Slashdot Mirror


NIH Spends $400K To Figure Out Why Men Don't Like Condoms

The National Institutes of Health has given $423,500 to researchers at Indiana University's Kinsey Institute to figure out why men don't like to wear condoms. The institute will also study why men have trouble using condoms and investigate "penile erection and sensitivity during condom application." "The project aims to understand the relationship between condom application and loss of erections and decreased sensation, including the role of condom skills and performance anxiety, and to find new ways to improve condom use among those who experience such problems," reads the abstract from Drs. Erick Janssen and Stephanie Sanders, both of the Kinsey Institute.

844 comments

  1. because they keep your sperm inside them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    qed

    1. Re:because they keep your sperm inside them by ta+bu+shi+da+yu · · Score: 2, Funny

      I know, ridiculous. That's what the woman is for.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  2. Are you serious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's because all men secretly want to pay child support.

    1. Re:Are you serious? by snowraver1 · · Score: 5, Funny

      I didn't know my wife trolled slashdot...

      --
      Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. This comment may not be copied in any way including, but not limited to caching.
    2. Re:Are you serious? by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

      If you pay child support to your wife, then I have great respect for her. Such an intelligent and persuasive woman deserves every penny she gets.

      I guess I shouldn't tell you that it's typically only ex-wives that get child support.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    3. Re:Are you serious? by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      only the stupid fucks that dont get a vasectomy.

      Lulz. Cause of course, no men might want children in the future but not now.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    4. Re:Are you serious? by RileyBryan · · Score: 2, Funny

      The natural feel is warm, moist, and lubricated; a condom makes it feel lukewarm, dry, and sandpapery. Not to mention how bitchy she gets when she is allergic to the spermicide or the latex. And you cant jizz cause its half as good as your hand, so you beat it up until they walk funny all week and won't let you go at it until they have made a full recovery. That is why I found a girl I could trust, got us both tested, and put her on the pill. Almost shit my pants a time or two though...

    5. Re:Are you serious? by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

      You can get a vasectomy reversed.

      Yes, that's a big deal, and it's risky.

      Guess what? So's having children.

    6. Re:Are you serious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I want to back you up right now but:

      Lulz

      GET OUT!

    7. Re:Are you serious? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      I'm actually considering finding a girl that'll go for regular testing if I will, and use protection and all; but stay on the pill and go at it with me specifically without a condom. I'm not sure the exact arrangement here. I don't want a girlfriend, but you know. "Just me" getting pure, unadultered skin-to-skin is a little more than a fuckbuddy or friend with benefits. That's a pretty damn specific arrangement, even if she's fucking other guys but using condoms. It's also still personally risky (even if she's "not" fucking other guys, she can always lie). Also I need a vasectomy.

    8. Re:Are you serious? by LordKronos · · Score: 1

      Some people merely separate without getting a divorce (due to various reasons...avoiding cost of divorce, being able to keep medical insurance, etc). My parents separated when I was 4 and didn't get divorced until I was about 16. My dad paid child support the entire time.

    9. Re:Are you serious? by pbhj · · Score: 1

      you little girly men that think getting snipped makes you less of a man, good god take off your fucking skirt and get your Vas snipped and stapled.

      Being impotent does make you less of a man. Males are in many ways (but crucially not all) defined by their ability to impregnate.

      If your a darwinist then you should be embracing your potential to propagate your genes and like Genghis Khan/Chingis Khaan going out and screwing all the females you can find and destroying all your competition (ie killing all men who aren't loyal to you).

      That's being a man.

    10. Re:Are you serious? by arb+phd+slp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You left out "hear the lamentation of the women." Nothing more manly than hearing lamentation.

      --
      There's a perfect xkcd for my sig but I'm too lazy to look it up. sudo someone go find it.
    11. Re:Are you serious? by anagama · · Score: 1

      A vasectomy is the best decision you could ever make. 3-4 days of discomfort. A lifetime removal of one serious cause of anxiety.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    12. Re:Are you serious? by RileyBryan · · Score: 1

      This is not a plan for somebody who wants a fuckbuddy. If she'll go bareback for you, she'll go bareback for anyone. You can either slam it into fifty whores with a lubber on, or get the good stuff with one good girl and a relationship. I have a very specific situation. You have to have an adult conversation about what you both want. If she wants kids soon, you better wrap that shit up.

    13. Re:Are you serious? by Xerolooper · · Score: 1

      I didn't know my ex-wife trolled slashdot...

      There, fixed that for you.

      --
      "The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget." -Thomas Szasz
    14. Re:Are you serious? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      I cannot do relationships. I absolutely despise being attached. When I have to make any decision (financial, social, sexual, minor internal behavioral, whatever) that makes me think about a specific person and if they'd approve, it makes me feel threatened as a person; this produces the obvious reaction (fear, which in an inescapable situation becomes violence). I cannot be in a fixed relationship.

    15. Re:Are you serious? by g253 · · Score: 1

      While I highly approve of the wit and irony of your reply, I think you raise a very good point.

      Even if I didn't ever want to have children, I wouldn't want to lose the ability to reproduce. If feel it's part of my identity as a man, or something.
      I can't tell quite what it is, but the very idea that I'm capable of impregnating a female of my species appeals to me at a deep level.

      I suspect it's probably instinct, as you suggest.

    16. Re:Are you serious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, this is your mother... Now stop reading slashdot and clean up the basem... er... your room.

    17. Re:Are you serious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God you're a loser - hope you enjoy dying alone.

    18. Re:Are you serious? by ta+bu+shi+da+yu · · Score: 1

      Not only will you not feel anxious, but you'll have your genes removed from the global gene pool, which I for one am thankful for. A win-win situation really!

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  3. Welcome to slashdot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Boy are you barking up the wrong tree!

  4. Here it is for 5c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For men with smaller or chopped foreskins, condoms interfere with sexual pleasure and frankly, when I'm in bed with a beautiful naked girl, the last thing I need is for a cock sock. Pretty naked girl overrides sanity, to the point where if the condom gets in the way, the logical answer is to rip it off and go without.

    Slashdot, news for nerds. Now bringing you, sex for geeks.

    1. Re:Here it is for 5c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As a circumcised guy, it's more or less completely impossible for me to get off when using a condom. Sex feels vaguely warm, and that's about it. Not only that, but after a while of trying to get off and failing, my penis becomes so desensitized that I can't even get off through masturbation after I give up at sex. And this is using ultra thin condoms, even the kimono ones.

    2. Re:Here it is for 5c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A public service announcement for all citizens of the US of A: stop mutilating your children's cocks.

      Seriously, what is the matter with you nutjobs? The idea that circumcision promotes cock health is long since disproven. Put the knife down. Step away from the cock. Thank you.

    3. Re:Here it is for 5c by MrCrassic · · Score: 0, Troll

      Have you tried masterbating with a condom on? This really, really helps relieve the sensitivity issue.

    4. Re:Here it is for 5c by MrCrassic · · Score: 4, Informative

      Apologies for not including this in the previous reply, but have you also tried different condoms? I had the same problem for a LONG time, but between switching to Durex Pleasuremax (?) condoms, masterbating with condoms and (excuse my tongue) REALLY FUCKING GOOD SEX, that problem was solved.

      Good luck!

    5. Re:Here it is for 5c by Ironica · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Fortunately, at least half the population has gotten the message, and there are some hospitals (like UCSD) where you can't get newborns circumcised at all.

      I mean, if my sons want to be circumcised one day, that's up to them. I'll even pay for it. they can get general anesthesia and take pain relievers while they're recovering. I'm not worried about them having a 0.5% increased chance of contracting STDs until they're at LEAST 12, though, so I saw no reason to have them surgically altered at birth.

      --
      Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
    6. Re:Here it is for 5c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, uncut guys often have issues with the condom sliding around or off due to that extra skin, making sex awkward. It's a much better fit for cut guys. I suspect this actually explains much of the reduced disease rate of being cut, because condoms are much more usable.

    7. Re:Here it is for 5c by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 2, Funny

      For a more intense sensation, you might prefer Iron Maiden brand.
      I'm sure you've seen the advertisements: "Iron Maiden, for the really bad boy."

    8. Re:Here it is for 5c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does that mean you're wear a condom with an ugly chick?

    9. Re:Here it is for 5c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...rip it off and go without.

      this is how my son came to be!

    10. Re:Here it is for 5c by RomanesEuntDomus · · Score: 3, Informative

      The #1 reason for American doctors PUSHING circumcision is that they get YOU to pay extra.

      #2 is that Americans generally don't even question it.

    11. Re:Here it is for 5c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      The idea that it affects sex is long disproven too.

    12. Re:Here it is for 5c by Manip · · Score: 5, Informative

      Disproven? Seems scientific double-blind studies disagree with you.

      To quote: "Male circumcision has been associated with a lower risk for HIV infection in international observational studies and in three randomized controlled clinical trials."

    13. Re:Here it is for 5c by twostix · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well it would seem you're very very wrong...

      Male Circumcision Reduces Risk of Genital Herpes and HPV Infection, but not Syphilis

      That's the problem with science, it's just so hard to use it to make cheap political attacks. One day you're right with science on your side, the next day your so very very ignorant.

    14. Re:Here it is for 5c by digitig · · Score: 1

      Actually, uncut guys often have issues with the condom sliding around

      Sounds like you should be using a smaller condom!

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    15. Re:Here it is for 5c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16184582/ :

      "We now have confirmation -- from large, carefully controlled, randomized clinical trials -- showing definitively that medically performed circumcision can significantly lower the risk of adult males contracting HIV through heterosexual intercourse," said Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease.

    16. Re:Here it is for 5c by basementman · · Score: 1

      Godwin's law needs to be adapted for circumcision.

    17. Re:Here it is for 5c by JorDan+Clock · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't care what the studies say; Getting your partner tested for STDs before having sex with them doesn't require removing a piece of your own body and is even more effective at preventing the spread of STDs.

      Logic sucks, doesn't it?

    18. Re:Here it is for 5c by Beefpatrol · · Score: 1

      Maybe that is because more effort is required to make sex with a circumsized schlong worthwhile, so people have less sex. Perhaps I should read the article first -- it might address that.

    19. Re:Here it is for 5c by registrar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Um. Do you know what 'double blind' means? [mind wanders...]

    20. Re:Here it is for 5c by yndrd1984 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Male circumcision has been associated with a lower risk for HIV infection in international observational studies and in three randomized controlled clinical trials.

      That's true, but what about the much larger set of studies that show no correlation between circumcision status and any STD?

    21. Re:Here it is for 5c by theJML · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Just gonna go out on a limb here... but you do know that not having sex with people that have AIDS also lowers the risk quite a bit... Same with Genital Herpes and a load of other diseases and problems associated with sexual contact.

      At the risk of sounding like a jerk, let me point out the obvious again... clip it and feel better knowing that it might lower your risk... not to zero. Or just skip out on the AIDS Orgy and know that you lowered it all the way to zero. I mean, was (s)he THAT Hot? Really?

      What Really lowers the risk is THINKING BEFORE having sex. It's not really that hard, but skipping the 'get to know the person' stage seems to be a prevalent theme lately.

      --
      -=JML=-
    22. Re:Here it is for 5c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Y'know what's decreases risk of HIV even more?

      Condoms.

    23. Re:Here it is for 5c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those studies about HIV and male circumcision have been made by "circumcision fanatics" (I can't believe there is such a thing but there is).
      In one case they didn't even conclude the experiment, the reason they gave is that they felt the moral obligation to give a circumcision to all the subjects in the experiments before completing it.
      Also this helps only a men having vaginal intercourse, but with vaginal intercourse the woman is the subject at a greeter risk.

    24. Re:Here it is for 5c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      For men with smaller or chopped foreskins, condoms interfere with sexual pleasure and frankly, when I'm in bed with a beautiful naked girl, the last thing I need is for a cock sock. Pretty naked girl overrides sanity, to the point where if the condom gets in the way, the logical answer is to rip it off and go without.

      Slashdot, news for nerds. Now bringing you, sex for geeks.

      Condoms prevent facials - nuff said

    25. Re:Here it is for 5c by clam666 · · Score: 1

      Speaking of knives, I had a vasectomy so condoms are a non-issue. Who wants a accidental bastard any way. You condom users are all a bunch of stinky crotched sailors.

      Back in the day we had fire dick disease, and we liked it that way.

      --
      I'm a satanic clam.
    26. Re:Here it is for 5c by Thaelon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm highly skeptical considering circumcision has been around longer than we've known that HIV existed.

      Sounds to me like a justification, not a proof.

      --

      Question everything

    27. Re:Here it is for 5c by Penguinshit · · Score: 4, Funny

      They BOTH had bags over their heads...

    28. Re:Here it is for 5c by lucat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why don't you chop off your whole penis then? If by just removing the foreskin you reduce the risk of HIV, following your reasoning, it would be good to remove the whole penis which should lower the chances of getting HIV almost to zero.

      I find this kind of argument pretty much hilarious and so it would be if there wasn't people who would take it seriously and damage in a non-repairable way the penises of their sons. This kind of choice is one you just cannot revert and you are simply depriving THEIR choice to have their WHOLE body just as "god" or nature made it imposing your choices to them for their whole life.

      I think that if my parents did something like that to me i would simply take them to court, but i understand that a foreskin-less man simply does not know what he is missing just like a blind man can't know what sight is and this is the only reason why there are not so many sons who take their parents in front of their responsibilities for useless choices that cannot be reverted for fear of "god", "hiv", "the toothfairy" and so on.

    29. Re:Here it is for 5c by Quothz · · Score: 2, Informative

      The idea that circumcision promotes cock health is long since disproven.

      You're mistaken. Here's a 1999 article on the subject, with some related links. Aside from the finding that circumcising heterosexual men reduces the risk of HIV, I'm not aware of any recent development. Circumcision remains medically slightly beneficial, but only slightly. Whether that's worth the loss of sensation... I dunno.

      Fortunately, at least half the population has gotten the message, and there are some hospitals (like UCSD) where you can't get newborns circumcised at all.

      You are also mistaken. UCSD delays circumcision but does it at the parent's request, as is the case with all other public hospitals I'm aware of. No hospital in America or Europe, public or private, would dare prevent a mohel or family practitioner from circumcising an infant.

    30. Re:Here it is for 5c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know whats really good at preventing HPV HIV and whatever else you want.

      A condom.

      You know whats really bad at it.

      Not a condom, no matter what your parents fixation on genital mutilation is.

    31. Re:Here it is for 5c by yndrd1984 · · Score: 1

      Couldn't agree more. It would be nice to just discuss the possible risks and benefits of a medical procedure, but there's always some nut butting in rambling about how "God commands me to spill my child's blood", or "if it can wait, it's probably best to let the boy choose for himself, since people should be able to make their own medical choices wherever possible". Bunch of crazies.

    32. Re:Here it is for 5c by Pinckney · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I concede that the aforementioned benefit exists, but still think circumcising infants is unnecessary surgery. If the individual in question cares for the decreased risk, they can make the decision themselves to go in and get circumcised when they are old enough to give consent to such a medical procedure..

      We wouldn't let parents give their children breast implants without the input of their children, would we? Do we allow parents to give their children tattoos? (I'm actually afraid of the answer to that). When surgery does not have a benefit (and circumcision does not until the individual is sexually active), parents should not be able to select it for their children.

    33. Re:Here it is for 5c by Caetel · · Score: 1

      Or maybe you could, you know, lower exposure to potential HIV infection instead of chopping off part of your dick.

    34. Re:Here it is for 5c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      our doctor didn't charge us for either of our boys to be snipped. It's a 4 second procedure with a knife that is reusable thanks to the autoclave.

    35. Re:Here it is for 5c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      double-blind

      I do not think that word means what you think it means.

    36. Re:Here it is for 5c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks, medicine, for protecting very low risk previously and now married me from AIDS! Wee!! I don't have part of my penis!! And I can't get it back!! Weeee!!

    37. Re:Here it is for 5c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not quite. In addition to several STDs, neonatal circumcision significantly lowers the (already low) risk of penile cancer and (the somewhat more common) balanitis. Then there are many recent studies indicating that it's protective against HIV, Chancroid and Syphilis, Herpes, and HPV (although I should point out that the previous two studies overlap and arrive at somewhat different conclusions, as the protective effect against Herpes was only borderline significant in the first).

      And not only does it protect the male, but it reduces the risk of male-to-female transmission too.

      Granted, there are other studies that arrive at opposite conclusions, though I haven't seen any on HIV in particular in quite some time. But it would be grossly inaccurate to claim that this link has been "long since disproven". At best, the jury is still out.

    38. Re:Here it is for 5c by machine321 · · Score: 1

      We have to, otherwise they'll commit the sin of Conan.

    39. Re:Here it is for 5c by MoxFulder · · Score: 1

      A public service announcement for all citizens of the US of A: stop mutilating your children's cocks.

      Seriously, what is the matter with you nutjobs? The idea that circumcision promotes cock health is long since disproven. Put the knife down. Step away from the cock. Thank you.

      Sheesh. We "nutjobs" would take you guys a lot more seriously if you stopped calling this practice "mutilation" or "child abuse." It's long-ingrained in many cultures that love and dote on children.

      I'm circumcised and enjoy sex a lot. Maybe I'd enjoy it "more" without it, but I don't really care.

      Circumcision may have only slight health benefits for men in the Western world today, but it also offers only very slight risks as well. Lots of us do it for religious or cultural reasons, and to my knowledge there's no greater incidence of sexual dysfunction or other problems like that in societies where that behavior is prevalent.

    40. Re:Here it is for 5c by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So, let's see. Because males might have sex when they're 15+ and they're too stupid to use a condom, let's decrease their risk of *some* STDs by 50% for them. Meanwhile, reducing the risk of cervical cancer for girls/women with an HPV vaccine is bad because it promotes risky sexual behavior.

      PS - Yea, you're just pointing out that circumcision does infact reduce the risk of getting some STDs, not promoting the idea that circumcision is good. But, really, whether or not it reduces the risk is a non-issue given that if a male teen/adult is having sex, they sure as hell should be capable of choosing whether to have a circumcision at that time; and they could very well just use a condom which is more effective anyways.

      --
      Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
    41. Re:Here it is for 5c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am confused...so I want to be uncircumsized for better pleasure? This means I'll blow my load in 30 seconds instead of a minute? Why the hell would I want that?

      Also for the duration of high school, we sure had a gay old time making fun of our friend from Canada who had a bunch of skin on his cock. Normal Americans have that shit cut off and normal white girls think it's nasty to have a bunch of foreskin on your cock. Just like I don't want to see a bunch of pubes on a woman, or I'll go whiskey dick and lose interest.

    42. Re:Here it is for 5c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The idea that circumcision promotes cock health is long since disproven.

      I heard that originally it was supposed to discourage masturbation somehow. That idea has also been disproven. By me personally.

    43. Re:Here it is for 5c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fortunately, at least half the population has gotten the message, and there are some hospitals (like UCSD) where you can't get newborns circumcised at all.

      I mean, if my sons want to be circumcised one day, that's up to them. I'll even pay for it. they can get general anesthesia and take pain relievers while they're recovering. I'm not worried about them having a 0.5% increased chance of contracting STDs until they're at LEAST 12, though, so I saw no reason to have them surgically altered at birth.

      Possibly true.
      If enough people believe you, then most of them will not have their sons circumcised, meaning the ones that are will be considered unique to the female crowd.
      This will not guarantee but it will help their luck with we know what.

      So your decision.

    44. Re:Here it is for 5c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As an uncircumcised man, I have to agree that it does interfere with pleasure. It actually makes things worse, because if I put one on before I have a full erection, I have it blocks the foreskin from drawing back. A loose condom does solve the foreskin problem, but the overall looseness interferes with fun. To make things even worse ,my girlfriend could not orgasm if I was wearing one.

      So the only way we could both get it off (and not get her pregnant) was to not wear a condom, get her to orgasm and then put a condom on and have another go at it.

      Pretty naked girl does override sanity, so we'd have a 3 step process. First I wear a condom, have sex, come. Then I wash up and get her off without a condom. Then we had to repeat the procedure again with a condom since I did not want to go to bed with a hard on.

