo. I would word the entire beginning "Perfect use rates describe the pregnancy rates of people who use condoms properly and consistently. Actual effectiveness rates describe the pregnancy rates of all people, inlcuding those who either use condoms improperly or inconsistently." I'll hold off on making such a change until I hear some other input (or until I hear no counter argument) DanielZimmerman 14:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. You might find current footnote numbers 2, 6, and 7 helpful in the rewrite. Lyrl Talk C 22:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
http://www.engenderhealth.org/wh/fp/ccon2.html uses the terms "perfect use" and "typical use" (words I included when I first contributed to the article months ago) And they refer to the "method" as what you are using (ie condom, female condom, etc). http://www.infoforhealth.org/pr/h9/h9chap4.shtml again, "perfect use" and "typical use" http://www.goaskalice.columbia.edu/2219.html ditto http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs243/en/ this is the "WHO" using the terms "perfect use" and "typical use". I think if the WHO is calling them "perfect use" and "typical use", as well as many other experts, that we should also be using those terms in order to be consistant with terminology. http://www.swimmingkangaroo.com/blog/2006/03/failure-of-abstinence-only.html " There are two ways to look at the effectiveness of all birth control methods – perfect use and typical use. " http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:gf7W1NQeOdUJ:www.umass.edu/uhs/uploads/basicContentWidget/10209/Effectiveness.pdf+condom+%22perfect+use%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=11&gl=us A university using "perfect use" and "typical use"
Googling condom "failure rates" "perfect use" gives 11,000+ hits. Googling condom "failure rates" "method use" gives < 1000... and that includes sentances like "If a condom does break and you are using no other birth control method, use emergency contraception to prevent pregnancy."
I think it is pretty clear that the proper terms are "pefect use" and "typical use". I shall follow what wikipedia says and "be bold" in changing it to those proper terms. DanielZimmerman 19:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I made a wording change but my main concern is that the only study cited regarding direct contact exposure is of efficacy against HPV. The issue with HPV would be genital warts and related strains whereas there is less of an issue with cervical cancer related strains. This ignores the more serious risk of Syphilis. Syphilis is occasionally symptomatic in areas not covered by condoms and is infectious whenever symptoms are present. It can easily transmit despite condom usage in such cases. Syphilis is making a resurgence despite having been close to eradication levels only a few years ago. Being itself deadly, syphilis is the greater threat than HPV at present in regards to direct contact spread.
It also concerns me that only HPV and GC are mentioned in this section. The efficacy of condoms vary by disease and that fact seems to be glossed over in this section.
ATNighthawk 19:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Failures that are caused by user error are user failures. Failures that are inherent in the method itself are method failures. Typical failure includes the entire study population, both user and method failures. Does that make sense?
I agree that in a stand-alone context people are more likely to correctly interpret perfect use than method effectiveness. But in the effectiveness section, the definition of the term is right there in the second sentence. To me, that makes the danger of misinterpretation negligible.
Back to Google, there are 19,000 hits from condom "method failure". Regarding the results from the perfect use search, I see that most sources on Google use a prose style to describe failure rates. Meaning, the phrase perfect use is separated from words like failure, pregnancy, or effectiveness. I think the ability to separate the perfect use phrase from the word it is describing (failure, pregnancy, etc.) makes it grammatically easier to work with than method, and may entirely account for the extra 9,000 Google hits. I think "method" is a technically better term, though, despite being more difficult to use when writing. To support this view, I offer the results from searches on PubMed, which catalogs all the articles from a large number of medical magazines. 18 hits for condom "perfect use" versus 21 hits for condom "method failure", and an additional five hits for condom "method effectiveness". Pretty even results, but a slight edge for method. Something similar is seen in a Google Books search, with 100 results from condom "perfect use", 100 from condom "method failure" and an additional 55 from condom "method effectiveness". Lyrl Talk C 23:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure the phrases perfect use and typical use should be treated as quotes from the reference, with quotation marks. I had not considered two-word phrases quotes, and had thought quotes around such short phrases were usually scare quotes. While I do not think there is a danger of readers interpreting "perfect use" as a scare quote because of the context, I still feel it looks unencyclopedic. I do see a benefit in marking the phrases as special the first time they are used - they are technical language being defined. However, I would prefer to use italics rather than quotation marks. Thoughts? Lyrl Talk C 23:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure listing the method or perfect-use pregnancy rate as being 2-5% is accurate. The reference it seems to be using for the 5% number is actually describing female condoms. This article is currently set up to mostly talk about male condoms, with information on female condoms being isolated to the "Female condoms" section. I believe all sources for male condoms give either a 2% or 3% annual pregnancy rate. This issue was discussed some time ago (see Talk:Condom/Archive 2#Perfect use failure rates - 2% or 3%?), and the consensus at that time was to use 2% for this article. Is there a new argument for including the 3% number? Lyrl Talk C 23:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) - 1% failure rate in six months.{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) - 0% failure rate amoung 234 women followed for one cycle. (Because this was a very short and small study, however, the confidence interval includes up to 10% per-year failure rate.){{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) - says different studies find failure rates of 2%-13% (presumably the 2% is the perfect-use rate, and 13% is typical-use, as I've never seen perfect-use condom rate as high as 13%!){{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) - 3.2% pregnancy rate after 2 years (note this is actual failure, not perfect-use, although the study does note "All [participants] were highly motivated.")Re-indenting---- Did the Contraceptive Technology 18th edition give reasons why they changed the rates? Was there a difference in the methodology used? I find it odd that the 16th and 17th would list 3% yet the 18th would list 2%. (I have found an example of a source using 16 and saying 3 and another using 18 and saying 2, I just want to know what caused the difference). Is that 1% within a margin of error. (Is there a margin of error?) Those kinds of questions need to be answered before I will firmly support the 2% because 3% had been THE number for a while. DanielZimmerman 04:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Every study I've read for the 2% per year number was describing the pregnancy rate. The chance that condoms will "fail" (meaning break or slip off) is at least 1% per use. ( This study found for experienced users (had used a condom more than 15 times), male condoms broke or slipped off 2.3% of the time. For new users (up to 15 uses of a condom), the rate was 9%. This study found that male condoms broke or slipped off 8.8% of the time, though it seems like there were a lot of new users in the study group, and it references other studies that have found breakage/slippage rates anywhere from 1% to 12%. This study reports that for experienced users slippage/breakage rates are between 1.0 and 3.6%.) Daniel, not to single you out, but your confusion in thinking the 2% per year number was the chance of breakage/slippage is an example of exactly why I support the change to "pregnancy rate" from "failure rate". Lyrl Talk C 23:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Reindenting: I would agree that a tear just a few pin holes wide and a huge gaping hole would havea difference. But they are still failures. I think the most important thing to note in all this is that when perfectly using the contraceptive method as described, condom failure (breakage, slippage, etc) plays a roll in the reason why someone who uses the method perfectly will still have a risk of pregnancy. DanielZimmerman 04:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Lyrl: you stated "Failures that occur during application generally pose no risk to the user". I have an issue with this statement. To me, this reads that if someone fails to apply the condom properly that there is no risk to the user and this is absolutely untrue. What exactly was the source trying to say and how can we word it differently? DanielZimmerman 15:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I removed the piece about Ghana because it was ignorant and quite racist. Without explaining on which aspects of Ghanian culture clashed with condom use, the previous author declared that Ghanians were unable to understand the consequences of not using condoms. If there are citations to the contrary, please disregard this. 212.219.239.213 15:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Somwhere there should be something that explains that condom does indeed reduce the sensations of lovemaking, and can be quite unconfortable for men. I think it's just important to explain it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.206.1.17 ( talk • contribs) 19:20, 20 March 2007
Our article has a section on sex education, which is fine. What isn't fine is that the part devoted to discussion of opposition to teaching about condoms in sex education in one single country occupies about 80% of that section. This section is in severe need of balancing. This encycopedia isn't about one single country and religious opposition is--at best--peripheral to the use of condoms in sex education. -- Tony Sidaway 15:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
This section seems biased. It mentions Planned Parenthood's assertion that abstinence-only programs are ineffective but no citations to the contrary from abstinence-only supporters. It gives the impression that only PP has a study of efficacy (untrue)or that abstinence only advocates are somehow less reliable. It should be better balanced at a minimum. It also seems an unnecessary mention making it seem to be more a political than a informative mention.
If abstinence-only programs are to be discussed they should be better covered with an objective approach. It would also be worth mentioning that the majority of public school ed programs are abstinence-based.
I'm unclear as to why abstinence programs are mentioned at all in a section devoted to how condom usage is taught in schools. Actual teaching varies widely (from demonstrations to only passing mention) - wouldn't a discussion of the actual teaching of condom usage be more appropriate to the topic? ATNighthawk 19:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I think this article is close to being a good article. Is anyone else interested in helping polish and shine it, before submitting it for GA review? The issues I think which need addressing (see Wikipedia:What is a good article?) are
What do folks think? Any takers on a concerted drive to improve the article and/or additional suggestions? -- TeaDrinker 03:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
"It is estimated that 61 million to 100 million condoms are improperly disposed of in Britain alone, often ending up in rivers or the ocean." It should have a time period, shouldn't it? 61 million in a day? a month? a year? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.114.151.76 ( talk) 22:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC).
The main illustration for this article is pretty poor, showing only a foil pack with a brand name on it. Shouldn't we put Image:Condom_unrolled.jpg or, if possible, a better image to represent the condom? Looking at the packaging tells you almost nothing about the shape of what's inside. -- Tony Sidaway 06:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
The opening sentence states that condoms are used solely in sexual intercourse (at least it is implied). However, recently they're also being used to protect women from STDs during fellatio, as well. I'd think that changing it to simply sex as opposed to sexual intercourse would be appropriate. Any thoughts? TrevorRC 20:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Condoms are used in all forms of sexual activity that involve contact of mucosal tissues. An implication that they are used only for full intercourse of any type is false. The problem is that 'sex' can have different meanings to different people (many will associate it only with vaginal sex) - perhaps 'sexual activity' is a better choice? ATNighthawk 19:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Benefit on top of the page is spelt "Benifits" but I can't find error in the edit
What does it means "condoms are the most distributed type of condom in the world"?
Please correct.
Aaah! It is a problem of how my browser renders the page. (Latex... [the photo] ...condoms are...)
Sorry for the noise!
I updated the Polyurethane section, specifically the outdated comparisons with latex. Studies 9 years ago suggested polyurethane was much less effective than latex, though recent lab tests equate their effectiveness, per reliable sources referenced therein.
I also updated all three Go Ask Alice! references to be more structured, and to have their last updated dates. Go Ask Alice!, while a reliable, extensive, and exhaustively researched site, does have some dated information they are in the process of updating en masse (even to the point of reversing the answer's conclusion, if recent lab tests contradict initial ones), including a couple of the references here. Peter 01:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
History should be near the top of the page 81.178.231.130 00:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I've decided to remove the line that states "Natural latex condoms have a minimum thickness of 0.046 mm" as this is simply not true. there is no "minimum" thickness, as the thickness of condoms is continually going down with advancements in technology. currently the thinnest condom is just 0.03mm. I have replaced the sentence with "Currently the thinnest latex condom stands at 0.03mm thick." Craptree 00:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
From the article:
This doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. It would stand to reason that "failure to provide sufficient education" (perhaps as a result of "religious opposition to teaching about condoms") is what Planned parenthood argues "results in [an] increased number of unwanted pregnancies and the spread of [STIs]." If Planned Parenthood draws the connection that is made by this statement, then it should be probably be cited as such.
Otherwise, the statement should be altered to reflect what PP actually advocates (and a cite would still be nice).— Kbolino 23:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
The comment "ethnic differences may play a role in correct sizing" was added in response to news articles in December 2006 such as this. See #Indian size study for discussion at the time.
It is now well into 2007, and the body that carried out this study, the Indian Council of Medical Research, still has no information on a condom sizing study on its webpage. This leads me to believe the "advance information" that led to that series of news articles was inaccurate. I'm leaning towards removing the statement about ethnicity from this Wikipedia article entirely. What do others think? Lyrl Talk C 13:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I've come across a few references which state that in the First World War, condoms issued by governments to their troops (particularly the American and German armies) were designed to be re-usable, i.e; that they were made of much thicker rubber than today's versions, and were designed to be washed out after each use ready for future use. This would make sense for the early twentieth century, particularly considering the scarcity of rubber supplies and government desire not to have thousands of soldiers coming down with some nasty infection. I'm rummaging around for a reliable source, and was just wondering if anyone else had something similar about this? Rusty2005 11:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi. This page almost completely ignores the usage of condoms during anal sex. In particular, it doesn't discuss the effectiveness of preventing STDs during anal sex. The study referenced deals exclusively with vaginal intercourse. Ideally, similar numbers should be posted for anal sex or at least the language should be clarified. I'll see if I can find some studies that can be referenced.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.252.150.116 ( talk • contribs) 22:19, 23 August 2007
Your best bet are studies regarding HIV prevention - many cover condom efficacy in anal intercourse. ATNighthawk 19:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Everyday there is a vandalism change by IP Addresses. I think this page should be semi-protected. C. Pineda 18:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
About half the images in this article are not displaying. If the caption is clicked, it takes me to the image page (where the image displays correctly). Is it just my browser having this issue, or are other people not seeing all the images, either? Lyrl Talk C 17:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
This is a non sequitor. Fact that population vaires in some other egard provides no evidence that condom use varies dependent on those factors.
__Also some background that is needed on the group surveyed is that the marital fertility rate of the surveyed women were about five children per woman, and each of the women had a different level of education. About sixty-one percent had intermediate-level education, twenty percent had a primary education, and eighteen percent had trouble reading or could not read at all. This provides evidence that condom use varies dependent on social factors like the area’s cultural background and education.__ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.203.135.112 ( talk) 09:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Republic of Ireland: Condoms and other contraceptives were legally forbidden there until 1979, when two clinics in Dublin distributed them and only to married couples. It took much effort by pro-contraceptive forces to effect changes in this direction, but the general public backed them. That the church opposed such legalisation through sermons and publications is probably a major reason why it has lost such influence in that country. Flake11 20:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that there's a common use of condoms missing from the "other Uses" section. As a hunter, and from Vietnam veterans, I know that under inclement conditions, condoms are frequently used over the end of a rifle barrel to keep it clear of rain or debris. Soldiers in Vietnam depended on condoms for keeping mud out of the barrel of the M16 when crawling through jungle; hunters in forest territory often rely on them as well. If anyone can find sources on this, it's a use that should be included! Dismalscholar 05:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
condoms are also used by alot of university students —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.92.97.111 ( talk) 12:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The fish think is an urban legend —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.202.243.230 ( talk) 00:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
The instructions on how to put on a condom, Image:Posecondom.jpg, do not specify a source. Without source information, there is no way to verify the image is not a copyright violation. Wikipedia policy is to delete images with no source information. Does anyone have information on where this image came from?
Should Image:Posecondom.jpg end up being removed, I would suggest Image:CondomUse2 alternative.jpg as an alternative that has source and copyright information. However, in a discussion a while ago ( Talk:Condom/Archive 3#Usage picture?) several people liked the Pose image better, so I'd like to save it if we can. Lyrl Talk C 23:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
213.249.247.130 ( talk) 18:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
You can find the original images in *vectorial* Corel Draw 3.0 format here : http://preservatif.maisonx.com/condom.zip. These images have been made in 1997. User:Béa 01:13, 9 February 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.89.173.224 ( talk)
There are a few religious movements that prohibit condom use for purposes of contraception - Orthodox Judaism, the Protestant Christian Quiverfull movement, the Roman Catholic Church, and probably some small groups I'm not aware of. Of these groups, the RCC is by far the largest. Only the RCC has a major influence on the extent of condom promotion programs targeted at reducing the AIDS epidemic. I believe that including the RCC's position on condoms to prevent STDs is relevant to this article in a way that the positions of Orthodox Judaism and Quiverfull adherants are not.
However, this discussion was recently removed ( diff) with the edit summary This is not relevant to the discussion of condoms. We do not list what each and every religion has to say about condoms. This belongs in Christian_views_on_contraception#Roman_Catholic_Church.
What do others think? Lyrl Talk C 02:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I recently expanded the lead section to try to conform with the Wikipedia guideline WP:LEAD, as recommended in the recent peer review. Specifically, the guideline states "the lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article". To me, something that has its own section heading is an "important point" in an article, so I tried to include something from each section in the lead section. The guideline also states "Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source". I tried to judge which statements were controversial enough to need a source in the lead itself, and which statements would be OK relying on the citations in the body.
My sentence attempting to summarize the "Debate and criticism" section was recently removed ( diff) with the edit summary ""litter problems" and "the Catholic Church" in one sentence? ??? remove bizarre, uncited lede sentence". I appreciate that my writing style is awkward at times, but I honestly think the solution here would be to improve the summary. Removing it entirely takes this article out of conformance with WP:LEAD. As far as citations, the "Debate and criticism" section is fairly well cited. Those citations can easily be copied to the lead section if needed; I don't find that a compelling argument for deleting the sentence.