    45. Re:Here it is for 5c by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Bzzzt. You are in a dream world if you think that only having sex with your wife for the purposes of procreation means you are not at risk of STDs. People are whores. Various studies where women ADMITTED to extramarital affairs range from 14% to 50%. That is not even factoring in the frequency of women who simply lie. So, if your counting on monogamy on your part to save you, you might be in for a nasty surprise.

    46. Re:Here it is for 5c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Posting AC for this, but just wanted to say that I'm in the exact same boat as you. I literally cannot feel a thing when I wear one, all I do feel is a rubbery numbness. I've tried numerous brands, nothing seems to work.

    47. Re:Here it is for 5c by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They might not prevent someone from circumcising an infant, but a growing number of surgeons won't do it themselves. They consider it a cosmetic procedure, not to be done on someone without their consent.

    48. Re:Here it is for 5c by cayenne8 · · Score: 0, Redundant
      "I don't care what the studies say; Getting your partner tested for STDs before having sex with them doesn't require removing a piece of your own body and is even more effective at preventing the spread of STDs."

      Whew...talk about a romance KILLER!!

      Lol...and someone above complained about having to stop in the middle of getting all worked up, to put a rubber on...

      You get all worked up...and then ask her to take some tests? LOL...can you keep it up till you get the results back from the lab!??!

      Wow, sorry, but you just caught me off guard, never heard of anyone having a potential partner tested first. I'd just have to guess that really cuts down on the number of partners you can get, no? How many women are gonna want to submit to that before you ever get them in the sack?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    49. Re:Here it is for 5c by Nasajin · · Score: 1

      I love that your rhetorical question poses the question that maybe - just maybe - there is actually someone out there who is so hot that they're worth contracting HIV from.

    50. Re:Here it is for 5c by DigitalHammer · · Score: 1

      How about the time when you want an intentional bastard? :P

    51. Re:Here it is for 5c by retchdog · · Score: 4, Insightful

      OK, but in this scenario (repeated intercourse without barrier), the circumcision (reduces risk by 50%) won't help either. Let p be the baseline probability of infection; let n be the # of times of intercourse. The probability of being clean afterward with circumcision is (1-(0.5*p))^n which is approximately equal to (1-p)^n for any n larger than 10 or so. Seriously, plug in values for p and plot the two curves against n.

      Circumcision "gives you" about something on the order of 10 "free fucks" before your risk catches up; but at the point it catches up you basically have a very low chance (<<5%) of being clean anyway, so... yeah, not a viable strategy for an individual. It might be effective in an epidemic model, where lowering the transmission rate even slightly can change the graph topology, which is what the research is toward.

      In short: possibly effective at treating entire populations which don't understand/accomodate safe sex; absolutely bollocks at helping an individual in a developed country.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    52. Re:Here it is for 5c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It has nothing to do with penis health. It has more to do with not wanting our cocks to resemble a diseased, stinky sea cucumber.

    53. Re:Here it is for 5c by cenc · · Score: 0, Troll

      Hot Chick: Do me! Do me!
      Geek: I don't have a condom
      Hot Chick: I don't care. Just do me!!
      Geek: O.k.

      Yea, logic does suck.

    54. Re:Here it is for 5c by Dun+Malg · · Score: 2

      You're an idiot.

      Infantile phimosis, which is a partial/i> blockage of urination due to a narrowed opening (not a complete blockage) is treated with topical steroidal cream, or (as a last resort) minor corrective surgery to enlarge the opening.

      What it comes down to is only uninformed, ignorant fools still circumcise infants.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    55. Re:Here it is for 5c by Jack9 · · Score: 0, Troll

      You're an idiot.

      What it comes down to is only uninformed, ignorant fools still speak in absolute terms about medical procedures.

      --

      Often wrong but never in doubt.
      I am Jack9.
      Everyone knows me.
    56. Re:Here it is for 5c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sheesh. We "nutjobs" would take you guys a lot more seriously if you stopped calling this practice "mutilation" or "child abuse." It's long-ingrained in many cultures that love and dote on children.

      I'm (female and) circumcised and enjoy pleasing my husband a lot. Maybe I'd enjoy it "more" with a clitoris, but I don't really care.

      Circumcision may have only slight social benefits for men in the world today, but it also offers only very slight risks as well. Lots of us do it for religious or cultural reasons, and to my knowledge there's no greater incidence of sexual dysfunction or other problems like that in societies where that behavior is prevalent.

    57. Re:Here it is for 5c by Dun+Malg · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sheesh. We "nutjobs" would take you guys a lot more seriously if you stopped calling this practice "mutilation" or "child abuse." It's long-ingrained in many cultures that love and dote on children.

      See, this is an example of exactly the flaw with dogmatic beliefs. Just because something is a time honored tradition amongst otherwise perfectly reasonable people doesn't make it not a horrible practice.

      I'm circumcised and enjoy sex a lot. Maybe I'd enjoy it "more" without it, but I don't really care.

      Your attitude is common among circumcised males. Most people don't want to dwell on the fact that their parents cut off a piece of their body unnecessarily when they were infants. I've even had circumcised men get angry when it's suggested that they don't feel as much as uncircumcised men. It is, unfortunately, very obviously true. Ask any woman who has performed oral sex on both which one is more sensitive.

      Circumcision may have only slight health benefits for men in the Western world today, but it also offers only very slight risks as well. Lots of us do it for religious or cultural reasons, and to my knowledge there's no greater incidence of sexual dysfunction or other problems like that in societies where that behavior is prevalent.

      Unnecessary is unnecessary, no matter how minor the consequences.

      And of course no discussion on the matter of the crazy dogma of circumcision and it's intersection with otherwise reasonable people would be complete without a link to Christopher Hitchens blowing his top at a rabbi for making light of a seriously fucked up practice: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wQbHT8PDuE

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    58. Re:Here it is for 5c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps the circumcised group had also 50% less sexual encounters because the subsequent desensitization lowered their sex drive. It is a way of cutting the HIV spread but complete castration would also help...

    59. Re:Here it is for 5c by Anthony+Christian · · Score: 1

      Uh, I am a scientist and all for data-driven analyses. But a study on circumcision will never be "double blind. Try getting that one past the ethics boards...

    60. Re:Here it is for 5c by JaQuinton · · Score: 1

      thats not really logical. The logical thing is this, human beings cheat on one another. And those cheating bastards (no offense to anyone) are bound to pick up something from somewhere and give it right to you.

      --
      I am a lowly high school student... please dont assume im an expert.
    61. Re:Here it is for 5c by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Quite true, but if they were wearing condoms they wouldn't have got those diseases either so I'm not sure it's something to get cut up about.

    62. Re:Here it is for 5c by yndrd1984 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We "nutjobs" would take you guys a lot more seriously if you stopped calling this practice "mutilation" or "child abuse". It's long-ingrained in many cultures that love and dote on children.

      The people who circumcise their daughters don't love them any less than your people love their sons, and the practice is probably just as ancient, but I doubt you'd object to someone calling the practice "female genital mutilation".

      I'm circumcised and enjoy sex a lot. Maybe I'd enjoy it "more" without it, but I don't really care.

      And what about the guys who do care?

    63. Re:Here it is for 5c by dotgain · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yep, completely forgot I was doing it, went outside and caught a bus. Wasn't until I got arrested that I realised.

    64. Re:Here it is for 5c by Majik+Sheff · · Score: 0

      You know what almost completely eliminates the risk of getting HIV? NOT HAVING SEX WITH RANDOM PEOPLE. Don't be such a whore (male or female) and your chances of acquiring all kinds of nasty things goes way down.

      --
      Women are like electronics: you don't know how damaged they are until you try to turn them on.
    65. Re:Here it is for 5c by wisty · · Score: 1

      The #1 reason for American doctors PUSHING circumcision is that they get YOU to pay extra.

      #2 is that Americans generally don't even question it.

      It's sad, but I expect that is probably the case.

    66. Re:Here it is for 5c by nateb · · Score: 2, Funny

      Getting your partner tested for STDs before having sex with them

      Yeah I remember the last time I was at the local bar and clinic. They have them combined here now, ya know... It's just so simple to bone the chick down the rail cause I saw she has the yellow card with today's date... No worries that she might be as sick as I am and all ready have boned a few folks today... Totally logical.

      I don't care what you think about my sex life. You roll the dice, you take your licks. Everyone knows that. Just say no. The rest of us will keep on dreaming and living our lives while you try to assault us with this silly logic.

      *cough*

      --
      -- Nate
    67. Re:Here it is for 5c by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 0

      I love the clean and smooth look of a circumcised pussy. Frequently I enjoy jerking off while thinking of lovely circumcised women.

      I find that if I look at the back of my own hand it captures the sexy detail of the feminine pudenda after all those nasty dirty dangly bits have been removed.

      So folks, when you circumcise your sons and daughters, it's pretty much the same as if you sent your children over to my house to play. I know that's what you intended.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    68. Re:Here it is for 5c by 4D6963 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Aside from the finding that circumcising heterosexual men reduces the risk of HIV

      In another study (sorry can't find the link) they found that if you remove the entire penis, then risks of HIV infection drop even more dramatically!

      I say, let's emasculate babies at birth!

      --
      You just got troll'd!
    69. Re:Here it is for 5c by fbjon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Circumcision remains medically slightly beneficial, but only slightly.

      No, it's not "slightly medically beneficial", that's rationalization. No medical organization that I know of advocates circumcision for any reason other than the actual medical reasons, i.e. too much foreskin or some other problem. Circumcision is not a substitute for using a condom.

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    70. Re:Here it is for 5c by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

      According to some documentary films I downloaded, the Japanese don't mind so much.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    71. Re:Here it is for 5c by fbjon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So we should all speak in relative terms about medical procedures? Wtf?

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    72. Re:Here it is for 5c by fbjon · · Score: 1

      This finding appears to apply only to heterosexual transmission, which is the main mode of spread in Africa.

      Circumcision is not perfect protection, Fauci stressed. Men who become circumcised must not quit using condoms nor take other risks and circumcision offers no protection from HIV acquired through anal sex or injection drug use, he noted.

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    73. Re:Here it is for 5c by fbjon · · Score: 1

      Granted, there are other studies that arrive at opposite conclusions, though I haven't seen any on HIV in particular in quite some time.

      Condoms have been proven to work a lot better, in any case.

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    74. Re:Here it is for 5c by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 2

      Ahhh yes, the sin of big muscular men engaging in gratuitous sword play in front of a movie camera.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    75. Re:Here it is for 5c by Tim+MacDonald · · Score: 1

      As a circumcised male, who's father is circumcised, and who's father is too, it's not a health matter (it IS easier to clean than with a foreskin, and children are not known for their cleanliness), it's definitely a cosmetic issue, and it has to do with the child's identity development. Child sees the father's penis (for whatever reason) and it's circumcised while the child's isn't? Child goes "WTF? Why doesn't mine look like that? What's wrong with me?! Am I a freak?! Why am I different?!" (I have had first hand experience seeing this phenomenon in action: my cousin wasn't circumcised, and he freaked out when he saw his my uncle's penis one day after accidentally walking into the bathroom while his dad was getting out of the shower).

    76. Re:Here it is for 5c by n30na · · Score: 2

      so like... when did slashdot start endorsing genital mutilation?

    77. Re:Here it is for 5c by SalaSSin · · Score: 0

      Wrong...

      A condom is not 100% safe, it reduces the odds of getting STDs with 85% (only staying in your mom's basement with the doors locked from in- & outside is).

      You are forgetting the risk of the condom cracking, which happens quite a lot, actually. Next to that you are forgetting the odds of performing cunnilingus on a woman also brings risks with it (not a hell of a lot, between 0.5 and 1 in 10.000), but still...

      Anyhow, even getting your partner tested doesn't really say anything, because the tests are only 99% sure 6 months after the unprotected sex, so anything in between isn't sure.
      Trust between partners is a very important thing, but i wouldn't build my physical health upon it...

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice - Grey's Law
    78. Re:Here it is for 5c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't that just plain silly? Hey, girl, I'm circumcised, so we'll have to have sex 5 times before I get HIV instead of 4 times! Using a condom and NOT being circumcised seems a LOT safer to me.

    79. Re:Here it is for 5c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The idea that circumcision promotes cock health is long since disproven

      The Christian powers that be don't want to promote cock health. They want the opposite. Circumcision is about control and some idea of purity, just like with female circumcision in parts of Africa and the Muslim world.

    80. Re:Here it is for 5c by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      I've never seen anyone think of the possible benefit to women in these conversations.
      Less sensitive man == longer sex before male orgasm == woman has better chance of achieving orgasm?

    81. Re:Here it is for 5c by bishop32x · · Score: 1
      A condom is not 100% safe, it reduces the odds of getting STDs with 85% (only staying in your mom's basement with the doors locked from in- & outside is).

      Would you mind mind pointing to where in that 49 page report the 85% number came up? The only numbers I could find were in the .4-2.3% failure range, which is quite different from the 15% you're quoting.

    82. Re:Here it is for 5c by Omestes · · Score: 1

      This is all rather silly you can prevent STDs, ALL of them, 100% of the time with simple abstinence. Barring that you can dramatically reduce the risk with simple condoms. Barring that you can reduce the risk with a simple cheap test that your doctor or local Planned Parenthood would be happy to do for a very small fee (maybe even free). And barring this, I'm guessing only having sex with people you actually know and trust is more effective (though the least effective of all of the above, barring messing with children's genitals against their consent).

      Probably, 90% of all cases of STDs is wholly the fault of the person who contracted them, this is true for people whose parents messed with their privates, and parents who didn't.

      This sounds way too much like a post-hoc justification for silly religious and cultural traditions to me. That would be a wholly different, and more interesting, debate.

      Yes, when we are young we might be stupid and have unprotected sex, but that is completely our fault, and the individual bears responsibility for this. Same for not being tested, and having sex after said stupid encounter and spreading your diseases to others. None of this has a damn thing to do with circumcision.

      To me it is one of those things, that along with religion, is up to my children to decide when they're old enough to make that choice themselves. If my child really wants to hack off part of themselves to make some God or culture happy, that is their call one they are smart enough to make it.

      As for the health benefits, I haven't seen that much. Yes, uncircumcised is harder to clean and slighly more prone to infection/blockage etc... But then again their are billions of people on this planet who are uncircumcised and living happily.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    83. Re:Here it is for 5c by Fred_A · · Score: 1

      Um. Do you know what 'double blind' means? [mind wanders...]

      It means they put their condoms in the wrong places ?

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    84. Re:Here it is for 5c by dargaud · · Score: 1

      Maybe you shouldn't be able to get a medieval 'medical' procedure when much better alternatives are possible.

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    85. Re:Here it is for 5c by dargaud · · Score: 1

      Why don't you chop off your whole penis then? If by just removing the foreskin you reduce the risk of HIV, following your reasoning, it would be good to remove the whole penis which should lower the chances of getting HIV almost to zero.

      I also reply along similar lines to penile mutilation advocates: "And if you'd had a daughter, you'd chop her tits off to lower her risk of breast cancer, right ?"

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    86. Re:Here it is for 5c by olman · · Score: 1

      See, this is an example of exactly the flaw with dogmatic beliefs. Just because something is a time honored tradition amongst otherwise perfectly reasonable people doesn't make it not a horrible practice.

      The other side of the coin is that by demonizing the practise you're making men with constriction or other problems in their wiener much much less likely to get help.

      As a guy who got chopped at adult age (30ish) I very much prefer the lack of pain, bleeding sores and other assorted fun afterwards. Only regret is I didn't have it done 10 years earlier + doctors asshole attitude prevalent over here (europe) due to the propaganda blowing downsides all out of proportion.

    87. Re:Here it is for 5c by gullevek · · Score: 1

      Sucks most when you had to have it cut of. And not even be in a religion who does that.

      --
      "Freiheit ist immer auch die Freiheit des Andersdenkenden" - Rosa Luxemburg, 1871 - 1919
    88. Re:Here it is for 5c by aDSF762 · · Score: 1

      "Unnecessary is unnecessary, no matter how minor the consequences."~ oh really fool Women tell me they like the look of my circumcised member vs. foreskin nonsense... their I invalided your point.

      --
      sense of security, like pockets jingling...
    89. Re:Here it is for 5c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. You never had sex in your life. Slightly drunk, picking up girl, both horny ... well ... the brain just does not work in the way of "stop" there anymore.

    90. Re:Here it is for 5c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      As a circumcised guy who loves fucking with a condom just about as much as I love fucking without a condom, I don't think circumcision much comes into play. It's not like circumcision makes condoms thicker.

      The only thing is, don't use those long-lasting condoms, with the novocaine in them. That shit is evil.

    91. Re:Here it is for 5c by Sobrique · · Score: 1

      There's no shortage of children in the world in need of decent parents. Dropping your _own_ sprog really shouldn't be a 'right'.

    92. Re:Here it is for 5c by kamapuaa · · Score: 1
      Jesus Christ, you suggest to someone that something is horribly wrong with their penis and you can't believe they get offended by it? This is especially true as you seem to be very insistent and also mentally unbalanced.

      I am circumcised. I enjoy sex plenty. Maybe too much. I can save time washing and caring for a foreskin, I guess. I haven't made any plans, but yeah, if I have a son I'll probably get him circumcised, why not?

      Comparing Male Circumcision to Female Circumcision is ignorant of just how terrible female circumcision is.

      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
    93. Re:Here it is for 5c by Sobrique · · Score: 1

      If there's a market for 'desensitising' condoms, so men don't blow their load before they've had time for the woman to finish, then surely that's an advantage to having been circumcised? Or am I missing something?
      Anyway, the study covers why _men_ don't like wearing condoms. But surely that's only half the story? *shrug*. I wear condoms, because I don't want any suprise STDs or babys. With the best will in the world, brains don't work properly when partners are getting worked up, and that's really not the time to start asking questions about recent STD testing, pill use, whatever. When you're settled down with a long term partner, who you trust enough to have the discussions about birth control and to know that they've not 'caught anything nasty' in the dim and distant past... well, that's about the point where it's reasonable.

    94. Re:Here it is for 5c by JosKarith · · Score: 1

      You new here?
      Somebody's always advocating genital mutilation on SlashDot. Though admittedly it's ususally on Bill Gates/Steve Jobs/Barrack Obama ...

      --
      'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
    95. Re:Here it is for 5c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, you tell him: "No, nothing is wrong with you. It's your uncle who is missing a few pieces".

    96. Re:Here it is for 5c by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      Logic sucks, doesn't it?

      Yeah, but it would feel better if I wasn't wearing a condom!

    97. Re:Here it is for 5c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used to have this problem but I found the solution; cut the last inch of the condom off (the end closest to the head of your dick). by simply removing that small part of the condom, the full sensation of sex is preserved while wearing a condom

    98. Re:Here it is for 5c by sulliwan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Logic in general doesn't suck, no. However, your logic certainly does.

    99. Re:Here it is for 5c by pe1rxq · · Score: 1

      Are you sure it was a vasectomy and not a lobotomy?
      Condoms are still a good way to prevent STDs

      --
      Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
    100. Re:Here it is for 5c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't bend for a friend or you'll get it in the end.

    101. Re:Here it is for 5c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      please dont say cock health

    102. Re:Here it is for 5c by jonaskoelker · · Score: 1

      The probability of being clean afterward with circumcision is (1-(0.5*p))^n which is approximately equal to (1-p)^n for any n larger than 10 or so.

      Gnuplot:
      f(n) = (1 - 0.6)**n
      g(n) = (1 - 0.3)**n
      plot [1:20] f(x), g(x)

      f becomes indistinguishably close to zero at n=9, g at n=19 or n=20. I'm not sure about my values of p, though. You can play with gnuplot yourself :)

    103. Re:Here it is for 5c by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 1

      I have to totally agree on this one. I've had a variety of partners and a variety of condoms, none have worked. It makes me feel like a god going for ever, until I'm bloody tired and still can't get off. Sure she can find other ways, but after running a marathon it becomes hard to relax enough to get the job done.

    104. Re:Here it is for 5c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair though, I find it pretty damn unlikely that any uncircumcised guys are aware what having a circumcised penis is like.

      Your argument cuts both ways.

    105. Re:Here it is for 5c by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Could it be better experience for the girl then?

      After all if you don't "get off" it normally means the erection lasts longer.

      I wouldn't know much about such stuff of course, since I'm one of those virgin slashdotters.