Thoughts on including "Debate and criticism" in the lead section? Lyrl Talk C 01:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I just read at the link below that the Roman Soldiers made condoms from the muscles of their conquered foes. I think it would be interesting to include this in the history section on condoms.
http://www.spicygear.com/sexed/detail.cfm/cid/121 -- PaladinWriter ( talk) 02:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
" condom is a device most commonly used during dinner. It is put on a man's erect thumb and blocks ejaculated pasta sauce from the body of a male , Condoms are used to prevent jews and transmission of [[SARS]. Because condoms are waterproof, elastic, and durable, they are also used in a variety of secondary applications. These range from creating waterproof microphones to protecting rifle barrels from midgets." Surely this is vandalism. I know something about the correct use of a condom, and this does not describe such use. Could someone please lock this page? Pygmypony ( talk) 18:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
The source link for the polyurethane condom thickness that was in place linked to a product which I believe no longer exists, at least in America. I couldn't find a reference to it. I also believe the information regarding thickness and size was out of date, so I corrected it. I think we need more sourcing on the blurb about female condoms. I looked at the main article and it gives no references regarding the current state of FDA approval for latex female condoms. Helixweb ( talk) 09:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Under Varieties > Materials > Synthetic, the following sentence contains a poor footnote:
"Polyurethane condoms have gained FDA approval for sale in the United States as an effective method of contraception and HIV prevention, and under laboratory conditions have been shown to be just as effective as latex for these purposes.[82]"
Footnote 82 references a college student health website that notes polyurethane condoms have "passed the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) rigorous tests and have gained the FDA's stamp of approval for sale in the United States as an effective method of contraception and HIV prevention." However, it contains no reference to a study or even an announcement by the FDA.
A quick search found this article by the US Department of Veterans Affairs which refers to some tests that suggest higher breakage rates by polyurethane condoms:
(Scroll to "Reasons for Condom Failure")
The reference links on this article resulted in blank pages for me, however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.153.96 ( talk • contribs) 28 October 2008
I don't see how adding an actual picture of a penis as opposed to the illustration we had on there makes the article any better. I think the addition of actual nudity to the article detracts from the overall message, might scare off readers, and most certainly will add to the vandalism problems that plague this topic. Helixweb ( talk) 12:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Dear Lyrl,
You wrote : - "Latex condoms have significantly smaller pores than the study on latex gloves you cited. "
On what do you base this assertion? Can you provide a reference? Having worked with NRL I can assure you ALL latex has exactly the same lattice (pore) size and why would medical gloves select an inferior grade if such existed? Latex gloves have a longer dip dwell time and in most cases more coagulant dips than the two used for condoms. The formers (in terms of composition) and coagulants used are identical.
1). A paper in the February 1992 issue of Applied and Environmental Microbiology reports that filtration techniques show the HIV-1 virus to be 0.1 micron (4 millionths of an inch) in diameter. It is three times smaller than the herpes virus, 60 times smaller than the syphilis spirochete, and 50 to 450 times smaller than sperm.
2). Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) researchers, using powerful electron microscopes, have found that new latex, from which condoms are fabricated, contains "maximum inherent flaw[s]" (that is, holes) 70 microns in diameter.
These holes are 700 times larger than the HIV-1 virus. There are pores in latex, and some of the pores are large enough to pass sperm-sized particles. Carey, et al., observed leakage of HIV-sized particles through 33%+ of the latex condoms tested. In addition, as Gordon points out in his review, the testing procedures for condoms are less than desirable. United States condom manufacturers are allowed 0.4% leaky condoms (AQL). Gordon states, "The fluctuations in sampling permits many batches not meeting AQL to be sold." In the United States, 12% of domestic and 21% of imported batches of condoms have failed to meet the 0.4% AQL.
REFERENCES
Lytle, C. D., et al., "Filtration Sizes of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 and Surrogate Viruses Used to Test Barrier Materials," Applied and Environmental Microbiology, Vol. 58, #2, Feb. 1992.
"Anomalous Fatigue Behavior in Polysoprene," Rubber Chemistry and Technology, Vol. 62, #4, Sep.-Oct. 1989.
Collart, David G., M.D., loc. cit.
AND
Carey et al.(xxii) observed the passage of polystyrene microspheres, 110 nm diameter ( HIV diameter is from 90nm to 130 nm) across 33% of the membranes of the latex condoms which they studied (29 over 89 nonlubricated latex condoms). More recently, Lytle et al., while criticizing the "exaggerated conditions" of the in vitro, polystyrene.
The condom itself is not 100 % safe. Result of examination show the following :
A condom is made of rubber (latex), a hydrocarbon compound with polymerization, which means that it is fibrous and porous like woven cloth. By means of an electronic microscope the pores of the condom can be seen in a non-stretched state with a width of 1/60 micron, while the HIV/AIDS virus has a width of 1/250 micron. When the condom is stretched the pores of the condom are 10 times as wide as that of the virus; in other words, the virus can go through the wall of the condom. The condom was designed for family planning (to strain sperm, not viruses); and a condom is not meant for fornication/prostitution.
Research carried out in the U.S. on 89 condoms in circulation on the market proved that 29 out of 89 leaked, which means that the leakage was about 30 %. In Indonesia condoms imported from Hong Kong in 1996 were withdrawn from market because 50 % leaked. In practice in the field there is often failure of condoms use for family planning because of leakage, let alone for fornication/prostitution. As a comparison, sperm are as large as oranges and viruses as large as a period (dot).
Another examination conducted in the U.S. ( the Physical Division of Human Sciences, Maryland, USA, 1992) showed that particles as minute as viruses can be detected going through the wall of condoms.
In every condom there are 0.4 % pinhole, microscopic defect in the manufacturing process. The area of the condom is 80 cm2 and if you count 32,000 pinhole in each condom, and if each pinhole is 1/1000 micron, Cookies are really good at birthday parties. FOR REFERENCES (to above) AND TO READ THIS HIGHLY DETAILED ARTICLE go to: - www.humanlifeinternational.com/condom_facts_safe_sex_aids.pdf —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Aimulti (
talk •
contribs)
03:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
If you can provide references that contradict the above I will be happy to withdraw my objections to the assertions in the article.
P. S. In addition, the article you referenced (as a rebuttal) cited no references whatsoever and thus should be considered simply an opinion.
Also to claim my references are outdated ignores the fact NRL (latex rubber) is a natural material and has not ever changed (at least in modern times) in structure. The only improvements have been in the area of 'on shelf vulcanization' (loss of modulus over time-or hardening to use non technical terms). This has been improved by changing additives. The pore structure (lattice) cannot be modified.
ADDENDA
Latex glove specifications Studies done by Georgetown Medical University and the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Md., published in Nature, Sept. 1, 1988, show that latex gloves, made to much higher specifications than the condom, have pores 50 times larger than the 0.1 micron HIV virus.
Even if there were no pores in latex, in-use breakage and slip-off rates are "so high as to make condoms ineffective for protection against HIV," says biochemist and molecular biologist Dr. David G. Collart, Ph.D., of Stone Mountain, Ga.
Aimulti ( talk) 03:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Aimulti, this article's STD section is currently referenced with reviews from respected sources that combine many large studies. These references, published in the past decade, support the current mainstream scientific view. Your sources of individual studies published in the '80s and early '90s are believed to be accurate by only a tiny minority of today's scientists, and including them would violate Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Lyrl Talk C 12:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I added a little clarafication of the controversy over condoms within the catholic church. Let me know what you think. HatlessAtless ( talk) 18:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link){{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)The history section has recently been expanded by quite a bit. I'm sure some of the new text is somewhat raw and would benefit from copyediting and reviews offering improvement suggestions. Also, the expansion increased the size of this article by 73%. I think this is a bit much, and the history section probably needs to be spun out into its own article. Help with naming the new article (Condom history? History of the condom? History of condoms?), and doing the summary style in the main condom article, would both be appreciated.