      FWIW, some places claim to sell something like an artificial foreskin that covers the glans, and after a while it gets more sensitive.

      --
    106. Re:Here it is for 5c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God, thanks for posting that. I was recently circumcised for medical reasons (a phimosis) and thus up till now have never been physically able to have sex (not due to lack of offers!). Now I'm finally trying and finding I just don't feel anything. I couldn't find any reference to that problem online so I'm really glad this topic came up on slashdot - good to know I'm not alone in this! I will have to try MrCrassics solution soon.

    107. Re:Here it is for 5c by TheLink · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you are recently infected with HIV, it takes a number of days before current tests can detect that. This is called the window period, the minimum is about 12 days.

      Apparently you can still infect others during that window period, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darren_James

      Whether Darren got it from Roxx or the other way round, allegedly both had tests done before.

      If you want to use logic, monogamy works pretty well in preventing the spread of STDs while still allowing the reproduction of the species. ;)

      --
    108. Re:Here it is for 5c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How on earth would *anyone* think circumcision is a substitute for a condom?

    109. Re:Here it is for 5c by TheLink · · Score: 1

      It's a fact, monogamy will improve the odds.

      The problem as you state, is you can't count on people to be monogamous.

      And I don't suppose husbands would be telling their wives to insist on condoms whenever dear wifey feels a bit adulterous...

      Anyway, I heard most married people hardly have sex. So maybe it's not monogamy that's preventative, it's marriage (e.g. wedding rings reduce STDs ;) ).

      I heard they happen to cost a lot more though...

      --
    110. Re:Here it is for 5c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but i understand that a foreskin-less man simply does not know what he is missing

      That, unfortunately, is not true. We know full well what we're missing.

    111. Re:Here it is for 5c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right. Because removing the foreskin results in a significant decrease in the risk of catching an STD in babies?

      Let adults choose circumcision if they think that change in risk profile warrants the consequences of circumcision, don't kid yourself that it is acceptable to subject a baby to innecesary surgical intervention.

      Personally, I'd agree with the grand parent. "Nutjob" is an apt description for someone who cuts off the skin at the tip of a babies penis for kicks.

    112. Re:Here it is for 5c by TheLink · · Score: 1

      I wonder what would happen if parents wait till their sons get older then tell them, "hey if we ever find out you've been having premarital sex, we're going to circumcise you, y'know like slice a bit off your penis". Would that help cut down on STDs?

      --
    113. Re:Here it is for 5c by mo6-nl · · Score: 1

      5c? 10cc is more appropriate..

    114. Re:Here it is for 5c by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      "Circumcision remains medically slightly beneficial, but only slightly."

      Actually when you count the number of babies who die from infection I doubt it has an overall benifit, parents don't have their new born's tonsils or appendix taken out to reduce the future chance of disease, what is so special about the foreskin?

      Circumcision at birth has been a bizzare and cruel religious ritual for millenia, and it still is. When I was a kid it was still a popular belief that circumcision prevented masterbation. When the health excuse was first dreamed up (long before I was born) it was pure propoganda with zero supporting evidence. The fact that it has recently been shown to reduce the risk of AIDS is nothing more than a coincidence. If people were not already circumcised in large numbers in the name of religious propoganda, nobody would have been able to perform those studies and this stupid debate would be non-existant.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    115. Re:Here it is for 5c by Deanalator · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but what's the big deal? My penis is less stinky, and doesn't look like a shrivily wad of chewing gum. It's like a permanent haircut, except it just makes my penis look cool. I don't understand why people go into such a fury about this issue. Why should anyone dictate to someone else whether or not they should be allowed to make this decision for their kid?

      I don't really care. I would probably land on the side of pro-circumcision for my kids, purely for the reason that it worked out fine for me, but if it costs an extra 30 dollars, I probably wouldn't do it. Show me some evidence one way or the other that it really matters, and I am open to changing my mind, but why does the anti-circumcision crowd always paint the pro-circumcision crowd as some sort of insane, deranged, psychopaths?

    116. Re:Here it is for 5c by Ginger+Unicorn · · Score: 1

      those are some pretty weak rationalisations. it's more difficult to clean an uncircumcised penis to the same extent that it's more difficult to vacuum under a rug, ie absolutely trivial. i'm pretty sure that the future possibility being briefly slightly confused and upset is no justification for unnecessary surgery on a new born infant.

      --
      (1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
    117. Re:Here it is for 5c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      10 free fucks is significant, and you probably can get a lot more free blowjobs. And blowjobs with condoms...

    118. Re:Here it is for 5c by TheLink · · Score: 1

      It's funny how so many people think circumcision is so terrible, when kids are showing off tongue studs, rings etc.

      At least circumcision has some medical benefits. Whereas tongue studs cause more medical problems.

      And if it really does make the penis less sensitive it might not be such a bad thing - since that might make it more likely for the girl to have an orgasm or three first.

      What I'm curious about is who first came up with this practice and why. It does seem to have more medical pluses than minuses, esp when considering ancient society with lower levels of tech.

      --
    119. Re:Here it is for 5c by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Maybe the sensitive men are just a bit too insensitive.

      --
    120. Re:Here it is for 5c by Ogive17 · · Score: 1

      Your attitude is common among circumcised males. Most people don't want to dwell on the fact that their parents cut off a piece of their body unnecessarily when they were infants. I've even had circumcised men get angry when it's suggested that they don't feel as much as uncircumcised men. It is, unfortunately, very obviously true. Ask any woman who has performed oral sex on both which one is more sensitive.

      Honestly I don't care that I'm circumsized. I have never known life otherwise. It doesn't bother me that may be more sensitive, maybe because I have great sex with my gf as is.

      And there's no way of knowing that it would be better had I been left with the foreskin. Dwelling on it is stupid.

      Oh, and I don't like to wear condoms because then I always have to crawl out of bed to the bathroom and clean off. It's much less of a mess when I can leave my deposit.

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    121. Re:Here it is for 5c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      unless the partner is in incubation phase... tests shiow negative, although transmission takes place.

    122. Re:Here it is for 5c by SoVeryTired · · Score: 1

      I disagree. Seems like you're claiming that (1-p/2)^n is asymptotically equal to (1-p)^n.

      I haven't disproven this, though it seems dubious to me. At any rate, the probability of infection is very small. Wikipedia puts it at 1/2000 for straight men. So, plugging 1/2000 and 1/4000 into that calculation and raising to large values of n, say, n=1000 (a five-year relationship, maybe), wolfram alpha says the probability of being disease-free is .606 for an uncircumsised man, and .779 for a circumcised man.

      --
      Slashdot: news for Apple. Stuff that Apple.
    123. Re:Here it is for 5c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That'd be abuse.

      What is this obsessios with mariage anyway? It screws guys over.

    124. Re:Here it is for 5c by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Why should anyone dictate to someone else whether or not they should be allowed to make this decision for their kid?

      Because a helpless kid isn't a fashion accessory?

      And concerning the supposed health/cleanliness benefits, I don't live isn't a desert 2000 years ago. We have running water and soap and things.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    125. Re:Here it is for 5c by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 2, Informative

      You can't really have it undone. You can get it reconstructed, but it hurts and it's not the same. The skin's unique in many ways, and can't be replaced. Besides these rational reasons, people are rabid about doing something "FOAR NO RAESARNNNNNBLAHALBLAHBLAH MEDIEVAL OLD SCHOOL BULLSHIT!!!!1111" when it seems to have a moral reason (old religious practice, makes sex less pleasurable i.e. less sinful and possibly less attractive so you have less of it, etc), rather than discussing these particular rationales and attacking them in a calm, constructed, well-thought-out argument.

    126. Re:Here it is for 5c by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      My brain never shuts those parts down, ever. Not even after a decent amount of alcohol (I can play strategy games skillfully when drunk). This actually makes it extremely hard to have sex, because I get self conscious, because I'm always acutely aware of everything instead of slipping into horny mindfucked animal mode.

    127. Re:Here it is for 5c by asdir · · Score: 1

      I might be totally off message here, but are alleged health effects the only reason for a circumcision?
      Couldn't it have been, that the GP is simply a Jew? Or did this circumcision for religious reason suddenly become out of fashion?

    128. Re:Here it is for 5c by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Reproduction of the species is what I want to prevent, at lest from my strain. If *I* ever had kids, I'd light the planet up in one giant blaze and remove all life from the universe by the time the damn thing was born. It would never see the light of day. It would never see outside the womb. And everything would burn with it.

    129. Re:Here it is for 5c by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Open relationships are ironically safer when you factor that into account. It's easier to know what's going on when you know your wife's going to screw the pool boy while you're at work, and you can get her STD tested and tell her to put a condom on him. She'll probably use the condom, or admit that she didn't.

      Mind you a lot of girls who cheat are very regretful, and afraid it'll destroy their relationship; as a result, they never EVER say anything, which is bad too because then they have some sort of internalized emotional issue that they can't share, which means you can't give them emotional support (and a subsequent re-emphasis of the terms of your relationship), and it strains your relationship anyway.

      I always wondered why people can't handle cheating, at all. I mean, you know this girl, and she hangs out with you a lot. She fucks 2 of your friends. A couple weeks later, you ask her out. Now, 8 months later, she gets sort of drunk, and screws some guy she REALLY wanted to fuck but has been holding back on because she shouldn't (alcohol's just an excuse, we know this, it doesn't magically make you a slut, stop blaming shit on the 2 Miller Lights you had in 3 hours). She feels bad about it and tells you. RELATIONSHIP OVER. WTF?

    130. Re:Here it is for 5c by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      You're an idiot.

    131. Re:Here it is for 5c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Logic sucks

      Sucks, eh? And where exactly does Logic hang out, I think I'd like to meet her ...

    132. Re:Here it is for 5c by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      To really use science, you need more than one article, you need an unbiased survey of the current literature with analysis of the author's pre-dispositions, etc. At the end of it all, you have a steaming pile of statistics that generally can be made to support whatever position you choose if you're willing to throw out the ones that don't agree with you.

      We've got an infinite number of monkeys churning out scientific data now...

    133. Re:Here it is for 5c by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      ... yeah, not a viable strategy for an individual. It might be effective in an epidemic model, where lowering the transmission rate even slightly can change the graph topology, which is what the research is toward.

      In short: possibly effective at treating entire populations which don't understand/accomodate safe sex; absolutely bollocks at helping an individual in a developed country.

      Hey, this is starting to sound like those arguments for vaccination...

    134. Re:Here it is for 5c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yours is less sensitive than the penises of men circumcised at birth, since a great deal of nerve growth happens while you are still a baby.

    135. Re:Here it is for 5c by Flea+of+Pain · · Score: 1

      Ask any woman who has performed oral sex on both which one is more sensitive.

      So what your saying is circumcision is a great way to make you last longer? Jeez...forget Viagra, I've got a new sex enhancing surgery to sell!

      --
      Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
    136. Re:Here it is for 5c by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      To be fair (and I have no opinion on the circumcision thing beyond 'ouch'), yes.

      Medical procedures are almost always relative. "In your case," and "Most of the time," and other such phrases are used a lot because we aren't Star Trek and complications and other factors creep in unannounced in medicine all the time.

      Stop believing that medicine is like computer programming.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    137. Re:Here it is for 5c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In what sense is it 'medieval'? During medieval times, circumcision was basically only practiced by Jews and Muslims. Among these groups it has a religious connotation. Circumcision for non-religious reasons only became widespread starting at about 1900.

      I'm sure you wouldn't say that special relativity or heavier-than-air-flight are 'medieval', but these are contemporary phenomena to medical circumcision.

    138. Re:Here it is for 5c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok first thing, the USA didn't start this mutilation it is a hold over from Jewish traditions where it did help prevent infections and other health problems. The Roman Catholic church also supported this practice until recently. Now with better sanitation and antibiotics these health problems have vanished.
      Second thing, this mutilation is partially the fault of the medical community (bunch of idiots, all of them) and lack of understanding of the consequences by the parents. There is also an element of 'How do I explain to my uncircumcised son why I look different then him?"to it.
      I do agree with you that the practice of circumcision in a medically advanced culture is just stupid but stop bashing the USA because we aren't the only ones to do it.

    139. Re:Here it is for 5c by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Well, give me a good reason for it? After all, not doing it is less work for the doc and less pain for the baby, that alone is plenty of reason not to do it in the first place unless you have a very good reason to do it.

      Aside of the obvious reason:

      1) It can't be undone, at least not without a lot of work and pain involved. If your son wants to have his foreskin cut off because it looks better to him, he can make that decision himself if he pleases.

      2) I guess something that millenia of evolution (or God in his omniscience, your choice) created has some use. If it was of none, it would have vanished somewhere in our past.

      3) Why do you want to subject your child to a procedure that hurts, cannot be undone and serves no purpose? If he wants it removed, it's trivial to do it at any moment in his life. If it's off, it's off, and no mourning can bring it back. I know a few people who do mourn the loss of theirs.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    140. Re:Here it is for 5c by KidPix · · Score: 1

      The problem with behavioral research done in Uganda is that it really only applies to Uganda. In a land where unprotected sex and STD infection is out of control, circumcision seems to help protect men. Doctors are stumped as to what it is about the modified penis that adds the additional protection, but statistics don't lie. Right?

      It is my understanding that these studies do not count sexual partners or encounters, they merely have follow-ups with men who chose to get the circumcision procedure done. Far from being an in depth behavioral study, they don't explore any of the cultural or social consequences of having a circumcised penis in a largely uncircumcised nation. Scientists just checked in a few years later and did some blood work.

      Now these studies are being quoted in an effort to influence US policies. It's so-so science being applied idiotically.

    141. Re:Here it is for 5c by Majik+Sheff · · Score: 1

      Looks like a whore had some mod points and couldn't find the -1:I'm Offended

      --
      Women are like electronics: you don't know how damaged they are until you try to turn them on.
    142. Re:Here it is for 5c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      perhaps you should have sex with someone you love then

    143. Re:Here it is for 5c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know about "medically" beneficial (although I've seen some reports that certain STD's don't transmit as easily), but there is certainly a potential sanitation issue. It's a lot easier to get a fungal infection or urinary tract infection if you haven't been trimmed. Extra flesh holding bacteria, etc. close to the hole and all that.

      But ya, not a whole lot of reason to get it done.

      As for the article I think I can sum it up:

      1. Inconvenient, especially in the heat of passion.
      2. Not very comfortable. Either too small, too big, too thick, etc.
      3. Durability issues. They make them for guys who take 30 seconds, any use lasting longer than about 5 or 10 minutes and they start tearing unless you use a gallon of lube, in which case see point number 2.
      4. Not as big a deal, but the things aren't all that cheap, especially if you have a latex allergy & have to buy the non-latex variety.

      Now where is my $400,000?

      ps- my captcha is "unprimed" lol

    144. Re:Here it is for 5c by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      No, but it would surely boost the income of quite a few shrinks.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    145. Re:Here it is for 5c by Scragglykat · · Score: 1

      From my understanding, circumcision was used during "biblical days" because they didn't get to wash frequently as we do, so it was to prevent disease and ease in keeping the genitals clean. It then got indoctrinated into the religious beliefs of those of the time. It was supposedly a commandment of the old covenant to do this to children. Since, however, even religious followers should have been taught in church that we are no longer bound by the old covenant, so it should no longer be a religious factor, to do this to children either. If you are a non-believer, and I personally ride the fence between the whole religion seems illogical and seems to be disproved by science here and there, and the whole, if there really is a creator, and all that the religions teach is true, then he probably operates outside of our known laws of science, because that would be the only explanation for it, so our science could never disprove that there is a creator... but I do digress. Anyway... some religious communities still believe their baby boys must be circumsized, and others just do it because it was done to them so what's good for the goose... Personally, I believe you should leave it alone... it adds pleasurable surface area to the man unit and it helps keep the man unit from being desensitized by rubbing against underpants, denim (if going commando), etc., which eventually leads to the unit not being so sensitive. Also, for all those that still do it because of religious beliefs... if there is an all-mighty creator, why in the hell did he put a foreskin on boys if it was supposed to be chopped off? Why would he want us to mutilate and cause massive pain to babies? Because we were meant to have it... again, it was only done back "in the day" for health reasons, and some how got locked into the religious beliefs of some.

    146. Re:Here it is for 5c by Phoenixlol · · Score: 1

      Psh, I'm circumsized... if my penis felt anymore I wouldn't last 1 min...

    147. Re:Here it is for 5c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Oh, and I don't like to wear condoms because then I always have to crawl out of bed to the bathroom and clean off. It's much less of a mess when I can leave my deposit.

      ...so that then she has to crawl out of bed to the bathroom and celan off. Asshole.

    148. Re:Here it is for 5c by Hatta · · Score: 2, Informative

      As much as I believe infant circumcision is wrong, adult circumcision is worse. When you remove thousands of nerve endings, a developing brain can rewire itself. An adult brain is accustomed to receiving those signals, and cannot rewire itself as readily. Infant circumcision is bad, adult circumcision is much worse.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    149. Re:Here it is for 5c by ab0mb88 · · Score: 1

      I think we have a post that paints a clear picture of the problem. Start with:

      I'm circumcised and enjoy sex a lot. Maybe I'd enjoy it "more" without it, but I don't really care.

      That sure reads like "I'm circumcised and enjoy a lot of sex, which would explain the animosity...

      In the next paragraph he really makes his attitude towards society more clear:

      Ask any woman who has performed oral sex on both...

      You can just feel the attitude towards those other women who aren't enlightened enough to suck him off. I guess I understand why all these people with strange looking dicks are angry.

      Now I am going to go enjoy the perks of being mutilated as a small child. Bye, enjoy that extra inch of skin.

    150. Re:Here it is for 5c by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      It's funny how so many people think circumcision is so terrible, when kids are showing off tongue studs, rings etc.

      I'd consider a tongue stud just as horrible if you subjected your child to it before he can even remotely consent.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    151. Re:Here it is for 5c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So it's easier with a flabby saggy woman?

    152. Re:Here it is for 5c by TheLink · · Score: 1

      OK you better stay here on slashdot then.

      Much safer :).

      --
    153. Re:Here it is for 5c by TheLink · · Score: 1

      > What is this obsessios with mariage anyway? It screws guys over.

      I dunno. A lot of guys seem to do it to get screwed. Then they start complaining after that.

      --
    154. Re:Here it is for 5c by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 1

      First sentence in article cited by parent post:

      After analysis of almost 40 years of medical research on circumcision, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued new recommendations today (March 1) stating that the benefits are not significant enough for the AAP to recommend circumcision as a routine procedure.

      Article does not support parent post claim that there are any measurable benefits to circumcising infants. It says the opposite: no statistical difference in the health of circumcised and entire men has been found in forty years.

      From the fifth paragraph of article:

      For the first time in AAP circumcision policy history, the new recommendations also indicate that if parents decide to circumcise their infant, it is essential that pain relief be provided.

      So at least in the last 10 years the process is being made a little less barbaric than it was in the last millenium. Gee I guess that's an improvement, huh?

      On a closely related note, something that really bugs me about these discussions is the incredibly severe sexist language that is always used. Female genital mutilation is, according to UNICEF,

      ...a fundamental violation of the rights of girls. It is discriminatory and violates the rights to equal opportunities, health, freedom from violence, injury, abuse, torture and cruel or inhuman and degrading treatment, protection from harmful traditional practices, and to make decisions concerning reproduction. These rights are protected in international law.

      And its counterpart for boys is properly called male genital mutilation. But instead the euphemism "circumcision" is consistently used. Until discussion of mutilation of all children is put on a gender neutral basis, these conversations are reinforcing sexual stereotypes, and the inherent sexism will continue to dominate the discourse, and interfere with the emergence of any rationally based consensus.

      Call circumcision what it is: male genital mutilation. Then after correctly identifying the topic with the use of this phrase which is based on gender neutral UNICEF terminology, see where the discussion goes.

      --
      Will
    155. Re:Here it is for 5c by Steauengeglase · · Score: 1

      "They make them for guys who take 30 seconds, any use lasting longer than about 5 or 10 minutes and they start tearing unless you use a gallon of lube, in which case see point number 2."

      Granted this is from my heterosexual view point, but the guys in R&D came up with this thing called, foreplay. It really helps with chafing.

    156. Re:Here it is for 5c by leptogenesis · · Score: 1

      Well it would seem you're very very wrong...