A recent editor questioned the relevance of the 1490s syphilis outbreak to this article. The connection is that Fallopio's invention of the condom, and its rapid popularization, was primarily driven by fear of syphilis. Consider this a solicitation for suggestions to make this relationship more clear in the text. Lyrl Talk C 00:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Ha, I had put both sections under history a while back. WhatamIdoing separated them out a few days ago. I don't feel strongly about it either way. Lyrl Talk C 00:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I was looking at the layout of the article, and thought it might make sense to put female condoms as a subsection under varieties. Or if not that, would it make sense to put female condoms next to the varieties section (since it is a similar device). Some of the other devices listed in varieties are appear to be at least as dis-similar from the standard male condom as the female condom is. Thought it might simplify the structure of the article a little to group these together. But figured that other eds may not agree, so thought would toss the idea out here rather than just being bold. Zodon ( talk) 06:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I added a couple of sentences (w/ references) mentioning use of condoms to treat persistent HPV infection (help in clearing infection/facilitate regression of potentially pre-cancerous lesions). It appears that by decreasing exposure to immune suppressive agents in semen, condoms may help treat potentially precancerous changes. Which seemed enough different from the more commonly known role of decreasing transmission of STD pathogens that worth mentioning. Zodon ( talk) 08:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
For condom usage in Japan, there is also this 2004 CBS article that says, "Condoms account for about 80 percent of the birth control market." The PRB datasheet seems like a more "official" source, but I thought I'd offer the CBS article as an alternative.
Does the size of this section seem about right? I think it covers what I would expect it to, but it seems short compared to most of the other sections in this article. Lyrl Talk C 11:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, after reading the section on failure I do see the discussion there but I think it has some major cleanup that needs to be done. Many of the items discussed previously about "perfect use" versus "typical use" are gone and now we are left with some very strange (imo) wording describing when a condom might fail. The article restricts to discussion of typical use to "couples" when typical use need not be restricted to only couples. I also have an issue with the wording of serioconversion, 100 person years, and 85% reduction of risk. A layperson coming to get information on condom effectiveness is not going to get a good enough of a picture with what is presented there. There should be a better way to say it, while leaving the more clinical/technical information to the sources. DanielZimmerman ( talk) 03:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I added a sentence to link in double bagging. Should double bagging be merged into this article (the whole double bagging article is 2 short paragraphs). Perhaps leaving a disambiguation page at double bagging? As I recall, use of a male condom with female condom also results in increased failure rate - I think I have a reference for that, but have to check. What do other editors think? Zodon ( talk) 05:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
The infobox now says "Benefits: No external drugs or clinic visits required". External drugs? Is there a particular meaning that's intended here? How about just "No medications or clinic visits required"? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I started reading the article and its really good, but sometimes the language is really out of line for an encyclopaedia. Like: "The person may have run out of condoms, or be travelling and not have a condom with them, or simply dislike the feel of condoms and decide to "take a chance." What’s with the language here... some of this is really self evident. There is also a western bias in that it fails to mention that in many countries condoms may not be affordable or not readily available (rather than "well, we went on a city-break and I forgot to pack the condoms, silly me, so we had a quickie without, but I think he pulled it out early enough"). Also, this sentence is under the heading condom failure, but not packing a condom for travel or not using one is not a condom failure, its a human failure. I am all for a section on availability of condoms though (i.e. youth, women, cost, in bars, give away at the Brazilian Carnival etc).
The language really gets unnecessarily casual at times. Why not say "dislike the feel of condoms" rather than "simply dislike the feel of condoms"?
Other examples are: "For the boom of the condom industry, it appears there is no end in sight."... very casual.
Also "Among people who intend condoms to be their form of birth control, pregnancy may occur when the user has sex without a condom."... well of course! I am not sure if this needs to be said again? and in any case not like this... -- SasiSasi ( talk) 20:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
According to Condom#Effectiveness, perfect use gives an annual 2% chance of pregnancy (35 years to 50% failure), and typical use gives 10—18% (4—7 years to 50% failure). Those numbers seem a little high (my friend cohort of people whom I have a reasonable expectation that I would hear about such events includes about five dozen sexually-active-couple-years without "surprises"), but the sources are not obviously unreliable. - Eldereft ( cont.) 20:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Not exactly an urgent thing, but over on Talk:Semen there was a brief mention of possibly using Image:SemenInCondom.jpg on this article. Might be suitable? – Luna Santin ( talk) 09:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
For those of you who don't know, polyisoprene condoms are a new form of condom that is available. To learn more about them, Google "polyisoprene condoms". I think there should be a new section in the article under "Materials" about these. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.225.87.136 ( talk) 17:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Add [SK] .. it isn't included in multi-lng list—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.229.220.155 ( talk) 01:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC).
the section on preventing STDs includes what is most likely just an ad, "An article in The American Journal of Gynecologic Health[19] showed that "all women who correctly and consistently used Reality® were protected from Trichomonas vaginalis" (referring to a particular brand of female condom)."
Umm, is the lubricated side of the condom supposed to be inside the condom or outside the condom? Meaning, dry inside, wet out, or wet inside, dry out? I would REALLY appreciate it if someone answer this soon.
-G —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.117.157.7 ( talk • contribs).
Wet outside, dry in. It lessens friction and prevents tearing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ATNighthawk ( talk • contribs) 18:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I removed the the following passage from the causes of failure section as non-use is in no way, shape, or form a failure of the condom. Passage follows:
Again there is no mention of a condom failing in that passage. L0b0t 23:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
People who intend to use a single contraceptive method as their form of birth control are considered "users" of that method. In withdrawal, for example, men who intend to withdraw - but don't always manage to pull out in time - are included in the typical failure rate of withdrawal. Similarly, with oral contraceptives, women who forget to take the pills are included in typical failure rate of the pill. Somewhat obviously, the pregnancy rate amoung forgetful pill-users is significantly lower than that amoung forgetful withdrawal-users.
The inclusion of such people in calculating typical failure rates allows people to compare the difficulty of using a method, and whether it still offers any protection if they sometimes forget to use it (hormones still offer some protection if not taken for a day, while things like withdrawal and barriers do not). Lyrl Talk Contribs 13:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Stephen Ambrose's book D-Day has interviews with a couple of soldiers who talk about using condoms to protect rifle barrels from water and debris. I've read it in a couple other places since, but that was the first place I saw it. I was about nineteen and it seemed the funniest thing in the world to me. 71.199.115.160 06:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)Tom Miller
I removed the following from the article:
As the edit adding the "dubious" tag noted, condoms would be quit ill fitting and difficult to use. With all due resepct to the ledgend of James Bond and the British, I can hardly imagine anyone going into battle with ten condoms per person. I am removing it pending citation. --19:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
A "condom" over each finger is possible provided it was one of those "finger cots" see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finger_cot but that doesn't prevent contamination from reaching the palm of the hand or up the wrists as would a surgical glove. A standard condom would obviously be too large for a finger, and covering the whole hand would obviously be impractical. -- Greenbomb101 14:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Why is that listed in the info box? Is weight gain a purported side effect of condoms? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.12.162.53 ( talk • contribs) .
I noticed a passage under the "Invisible" condom section that is clearly vandalism, but cannot find it in any of the edit pages to remove it. Maybe someone else knows how this was done? 74.64.60.85 22:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
It was pretty slick, but I got rid of it. Selected the blank area at the end of the real text and deleted it. Poof! It's sad that someone would go to the trouble to add something so stupid in such a clever fashion.
There was also a bit about some guy using anal condoms, and his details such as address and phone number were given too. It was pretty ridiculous, I was gonna remove it but someone beat me to it haha.
-- Littmann 07:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
HAHA? Wikipedia is not a place for jokes. Please leave them for other sites. Best Wishes.
219.89.103.84
01:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
The referenced article in the Independent is a good example of a widespread urban legend which should be addressed here. The logic of it is very simple. The Catholic condemnation of condom use as 'sinful' is based on their use as contraceptive devices; which, in the Church's opinion, trumps their use as barriers to the transmission of STD's. These objections do not apply, ipso facto, in the case of homosexual relations.
I removed a reference to a German scientisit creating a "spray-on" condom. It sounded fishy and was unsourced. If it is legitimate and you would like to add it back please give a source.-- Eric 23:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)-- 69.138.54.21 23:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't polyurethane condoms get their own section, if they're not latex?
Should the question of getting the right sized condom get more coverage? Xiner 21:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Image:CondomUse2 alternative.jpg has been in this article for some time. Recently, an anonymous editor has replaced it (twice) with Image:Posecondom.jpg. I prefer the first picture. What are other's opinions? Lyrl Talk Contribs 22:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
The posecondom one shows the wrong use of condoms. You should always squeeze out the air from the tip. Although the user holds the condom by the tip, he should have contineued to hold on the tip as he rolled the condom on. Ole-p 21:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I have seen in this and many dictionaries that the origin of the word "condom" is not known. It seems to me very likely that it is derived from one of the first discoverers of Latex, Charles-Marie La Condamine, a French scientis and explorer who discovered latex in Peru in 1735. See this link: http://www.iisrp.com/WebPolymers/00Rubber_Intro.pdf
It seems quite reasonable that tubes made of latex could have found general use and might have been called condoms from his name. It would be a small leap from there to the devices we now have for contraception. I am surprised that no connection to La Condamine seeem to hav ebeen made relative to the term condom.
68.21.231.254 23:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC) Tom Hayden
Despite its widespread reporting on MSN, Yahoo!, BBC, and others, I believe this news story is a hoax. Primarily, the organization that supposedly conducted this study, the Indian Council of Medical Research, has no mention of the study on its website. Secondly, the report gave data only for penis length, which has nothing to do with sizing (nobody unrolls a condom all the way). Actual condom sizes vary in diameter - which apparently wasn't measured in this supposed study. Unless more convincing evidence of this study is presented (like a PubMed citation, or a link associated with the ICMR), I'm removing the reference to it from this article. Lyrl Talk Contribs 00:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
i added a citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.94.230 ( talk • contribs) 16:36, 27 December 2006
Note discussion at Talk:Birth control#"pregnancy rate" rather than "failure rate" re replacing occurrences of "failure rate" with "pregnancy rate". I would also like to see the same change on this page. Please make any comments there. -- Coppertwig 04:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Please note ongoing discussion on this at the above-mentioned talk page, specifically mentioning the Condom page. -- Coppertwig 00:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Is there any info on the pregnancy rate/whatever of lambskin condoms? Or at least the risks of failure (slpping, breaking). As the pores are too small for sperm, they should in theory be as effective as latex condoms for birth control but it depends greatly on the various failure factors. Obviously if there is some info, it should be added 203.109.240.93 12:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The article currently has a sentence Condoms may fail due to faulty methods of application or physical damage (such as tears caused when opening the package), bursting caused by latex degradation (typically from being past the expiration date or being stored improperly), and from slipping off the penis during intercourse or after ejaculation. Sometimes pregnancy may result even without an obvious failure at the time of use. The last sentence - that pregnancy may occur even if the condom does not fall off or noticeably tear - I thought was obvious (factory defects, or a tear or break too small to notice), but it has been fact tagged.
Doing Google searches for a source for that statement, I find a number of cites that claim 97%-98% effectiveness "if the condom does not break" ( one example, scroll down to "condoms"). I don't think this statement is technically accurate, though. If I understand correctly the "correct use" failure rate does include some level of breakage and slippage. While incorrect use increases the risk of breaking and slipping, these things happen to even the "perfect" users tracked by the "correct use" failure rate. So I'm hesitant to use these sites as sources. But I haven't come up with anything else so far. Any suggestions? Lyrl Talk C 04:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
From WP:V: Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. and Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source. and Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require stronger sources. This strongly implies that material that is unlikely to be challenged, and that is unexceptional in nature, do not need sources. Nowhere in WP:V does it state that every sentence in an article needs to be cited.
Placement of a fact tag is generally to be taken as a challenge to said material. In this case, however, as explained above, I believe the tag placement was caused by a misunderstanding of what the sentence said, and indicates need for rewriting the sentence rather than need for a source. Does that make sense?
In this particular case, my concern is that the claim is so obvious that the best (scientific) sources don't bother to mention it. I can certainly find a number of unscientific sources for the claim (one example in my first post in this section). So, I see three ways we could proceed:
Lyrl Talk C 22:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi there guys.
The issue at hand with the sentence I tagged ("Among couples that intend condoms to be their form of birth control, pregnancy may sometimes occur even if they do not notice slippage or breakage at the time of use") is this: Other than deliberate sabotage, which is mentioned elsewhere in the article, it is not obvious to me how a pregnancy might result after using a condom properly without any obvious signs of problems. (I hate to admit it, but I have yet to use one for intercourse.) Wouldn't there be some visible breakage, slippage or overflow? I feel that the sentence should be expanded to show how this might happen, and cited if it's not based on something mentioned elsewhere in the article, or it should be removed entirely. Wikipedia should not be pushing an abstinence-only POV (or any other POV) by saying "well, this might not work even if it looks like there are no problems" without further explanation and/or citation. Other than that, I am very pleased with this article. I suspect some people out there are counting on this article's quality. :-) Grand master ka 01:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
In the effectiveness section it states "... Actual effectiveness is the proportion of couples who intended that method as their sole form of birth control and do not become pregnant; it includes couples who sometimes use the method incorrectly, or sometimes not at all. Rates are generally presented for the first year of use. "
This section used to be worded much better, imo. I would word the entire beginning "Perfect use rates describe the pregnancy rates of people who use condoms properly and consistently. Actual effectiveness rates describe the pregnancy rates of all people, inlcuding those who either use condoms improperly or inconsistently." I'll hold off on making such a change until I hear some other input (or until I hear no counter argument) DanielZimmerman 14:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. You might find current footnote numbers 2, 6, and 7 helpful in the rewrite. Lyrl Talk C 22:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
http://www.engenderhealth.org/wh/fp/ccon2.html uses the terms "perfect use" and "typical use" (words I included when I first contributed to the article months ago) And they refer to the "method" as what you are using (ie condom, female condom, etc). http://www.infoforhealth.org/pr/h9/h9chap4.shtml again, "perfect use" and "typical use" http://www.goaskalice.columbia.edu/2219.html ditto http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs243/en/ this is the "WHO" using the terms "perfect use" and "typical use". I think if the WHO is calling them "perfect use" and "typical use", as well as many other experts, that we should also be using those terms in order to be consistant with terminology. http://www.swimmingkangaroo.com/blog/2006/03/failure-of-abstinence-only.html " There are two ways to look at the effectiveness of all birth control methods – perfect use and typical use. " http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:gf7W1NQeOdUJ:www.umass.edu/uhs/uploads/basicContentWidget/10209/Effectiveness.pdf+condom+%22perfect+use%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=11&gl=us A university using "perfect use" and "typical use"
Googling condom "failure rates" "perfect use" gives 11,000+ hits. Googling condom "failure rates" "method use" gives < 1000... and that includes sentances like "If a condom does break and you are using no other birth control method, use emergency contraception to prevent pregnancy."
I think it is pretty clear that the proper terms are "pefect use" and "typical use". I shall follow what wikipedia says and "be bold" in changing it to those proper terms. DanielZimmerman 19:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I made a wording change but my main concern is that the only study cited regarding direct contact exposure is of efficacy against HPV. The issue with HPV would be genital warts and related strains whereas there is less of an issue with cervical cancer related strains. This ignores the more serious risk of Syphilis. Syphilis is occasionally symptomatic in areas not covered by condoms and is infectious whenever symptoms are present. It can easily transmit despite condom usage in such cases. Syphilis is making a resurgence despite having been close to eradication levels only a few years ago. Being itself deadly, syphilis is the greater threat than HPV at present in regards to direct contact spread.
It also concerns me that only HPV and GC are mentioned in this section. The efficacy of condoms vary by disease and that fact seems to be glossed over in this section.
ATNighthawk 19:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Failures that are caused by user error are user failures. Failures that are inherent in the method itself are method failures. Typical failure includes the entire study population, both user and method failures. Does that make sense?
I agree that in a stand-alone context people are more likely to correctly interpret perfect use than method effectiveness. But in the effectiveness section, the definition of the term is right there in the second sentence. To me, that makes the danger of misinterpretation negligible.