      Male Circumcision Reduces Risk of Genital Herpes and HPV Infection, but not Syphilis

      What an awful article...this one, and the HIV one that everyone keeps citing. This one starts off with the statement from the director of the institute that created it, "male circumcision is a scientifically proven method for reducing a man's risk of acquiring HIV infection." No real scientist would ever make this claim--science does not prove anything.

      It gets worse. The way they conducted the studies (in both cases) was to start off with a large group of men, circumcise half of them, and see who comes back with more infections. There's no way to do blinding here, since you're going to know whether or not you've been circumcised. For example, one confounding factor may simply be that circumcisions hurt--maybe the controlled group just had less sex. Unfortunately, they didn't give any evidence for a mechanism, which makes it somewhat difficult to believe it. (As an aside, the mechanism they suggest is that the foreskin helps the HPV cells enter the cells on the surface of the penis--which suggests that it could prevented by simply pulling the foreskin back for a while after sex).

      Another odd part about the study--the Herpes/HPV study was done in Uganda, and the one on HIV was done in Kenya. Of course, applying the results of a study to a population different from the one used in the study is generally a problem, but it's even worse in this case, because this whole conversation started because we believed circumcision stops people from using condoms. Kenya and Uganda are both known for disliking condoms, and so the effects of circumcision reducing the use of condoms has been minimized.

    157. Re:Here it is for 5c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Comparing Male Circumcision to Female Circumcision is ignorant of just how terrible female circumcision is.

      What an incredibly sexist comment.

      Another post points out that UNICEF's term for it is Female Genital Mutilation. It is abhorent. Seems to me that Male Genital Mutilation, which involves removal of more tissue that has at least as many pleasure/pain nerve endings, has got to be as bad when looked at objectively.

      I cannot see how any rational, objective person could be in favor of mutilating some children and not others. There is an incredible amount of blinding bias showing in parent post.

    158. Re:Here it is for 5c by Steauengeglase · · Score: 1

      Though no one is saying it, those who advocate against circumcision seem to be likening it to a clitoridectomy. It isn't and honestly I'd call it the inverse. once a circumcision involves cutting off sensitive parts of the penis to keep men from realizing the joys of sex and possibly leaving their wives for more fulfilling sexual relationships, give me a call.

    159. Re:Here it is for 5c by rgviza · · Score: 1

      To quote: "Male circumcision has been associated with a lower risk for HIV infection in international observational studies and in three randomized controlled clinical trials."

      To add what they left out: "... for people that don't wash it."

      Granted, there are a lot of people that don't wash themselves, but for those of us that do, it doesn't matter.

      --
      Don't kid yourself. It's the size of the regexp AND how you use it that counts.
    160. Re:Here it is for 5c by Altus · · Score: 1

      It depends. In some cases this can be a boon, but its also possible to take too long to get off. Once your partner has gotten off (possibly multiple times) and your still banging away for 20 minutes trying to get yourself off... well they get a bit sick of it and natural lubrication tends to wane causing chafing and discomfort.

      It can be an issue, but its probably not as common a problem as men getting off to quickly.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    161. Re:Here it is for 5c by Altus · · Score: 1

      Actually, condoms are not 100% effective at preventing the spread of HPV. Its not clear if they help at all or not since HPV can be transmitted between patches of skin that condoms don't cover.

      Women should really get vaccinated against the strains of HPV for which vaccinations are available. Men should too, but the vaccine is not yet approved for men. You can find places that will give it to you if you pay out of pocket, but insurance wont cover it for men, only women.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    162. Re:Here it is for 5c by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Just stop before they get sick of it? Should be able to notice before they start reading "War and Peace", and way before they clobber you over the head with the book.

      I've zero experience in such matters, but I'm sure once she's got off multiple times, you can always take off the condom and either DIY or let her give you a hand (if she hasn't passed out from the experience yet ;) ).

      OK if she's a hooker charging you a high price and you don't intend to be a repeat customer, then maybe you wouldn't care so much (still I don't think it's very considerate). That said if she charges by the hour, she might just grin and bear it.

      Anyway, what do I know... Maybe someday I'll find someone to do some "practicals" with ;).

      --
    163. Re:Here it is for 5c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The idea that circumcision promotes cock health is long since disproven." ...in a modern environmental of cleanliness and medical treatment.

      Also, even in our times, it depends on what you mean by cock health. Semantics, but you could mean that overall health to the person, just the cock, overall sexual function, completeness of person, or overall benefit to the individual.

      Taken as strictly to "cock health," you're wrong. There is a slight decrease in penile carcinoma. Penile carcinoma itself with or without is an incredibly small chance already.

      Taken strictly to disease that affects the person and cock, there is a slight decrease in contracting STDs, but it's an overall slight decrease (and the reason may not be directly due to the removal of foreskin but changing sensitivity and sexual behavior).

      However, overall, you may be right. The risk/benefit of having the procedure done rests against having the procedure done. Why? Mainly because of "do no harm." Besides the very minimal and limited benefits, the procedure itself can and has been screwed up. This is primarily why no medical group will get behind the procedure in the modern era--it has less to do with strict rationality and more to do with ethics.

    164. Re:Here it is for 5c by Xerolooper · · Score: 1

      For men with smaller or chopped foreskins, condoms interfere with sexual pleasure and frankly, when I'm in bed with a beautiful naked girl, the last thing I need is for a cock sock. Pretty naked girl overrides sanity, to the point where if the condom gets in the way, the logical answer is to rip it off and go without.

      Slashdot, news for nerds. Now bringing you, sex for geeks.

      I don't understand this. I have my foreskin removed and the condom stretches so thin that I still feel everything. I also write the serial number down in my LBB.

      --
      "The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget." -Thomas Szasz
    165. Re:Here it is for 5c by Altus · · Score: 1

      This isn't too much of a problem for me personally, I just wanted to educate the previous poster.

      Some guys, however, have this same problem even if they aren't using condoms. Those are the guys you have to feel really sorry for.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    166. Re:Here it is for 5c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is funny because WHO advocates it in Africa: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6502855.stm

    167. Re:Here it is for 5c by Ironica · · Score: 1

      Absolutely true. In fact, my older son had infantile phimosis. It was caught early by his pediatrician, before he'd suffered any ill effects from it, and we were referred to a pediatric urologist. When I noted at the beginning of the visit that I considered amputation of the foreskin as a drastic, last-resort measure, she assured me that she did as well, and wouldn't recommend it in my son's case due to his anatomy anyway. The cream worked perfectly, and he didn't need it again after he was about 10 months old.

      --
      Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
    168. Re:Here it is for 5c by Ironica · · Score: 1

      So because there is one condition that doesn't require circumcision, that means that all conditions don't require it?

      Logic. You fail it.

      There are conditions that require amputation of the foreskin, just as there are conditions that require amputation of other body parts.

      Birth, however, is not such a condition.

      --
      Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
    169. Re:Here it is for 5c by Ironica · · Score: 1

      Fortunately, at least half the population has gotten the message, and there are some hospitals (like UCSD) where you can't get newborns circumcised at all.

      You are also mistaken. UCSD delays circumcision but does it at the parent's request, as is the case with all other public hospitals I'm aware of. No hospital in America or Europe, public or private, would dare prevent a mohel or family practitioner from circumcising an infant.

      Well, few mohels operate in hospitals. For that matter, they won't circumcise an infant who is less than eight days old, by which time 99% of infants have been released from the hospital.

      UCSD does not offer circumcision as part of the birth package. You can still have the procedure done in a doctor's office, but you have to make special arrangements. Not all OBs are willing to do it, either, so you may have to ask a different doctor if you really want it. All of which serves to help parents consider the decision carefully, as they should with ANY procedure they elect for their children.

      --
      Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
    170. Re:Here it is for 5c by Dark_Gravity · · Score: 1

      Why don't you chop off your whole penis then? If by just removing the foreskin you reduce the risk of HIV, following your reasoning, it would be good to remove the whole penis which should lower the chances of getting HIV almost to zero.

      Unless you are the catcher, not the pitcher.

    171. Re:Here it is for 5c by Eravnrekaree · · Score: 1

      I certainly do agree with this. I am circumcised and with a condom there is little or no sensation. Without a condom there is barely any at all. This leads to a great sense of lack of fulfillment and a sense of betrayal as if a part of ones life has been stolen. It could be possible that circumcision discourages condom use.

      Circumcision has been proven in emperical studies to reduce pleasure sensitivity by as much as 80%. Monofilement pressure tests in the 2007 Sorrels sensitivity study published in the British Journal of Urology showed that the most sensitive parts of the penis are located on the foreskin, which is removed in circumcision. Circumcision removes up to 50% of the foreskin. Removing any skin from the penis destroys and removes nerve endings. Since nerve endings generate pleasure sensations, it is inescapable and inevitable that removing skin from the penis is going to reduce sensitivity due to the simple fact that nerve endings are removed.

      In fact, the original reason circumcision was promoted in the USA was to desensitise boys during the anti-masturbation hysteria of the 1800s. John Harvey Kellogg among others recommended circumcising boys without anesthetic as a punishment for masturbation. Circumcision does not prevent masturbation and masturbation is harmless, but this originally was how circumcision was promoted in the USA. When masturbation as a disease was discredited, the doctors who had benefiting from the lucrative practice of circumcision had to find new lies to continue to dupe parents into handing over their little boys to be chopped up.

      It was also recommended to do similar to girls and female circumcision was also done for the same reason. The male foreskin is about equivalent to a womens clitoris, on the male penis, the nerve endings are more concentrated on the foreskin rather than the glans, while on the clitoris its more on the clitoris rather than the female foreskin. Thus removal of the foreskin from a man actually can caused greater loss than removal of a foreskin from a womens clitoris. Male circumcision is at least more destructive than the circumcision removal of a womens clitoral foreskin, and perhaps approaches or equals that of a removal of a womens entire clitoris.

      In any case, removal of medically normal body parts of children cannot be justified. Amputation is a last resort option to treat present, current, severe, diseases which are actually present, when there is an urgent, compelling need to do so to treat a present and current disease and there is no lesser invasive options, not to remove normal, undiseased body parts that have no medical abnormality. Circumcision violates Primum Non Nocere since it causes a damage and an injury to a medically normal body part. Prophylaxis never has been and never will be an ethically valid reason to amputate normal body parts from childrens bodies. We would not justify removing a childs breasts to prevent breast cancer, neither should we attempt to justify amputation of normal parts of boys penises that all boys are born with. Everyone has a right to a whole body.

    172. Re:Here it is for 5c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      anything to save the children!

    173. Re:Here it is for 5c by Ironica · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but what's the big deal? My penis is less stinky, and doesn't look like a shrivily wad of chewing gum. It's like a permanent haircut, except it just makes my penis look cool. I don't understand why people go into such a fury about this issue. Why should anyone dictate to someone else whether or not they should be allowed to make this decision for their kid?

      For the same reason that parents shouldn't be making other cosmetic surgical alterations to newborns. Anyone who wants to can get a circumcision when they're old enough to make the decision for themselves. Maybe you'd have made that decision yourself, too, if you'd been allowed to. That's all well and good. But what if I don't like the size of my kid's nose? Should I get the baby a nose job, too? What about trimming their earlobes? Should I get them some dimples while we're at it? It's all the same... the arguments people make for circumcision at birth could be made for any cosmetic surgical procedure, but would be equally absurd.

      --
      Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
    174. Re:Here it is for 5c by Ironica · · Score: 1

      As much as I believe infant circumcision is wrong, adult circumcision is worse. When you remove thousands of nerve endings, a developing brain can rewire itself. An adult brain is accustomed to receiving those signals, and cannot rewire itself as readily. Infant circumcision is bad, adult circumcision is much worse.

      Recent research in adult brain plasticity with stroke victims, those who have suffered visual or auditory impairments, and amputees suggest that adults are not as hard-wired as we once thought.

      All that aside... people use this argument to defend the practice of infant circumcision. If you take it before they've learned it's part of them, they won't miss it, right? And yet, studies have shown that men who were circumcised at birth have a lower tolerance for pain than those who weren't. Babies *do* suffer consequences from the procedure. General anesthesia is too risky for this procedure, but local has unpredictable effects on their brand-new nervous systems, and the baby cannot communicate whether it has been effective.

      If a man doesn't want his foreskin, I figure he'll learn to live without it. But no one should make that decision *for* him.

      --
      Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
    175. Re:Here it is for 5c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But that applies to condoms as well! Condoms _DO_NOT_ completely prevent catching an STD! They only reduce the probability (on the order of 5-10x, according to different studies). The whole "condoms mean safe sex" propaganda is bullshit. Safe with respect to preventing procreation - yes, they are effective here. But as for STDs, hell, no!

    176. Re:Here it is for 5c by tim447 · · Score: 1

      Boy, I gotta tell ya, I'm pretty glad I'm circumcised then - if I was more sensitive than I am now, I'm pretty sure I'd be an addict. And by the by, before you get all righteous saying you'll leave the choice up to your kid... that's essentially choosing uncircumcised... you recognize that, right? "Why yes, I'd love to voluntarily have someone remove a large piece of the most sensitive bit of my body..." Riiiiight. (And to anyone that's made that choice, allow me to be un-PC and say you're insane.)

    177. Re:Here it is for 5c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not a general recommendation, it's a response to a crisis.

    178. Re:Here it is for 5c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had this problem until my GF brought home Magnums. Turned out I thought I was "average", but really I was "thicker". The average size condoms squeezed the bloodflow out of the head, reducing pretty much all sensitivity. Problem went away using larger size. BUT, still isn't even close to as good as without.

      These morons need to spend almost half a million to figure out the obvious? Stick a condom over your tongue. Eat. GEE doesn't taste as good? I wonder why... MOrons!

    179. Re:Here it is for 5c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      What is called "female circumcision" usually involves removal of the entire clitoris, thereby removing almost all possibility of sexual pleasure. It's purely a male controlling females thing. They might as well be removing their eyes so they can't ever gaze upon a man in lust. Catch my drift? It's far worse than removing some useless tissue. Male circumcision is pretty much like tonsil or apendix removal. No loss at all.

    180. Re:Here it is for 5c by Eravnrekaree · · Score: 1

      Correction: Circumcision removes 50% of the skin from the penis.

    181. Re:Here it is for 5c by martas · · Score: 1

      who's this bating master everyone keeps talking about? oh, you mean mastUrbating...

    182. Re:Here it is for 5c by bkr1_2k · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not to nit pick, but a minor can not legally give consent, so a parent's consent is all the legal requirement to cover it. Whether that's a reasonable argument for or against circumcision, I don't know.

      --
      "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
    183. Re:Here it is for 5c by bkr1_2k · · Score: 1

      While I agree circumcision is a form a mutilation, comparing it to female circumcision isn't quite right. For the two to be comparable, it would be like removing the glans of the male genitalia, not the foreskin.

      As a circumcised male, I have no idea what the major differences are (in feeling) other than the obvious aesthetic differences. Health issues can be summed up quite easily. Don't be a nasty fuck and wash your junk properly and there shouldn't be any health issues. Any extreme situations of true health issues can be found in both camps so ascribing them to one or the other as justification is simply silly.

      There's no true justification for circumcision (except in specific cases) other than aesthetics.

      --
      "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
    184. Re:Here it is for 5c by Hatta · · Score: 1

      And yet, studies have shown that men who were circumcised at birth have a lower tolerance for pain than those who weren't.

      How does that work? Circumcision exposes the glans, causing it to become keratinized and less sensitive.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    185. Re:Here it is for 5c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't care what the studies say; Getting your partner tested for STDs before having sex with them doesn't require removing a piece of your own body and is even more effective at preventing the spread of STDs.

      Logic sucks, doesn't it?

      Here here!

    186. Re:Here it is for 5c by loxosceles · · Score: 1

      I don't care that you think logic sucks, and I don't care that you're perfectly willing to ignore scientific studies, rather than disputing them logically. You have the right to those positions. However, don't expect other people to take you seriously.

      This article, in the seventh paragraph, starts citing some interesting African studies comparing HIV transmission rates in circumcised and uncircumcised males.

      For all we know, the general sentiment that led to religious adoption of circumcision could have been the result of an ancient HIV-like plague, combined with the observation that circumcision reduced transmission rates.

      Having said that, I would choose not to have any son(s) circumcised, despite the increased risk of HIV transmission. When they reached an appropriate age, I'd present the argument to them and encourage them to research it themselves, and if they wanted to get circumcised -- for medical reasons, since I would not raise them to be religious -- it'd be fine with me.

    187. Re:Here it is for 5c by coolsnowmen · · Score: 1

      It is important to note that reported circumcision status may be subject to misclassification. In a study of adolescents only 69% of circumcised and 65% of uncircumcised young men correctly identified their circumcision status as verified by physical exam [31].

      Someone clearly hasn't been watching enough porn

    188. Re:Here it is for 5c by supernova_hq · · Score: 1

      Wow, I've never heard such good advice from a "you're small" joke before...

    189. Re:Here it is for 5c by Mex · · Score: 1

      I always wondered why american men seemed to be so against condoms but you've just provided the most likely answer!

      I'm personally un-cut and while there's a very slight reduction in sensitivity, even using the thickest condoms is rather great and I have no problems, uh, performing. It's a shame cut guys are less sensitive. Since I shower daily I have absolutely no hygiene problems either, haven't had any ever.

      I wonder if circumcision also has any bearings on older age erectile disfunction?

    190. Re:Here it is for 5c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HAS to?

      Excuse me?

      Like any woman wouldn't have visited the bathroom after sex anyway?

      What woman does NOT do this, and who is she so I can remember never to have sex with that dirty bitch?

      It's pure fucking efficiency. Why make 2 people get up when 1 will always get up anyway?

      Meh. I prefer to go urinate after banging too tho, otherwise the semen clogs my penis and then taking a piss in the morning can be painful.

    191. Re:Here it is for 5c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm uncircumcised and condoms suck just as much. I don't know what difference it makes, as when an uncircumcised man is hard the head is uncovered.

    192. Re:Here it is for 5c by atamido · · Score: 1

      How on earth was this modded insightful?

      A relatively low percentage of the population has been circumcised at any given point in history. And "lower risk" does not mean "no risk", so even if the whole world were circumcised, it wouldn't have that big of an impact on HIV.

    193. Re:Here it is for 5c by atamido · · Score: 1

      The CDC has a pretty good history performing studies with relatively accurate results. I think they can be considered a more source, no?

    194. Re:Here it is for 5c by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2, Informative

      A minor cannot give legal consent, so legally they still need a parent to consent. However, many medical personnel feel it is unethical to perform a cosmetic surgical procedure on anyone who has not given informed consent. That ethical requirement has nothing to do with law (although the law may require informed consent within its own framework), and minors can certainly give that sort of consent.

    195. Re:Here it is for 5c by bkr1_2k · · Score: 1

      Plenty of people have potential partners tested first. I've had several tested and been asked by several to get tested, even on a first date.

      Having adult conversations isn't particularly difficult, despite what the after-school specials want you to believe.

      --
      "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
    196. Re:Here it is for 5c by loxosceles · · Score: 1

      [citation needed]

      The CDC's circumcision factsheet cites studies showing increased transmission of HIV and syphilis in uncircumcised males. It cites a lot of studies on HIV.

      For HIV, scientists have shown increased viral uptake using foreskin tissue in the lab. It's hard to get less biased evidence than that.

      I would think that most STDs should be transmitted less frequently to circumcised males, even if only slightly, because there's less surface area to be transmitted to. Any conclusions otherwise are immediately suspect for that reason alone. STDs like herpes and HPV that can be transmitted via skin-to-skin contact, not requiring mucus membrane contact, obviously won't have as dramatic a difference in transmission rates as HIV, but I would expect there still to be some difference.

      And no, I'm not in favor of circumcision at birth. I think parents and sons should have a reasonable discussion about it when sons are old enough to understand the issue and decide for themselves. Unfortunately, the parents most likely to circumcise their children at birth are also least likely to have any sort of discussion with their boys about sex, beyond "don't have it." Those boys are also the most likely to be having unprotected sex. Banning circumcision at birth is likely to result in (inept) back-alley circumcisions and more STDs among teens from conservative families who didn't opt for back-alley circumcisions, because their parents are too fucking inept and repressed to have honest conversations with their kids about sex and STDs even if it might save their kids' lives.

      Also, fuck religion. NOMA my ass. STDs, particularly in Africa, are a case study for how religion can affect people's health in very real and scientifically quantifiable ways.

    197. Re:Here it is for 5c by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 1

      While I agree circumcision is a form a mutilation, comparing it to female circumcision isn't quite right. For the two to be comparable, it would be like removing the glans of the male genitalia, not the foreskin.

      FGM and MGM are both mutilations inflicted on children, and up to that point I and parent post agree.

      But the implication that MGM is more acceptable than FGM because it is somehow a lesser amount of mutilation is not something I can follow. Either one of these would be clearly criminal activity if done by perverts who kidnapped children, had their little bit of fun, and then released them otherwise unharmed. When viewed without the prejudice of cultural biases, any kind of mutilation of children is equally reprehensible. Whether MGM, or FGM, or chopping off the little fingers at the distal joint, or at the medial joint... it is all mutilation of human beings without their informed consent.

      Also, there is more damage done to the penis in circumcision than parent post is recognizing. After the foreskin is removed, through a process called cornification the entire glans changes from a mucosal surface to an epidermal surface like that of the fingers or toes. So circumcision not only removes more than one third of the sensitive surface area of the erect penis, it alters the sensitivity of what remains. That has to happen. I can tell you as an entire male, that it is exceedingly uncomfortable to have the exposed uncircumcised glans rubbing against the fabric of pajamas or underwear. There is definitely some loss of sensation with circumcision, or the 30% of men who have been circumcised would either run around with their cocks hanging out, or be wearing oversized codpieces to hold their jockey shorts away from their junk.

      Whether circumcision interferes with sexual pleasure is not important to this discussion. But I will say this: the most profoundly sexual organ in the human body, and in the final analysis the only one that matters as far as pleasure goes, is the brain. If you want to give your partner a good time, figure out how to tickle his or her brain. If the two of you really click, then he or she will be doing the same for you. Sexual ecstasy and orgasm occur behind the eyeballs and above the throat.

      --
      Will
    198. Re:Here it is for 5c by yndrd1984 · · Score: 1

      What is called "female circumcision" usually involves...

      You're right, the term is used loosely to refer to a variety of practices. I was trying to refer to clitoral hood removal, which is the closest homologue to male circumcision.

      Either way, my point was that you wouldn't object to the characterization of other cultures' forced genital modifications as mutilation, even the more benign ones, so your objection to calling circumcision by the same name is probably based only on the fact that you're used to it.

      It's purely a male controlling females thing.

      Except where it's a woman performing the ceremony to welcome her daughter into adulthood.

      Male circumcision is pretty much like tonsil or apendix removal. No loss at all.

      It always amazes me how people can rationalize the loss of something by claiming that it's worthless. A bully destroys a favorite toy so we say we didn't really like it. We lose an SO to another and we say were better off without them. We lose a vast number of sensitive nerve endings from our penis, and we simply refuse to believe that it could possibly be a bad thing.

    199. Re:Here it is for 5c by yndrd1984 · · Score: 1

      The CDC has a pretty good history performing studies ...

      I'd agree, but I have a couple of objections:

      First, the studies weren't performed by the CDC. The paper itself wasn't written by the CDC. The CDC link to the .pdf even states that it might not reflect their opinion. The reason it's on the CDC website is because the authors wrote it to convince the CDC to look at some possible policy changes.

      Second, the article wasn't meant to be a balanced look at an issue, it was meant to persuade. That's why there's no mention of any of the studies that don't show a connection between circumcision and AIDS, like New Zealand's massive, long-term study that found no statistically significant connection between circumcision and any STD.

    200. Re:Here it is for 5c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like my vet that wants to chop off my dogs balls to prevent him from getting testicular cancer.

    201. Re:Here it is for 5c by linhares · · Score: 1
    202. Re:Here it is for 5c by VoiceOfDoom · · Score: 1

      Old joke:

      What do you call the useless flap of skin on the end of the penis?

      -The man

      --
      "Life is pain Highness. Anyone who says otherwise is selling something"

      Westly, The Princess Bride

    203. Re:Here it is for 5c by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      Though no one is saying it, those who advocate against circumcision seem to be likening it to a clitoridectomy. It isn't and honestly I'd call it the inverse.

      Gee, one involves removing something which gives sexual pleasure. The other involves removing something which leads to less sensitivity. Both are extremely gruesome and painful.

      once a circumcision involves cutting off sensitive parts of the penis to keep men from realizing the joys of sex and possibly leaving their wives for more fulfilling sexual relationships, give me a call

      The foreskin actually helps to stimulate the woman.

      Don't mutilate kids penises. Let them choose for themsevels when they grow up.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    204. Re:Here it is for 5c by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      It's funny how so many people think circumcision is so terrible, when kids are showing off tongue studs, rings etc.

      Male genital mutilation is extremely painful, and it should be left up to each guy to choose when he grows old enough. Mutilating your son's penis is NOT YOUR PLACE.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    205. Re:Here it is for 5c by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      Women tell me they like the look of my circumcised member vs. foreskin nonsense...

      Good for you. That's no reason to mutilate the penis of a small child who is never even given the chance to choose.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    206. Re:Here it is for 5c by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      I haven't made any plans, but yeah, if I have a son I'll probably get him circumcised, why not?

      Maybe because you should leave it for him to choose when he's an adult, and maybe because it's extremely painful for the baby? Why mutilate your son just because you can? My God, that's the most evil thing I've heard all day!

      Comparing Male Circumcision to Female Circumcision is ignorant of just how terrible female circumcision is.

      Nonsense. Male mutilation is incredibly painful, and you lose nerve endings that would otherwise help with stimulation.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    207. Re:Here it is for 5c by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      "As a circumcised female, it's not a health matter, it's definitely a cosmetic issue, and has to do with the child's identity development. Child sees the mother's vagina and it's circumcised while the child isn't? Blah blah blah."

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    208. Re:Here it is for 5c by hkmwbz · · Score: 1

      Wow, this is truly disgusting. You'll probably be giving your infant daughter a boob job next.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    209. Re:Here it is for 5c by Baki · · Score: 1

      So do you feel the same for "female circumcision" then (removal of the clitoris or similar for girls)?

      Just as this is punished with long imprisonment for all involved (including parents) even if they send the girl to their country of origin to have it done, I think that "normal" circumcision for boys should also be punished. It is mutiliation without consent, and should not be performed until the person has become adult and opts to do so himself.

    210. Re:Here it is for 5c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Problem: HIV transmission when having sex with someone with an STD.
       
      Solution: Cut off a chunk of flesh and statistically reduce the risk of transmission when having sex with someone with HIV.
       
      Is it just me, or is this maybe the wrong answer?

    211. Re:Here it is for 5c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In my country it is illegal to chop anyones private parts without the owner agreeing. So not before 18 that is.

    212. Re:Here it is for 5c by Ogive17 · · Score: 1

      If you made that much of a mess, you're doing it wrong.

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    213. Re:Here it is for 5c by soren202 · · Score: 1

      Because were I in the position of my parents shortly after my birth, I wouldn't have made the same decision as them.

      I suppose it's not as big a deal as most people are making it, but, really, genital mutilation without the consent of the one being cut up is never cool, regardless of how socially acceptable it is, or the inability of the one being cut up to give consent.

    214. Re:Here it is for 5c by soren202 · · Score: 1

      A public service announcement for all citizens of the US of A: stop mutilating your children's cocks.

      Seriously, what is the matter with you nutjobs? The idea that circumcision promotes cock health is long since disproven. Put the knife down. Step away from the cock. Thank you.

      Sheesh. We "nutjobs" would take you guys a lot more seriously if you stopped calling this practice "mutilation" or "child abuse." It's long-ingrained in many cultures that love and dote on children.

      I'm circumcised and enjoy sex a lot. Maybe I'd enjoy it "more" without it, but I don't really care.

      Circumcision may have only slight health benefits for men in the Western world today, but it also offers only very slight risks as well. Lots of us do it for religious or cultural reasons, and to my knowledge there's no greater incidence of sexual dysfunction or other problems like that in societies where that behavior is prevalent.

      Albeit, the exaggeration may not be warranted, but you really shouldn't project your apathy onto the general population.

      Fact is, circumcision takes away a lot of feeling, and although you may want to do it for religious reasons (health benefits aside - there are better, less expensive, more responsible ways to gain those) or for tradition, if the kid doesn't see things the same way as you, or even outright ditches your religion, or just doesn't want to follow family traditions, he's screwed over because of a choice YOU made for him.

      Granted, this does present a bit of a catch 22 (circumcision after the age of 3 is ridiculously painful, more expensive, etc) but, at the same time, it's not fair to make someone's choice for them when it can't be reversed, and it'll affect them throughout their life.

      Of course, if, tomorrow, we come up with some stem cell magic to repair the foreskin to ~as good of condition as before the chop, I'd be all for circumcision at birth for those who are wealthy enough to afford to regrow it for their children if needed. It does have some valid benefits (namely, decreased rate of contracting STDs) and there are probably a lot of people out there who don't mind the decreased sensation for religious, traditional, or health-based purposes.

      But, we don't have that yet, and it's not looking like we will in even the remotely near future, so, until then, that argument is moot.

    215. Re:Here it is for 5c by yndrd1984 · · Score: 1

      I find the CDC fact sheet unconvincing, not just because it doesn't even mention the existence of evidence to the contrary, but because most medical groups (AMA, NIH) look at the evidence from all sides, and then bluntly state that newborns should not be circumcised. For all I know the CDC may be right, but without an explanation for the disparity, I have to be skeptical.

      Your arguments about skin area and HIV uptake are interesting, but since HIV is mostly transmitted through blood contact, couldn't tighter skin lead to more minor tears and abrasions, increasing the risk? And since outer skin cells are destined to die, couldn't they be built to take up viruses to keep them outside the body?

      I do agree with you whole-heartedly about one thing - as long as the medical benefits are either minor or controversial then the circumcision of a child is merely a culturally accepted form of child abuse.

      You make a good argument against a sudden outright ban, but even as a purely practical matter it would be impossible to pull off in the US. Get the medical community in sync with the rest of the civilized world first, push the culture of "let him choose", then when only a handful of religious nuts are left legal steps can be taken.

      Oh, and I am sorry for the late and terse reply, but I'm stuck with just my cell until I get home - and even with a qwerty trying to edit a post sucks.

    216. Re:Here it is for 5c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't matter if it reduces risk or not. Parents still shouldn't have the right to do it.

      Infibulation probably reduces STD risk for women, too. Nobody cares, and nobody should care.

  5. Ask Richard Jeni by ShadowRangerRIT · · Score: 3, Funny

    This man already knows the answer. (It's only 1 minute 22 seconds, so watch it)

    --
    $_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
    1. Re:Ask Richard Jeni by CyberSlammer · · Score: 1

      Well, considering Richard Jenni's been dead since 2007 what better advice on what to do with your stiffy than from a stiff.

    2. Re:Ask Richard Jeni by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, it usually is only one minute and 22 seconds. Would YOU put on a raincoat to go for a 1:22 stroll in a storm?

    3. Re:Ask Richard Jeni by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1 minute 22 seconds?!! That man must be a real stud!

  6. Government by clampolo · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Glad to see that the US has a big surplus in the budget that we can afford to fund this stuff.

    1. Re:Government by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 1

      $400k isn't that much of a surplus for a government contract.

    2. Re:Government by hedwards · · Score: 5, Insightful

      $400k isn't worth even contemplating. To put it into context $15 billion dollars is roughly $1 per week per person living in the US. $400k is such a tiny amount of money that it would cost more to find things that small to cut than it would save to actually cut them.

      But, despite your "insightful" comment, it is in fact a very important thing to be studying, follow up research to remedy the problems could very well save multiples of that amount on things like STI education.

    3. Re:Government by RDW · · Score: 4, Informative

      'Glad to see that the US has a big surplus in the budget that we can afford to fund this stuff.'

      Glad to see that Slashdot is helpfully parroting a 'story' fed to Fox News by a 'government watchdog', AKA a right-wing astroturf lobby group previously known for its heroic pro-tobacco, pro-Microsoft and anti-FOSS campaigns funded by (well, you can guess who):

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_Against_Government_Waste

      Still, who cares about politically motivated attacks on public health research, provided we can make Knob Jokes?

    4. Re:Government by darjen · · Score: 1

      Very important? I, for one, wouldn't lose any sleep at night if this wasn't being funded with my money.

      400k could buy a few houses for people. Or feed several families for a year. People wonder why there is still poverty and hunger, yet insist on having stupid government spending.

    5. Re:Government by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      $400,000 could, let's see, pay for maybe, under optimistic assumptions, 4 guys serving 10 year sentences?(in many cases, it'd hover somewhere between 2 and less than 1, prisons are often more expensive than colleges) A forgone earnings calculation would be trickier, so I'm not going to bother; but it doesn't take too many "I got knocked up and dropped out." stories to add up to $400k in foregone earnings. And STI treatment, that's free, right?

      Sometimes, not spending money is a false economy. This is probably one of those times. Even if you disregard human misery, inefficiencies in contraception are extraordinarily expensive when counted across populations of any reasonable size.

    6. Re:Government by Aqualung812 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Or, 400k could be used to increase condom use, preventing several (hundred?)thousand families from ever being born and needing food or shelter.

      Part of the reason there is poverty and hunger is that people that should NOT have kids still do. A man that is almost dead from starvation can still father a child...

      --
      Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
    7. Re:Government by __aarzwb9394 · · Score: 1

      you need another +1 informative, but I don't have any points. Sorry.

    8. Re:Government by VanGarrett · · Score: 1

      It's not clear to me that a research project on why guy's don't like to wear condoms is going to inspire anyone to wear them. This research has already been conducted by condom manufacturers. It's why you can buy a pack of Trojans containing four different varieties, each one designed to improve stimulation in a different way. Condom manufacturers stand to profit directly from this sort of research, and therefore have more at stake. If current technology offered a better solution, then it would have already been found. Simply enough, the people, of which you speak, who should NOT have kids, but nevertheless, still do, will continue to have kids, despite this research program. After all, getting condoms requires some sort of effort, if not money. Skinny-dipping is completely free.

    9. Re:Government by guruevi · · Score: 1

      When you spend several billions (thousands of millions) on delaying bankruptcy of a few companies, 400k doesn't seem that much, heck it isn't even a very large study. We got a 2 million grant 5 years ago just to get a run-of-the-mill fMRI machine, we got a million this year to upgrade it and we're getting another 2m this year (hopefully) to get another MRI machine that only fits rodents.

      NIH spends our tax money on interesting things at least (sciency-stuff) not on some whack-job military stuff like already disproven exo-skeletons or already commercially possible robot cars (DARPA)

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    10. Re:Government by machine321 · · Score: 1

      So, you're promoting childbirth to reduce starvation? Interesting.

      Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day.
      Teach a man to fuck, he'll eat for a lifetime.

    11. Re:Government by timeOday · · Score: 1

      More to the point than these other comparisons, I doubt $400K would pay the lifetime healthcare costs for even one AIDS case.

    12. Re:Government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "$400k isn't worth even contemplating."

      No matter how small the amount, it is still our money being wasted. In my city the local food bank promotes that $1 donated can generate one full meal for someone. Thats over 400k meals that could have fed people in the community. It may not seem like a lot of money when our Govt. is now spending billions upon billions with the stroke of a pen but because the Govt. has grown exponentially in the last few years does not make it any less important to watch our budget on every level.

    13. Re:Government by xyphor · · Score: 1

      'Glad to see that the US has a big surplus in the budget that we can afford to fund this stuff.'

      Glad to see that Slashdot is helpfully parroting a 'story' fed to Fox News by a 'government watchdog', AKA a right-wing astroturf lobby group previously known for its heroic pro-tobacco, pro-Microsoft and anti-FOSS campaigns funded by (well, you can guess who):

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_Against_Government_Waste

      Still, who cares about politically motivated attacks on public health research, provided we can make Knob Jokes?

      Glad to see a perfect example of an ad hominem logical fallacy.

    14. Re:Government by vaporland · · Score: 1

      well, I could contemplate $400k pretty well, given the chance.

      RE: $15 billion dollars is roughly $1 per week per person living in the US... over what period of time?

      --
      Ask Me About... The 80's!
    15. Re:Government by cgenman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The average aids patient in the US will spend $600k on treatment throughout their lifetime. Assuming the aids infection rate in the US is 50k people per year, that's $30 billion dollars per year being lost to HIV related medical expenses. If this study comes up with some general guidelines that encourage a mere tenth of a percent more people to wear condoms, that's still preventing 50 cases of aids in the US each year. That's a potential savings of 30 million dollars per year on a one-time fixed cost one mid-sized mining truck. That's a 75x ROI in the first year alone.

      Heck, if ONE PERSON avoids getting aids due to wearing a condom after reading this slashdot article, the program has recouped. And that's just in raw drugs cost alone, let alone lost work hours / family troubles, giving it to other people, etc. HIV is so hugely expensive that anything we can do to reduce infection rate is basically worth it against our bottom line.

    16. Re:Government by Kymermosst · · Score: 1

      $400k here, $400k there. Not even worth contemplating. Nope. Not even after a few thousand such drops in the bucket.

      --
      "Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
    17. Re:Government by nateb · · Score: 1

      things like STI education.

      ....... The Search for Terrestrial Intelligence?

      heheheheh.

      --
      -- Nate
    18. Re:Government by Joebert · · Score: 1

      400k could buy a few houses for people. Or feed several families for a year. People wonder why there is still poverty and hunger, yet insist on having stupid government spending.

      400K could get a few dozen scientists laid in a "study" about condoms.

      When you think about it, if we spent 400K on a few houses or on feeding several families for a year, we're just going to end up with more homeless or hungry people when these ones procreate and lose their house again or run out of food.

      Worst case scenario with the study is that a few condoms break and we accidentally end up with more scientists in the world.

      --
      Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
    19. Re:Government by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's not an ad hominem. An ad hominem is an argument that relies on an attack on the character of an opponent.

      The post you responded to doesn't rely on the character attack. It relies on a factual account of the corruption of a political group, and then adds a dose of venom on top of the factual account. With or without the added character attack, the strength of the argument rests on the factual account.

      Another example:

      Factual account: The policeman entered false information into the court record.
      Ad Hominem: The policeman is a stupid pig.
      Factual account with an added character attack: The stupid pig entered false information into the court record.

      The only statement which counts as an ad hominem is the middle one. It does not contain any factual information on which a logical argument can be based.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    20. Re:Government by fbjon · · Score: 4, Funny

      So, you're promoting childbirth to reduce starvation? Interesting.

      Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fuck, he'll eat for a lifetime.

      It's a modest proposal.

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    21. Re:Government by fbjon · · Score: 1

      There's no ad hominem fallacy, it's just distrust of an organization based on its reputation.

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    22. Re:Government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you pretty much admit that FOSS is left-wing, and a website that supports FOSS is a left-wing site, and a supporter of FOSS is a left-winger?

      Because opposing it certainly seems to make one right-wing in your view.

      Is it right-wing to want to limit damages from malpractice? In that case I invite you to explain how operating standards will be kept equally high when everyone wants to get treated by the best doctors for everything, and to consider that practically every country with a fully public health system (which I would guess, because nobody knows for sure, is Obama's goal) actually sees that as going hand in hand with very LOW malpractice awards. Oh, I thought these public-health-system-governments were all left-wing and therefore should support HIGH malpractice awards. Golly. Get a surgeon removing your wrong testicle in Denmark/Germany/Sweden/Netherlands/wherever, see if the state will give you ten million quid.

    23. Re:Government by Omestes · · Score: 1

      with a fully public health system (which I would guess, because nobody knows for sure, is Obama's goal)

      Huh? The plan is on the record, and you can read it yourself. Though if by "nobody" you mean people who are too apathetic or brainwashed to get their news/politics from some charismatic radio/TV guy, then you are correct. And yes, this is aimed at the dogmatic left and right.

      As someone who is pretty much a socialist (a real one, not what people who do not know what the term actually means brand Obama, a moderate, as), his health care idea is fascist in that he want to mandate that people give their money to large corporations who largely lack oversight or regulation, the same corporations who just received umpteen billion of our dollars (which also was fascist, not socialist) with no oversight or regulation, who were failing due to the same lack of oversight or regulation thanks to the dogmatic right putting ideology above reality.