Back to Google, there are 19,000 hits from condom "method failure". Regarding the results from the perfect use search, I see that most sources on Google use a prose style to describe failure rates. Meaning, the phrase perfect use is separated from words like failure, pregnancy, or effectiveness. I think the ability to separate the perfect use phrase from the word it is describing (failure, pregnancy, etc.) makes it grammatically easier to work with than method, and may entirely account for the extra 9,000 Google hits. I think "method" is a technically better term, though, despite being more difficult to use when writing. To support this view, I offer the results from searches on PubMed, which catalogs all the articles from a large number of medical magazines. 18 hits for condom "perfect use" versus 21 hits for condom "method failure", and an additional five hits for condom "method effectiveness". Pretty even results, but a slight edge for method. Something similar is seen in a Google Books search, with 100 results from condom "perfect use", 100 from condom "method failure" and an additional 55 from condom "method effectiveness". Lyrl Talk C 23:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure the phrases perfect use and typical use should be treated as quotes from the reference, with quotation marks. I had not considered two-word phrases quotes, and had thought quotes around such short phrases were usually scare quotes. While I do not think there is a danger of readers interpreting "perfect use" as a scare quote because of the context, I still feel it looks unencyclopedic. I do see a benefit in marking the phrases as special the first time they are used - they are technical language being defined. However, I would prefer to use italics rather than quotation marks. Thoughts? Lyrl Talk C 23:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure listing the method or perfect-use pregnancy rate as being 2-5% is accurate. The reference it seems to be using for the 5% number is actually describing female condoms. This article is currently set up to mostly talk about male condoms, with information on female condoms being isolated to the "Female condoms" section. I believe all sources for male condoms give either a 2% or 3% annual pregnancy rate. This issue was discussed some time ago (see Talk:Condom/Archive 2#Perfect use failure rates - 2% or 3%?), and the consensus at that time was to use 2% for this article. Is there a new argument for including the 3% number? Lyrl Talk C 23:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) - 1% failure rate in six months.{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) - 0% failure rate amoung 234 women followed for one cycle. (Because this was a very short and small study, however, the confidence interval includes up to 10% per-year failure rate.){{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) - says different studies find failure rates of 2%-13% (presumably the 2% is the perfect-use rate, and 13% is typical-use, as I've never seen perfect-use condom rate as high as 13%!){{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) - 3.2% pregnancy rate after 2 years (note this is actual failure, not perfect-use, although the study does note "All [participants] were highly motivated.")Re-indenting---- Did the Contraceptive Technology 18th edition give reasons why they changed the rates? Was there a difference in the methodology used? I find it odd that the 16th and 17th would list 3% yet the 18th would list 2%. (I have found an example of a source using 16 and saying 3 and another using 18 and saying 2, I just want to know what caused the difference). Is that 1% within a margin of error. (Is there a margin of error?) Those kinds of questions need to be answered before I will firmly support the 2% because 3% had been THE number for a while. DanielZimmerman 04:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Every study I've read for the 2% per year number was describing the pregnancy rate. The chance that condoms will "fail" (meaning break or slip off) is at least 1% per use. ( This study found for experienced users (had used a condom more than 15 times), male condoms broke or slipped off 2.3% of the time. For new users (up to 15 uses of a condom), the rate was 9%. This study found that male condoms broke or slipped off 8.8% of the time, though it seems like there were a lot of new users in the study group, and it references other studies that have found breakage/slippage rates anywhere from 1% to 12%. This study reports that for experienced users slippage/breakage rates are between 1.0 and 3.6%.) Daniel, not to single you out, but your confusion in thinking the 2% per year number was the chance of breakage/slippage is an example of exactly why I support the change to "pregnancy rate" from "failure rate". Lyrl Talk C 23:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Reindenting: I would agree that a tear just a few pin holes wide and a huge gaping hole would havea difference. But they are still failures. I think the most important thing to note in all this is that when perfectly using the contraceptive method as described, condom failure (breakage, slippage, etc) plays a roll in the reason why someone who uses the method perfectly will still have a risk of pregnancy. DanielZimmerman 04:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Lyrl: you stated "Failures that occur during application generally pose no risk to the user". I have an issue with this statement. To me, this reads that if someone fails to apply the condom properly that there is no risk to the user and this is absolutely untrue. What exactly was the source trying to say and how can we word it differently? DanielZimmerman 15:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I removed the piece about Ghana because it was ignorant and quite racist. Without explaining on which aspects of Ghanian culture clashed with condom use, the previous author declared that Ghanians were unable to understand the consequences of not using condoms. If there are citations to the contrary, please disregard this. 212.219.239.213 15:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Somwhere there should be something that explains that condom does indeed reduce the sensations of lovemaking, and can be quite unconfortable for men. I think it's just important to explain it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.206.1.17 ( talk • contribs) 19:20, 20 March 2007
Our article has a section on sex education, which is fine. What isn't fine is that the part devoted to discussion of opposition to teaching about condoms in sex education in one single country occupies about 80% of that section. This section is in severe need of balancing. This encycopedia isn't about one single country and religious opposition is--at best--peripheral to the use of condoms in sex education. -- Tony Sidaway 15:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
This section seems biased. It mentions Planned Parenthood's assertion that abstinence-only programs are ineffective but no citations to the contrary from abstinence-only supporters. It gives the impression that only PP has a study of efficacy (untrue)or that abstinence only advocates are somehow less reliable. It should be better balanced at a minimum. It also seems an unnecessary mention making it seem to be more a political than a informative mention.
If abstinence-only programs are to be discussed they should be better covered with an objective approach. It would also be worth mentioning that the majority of public school ed programs are abstinence-based.
I'm unclear as to why abstinence programs are mentioned at all in a section devoted to how condom usage is taught in schools. Actual teaching varies widely (from demonstrations to only passing mention) - wouldn't a discussion of the actual teaching of condom usage be more appropriate to the topic? ATNighthawk 19:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I think this article is close to being a good article. Is anyone else interested in helping polish and shine it, before submitting it for GA review? The issues I think which need addressing (see Wikipedia:What is a good article?) are
What do folks think? Any takers on a concerted drive to improve the article and/or additional suggestions? -- TeaDrinker 03:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
"It is estimated that 61 million to 100 million condoms are improperly disposed of in Britain alone, often ending up in rivers or the ocean." It should have a time period, shouldn't it? 61 million in a day? a month? a year? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.114.151.76 ( talk) 22:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC).
The main illustration for this article is pretty poor, showing only a foil pack with a brand name on it. Shouldn't we put Image:Condom_unrolled.jpg or, if possible, a better image to represent the condom? Looking at the packaging tells you almost nothing about the shape of what's inside. -- Tony Sidaway 06:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
The opening sentence states that condoms are used solely in sexual intercourse (at least it is implied). However, recently they're also being used to protect women from STDs during fellatio, as well. I'd think that changing it to simply sex as opposed to sexual intercourse would be appropriate. Any thoughts? TrevorRC 20:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Condoms are used in all forms of sexual activity that involve contact of mucosal tissues. An implication that they are used only for full intercourse of any type is false. The problem is that 'sex' can have different meanings to different people (many will associate it only with vaginal sex) - perhaps 'sexual activity' is a better choice? ATNighthawk 19:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Benefit on top of the page is spelt "Benifits" but I can't find error in the edit
What does it means "condoms are the most distributed type of condom in the world"?
Please correct.
Aaah! It is a problem of how my browser renders the page. (Latex... [the photo] ...condoms are...)
Sorry for the noise!
I updated the Polyurethane section, specifically the outdated comparisons with latex. Studies 9 years ago suggested polyurethane was much less effective than latex, though recent lab tests equate their effectiveness, per reliable sources referenced therein.
I also updated all three Go Ask Alice! references to be more structured, and to have their last updated dates. Go Ask Alice!, while a reliable, extensive, and exhaustively researched site, does have some dated information they are in the process of updating en masse (even to the point of reversing the answer's conclusion, if recent lab tests contradict initial ones), including a couple of the references here. Peter 01:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
History should be near the top of the page 81.178.231.130 00:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I've decided to remove the line that states "Natural latex condoms have a minimum thickness of 0.046 mm" as this is simply not true. there is no "minimum" thickness, as the thickness of condoms is continually going down with advancements in technology. currently the thinnest condom is just 0.03mm. I have replaced the sentence with "Currently the thinnest latex condom stands at 0.03mm thick." Craptree 00:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
From the article:
This doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. It would stand to reason that "failure to provide sufficient education" (perhaps as a result of "religious opposition to teaching about condoms") is what Planned parenthood argues "results in [an] increased number of unwanted pregnancies and the spread of [STIs]." If Planned Parenthood draws the connection that is made by this statement, then it should be probably be cited as such.
Otherwise, the statement should be altered to reflect what PP actually advocates (and a cite would still be nice).— Kbolino 23:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
The comment "ethnic differences may play a role in correct sizing" was added in response to news articles in December 2006 such as this. See #Indian size study for discussion at the time.