      So, if by public health care you mean we all are forced to give money to large corporations under government mandate, or face government penalties, you are correct. If you meant something sensable, like granting free health care to people (because life and median health is a right as well, and beyond mere money or property), or even an alternative to sociopathic, and overpriced corporations, you are wrong.

      Please get your facts straight.

      I am a fan of caring for people, AND holding people accountable for their idiocy. I don't see a contradiction, and I am pretty far to the left.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    24. Re:Government by Deanalator · · Score: 1

      Your numbers are a bit off. Money does not just disappear when you spend it, it moves. All that prevention would do economically is make a few doctors more wealthy than they needed to be. Worst of all, it will waste the doctor's time and energy, which could be spent saving other lives.

      Likewise, that 400k goes to the doctors, then to the stores, and eventually gets passed around enough that it ends up back at the government. When government spends money locally, and the recipients buy local, then the money stays in the system. It only acts as a small bit of economic incentive for people to do research that is in the best interests of the country.

    25. Re:Government by JoeMerchant · · Score: 1

      Or, 400k could be used to increase condom use

      Which, no doubt, was the purpose of the study, to get at some root causes that might be effectively addressed, increasing condom use...

      Whatever is happening now re: condom promotion could clearly be more effective. $400K probably paid for two guys to design and execute a survey over the course of a couple of years, plus overhead (grant accounting, departmental cuts, etc. etc.)

    26. Re:Government by HaZardman27 · · Score: 1

      400k could buy a few houses for people. Or feed several families for a year. People wonder why there is still poverty and hunger, yet insist on having stupid government spending.

      Newsflash: It's not the government's job to provide for you. The right to the pursuit of happiness means you have to pursue it yourself, it won't be given to you. Natural selection would suggest that individuals who cannot provide for themselves are a taint in the gene pool. Perhaps the government is getting tired of people expecting it to take care of their families, and is pushing now to get more of these individuals to stop reproducing. I for one applaud their decision.

      --
      Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
    27. Re:Government by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      Of course, if you worked for a drug company you would've said:

      that's $30 billion dollars per year earned from HIV related medical expenses.

      Remember, someone's getting that money.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    28. Re:Government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or looking at it in a positive manner, that's $30 billion dollars going to employ people keeping AIDS victims alive. That money gives healthcare professionals expertise in treating that type of patient and one of those doctors may eventually find the cure to AIDS or any number of other diseases. Money spent isn't money lost.

    29. Re:Government by cgenman · · Score: 1

      The physical pieces of paper don't go away, but the effort and value represented by it does get consumed. The 400k dollars are going to probably a year of two or three researcher's lives, plus equpiment rental, travel, etc. That's clearly 400k dollars worth of "value" that is being applied to this endeavor that isn't being, say, researching a cure for male pattern baldness.

      The same is true of the 600k per patient. The doctor's assessment times, hospital space times, the drug manufacturing costs, etc, is all value that isn't going back into the system. It's consumed.

      So yes, in a strict literal sense, physical money cycles. But the value that money represents is getting consumed.

    30. Re:Government by rgviza · · Score: 1

      Actually people that should not have kids (can't afford them, no medical benefits etc) generally reproduce like rabbits (3 or more kids), and people that can afford kids have 1-2 because they wait too long til things are "just right".

      So the ratio of the haves to have nots gets bigger every day. That's why wealth ends up in the hands of the few and the masses are in poverty.

      Interestingly enough this seems to have no bearing on average intelligence (as in cognitive ability). Now if we could only get them to blame their parents for not using birth control instead of blaming "The Man" for their situation.

      --
      Don't kid yourself. It's the size of the regexp AND how you use it that counts.
  7. Perhaps by arizwebfoot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Maybe because it feels like you're trying to mate with a garden hose.

    --
    Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
    1. Re:Perhaps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did mommy take away the vacuum cleaner from you after you gummed up the works?

    2. Re:Perhaps by Rakshasa+Taisab · · Score: 2, Funny

      So what else am I supposed to mate with? Socks are much harder to clean.

      --
      - These characters were randomly selected.
    3. Re:Perhaps by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      I have no frame of reference for this comparison, but I'm mad I wasted all that money on dinners, movies, flowers, chocolates etc. A garden hose would have been cheaper.

    4. Re:Perhaps by gmhowell · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You think that's bad, wait for alimony and child support. High end prostitutes are cheap by comparison. (I actually saw a cost breakdown about that, showing cost per act of coitus with a high end prostitute vs. an ex wife. Sad, really)

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    5. Re:Perhaps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe because it feels like you're trying to mate with a garden hose.

      I've heard this over and over, and tried it both ways, and I think you're full of shit. It's exactly the same, except for cleanup and other details. Temporary loss of erection is present and kinda weird, but I suspect that's maybe related to the constriction of blood supply. Plus, ya know, temporary.

      The question is, why do people keep saying this? It always *sounds* kind of like outrage, but why would one be outraged over something that doesn't actually happen?

    6. Re:Perhaps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HUH?

    7. Re:Perhaps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Two things.

      First, which brand have you had the best feeling with?

      Two, you must admit there is a possibility that while it feels the same for you with and without a condom, that it may feel differently for someone else, the whole "your results will vary" thing in all parts of medicine.

      All other things being equal, I would have sex without a condom 10 times out of 10 if I was just basing it on the feeling.

    8. Re:Perhaps by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 0, Troll

      You think that's bad, wait for alimony and child support. High end prostitutes are cheap by comparison. (I actually saw a cost breakdown about that, showing cost per act of coitus with a high end prostitute vs. an ex wife. Sad, really)

      Move to a country where you can just buy her from her father?

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    9. Re:Perhaps by yali · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The "obvious" answer that everybody is mentioning is that condoms reduce sensitivity. However, it is a fact that some men use condoms consistently, some men use them some times and not others, and some men avoid them whenever possible. "It feels like a garden hose" is a vague and general statement about condoms that offers little useful information about the nature of those differences. Something else must be going on. Are some men using condoms wrong? Are some men overestimating the reduction in sensitivity, perhaps because of preconceptions? Are some men underestimating the risks associated with unprotected sex?

      "Wasted tax money" is a red herring designed to give people an excuse to titter and dismiss this research without thinking it through. The obvious applied goal of this research would be to get more men to use condoms when having potentially risky sex. If you can identify the relevant factors (between men, between their partners, between situations) you might be able to increase condom usage. That has the potential to reduce STI and HIV infections and unwanted pregnancies. The real problem with this research is that it threatens to suggest something other than "abstinence until marriage and then one opposite-sex partner for life" as a potential model for a safe and satisfying sex life.

    10. Re:Perhaps by meta-monkey · · Score: 5, Funny

      Confucius say, "if it floats, flies or fucks, it's cheaper to rent."

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    11. Re:Perhaps by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What is it with you guys marrying these women that hate sex.

      I found me a good old fashioned nympho. I get it twice a day, more if I want it. She is an absolute sex freak.

      Is she a full 10 barbie doll? nope. She's a 6.8-7 but I'm far happier than my friends with the high maintenance arm candy they rarely get to touch.

      Who cares if she looks good in lace once every month, go find an average girl that is not screwed up in the head and likes sex, you will be far far FAR happier.

      Dating a hot chick is a waste of money and time.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    12. Re:Perhaps by MyLongNickName · · Score: 2, Informative

      No. We aren't. I used a condom for three years when I first got married. After stop using the things, the sensation doubled.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    13. Re:Perhaps by Xtravar · · Score: 3, Funny

      The "obvious" answer that everybody is mentioning is that condoms reduce sensitivity. However, it is a fact that some men use condoms consistently, some men use them some times and not others, and some men avoid them whenever possible. "It feels like a garden hose" is a vague and general statement about condoms that offers little useful information about the nature of those differences. Something else must be going on.

      I will tell you exactly what that something else is. It's all in the head (figuratively, the big one).
      Most people, including men, want what they can't have. They want girl A when they're with girl B and vis versa. They think of a blowjob while they're having sex and sex while they're receiving a blowjob. They want to have a steady girlfriend who performs great in bed, but they get turned on by the thought of cheating on her. What you can't have is exactly what you want..
      You can't have condomless sex, so it becomes more desirable. Start having condomless sex, and you want to have sex with a condom.
      Of course most men don't really have a problem getting off no matter what, so this is mostly moot.

      --
      Buckle your ROFL belt, we're in for some LOLs.
    14. Re:Perhaps by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      I've found that the ultra-thin models (Trojan, I think), are the next best thing to none at all. They allow as much of the sensation through as possible and, sometimes, can almost feel like nothing's on at all. Not sure if those are more prone to breakage, but I haven't had a single condom (of any brand) break on me yet.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    15. Re:Perhaps by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      uh huh, our soldiers have posted night-vision videos on youtube in those parts of the world of men uniting in sexual congress with donkeys, apparently the women are so hideous they'd rather fuck their livestock than trade it for a wife

    16. Re:Perhaps by VValdo · · Score: 1

      Dating a hot chick is a waste of money and time.

      Didn't Jimmy Soul make a song about this?

      W

      PS I'm sure your wife appreciates being referred to as a 6.8-7. In the future, you can probably just go ahead and round up to the 7...

      --
      -------------------
      This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    17. Re:Perhaps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dating a hot chick is a waste of money and time.

      Tell your wife this and see how much she loves sex.

    18. Re:Perhaps by ucblockhead · · Score: 1

      It is the same as the reason some men are drunks, some drink in moderation, and some are tee-totalers. It is the same reason that some men are 300 pound lard asses who eat twinkees all day while others eat healthy. It is because people vary according to their ability to forgo pleasure to avoid long-term negative consequences.

      Speaking as someone who has always used the appropriate birth-control, including, for a couple significant periods with condoms, those who think that the reduction in pleasure caused by them are in complete and utter denial.

      There doesn't need to be "something else going on". It is simple: Condoms reduce pleasure. Some men are less able to forgo pleasure to avoid danger. Engaging in psychobabble about how men are "overestimating the reduction in sensitivity" is a sure way to utterly fail to solve the problem. It's like claiming that the candy and soda don't taste that much better when fighting teen obesity.

      --
      The cake is a pie
    19. Re:Perhaps by syousef · · Score: 1

      Confucius say, "...it's cheaper to rent."

      Confucious knew about bit torrent?

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    20. Re:Perhaps by Demonantis · · Score: 1

      "Wasted tax money", what shortsightedness! I agree with what your saying the ability to promote desirable safe sex will pay for itself easily. As left winged as this sounds, abortion is also a great choice for a couple to have. If people are not ready to have children they will cost the tax payer massive amounts of money to support the ill planned child. These choices give the couple a chance to be productive members of society so that they can have children when they can support them. In the end likely saving huge amounts of tax money.

    21. Re:Perhaps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This one?

      Matty: Hmm
      Matty: A little bored this afternoon
      Matty: Thought i'd do an exercise on leasing versus renting
      UG: indeed
      Matty: Paul Macartney is my subject
      Matty: I note according to reports he paid 49million dollars to heather mills for 5 years or marriage?
      Matty: Assuming he got sex every night during their 5 year relationship (which lets be honest, probably didnt happen) it would end up costing him $26,849 per time.
      Matty: Heather aint exactly the best looking bird
      UG: then he's a dumbfuck :)
      Matty: Now i also note, Elliot Spitzers call girl, Kristen, an absolute stunner with a body like no other, charges $4,000 an hour. For anything..
      Matty: Had Paul McCartney 'employed' Kristen for 5 years, he would've paid $7.3 million for an hour of sex every night for 5 years (a saving of $41.7 million).
      Matty: Value-added benefits are: a 22 year old hot babe, no begging, no coaxing, never a headache, plays all requests, ability to put BOTH legs around you (!!!), no bitching and complaining or 'to do' lists. Best of all, she leaves when you're done, and comes back when you ask her. All at 1/7th the cost, with no legal fees
      Matty: Sometimes renting makes far more sense..

    22. Re:Perhaps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Dating a hot chick is a waste of money and time."

      I am with you m8. Following list of things can solve almost any pertinent problem:
      1) Darkness
      2) Paperbag
      3) Vodka
      4) More Vodka

      NOTE: You can do combinations.

    23. Re:Perhaps by ucblockhead · · Score: 1

      Er...what? Do you seriously know of any man who can't have sex with a condom but wants to!?

      --
      The cake is a pie
    24. Re:Perhaps by Nethead · · Score: 1

      I'll take a #3 and #4 combo. I won't be using the bag for sex though.

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    25. Re:Perhaps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree 100%, a pretty face outlasts any other physical attribute.

      BTW, could you be calling your wife a 6.8, because she calls you Lumpy?

    26. Re:Perhaps by PReDiToR · · Score: 1

      Have you ever tried saying to your wife "no honey, I'm not cheating; I want to use the condoms on you"?

      That ROFLCOPTER is about to land on your lawn and serve you the divorce papers.

      --

      Do not meddle in the affairs of geeks for they are subtle and quick to anger
    27. Re:Perhaps by Xtravar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Allow me to break it down for you.

      Having sex with a condom = having sex with non-steady partner = being turned on by condomless sex.

      Having sex without a condom = having sex with steady partner = being turned on by condom sex.

      It all goes back to the classic dilemma - when you're in a stable relationship, you want the excitement of an unstable relationship. When you're in an unstable relationship, you want the reassurance of a stable relationship.

      Men express these sorts of emotions physically with their penis.

      I will take my $400,000 now please.

      --
      Buckle your ROFL belt, we're in for some LOLs.
    28. Re:Perhaps by tobiasly · · Score: 2, Funny

      Is she a full 10 barbie doll? nope. She's a 6.8-7 but I'm far happier than my friends with the high maintenance arm candy they rarely get to touch.

      Try telling your wife she's not as hot as your friends' wives, and then see how often you get sex.

    29. Re:Perhaps by kngthdn · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying I disagree, but I do hope you've taken precautions to prevent her from finding this post! ;)

    30. Re:Perhaps by ucblockhead · · Score: 1

      Yes, I understand what you said. I just have never heard of any one who actually acted like that and thus think you are full of crap.

      --
      The cake is a pie
    31. Re:Perhaps by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      yes, because having sex 2x a day with a monogamous partner is completely maintainable. have fun when that tapers off and you have to deal with her as something other than a sexual object.

    32. Re:Perhaps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having sex with a condom = having sex with non-steady partner = being turned on by condomless sex.

      Having sex without a condom = having sex with steady partner = being turned on by condom sex.

      A guy in a relationship may want to have sex with other women, but that sure as hell doesn't mean he wants to use a condom to do it! He may be willing to do so, but that's quite different.

    33. Re:Perhaps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good personal hygiene and low self-esteem. A recipe for the perfect girl.

    34. Re:Perhaps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I found me a good old fashioned nympho. I get it twice a day, more if I want it.

      How much time investment per day does that represent? In my case, that'd be three or four hours a day, which would be intolerable. Now, if you're just talking about 10-minute quickies most of the time, then great--lucky you. But if you're spending half your free time in bed--no thanks. :)

    35. Re:Perhaps by adolf · · Score: 2, Informative

      Last time I mentioned this on Slashdot, I got flamed. Whatever. Different strokes for different folks.

      I've been fucking the same fucking person for six fucking years, and she's fixed, so I've never used a fucking condom while fucking her.

      Not too long ago, while waiting around at the fucking pharmacy, I found myself looking at condoms. Why? Because I remember back more than six years ago, when I could fuck different fucking people, and could pick out different condoms to add a little variety for times when I'd be fucking the same fucking person for a few weeks or months at a time.

      And, no -- I didn't fucking buy any. But I may.

    36. Re:Perhaps by Xtravar · · Score: 1

      Men typically don't share these sorts of feelings with others, much less even admit them to themselves. That, sir, is why a study has been commissioned.

      Sexual repression and macho culture at its best.

      --
      Buckle your ROFL belt, we're in for some LOLs.
    37. Re:Perhaps by Sun · · Score: 1

      I am what you would call "consistent condom user", in that I used it with every partner I've ever been with that haven't been committed to me in the three months before having sex, and then still use it until we were both tested for HIV.

      And I HATE condoms. I can totally sympathize with the commenter above me saying it feels vaguely warm. I can totally sympathize with the garden hose analogy. While not strictly impossible to have good sex with a condom, it does make it hard work, and much less fun than it usually is (and what it should be). One of the many many many things I'm grateful for about my wife is that we can do away with this particular piece of polymer.

      The distinction you made between people who do and do not use condoms exists, of course, but I attribute it to the distinction between people who care more or less about their health. If a study can find out how to make condoms less despiseable, and thus make the world a somewhat less disease riddled place, I say go for it.

      Shachar

    38. Re:Perhaps by ucblockhead · · Score: 1

      Nah...just sociological denial at its finest.

      --
      The cake is a pie
    39. Re:Perhaps by Strange+Ranger · · Score: 1

      What is it with you guys marrying these women that hate sex.[?]

      The answer is quite simple. Women change dramatically the moment they get back from the honeymoon.
      And again the moment they hold their first child.

      They landed you and got the ring. They got what they wanted. So the first change really isn't a change for them, but it's a change for you. It means you get sex when they get what they want from you. E.g. a fatter wallet, painted house, or treated for a few days like a revered goddess, their list is endless. After the second change, you're not the love of their life anymore, they don't like the way they look in the mirror, and nothing is ever good enough (kids deserve better than your best). Which means most of us married men get sex once a month or so if we're lucky and we work at it.
      Glad you found a true sex addict! I hope she stays that way after kids.

      And don't think I'm saying women are evil and mean to be this way. It's no more evil than us men developing very selective hearing over the years. We don't plan to become experts at tuning out the chatter and saying "uh-uh", "that's nice". We just do it naturally. Like a survival trait. Same thing.

      --

      Operator, give me the number for 911!
    40. Re:Perhaps by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      Errr... ever stop to think that some people may have a libido higher than yours?

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    41. Re:Perhaps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And when you aren't home she's getting it from the neighbor, and your friends, and the mailman.

    42. Re:Perhaps by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      You can't have condomless sex, so it becomes more desirable. Start having condomless sex, and you want to have sex with a condom.

      BULLSHIT.

      I have had sex both with and without a condom and I assure you, I never once wished that I was wearing one when I wasn't. Now, I'm not saying that all men are like that, but judging by my sibling posts (and the opinions of countless other people I've hard over the years), it would seem to be the vast majority.

      The parent is stereotyping, generalized, sexist tripe.

      And yes, you can be sexist against men. Thanks for playing, please take your pop "explains it all" psychology to thirty years ago where it belongs.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    43. Re:Perhaps by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      Also, I will be the first to admit the typo and/or Freudian slip there. :^D

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    44. Re:Perhaps by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      If you wanna be happy for the rest of your life. Never make a pretty women your wife...

      Nice swing song.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    45. Re:Perhaps by moggie_xev · · Score: 1

      PS I'm sure your wife appreciates being referred to as a 6.8-7. In the future, you can probably just go ahead and round up to the 7...

      Also remember people have a tendency to date others of the same relative beauty...

    46. Re:Perhaps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use a garden hose as a condom you insensitive clod!

    47. Re:Perhaps by Sardak · · Score: 1

      I tried that a few years ago. After a few months of having sex 2+ times a day it just gets really boring and monotonous. There's only so many ways you can have sex with someone, and it just doesn't really seem to be worth the effort after a while.

    48. Re:Perhaps by TheP4st · · Score: 2, Funny

      Socks are much harder to clean.

      Financial crisis or not, cleaning your condoms to presumably re-use them is plain nasty.

      [/joke]

      --
      "I have downloaded hundreds and hundreds of records, why would I care if somebody downloads ours?" Robin Pecknold
    49. Re:Perhaps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      funny... i married a nympho too, but i am short (5,8"), circumcised, currently running a for very low yield business, slightly over weight and probably an alcoholic.... the funny part is she is a 10 and loves me more and more often than any other woman i have ever been with.

      i am not that big down there either...

      and yes i am far far FAR happier than i have ever been.

      dating a hot chick is awesome.

    50. Re:Perhaps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I get it twice a day, more if I want it."

      Show your wife this post.... watch that change! ;o)

    51. Re:Perhaps by boombaard · · Score: 1

      How neat. You seem to have missed (or chosen not to believe) in the parent's point entirely, preferring to stay a happy little misogynist who talks about how "all women" want "different things" (not to mention that they "only want money". yawn) from all men. I haven't the faintest if you meant to be funny or not (your post is too ambiguous), but judging from the last sentence of the 2nd paragraph, you're not, so:
      Where do you get that nonsense? In "women are from venus, and men are from mars"? Or just from your middle- to lower class friends, who "like to go fishing" whenever they're home from work?

      To combat the first spiteful claim: if all goes well, you will also have changed by the time the two of you decide to have kids. If that isn't in the same direction, too bad for you. Learn to fucking communicate with the person you're attached to, rather than claiming "I don't get her, but she ain't putting out no mo'". They have brains, you know. Shouldn't be that hard to ask beforehand what they want to do when the both of you become parents. As I understand it, most women do not want to have a life that consists of getting up 20 times every night to feed the kid in the first 6-8 months, but as the male often refuses to ("I have to make money honey"), this will put a strain on her reserves. Especially when the guy's idea of sex is her blowing him, then him getting off in her and perhaps wanting to go a second time, but usually not, there doesn't seem to be any reason or her to "want" this, is there?
      And in the more enlightened case, where the guy also cares about her enjoyment, he might also choose to apply that "sensitivity" (common sense?) to the time they spend together outside the marital bed.
      Sex is not a burden (FYI: I live in communist Europe), but it can become one easily, especially when the bed is the only place where two spouses "interact". What, exactly, would be the difference between that and "he only talks to me to get laid"?

      Secondly, why, if you're that afraid of "marriage", do you still marry? Nobody forces you to. More to the point, If you wanted a wife that you could treat as an equal partner, who also has hobbies you like to talk about (or whatever), and whom you do "understand", you shouldn't marry right out of high school. This is one of the most turbulent times of your life, with most of your emotional growing still ahead of you, so how would you already know that your then-current partner is right for you? And by the time you're 25 or so, you should be able to pick someone whom you can talk to first about their (realistic) dreams and aspirations, and establish "what kind of mother/father" they want to become, etc. It's really only as hard as you make it.

    52. Re:Perhaps by dziman · · Score: 2, Informative

      "If you wanna be happy for the rest of your life
      Never make a pretty women your wife
      Go for my personal point of view
      Get an ugly girl to marry you." - Jimmy Soul

    53. Re:Perhaps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As someone who regularly uses condoms, desensitization is not "a myth" or "overblown", it's reality. It might only be for circumcised males, but it's definitely a reality at least for that (very large) group. They could have given me the 400k and I could have told them that. Turns out putting a rubber balloon on your penis often slightly cuts off the blood supply slightly and makes it more difficult for you penis to feel what's actually going on. This just in: it's the same thing with gloves.

    54. Re:Perhaps by mdarksbane · · Score: 1

      Dude, have you ever actually *had* sex with a condom?

      There is no way I would ever, ever prefer that. The only reason I'm stuck with it is that birth control turns my wife into a crazy person.

      They make the room smell like latex instead of sex. They significantly reduce direct feeling - sure, you still get the nice feeling of being squeezed, but there's no specific tactile feedback of touching someone's skin. They make her *taste* like latex if you want to continue the encounter after you've orgasmed. They mean instead of looking longingly into her eyes and entering her, you have to say "ok, excuse me," and go rummage in a drawer, open a wrapper, and apply it to yourself. *or* you have to put one next to everywhere you might ever want to ever sex ahead of time, so it's readily available.

      Oh, and just to add insult to injury, they're sized, and if you aren't the "standard" size, you may have to go to five different stores to find the one remaining pack of "Trojan Magnum XL" in stock (Yes, this has actually happened to me. You try wandering around at 6 am on an Ohio winter morning because you're out of condoms but your girlfriend is horny). I've heard of people studying abroad who had to have their mothers MAIL THEM CONDOMS because they couldn't find any of the local variety that would fit.

      Is there anything I'm missing? I can't think of a single possible reason that using a condom is physically preferable to unprotected sex. I mean, sex is still good with on, and it's better than no sex, and it's definitely better than dying or paying child support, but I just can't imagine anyone *wanting* to wear a condom.

    55. Re:Perhaps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      go find an average girl that is not screwed up in the head

      Doesn't matter if they arm-candy, average or complete munter; they're all screwed up in the head dude.

    56. Re:Perhaps by Icarus1919 · · Score: 1

      I've actually broken one, which is why I don't use them anymore.

    57. Re:Perhaps by blackest_k · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I kind of feel sorry for your wife, you make her sound like a car.
      Attractiveness is more than just looks and not bragging rights.

      There are some women who look great but are not anything like attractive once you get to know them. Even the ones that are will not look so great after 20 years and a few kids and neither will you.

      Physical looks are not that important what makes a woman attractive is who she is, I know I married a beautiful woman and she's better than a ten in my eyes, i don't care how anyone else would rate her and the interesting thing for me is her score improves the longer I know her.

       

    58. Re:Perhaps by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      It's been 7 years so far. if you cant make sex interesting day after day, then you really need to read some books and get creative.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    59. Re:Perhaps by Malenx · · Score: 1

      Or you could be full of crap and are pushing all men into a category that only fits a smaller percentage.

    60. Re:Perhaps by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      yes we all believe you, really.

    61. Re:Perhaps by lilomar · · Score: 1

      90% of the problem is the conception that a barbie doll is a perfect 10. What you call a 6.8-7 (where did you get such precise numbers?) I would say is perfectly beautiful, variety is the spice of life!

      Why do most of the people I know, men and women, think that there is one perfect body-type for each gender, and if you don't make the cut, better luck in another life.

      It's sickening to see young girls striving for some media-inspired sense of beauty, and feeling like they will never be able to live up to the perfection that is expected of them when they would be much better off just accepting who they are being confident in their bodies.

      --
      The creator of this post (Jacob Smith) hereby releases it, and all of his other posts, into the public domain.
    62. Re:Perhaps by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      Between the parent post and the grandparent, I'll give you all ONE GUESS which poster is getting laid by his wife tonight. :-D

    63. Re:Perhaps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It feels like a garden hose" is a vague and general statement about condoms that offers little useful information about the nature of those differences.

      Really? Go stick your pecker in a garden hose & it'll make sense. But I'll save you the trouble. Garden hoses are rubbery, semi-rigid, and cold. Condoms are rubbery, feel like they are semi-rigid, and cold. Now give me $400,000.

      Something else must be going on

      Ummm why? Why is it such a hard thing to understand that some people just don't like it? I know people that wear only silk underwear, others who wear anything except silk. Why? Because they like how it feels, or they don't. Same thing here, it's more a matter of preference than science.

      Are some men using condoms wrong?

      Probably. There is also this little issue that condoms are generally sold in one size, and if you need large or small ones it's tough to find... and like all "one size fits most" products, one size POORLY fits most.

      Are some men underestimating the risks associated with unprotected sex?

      This has absolutely nothing to do with how a condom feels.

    64. Re:Perhaps by Altus · · Score: 1

      I get where your coming from, but variety is the spice of life.

      I dont have sex with my partner twice every day, though the average might work out somewhat close to that.

      Sometimes a quicky in the morning before work is really nice. Sure its only 10 minutes, but its fun and puts you both in a good mood. Other times, a nice hour long sex session can be nice, especially before bed, if everything runs very smoothly it might not even go quite that long... but other times it can go longer with more orgasms.

      Occasionally you want to take your time so you bust out the toys and go for a 2-3 hour marathon.

      And sometimes, if you've got an awesome partner, you just get a nice blow job while you watch the baseball game.

      Variety man, its good stuff.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    65. Re:Perhaps by Altus · · Score: 2, Informative

      talk to your wife about getting a non hormonal IUD. They are fantastic. None of the side effects or hormones plus your wife will still have those ovulation weeks when she really wants sex.

      Seriously, look into it.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    66. Re:Perhaps by celtic_hackr · · Score: 1

      Maybe they should market condom undies for women and see how they fly? Women could have sex and be protected and never have to take off their undies. Once the sex is over all they have to do is discard the attached condom and replace. It's a win win win win situation.
      I think you'll find female condoms, would be as popular as male condoms.
      There are numerous reasons why guys don't use condoms. These reasons are commonly known. One you have to carry them around with you and it is something that has to be opened and put on before continuing. Less sensation. Etc. etc. etc.
      This has all been covered before in other studies. Hence, it is wasted tax dollars as they will get the same answer they got back in the 50s, 60s, and 70s on the epidemic spread of the (eventually) fatal STD Herpes. There are treatments now that reduce the effects of Herpes. Considering condoms have been around for millennia, and they aren't any more prevalent now as then, I doubt any study has anything NEW to find. Hence if it is unlikely to further the current knowledge, then yes it is wasted government spending. Like spending money trying to determine effect of a bullet to a dog's brain (an actual government funded research project).

      The money would be better spent coming up with vaccines for the various STDs. Eliminate the attack vector and you eliminate problem. Trying to get historically proven large proportions of unthinking, uncaring members of the male species to act in any other way than they historically have with the same knowledge is a fruitless waste of time.

      I'm married and have no mistress(es) and therefore have no further need for condoms.

    67. Re:Perhaps by Dark_Gravity · · Score: 1

      So what else am I supposed to mate with? Socks are much harder to clean.

      Ever hear of a washing machine?

    68. Re:Perhaps by rgviza · · Score: 1

      Hot girls can be horny too ;)

      Libido and physical attractiveness are independent attributes.

      --
      Don't kid yourself. It's the size of the regexp AND how you use it that counts.
    69. Re:Perhaps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Genetics. Ugly woman means ugly children, and most people want to give their (potential, non-existent, etc etc etc) children as much of a head start as possible.

      Of course, things get radically different if you don't want kids, but you might get stuck with some anyway. Regardless of what you may have planned.

    70. Re:Perhaps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what your're saying is:

      If you want to be happy for the rest of your life, never make a pretty woman your wife, so from your personal point of view, get an ugly girl to marry you?

    71. Re:Perhaps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea, because none is a lot safer than one that has a chance of breaking.

    72. Re:Perhaps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It feels like a garden hose" is a vague and general statement about condoms that offers little useful information about the nature of those differences.

      Unless you've ever tried to use a garden hose, how would you know? Now there are a thousand young men out there thinking, "hmm, garden hose, hmm".

      Also, apparently you are of the "smallish" size and don't realize that a "larger" man finds condoms to be completely worthless for satisfying sex.

    73. Re:Perhaps by martas · · Score: 1

      i really, REALLY hope your wife doesn't know your slashdot account name.

    74. Re:Perhaps by Ddalex · · Score: 1

      That says he whom can't get hot chicks :)

      --
      Carefully crafted sig.
    75. Re:Perhaps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was more like an unwillingness to continue lowering the sex quality for the stupid pretense that he was actually safe. Fact is, he had a nonzero chance of transmitting any STDs he had, with our without the condom. I don't know if a lot of people are like me in this, but I get nervous even when there's a 1% chance of something. If there's a 1% chance of transmission, that means if 100 STD-infected condom-wearing males are at this moment having sex with someone (and it's probably more than 100 at any moment around the world), one transmission should still occur. Do YOU want to be that 1 out of 100 that gets infected, and happily go on promoting condoms as a solution? Nope. End condoms now, find a solution that works for everyone, the end. That'll be $400,000 please.

    76. Re:Perhaps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      haha, bookmark your post so you can read it again in 10 years and laugh.

    77. Re:Perhaps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as he keeps his wife happy and doesn't make her feel bad about herself or about being with him then you don't have to feel sorry for his wife.

    78. Re:Perhaps by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

      Dating a hot chick is a waste of money and time.

      Unless see has a healthy enjoyment of sex, in which case time and money is never wasted...

      --
      IANAL but write like a drunk one.
    79. Re:Perhaps by Strange+Ranger · · Score: 1

      Actually, I got it from women who admit it, including my wife.

      You sound very much like me when I was single. You're single aren't you?

      I do the cooking, I work from home and take care of the kids 2-3 days per week. My wife is my best fried and we communicate well. She's honest with me and herself.

      I think your stereotype of men who are selfish in bed is outdated. Most men I know find turning their woman on and making her moan and quiver to be the biggest reward in bed. Unless my wife is a very good liar and faker, I'm damn good at that.

      To be extra clear, when your wife tells you sincerely that seeing you labor around the house turns her on. Or when she gets excited and flirtatious the same week that you have a major business success, pay off a debt, or romance her like a princess, you'll get the idea. You'll notice things like the "nesting instinct". When your wife gets pregnant, you have to paint a bedroom, even if it's already an acceptable color. But I think the biggest factor may be worry and stress. A mortgage, kids, careers, they add a lot of stress as you age. My experience tells me men can be horny in the middle of a mountain of stress. They can pause for a quicky to relieve it. Women are wired to avoid sex when they're stressed. They're not in the mood. This makes sense. Nature prefers she wait for safety and security to bear a child. This brings up reproductive strategy. Man's best strategy for sewing his seed is quantity. Woman's is quality. Not quality of sex but quality of mate and moment. It's up to her mate to make the moment.

      As you get older and more experienced, you'll probably realize that nature doesn't subscribe to our idealism, despite our best efforts.

      --

      Operator, give me the number for 911!
    80. Re:Perhaps by boombaard · · Score: 1
      Ah, yes. The cynic.

      Anyway, I'm sorry to upset your world, but I'm not single, and haven't been for a while now.
      Secondly, I was not talking about men who are selfish in bed, I'm talking about men who figure "shit, I've been busy all day, and now I have to do work for my partner as well, while she is doing nothing all day", and who figure that, if they're succesful at work, their wife will see and "appreciate" that, and show that specifically by "not requiring (emotional) upkeep"
      Thirdly, sure, if you marry someone who has no education beyond HS to speak of (literary or psychology degrees might count, but don't necessarily) she'll be wonderfully happy to be a prairie mom or whatever, and be thrilled to be allowed to raise the kids, and get horny whenever her man feels "successful".
      To some degree, this can only be expected, as those are the things that matter to the "survival" of the familial unit, but that is, and I do want to stress this, the same as saying that "women get aroused when a male is beating his chest". But sure, if you want to think that your spouse becomes aroused when you show her your big pile of money, be my guest.

      Anyway, what does "it's up to her mate to 'make' the moment" mean? That she's helpless whenever you feel the need, and should consider herself lucky that you're being considerate? Because that really isn't any different from the chauvinism you mention in your 4th paragraph. It still doesn't take the "partner" in partnership seriously.
      Lastly, thanks for the "once you get older and more experienced you'll realise this is the way the world works" peptalk, especially mixed with the conspiratorial "our". It makes me feel fuzzy inside.

    81. Re:Perhaps by Strange+Ranger · · Score: 1

      I think we're miscommunicating here. Or maybe I'm just communicating badly. My wife is an executive at one of the big 3 accounting firms, not a prairie mom. We're both willing to admit to each other that we're ruled by nature more than we'd like. I'm a guy, so certainly the differences between men and women can be frustrating to me and it's fun to vent that a bit. But differences do not make us unequal, in life or partnership.

      "Making the moment" refers to the fact that men are almost always "in the mood." This doesn't seem true, in general, for women. That doesn't make us less equal. It just makes us different. Or are you saying you and your wife exert equal efforts over time in "setting the mood" or "making the mood". If so I'd strongly suspect that isn't the norm. It's not chauvinistic to express personal frustration that stems from differences between men and women. It's OK to complain, or laugh, or poke fun as long as we laugh and poke fun at ourselves with equal gusto. I apologize for thinking you sounded young and single. Honestly now I wonder if you're one of those totally PC types who's spent too much time in sensitivity training? If that's the case, maybe somebody needs to tell you that it's really OK to be a man. You can even pound your chest if you want and look at strange hotties when you're out and about. (there's that chauvanism again, so now I have to type out "attractive women" instead of "hotties"). While pounding your chest, it helps to laugh or growl, depending on your mood. ;)

      --

      Operator, give me the number for 911!
    82. Re:Perhaps by boombaard · · Score: 1

      Awesome. In the same sentence you "apologize" for stereotyping me as "young and inexperienced" (because I don't subscribe to your take on the world), after which you seamlessly put me into another neat little box, the "PC Brigade". You seem to have a fascination with pidgeonholing people (I really do hope you only do this to those whose opinions you don't approve of).

      Anyway, I wanted to apologize to you for giving you the impression that I am actually "married". I'm not, you see. I am, however, in a (fairly long-term) relationship. (I hope this will make it easier for you to dismiss my opinions, because of my obviously not being in a "real" relationship, or whatever.) Disregarding your attempted barb as juvenile, I would like to ask you a last question: Since you state so vociferously that it's a "female" thing to do to be "excited" (which apparently automatically implies sexually excited) when her man brings home the bacon, are you really saying that "being happy for your partner" is something only women become?
      Lastly, I would like to come back to "Not quality of sex but quality of mate and moment. It's up to her mate to make the moment", as it doesn't seem to be internally consistent.
      You seem to be simultaneously saying that she picks "the quality of the moment" (whatever that means) and that he "makes the quality of the moment", but that it's not both. How does that work, exactly?

    83. Re:Perhaps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting. I didn't pigeonhole you. I wondered. I asked. I said, "if that is the case". All we can do with strangers on the internet is make our best guess.

      I must be doing a terrible job of getting my point across. But it's good practice, so I'll keep trying. I don't dismiss your opinions. I do have fun teasing you. ;)
      Seriously though, ask around how many married guys you know.. regardless of whatever long term relationships they were in on their way to marriage... ask them if things changed noticeably right after the ring went on, or the week after the honeymoon was over. There's a reason "The honeymoon is over" is a widely used expression.

      You seem to be simultaneously saying that she picks "the quality of the moment" (whatever that means) and that he "makes the quality of the moment", but that it's not both. How does that work, exactly?

      Ha there's an obvious joke to be made here.. "how does that work exactly?" If you answer that you can become the highest paid worldwide adviser to all men.
      That's what "being a suitor" means. You are the suitor and she is the chooser. Unless she's hideous and smelly, she can walk right out the door and get laid 5 times before the sun rises again. Men can't do that without paying cash for it. That puts the ball in her court. In this regard the ball is always in her court and you are always the suitor. I think what surprises most men is that we think this process stops when we fall and love and move in or get engaged, just before marriage. But the truth is usually that she has chosen you and is "wooing you" at the premarital stage. She's picked you for a life partner but has no ring. She's turned on by the prospect of it all, and knows deep down that if she "withholds the pussy" most men will walk right out. See ya! How many weeks or months would you last before walking out? Not saying it's a conscious motivator, it usually isn't. But it's there. It might be the only time in his life a man gets sex all the time just for being himself.

      So we spend that time thinking we're done working for it and she's done making us work for it. But that is definitely not the case. Put the ring on, come home from the honeymoon, and you're right back to being a suitor. But now your her very own long term committed suitor. Better start wooing her again. The funny thing is, she didn't change a bit. But the balance of power changed completely. Remember, she's only naturally horny half the time, the other half is pms or her period, or she's honestly not in the mood. She doesn't biologically crave quantity as a reproductive strategy either, like you do. So she holds all the sexual power. Before you put the ring on, you had the power of being able to cut your losses and walk at a moment's notice. But now you don't. You have no power. She can decide sincerely that she isn't in the mood, for weeks on end, and there's not a goddamn thing you can do about it except woo the shit out of her and hope to god she finds you attractive. Honestly you're the only man I know of out of all my married associates who would disagree with this.
      Maybe you have a very unique relationship. Or maybe you're at that "only time of your life" I just mentioned? Only time can tell.

    84. Re:Perhaps by soren202 · · Score: 1

      No, there is very little needed to discover why men don't like condoms.

      They rob feeling, they're ugly, greasy, and usually cost money. They're not always handy, they kill the moment, and they make the whole thing seem less intimate (for the romantic types who notice things like that) and so on and so forth. The reason why men don't use them as often as they should? Hormones, availability, laziness, and alternate contraceptives.

      As for why some men use them all the time, and others rarely to not at all, that can be explained by how much a man is concerned about his partner getting pregnant, as well as how well he plans ahead, and how much self control he has.

      If you want to fix these problems, increase condom availability (via handing out condoms, or some other such method), find ways to make them thinner, more sensitive, and easier to use, and other such things.