It is now well into 2007, and the body that carried out this study, the Indian Council of Medical Research, still has no information on a condom sizing study on its webpage. This leads me to believe the "advance information" that led to that series of news articles was inaccurate. I'm leaning towards removing the statement about ethnicity from this Wikipedia article entirely. What do others think? Lyrl Talk C 13:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I've come across a few references which state that in the First World War, condoms issued by governments to their troops (particularly the American and German armies) were designed to be re-usable, i.e; that they were made of much thicker rubber than today's versions, and were designed to be washed out after each use ready for future use. This would make sense for the early twentieth century, particularly considering the scarcity of rubber supplies and government desire not to have thousands of soldiers coming down with some nasty infection. I'm rummaging around for a reliable source, and was just wondering if anyone else had something similar about this? Rusty2005 11:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi. This page almost completely ignores the usage of condoms during anal sex. In particular, it doesn't discuss the effectiveness of preventing STDs during anal sex. The study referenced deals exclusively with vaginal intercourse. Ideally, similar numbers should be posted for anal sex or at least the language should be clarified. I'll see if I can find some studies that can be referenced.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.252.150.116 ( talk • contribs) 22:19, 23 August 2007
Your best bet are studies regarding HIV prevention - many cover condom efficacy in anal intercourse. ATNighthawk 19:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Everyday there is a vandalism change by IP Addresses. I think this page should be semi-protected. C. Pineda 18:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
About half the images in this article are not displaying. If the caption is clicked, it takes me to the image page (where the image displays correctly). Is it just my browser having this issue, or are other people not seeing all the images, either? Lyrl Talk C 17:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
This is a non sequitor. Fact that population vaires in some other egard provides no evidence that condom use varies dependent on those factors.
__Also some background that is needed on the group surveyed is that the marital fertility rate of the surveyed women were about five children per woman, and each of the women had a different level of education. About sixty-one percent had intermediate-level education, twenty percent had a primary education, and eighteen percent had trouble reading or could not read at all. This provides evidence that condom use varies dependent on social factors like the area’s cultural background and education.__ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.203.135.112 ( talk) 09:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Republic of Ireland: Condoms and other contraceptives were legally forbidden there until 1979, when two clinics in Dublin distributed them and only to married couples. It took much effort by pro-contraceptive forces to effect changes in this direction, but the general public backed them. That the church opposed such legalisation through sermons and publications is probably a major reason why it has lost such influence in that country. Flake11 20:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that there's a common use of condoms missing from the "other Uses" section. As a hunter, and from Vietnam veterans, I know that under inclement conditions, condoms are frequently used over the end of a rifle barrel to keep it clear of rain or debris. Soldiers in Vietnam depended on condoms for keeping mud out of the barrel of the M16 when crawling through jungle; hunters in forest territory often rely on them as well. If anyone can find sources on this, it's a use that should be included! Dismalscholar 05:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
condoms are also used by alot of university students —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.92.97.111 ( talk) 12:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The fish think is an urban legend —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.202.243.230 ( talk) 00:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
The instructions on how to put on a condom, Image:Posecondom.jpg, do not specify a source. Without source information, there is no way to verify the image is not a copyright violation. Wikipedia policy is to delete images with no source information. Does anyone have information on where this image came from?
Should Image:Posecondom.jpg end up being removed, I would suggest Image:CondomUse2 alternative.jpg as an alternative that has source and copyright information. However, in a discussion a while ago ( Talk:Condom/Archive 3#Usage picture?) several people liked the Pose image better, so I'd like to save it if we can. Lyrl Talk C 23:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
213.249.247.130 ( talk) 18:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
You can find the original images in *vectorial* Corel Draw 3.0 format here : http://preservatif.maisonx.com/condom.zip. These images have been made in 1997. User:Béa 01:13, 9 February 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.89.173.224 ( talk)
There are a few religious movements that prohibit condom use for purposes of contraception - Orthodox Judaism, the Protestant Christian Quiverfull movement, the Roman Catholic Church, and probably some small groups I'm not aware of. Of these groups, the RCC is by far the largest. Only the RCC has a major influence on the extent of condom promotion programs targeted at reducing the AIDS epidemic. I believe that including the RCC's position on condoms to prevent STDs is relevant to this article in a way that the positions of Orthodox Judaism and Quiverfull adherants are not.
However, this discussion was recently removed ( diff) with the edit summary This is not relevant to the discussion of condoms. We do not list what each and every religion has to say about condoms. This belongs in Christian_views_on_contraception#Roman_Catholic_Church.
What do others think? Lyrl Talk C 02:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I recently expanded the lead section to try to conform with the Wikipedia guideline WP:LEAD, as recommended in the recent peer review. Specifically, the guideline states "the lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article". To me, something that has its own section heading is an "important point" in an article, so I tried to include something from each section in the lead section. The guideline also states "Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source". I tried to judge which statements were controversial enough to need a source in the lead itself, and which statements would be OK relying on the citations in the body.
My sentence attempting to summarize the "Debate and criticism" section was recently removed ( diff) with the edit summary ""litter problems" and "the Catholic Church" in one sentence? ??? remove bizarre, uncited lede sentence". I appreciate that my writing style is awkward at times, but I honestly think the solution here would be to improve the summary. Removing it entirely takes this article out of conformance with WP:LEAD. As far as citations, the "Debate and criticism" section is fairly well cited. Those citations can easily be copied to the lead section if needed; I don't find that a compelling argument for deleting the sentence.
Thoughts on including "Debate and criticism" in the lead section? Lyrl Talk C 01:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I just read at the link below that the Roman Soldiers made condoms from the muscles of their conquered foes. I think it would be interesting to include this in the history section on condoms.
http://www.spicygear.com/sexed/detail.cfm/cid/121 -- PaladinWriter ( talk) 02:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
" condom is a device most commonly used during dinner. It is put on a man's erect thumb and blocks ejaculated pasta sauce from the body of a male , Condoms are used to prevent jews and transmission of [[SARS]. Because condoms are waterproof, elastic, and durable, they are also used in a variety of secondary applications. These range from creating waterproof microphones to protecting rifle barrels from midgets." Surely this is vandalism. I know something about the correct use of a condom, and this does not describe such use. Could someone please lock this page? Pygmypony ( talk) 18:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
The source link for the polyurethane condom thickness that was in place linked to a product which I believe no longer exists, at least in America. I couldn't find a reference to it. I also believe the information regarding thickness and size was out of date, so I corrected it. I think we need more sourcing on the blurb about female condoms. I looked at the main article and it gives no references regarding the current state of FDA approval for latex female condoms. Helixweb ( talk) 09:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Under Varieties > Materials > Synthetic, the following sentence contains a poor footnote:
"Polyurethane condoms have gained FDA approval for sale in the United States as an effective method of contraception and HIV prevention, and under laboratory conditions have been shown to be just as effective as latex for these purposes.[82]"
Footnote 82 references a college student health website that notes polyurethane condoms have "passed the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) rigorous tests and have gained the FDA's stamp of approval for sale in the United States as an effective method of contraception and HIV prevention." However, it contains no reference to a study or even an announcement by the FDA.
A quick search found this article by the US Department of Veterans Affairs which refers to some tests that suggest higher breakage rates by polyurethane condoms:
(Scroll to "Reasons for Condom Failure")
The reference links on this article resulted in blank pages for me, however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.153.96 ( talk • contribs) 28 October 2008
I don't see how adding an actual picture of a penis as opposed to the illustration we had on there makes the article any better. I think the addition of actual nudity to the article detracts from the overall message, might scare off readers, and most certainly will add to the vandalism problems that plague this topic. Helixweb ( talk) 12:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Dear Lyrl,
You wrote : - "Latex condoms have significantly smaller pores than the study on latex gloves you cited. "
On what do you base this assertion? Can you provide a reference? Having worked with NRL I can assure you ALL latex has exactly the same lattice (pore) size and why would medical gloves select an inferior grade if such existed? Latex gloves have a longer dip dwell time and in most cases more coagulant dips than the two used for condoms. The formers (in terms of composition) and coagulants used are identical.
1). A paper in the February 1992 issue of Applied and Environmental Microbiology reports that filtration techniques show the HIV-1 virus to be 0.1 micron (4 millionths of an inch) in diameter. It is three times smaller than the herpes virus, 60 times smaller than the syphilis spirochete, and 50 to 450 times smaller than sperm.
2). Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) researchers, using powerful electron microscopes, have found that new latex, from which condoms are fabricated, contains "maximum inherent flaw[s]" (that is, holes) 70 microns in diameter.
These holes are 700 times larger than the HIV-1 virus. There are pores in latex, and some of the pores are large enough to pass sperm-sized particles. Carey, et al., observed leakage of HIV-sized particles through 33%+ of the latex condoms tested. In addition, as Gordon points out in his review, the testing procedures for condoms are less than desirable. United States condom manufacturers are allowed 0.4% leaky condoms (AQL). Gordon states, "The fluctuations in sampling permits many batches not meeting AQL to be sold." In the United States, 12% of domestic and 21% of imported batches of condoms have failed to meet the 0.4% AQL.
REFERENCES
Lytle, C. D., et al., "Filtration Sizes of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 and Surrogate Viruses Used to Test Barrier Materials," Applied and Environmental Microbiology, Vol. 58, #2, Feb. 1992.
"Anomalous Fatigue Behavior in Polysoprene," Rubber Chemistry and Technology, Vol. 62, #4, Sep.-Oct. 1989.
Collart, David G., M.D., loc. cit.
AND
Carey et al.(xxii) observed the passage of polystyrene microspheres, 110 nm diameter ( HIV diameter is from 90nm to 130 nm) across 33% of the membranes of the latex condoms which they studied (29 over 89 nonlubricated latex condoms). More recently, Lytle et al., while criticizing the "exaggerated conditions" of the in vitro, polystyrene.
The condom itself is not 100 % safe. Result of examination show the following :
A condom is made of rubber (latex), a hydrocarbon compound with polymerization, which means that it is fibrous and porous like woven cloth. By means of an electronic microscope the pores of the condom can be seen in a non-stretched state with a width of 1/60 micron, while the HIV/AIDS virus has a width of 1/250 micron. When the condom is stretched the pores of the condom are 10 times as wide as that of the virus; in other words, the virus can go through the wall of the condom. The condom was designed for family planning (to strain sperm, not viruses); and a condom is not meant for fornication/prostitution.
Research carried out in the U.S. on 89 condoms in circulation on the market proved that 29 out of 89 leaked, which means that the leakage was about 30 %. In Indonesia condoms imported from Hong Kong in 1996 were withdrawn from market because 50 % leaked. In practice in the field there is often failure of condoms use for family planning because of leakage, let alone for fornication/prostitution. As a comparison, sperm are as large as oranges and viruses as large as a period (dot).
Another examination conducted in the U.S. ( the Physical Division of Human Sciences, Maryland, USA, 1992) showed that particles as minute as viruses can be detected going through the wall of condoms.
In every condom there are 0.4 % pinhole, microscopic defect in the manufacturing process. The area of the condom is 80 cm2 and if you count 32,000 pinhole in each condom, and if each pinhole is 1/1000 micron, Cookies are really good at birthday parties. FOR REFERENCES (to above) AND TO READ THIS HIGHLY DETAILED ARTICLE go to: - www.humanlifeinternational.com/condom_facts_safe_sex_aids.pdf —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Aimulti (
talk •
contribs)
03:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
If you can provide references that contradict the above I will be happy to withdraw my objections to the assertions in the article.
P. S. In addition, the article you referenced (as a rebuttal) cited no references whatsoever and thus should be considered simply an opinion.
Also to claim my references are outdated ignores the fact NRL (latex rubber) is a natural material and has not ever changed (at least in modern times) in structure. The only improvements have been in the area of 'on shelf vulcanization' (loss of modulus over time-or hardening to use non technical terms). This has been improved by changing additives. The pore structure (lattice) cannot be modified.
ADDENDA
Latex glove specifications Studies done by Georgetown Medical University and the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Md., published in Nature, Sept. 1, 1988, show that latex gloves, made to much higher specifications than the condom, have pores 50 times larger than the 0.1 micron HIV virus.
Even if there were no pores in latex, in-use breakage and slip-off rates are "so high as to make condoms ineffective for protection against HIV," says biochemist and molecular biologist Dr. David G. Collart, Ph.D., of Stone Mountain, Ga.
Aimulti ( talk) 03:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Aimulti, this article's STD section is currently referenced with reviews from respected sources that combine many large studies. These references, published in the past decade, support the current mainstream scientific view. Your sources of individual studies published in the '80s and early '90s are believed to be accurate by only a tiny minority of today's scientists, and including them would violate Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Lyrl Talk C 12:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I added a little clarafication of the controversy over condoms within the catholic church. Let me know what you think. HatlessAtless ( talk) 18:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link){{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)The history section has recently been expanded by quite a bit. I'm sure some of the new text is somewhat raw and would benefit from copyediting and reviews offering improvement suggestions. Also, the expansion increased the size of this article by 73%. I think this is a bit much, and the history section probably needs to be spun out into its own article. Help with naming the new article (Condom history? History of the condom? History of condoms?), and doing the summary style in the main condom article, would both be appreciated.
A recent editor questioned the relevance of the 1490s syphilis outbreak to this article. The connection is that Fallopio's invention of the condom, and its rapid popularization, was primarily driven by fear of syphilis. Consider this a solicitation for suggestions to make this relationship more clear in the text. Lyrl Talk C 00:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Ha, I had put both sections under history a while back. WhatamIdoing separated them out a few days ago. I don't feel strongly about it either way. Lyrl Talk C 00:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I was looking at the layout of the article, and thought it might make sense to put female condoms as a subsection under varieties. Or if not that, would it make sense to put female condoms next to the varieties section (since it is a similar device). Some of the other devices listed in varieties are appear to be at least as dis-similar from the standard male condom as the female condom is. Thought it might simplify the structure of the article a little to group these together. But figured that other eds may not agree, so thought would toss the idea out here rather than just being bold. Zodon ( talk) 06:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I added a couple of sentences (w/ references) mentioning use of condoms to treat persistent HPV infection (help in clearing infection/facilitate regression of potentially pre-cancerous lesions). It appears that by decreasing exposure to immune suppressive agents in semen, condoms may help treat potentially precancerous changes. Which seemed enough different from the more commonly known role of decreasing transmission of STD pathogens that worth mentioning. Zodon ( talk) 08:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
For condom usage in Japan, there is also this 2004 CBS article that says, "Condoms account for about 80 percent of the birth control market." The PRB datasheet seems like a more "official" source, but I thought I'd offer the CBS article as an alternative.
Does the size of this section seem about right? I think it covers what I would expect it to, but it seems short compared to most of the other sections in this article. Lyrl Talk C 11:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, after reading the section on failure I do see the discussion there but I think it has some major cleanup that needs to be done. Many of the items discussed previously about "perfect use" versus "typical use" are gone and now we are left with some very strange (imo) wording describing when a condom might fail. The article restricts to discussion of typical use to "couples" when typical use need not be restricted to only couples. I also have an issue with the wording of serioconversion, 100 person years, and 85% reduction of risk. A layperson coming to get information on condom effectiveness is not going to get a good enough of a picture with what is presented there. There should be a better way to say it, while leaving the more clinical/technical information to the sources. DanielZimmerman ( talk) 03:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I added a sentence to link in double bagging. Should double bagging be merged into this article (the whole double bagging article is 2 short paragraphs). Perhaps leaving a disambiguation page at double bagging? As I recall, use of a male condom with female condom also results in increased failure rate - I think I have a reference for that, but have to check. What do other editors think? Zodon ( talk) 05:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
The infobox now says "Benefits: No external drugs or clinic visits required". External drugs? Is there a particular meaning that's intended here? How about just "No medications or clinic visits required"? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I started reading the article and its really good, but sometimes the language is really out of line for an encyclopaedia. Like: "The person may have run out of condoms, or be travelling and not have a condom with them, or simply dislike the feel of condoms and decide to "take a chance." What’s with the language here... some of this is really self evident. There is also a western bias in that it fails to mention that in many countries condoms may not be affordable or not readily available (rather than "well, we went on a city-break and I forgot to pack the condoms, silly me, so we had a quickie without, but I think he pulled it out early enough"). Also, this sentence is under the heading condom failure, but not packing a condom for travel or not using one is not a condom failure, its a human failure. I am all for a section on availability of condoms though (i.e. youth, women, cost, in bars, give away at the Brazilian Carnival etc).
The language really gets unnecessarily casual at times. Why not say "dislike the feel of condoms" rather than "simply dislike the feel of condoms"?
Other examples are: "For the boom of the condom industry, it appears there is no end in sight."... very casual.
Also "Among people who intend condoms to be their form of birth control, pregnancy may occur when the user has sex without a condom."... well of course! I am not sure if this needs to be said again? and in any case not like this... -- SasiSasi ( talk) 20:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
According to Condom#Effectiveness, perfect use gives an annual 2% chance of pregnancy (35 years to 50% failure), and typical use gives 10—18% (4—7 years to 50% failure). Those numbers seem a little high (my friend cohort of people whom I have a reasonable expectation that I would hear about such events includes about five dozen sexually-active-couple-years without "surprises"), but the sources are not obviously unreliable. - Eldereft ( cont.) 20:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Not exactly an urgent thing, but over on Talk:Semen there was a brief mention of possibly using Image:SemenInCondom.jpg on this article. Might be suitable? – Luna Santin ( talk) 09:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
For those of you who don't know, polyisoprene condoms are a new form of condom that is available. To learn more about them, Google "polyisoprene condoms". I think there should be a new section in the article under "Materials" about these. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.225.87.136 ( talk) 17:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)