      The problem with the research is not it's intent so much as the fact that it's getting information that could be gleaned from an Internet survey, and that it's money that could be put to better use, rather than finding out something that's common knowledge to anyone whose used a condom and had sex a few times.

  8. Because.... by Mortiss · · Score: 4, Funny

    Because it feels like picking your nose while wearing a latex glove....?

    I will take that $400k now, thanks.

    1. Re:Because.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sir, have amazing flexibility! ;-)

    2. Re:Because.... by Techman83 · · Score: 1

      Oh come on, how Redundant is that? Jeez the Mods have been tough to please lately!

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i cat
      Damn, my RAM is full of cats. MEOW!!
  9. Volunteers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd volunteer to test the sensation part.

    Also kinda funny that the mp3 graphic to post came up with womanly :D

  10. Greater Good by jlechem · · Score: 3, Funny

    I for one will volunteer heartily for this *ahem* study.

    --
    Hold up, wait a minute, let me put some pimpin in it
    1. Re:Greater Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah till they bring in the filthy prostitute to see your reaction when they say "Do her without." I'll bet you end that little experiment quickly. Unless you're into filthy prostitutes, then by all means, bang away.

  11. Vasectomy by lobiusmoop · · Score: 1

    I'll just point out that in a steady relationship it's _the_ most reliable method of birth control and the cheapest and simplest to implement long-term.

    --
    "I bless every day that I continue to live, for every day is pure profit."
    1. Re:Vasectomy by Falconhell · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeh there nothing like a stable relationship to
      stop you from having sex.

      Oh wait you meant using a condom.

    2. Re:Vasectomy by Falconhell · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ooops, vasectomy not condom. That will teach me to read the subject line.

    3. Re:Vasectomy by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Friend of mine got a scare or two when his girlfriend "went off the pill" in a, what he says, deliberate attempt to get pregnant. So he went off and got a vasectomy without telling her. Few years later they got married. Few years after that she went batshit insane and ended up committing herself. Turns out she had been seeing fertility expert after fertility expert who said it wasn't her, but she didn't believe it, and she refused to get him tested because she was sure it was her problem. Needless to say, they got divorced and she got a new boyfriend and had a bunch of kids and eventually got more sane and came and spoke to him about it and he insisted that he had told her about the vasectomy, and she insisted he didn't (he didn't) and she just put it down to the fact that she was insane (clinically diagnosed and all). Since then his relationships have become significantly less pathological and his current girlfriend is well aware that he wont be having any kids.
       

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    4. Re:Vasectomy by Gerafix · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It may be reliable but there are other side effects associated with them, and some are non-reversible even if you are able to reverse the physical procedure. Personally I would rather have something that is both free of side effects and reversible. This may be unattainable but it doesn't hurt to have goals. Sterilization cannot be counted on to be reversible and there are some side effects associated with such an operation that are less than desirable. For example your body will eventually create sperm antibodies that will search and destroy the sperm that get stuck in your system. This greatly reduces the reversibility of the procedure by itself. Also sperm buildup can create pressure which is uncomfortable. Ideally one would want the option that lets sperm move freely, while at the same time making sure that they are ineffective. Something like RISUG, actually.

    5. Re:Vasectomy by qbzzt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sorry, but both sound like losers. Withholding such important information from a spouse / potential spouse is a recipe for disaster.

      At least your friend won't procreate.

      --
      -- Support a free market in the field of government
    6. Re:Vasectomy by qbzzt · · Score: 1

      I'll just point out that in a steady relationship it's _the_ most reliable method of birth control and the cheapest and simplest to implement long-term.

      Only if you are 100% sure you'll never want to have children.

      --
      -- Support a free market in the field of government
    7. Re:Vasectomy by iamhigh · · Score: 1

      Meh, it still delivered as the second line was redundant anyway.

      --
      No comprende? Let me type that a little slower for you...
    8. Re:Vasectomy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Morally wrong but so hilarious +1 you

    9. Re:Vasectomy by Hubbell · · Score: 1

      I'm showing this post to my dad cause he's met his fair share of crazy bitches in his life, and this post will make him laugh his ass off. Charlie Harper is his hero at the moment, but I'm quite sure your buddy will be once he reads this.

    10. Re:Vasectomy by Swizec · · Score: 1

      Your story makes me glad I've made it absolutely clear to my girlfriend that I am NOT having children and will deny any she has are mine. Yep. Very glad.

    11. Re:Vasectomy by adminstring · · Score: 1

      sperm buildup can create pressure which is uncomfortable

      Got a citation for that?

      --
      My truck is like a series of tubes.
    12. Re:Vasectomy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not entirely: http://www.arhp.org/crc/compare-methods.html shows Norplant as being more effective. And it's not permanent.

      Of course, both together and you're solid, but a vasectomy is not quite as certain as a lot of people think it is.

    13. Re:Vasectomy by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Well no, he sounds like a perfectly sensible man. If he didn't want children and obviously couldn't trust her to behave in a responsible fashion, a vasectomy is one of a very small number of possible ways of handling it.

    14. Re:Vasectomy by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I feel sorry for the husbands that get talked into getting the snip snip by their wives because they don't want more kids. Specifically the ones that then end up getting divorced later on and have to watch their ex-wife having more children.

      Just because it's a less dangerous procedure doesn't make having your partner get the operation an entitlement, ultimately it's his body, not hers.

    15. Re:Vasectomy by Ironica · · Score: 1

      I'll just point out that in a steady relationship it's _the_ most reliable method of birth control and the cheapest and simplest to implement long-term.

      But condoms are not seen as essential primarily because of their birth control properties... it's because they can reduce disease transmission.

      So, you can get a vasectomy, but if the relationship goes south, you'll *still* have use for condoms. Sucks, don't it?

      --
      Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
    16. Re:Vasectomy by Gerafix · · Score: 2, Informative
      Sure, at least testicular pain after vasectomy, there is some debate to the exact cause though.
      British Journal of Urology
      Volume 69 Issue 2, Pages 188 - 191

      The incidence of chronic testicular pain following vasectomy has not been previously assessed. We have carried out a survey by postal questionnaire and telephone interview of 172 patients 4 years after vasectomy to assess the incidence of chronic testicular pain. Significant early post-operative complications occurred in 6 patients (3.5%): 2 infection, 3 haematoma and 1 orchitis. Chronic testicular discomfort was present in 56 patients (33%), considered by 26 (15%) to be troublesome but not by the other 30 (17%). Testicular discomfort related to sexual intercourse occurred in 9 cases (5%). Of the 9 patients who had sought further medical help only 2 had had further surgery (1 an epididymectomy and 1 excision of a hydrocele). Only 3 patients regretted having had the vasectomy because of chronic pain. On ultrasound examination, epididymal cysts were a common finding on both asymptomatic and symptomatic patients following vasectomy. Prior to vasectomy, all patients should be counselled with regard to the risk of chronic testicular pain.

      There are many other peer reviewed articles.

    17. Re:Vasectomy by adminstring · · Score: 1

      I've had it done a couple of times. There was some residual pain the first time, but none the second time. The first surgeon put on a bunch of plastic clips that caused scar tissue to build up. I came up with a nonzero sperm count after a number of years (always get yourself re-tested, guys!) and had it done again. The second surgeon (who seemed to be a lot better at it than the first) said he thought the first was a little too gung-ho with the clips, and that was probably related to the pain I had experienced.

      I've never seen any evidence that "pressure from sperm build-up" can cause pain, and would be interested to read about it if anyone has a citation.

      --
      My truck is like a series of tubes.
    18. Re:Vasectomy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention marrying a woman who tried to trick you into making her pregnant. Come on! Someone does that to you, she is not marriage material!

    19. Re:Vasectomy by 4181 · · Score: 2, Informative
      Several more references are give in the Post-Vasectomy Pain Syndrome article.

      Also, RISUG mentioned above is Reversible inhibition of sperm under guidance.

    20. Re:Vasectomy by Gerafix · · Score: 1
      This touches on epididymal pain, it depends on how the vasectomy is done. http://www.be-md.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/499585

      The presence of a sperm granuloma at the vasectomy site prevents epididymal pressure build-up, perforation, and the formation of an epididymal sperm granuloma. It thus enhances reversibility of the vasectomy and lessens the likelihood of epididymal discomfort. In two prospective vasectomy series, a sperm granuloma was intentionally allowed to form by not sealing the testicular end of the vas. The sperm granuloma resulted in no instance of orchialgia, but created a greater risk of spontaneous recanalization. This latter problem could only be solved by more careful sealing of the upper end of the vas. In a separate series of nine patients vasectomized elsewhere and specifically referred to us for chronic and persistent postvasectomy orchialgia, seven had no sperm granuloma at the vasectomy site. Pain in these cases was localized in the epididymis and was relieved by vasovasotomy. Any technique of vasectomy carries a very small risk of orchialgia, whether due to the presence of a sperm granuloma at the vasectomy site or to increased epididymal pressure. PIP: In an Ottawa study, 410 patients consented to open-ended vasectomy, and in a St. Louis study, 23 patients underwent open-ended vasectomy, in which the abdominal end is cauterized but the lumen on the testicular side is not ligated, clipped, or cauterized. In the Ottawa series, 3% of the patients developed no sperm granuloma and 97% did develop sperm granuloma. The Concept unit was used on 148 patients with a 4% failure rate; however, the Hemoclip application was used on 262 patients with only a 0.4% failure rate. In the St. Louis series, all 23 patients developed sperm granulomas with l case of recanalization. In 9 patients referred to St. Louis for chronic and persistent postvasectomy orchialgia with pain localized in the epididymis, the pain was relieved by vasovasostomy. Evidence indicated that heat cautery was not as efficient a method of sealing the vas as the Hemoclips due to the high failure rate.

    21. Re:Vasectomy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hardest to reverse too!

    22. Re:Vasectomy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If he couldn't trust her to behave responsibly, then the right thing to do would be to get out of the relationship. If she wants kids, and he doesn't, then it wouldn't have worked out anyway. Getting a secret vasectomy to stay in a relationship with a girl like that is just cruel.

    23. Re:Vasectomy by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      There's something even better than a stable relationship: Two young kids. Try having some "private time" when, at any second, a little one could come running in.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    24. Re:Vasectomy by vux984 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Try having some "private time" when, at any second, a little one could come running in.

      You might want to carefully inspect your bathroom door for an example of a technological solution to this problem. Further, you might be surprised that these "locking door knobs" are actually both inexpensive and widely available.

      Have you considered purchasing one?

    25. Re:Vasectomy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Start smoking pot!

    26. Re:Vasectomy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because denying them makes them not yours, very responsible.

      Unless you got a vasectomy as well, in which case you should've mentioned it.

    27. Re:Vasectomy by Gabrill · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As a father of three, I can confirm the door locks work very well to shield innocent children from the horrors of adult fluid exchanges. The do not, however, sufficiently block out the sound of breaking dishes, overdriven home theaters, screaming, bawling fights over toys, and persistent knocking on the door to inform us of the most recent disaster cooked up, always by the OTHER sibling.

      --
      Always going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse.
    28. Re:Vasectomy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do single men and married men have in common?

      Both think the other fucks a lot more

    29. Re:Vasectomy by Sobrique · · Score: 1

      Better or worse than having her on the pill, or those contraceptive injections? *shrug*. Either approach has it's drawbacks. All that's really important is that both of you talk about it, and maybe you start thinking really long term and get some of your sperm put on ice somewhere or something.
      But at the end of the day, it's not like there's a shortage of children in need of adoptive parents. Individuals breeding shouldn't really be a right.

    30. Re:Vasectomy by Professor_UNIX · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Mommy? Are you in there? Mommy, are you coming out soon? *Sibling* woke up from his nap on the floor and is eating the cat food. Mommy? Where's Daddy? Hello? I hear you in there." *bang* *bang* *bang* on the door.

    31. Re:Vasectomy by Professor_UNIX · · Score: 1

      I absolutely disagree. Procreation should absolutely be a right. What if the government required all males over the age of 12 to get a vasectomy to control population growth? Would you be willing to accept that as alright? What if women were required to get tubular ligation upon reaching puberty?

    32. Re:Vasectomy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your story makes me glad I've made it absolutely clear to my girlfriend that I am NOT having children and will deny any she has are mine. Yep. Very glad.

      Good luck with that. The moment she changes her mind and wants children you'll get to deal with the consequences - regardless of what was said beforehand (promises of not wanting children yet, that she believes abortion is okay, etc.). I speak from experience, unfortunately.

    33. Re:Vasectomy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Takes 2 minutes of looking on wikipedia (and reading the sources) or any medical text on the subject.

      The testicles continue to produce sperm, but they are broken down and absorbed by the body. Much fluid content is absorbed by membranes in the epididymis, and much solid content is broken down by the responding macrophages and re-absorbed via the blood stream.

      The buildup of sperm increases pressure in the vas deferens and epididymis. To prevent damage to the testes, these structures eventually rupture. The entry of the sperm into the scrotum causes sperm granulomas to be formed by the body to contain and absorb the sperm which the body treats as a foreign substance.

      I'll be honest - I looked into having it done shortly after my 25th birthday, due to what appears to be an abnormally high fertility rate and a complete lack of desire to actually reproduce. The doctor point blank refused to even consider it due to my age - the younger you do it, the longer you live with it, the more likely you are of serious or painful complications arising. Second, third and fourth opinions were sought, but the answer is the same every time - come back when your over 45, in the meantime stick with condoms :(

    34. Re:Vasectomy by Altus · · Score: 1

      IUD. IUD. IUD!

      Seriously, I cant believe that these are so uncommon these days. They are reliable, fairly fool proof and come in non hormonal varieties.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    35. Re:Vasectomy by adminstring · · Score: 1

      I would get a different doctor. I had it done the first time at age 23, and even though I had complications, I would make the same decision again. 18 years of child support would have been a lot more painful than what I went through, and given the failure rate of condoms, it's almost guaranteed that I would have been in that situation.

      In addition, the added pleasure of being able to have condom-free sex for decades (always within a committed relationship - otherwise you're playing Russian roulette with STDs) more than made up for the pain.

      Also note that most of these texts do not attribute pain directly to sperm buildup. If that were the cause, everyone who has the surgery would have pain, because everyone who has the surgery (except possibly single-ended surgery) has sperm buildup. In fact, a certain percentage of men who have the surgery, no matter what technique is used, have long-term pain. This indicates that the pain has something to do with the individual physiology of the man and how this affects the healing process, as there is some randomness to this.

      My request for a source that says that "sperm buildup can create pressure which is uncomfortable" still stands.

      --
      My truck is like a series of tubes.
    36. Re:Vasectomy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Friend of mine got a scare or two when his girlfriend "went off the pill" in a, what he says, deliberate attempt to get pregnant. So he went off and got a vasectomy without telling her. Few years later they got married. Few years after that she went batshit insane and ended up committing herself.

      Sounds like my first marriage, only without the vasectomy part, and with a kid added in there. My ex didn't tell me she went off the pill.

      The batshit insane and committed part is definitely part of my story, along with a couple of shoplifting arrests on her part.

    37. Re:Vasectomy by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, many doctors will refuse to perform a vasectomy if the couple doesn't already have kids. Doubly so if it's a younger couple.

    38. Re:Vasectomy by TyrainDreams · · Score: 1

      Lying to a significant other is not sensible at any stretch of the imagination...

      First off if you don't want kids and she wants to be deceptive enough to force you into it so much that you have to counter the deception with your own special form of deception you are a fucking idiot...

      YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO END THE RELATIONSHIP.

      Relationship 101, without honesty you are doomed to failure or suffering or both. Hence why all our parents hate each other, because they were born to a generation of bullshit relationship ideals. Its a partner for sharing your life with secret or not, when something blatant doesn't match up you walk away...

  12. Re:Easy Answer by Divebus · · Score: 5, Funny

    I could have answered that question for half of what they paid.

    --

    Most of the stuff on /. won't survive first contact with facts.
  13. I'd think it was obvious to any man by syousef · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They smell bad, they distract from the spontenaity of the moment, they decrease sensitivity, they're never handy at the moment you want them, they're disgusting to take off, they're awkward to dispose of.

    Despite that they're a good trade when weighed against the possibility of 18 years of child support, or your penis turning green and falling off.

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    1. Re:I'd think it was obvious to any man by Xistenz99 · · Score: 1

      Exactly, that's why I would rather not have sex if my alternative was a condom because its not worth it

    2. Re:I'd think it was obvious to any man by Elitist_Phoenix · · Score: 5, Funny

      The cause of and solution to all of life's problems... alcohol!
      Smell - Keep drinking
      Spontaneity - If you and her are sufficiently boosed, no biggy... hell even feel free to miss the hole a couple of times.
      Sensitivity - If shes boosed, means you can pound harder.
      Can't find one? - Douche her with it later (really sorry about this one)
      Disgusting to take off and dispose of? - Drink more and then you'll be playing the awesome game of seeing how many you can get to stick to the hotel ceiling!
      Stds - Either drench if it 95% straight afterwards and if that didn't work start drinking to forget about the AIDS.

      Then for later on in life or after the mistake:
      Children - Drink more it'll numb the pain.

      This Post was sponsored by Duff beer... Ohh yeah!!

      --
      "I'm going to f***ing bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I'm going to f***ing kill Google"
    3. Re:I'd think it was obvious to any man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Exactly, that's why I would rather not have sex if my alternative was a condom because its not worth it

      Woah, woah, woah... let's not get crazy!

    4. Re:I'd think it was obvious to any man by MrCrassic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They smell bad,

      A lot of Durex's higher end stuff doesn't smell at all.

      they distract from the spontenaity of the moment,

      If you're partner is willing, you can make it a part of the moment. No loss.

      they decrease sensitivity,

      While this is true, the good, thin and reliable latex condoms don't mitigate it by that much. From what I've heard, polyurethane condoms are an excellent alternative with CRAZY sensitivity, but it's a bit risky considering that its effectiveness is not as "guaranteed" as latex condoms.

      they're never handy at the moment you want them,

      Ever trying putting it in your wallet or a cool place? If you're girlfriend's a long-term, have you considered leaving a set at her place?

      they're disgusting to take off,

      Subjective.

      they're awkward to dispose of.

      Also subjective.

      Despite that they're a good trade when weighed against the possibility of 18 years of child support, or your penis turning green and falling off.

      Exactly. It's all subjective.

    5. Re:I'd think it was obvious to any man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      They smell bad, they distract from the spontenaity of the moment, they decrease sensitivity, they're never handy at the moment you want them, they're disgusting to take off, they're awkward to dispose of.

      That's no way to talk about women. Maybe that's your problem.

    6. Re:I'd think it was obvious to any man by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 1

      They smell bad

      I've found that it's the lubricant which smells bad. Get the non-lubricated ones, and the smell problem is taken care of, but now you definitely need either copious amounts of saliva, or some artificial lubricant; I personally recommend a condom-safe silicone type.

      I always thought that the big deal with condoms was psychological. People think it will make sex less interesting, and then it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. But it's not all about the penis in the vagina. There's hands to touch, grab, pinch, and stroke your partner's body; lips; eye contact; positions; sounds; and so on. Condoms may make sex 10% less interesting, but 90% of awesome is still pretty cool in my book.

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    7. Re:I'd think it was obvious to any man by syousef · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You can counter each point until you go blue, but the fact remains that most people find condoms unpleasant. People aren't idiots. If condoms were hassle free people would see the benefits and use them. As it is they see a lot of drawbacks as well, and for some it downright spoils sex, which is why they take risks.

      A lot of Durex's higher end stuff doesn't smell at all.

      I've yet to come across a condom that doesn't smell. By the way how high end is high end? How much am I expected to pay per orgasm?

      If you're partner is willing, you can make it a part of the moment. No loss.

      If your partner is trying to hold her nose from the smell, it's part of the moment alright - the moment that puts you off proceeding.

      While this is true, the good, thin and reliable latex condoms don't mitigate it by that much. From what I've heard, polyurethane condoms are an excellent alternative with CRAZY sensitivity, but it's a bit risky considering that its effectiveness is not as "guaranteed" as latex condoms.

      You still have something in between you and your partner. Anyone who says that the sensitivity does not decrease using a condom is lying (and possibly hasn't ever had sex). It's a question of how much sensitivity is reduced, and whether or not that reduction is a good thing. (It may be that reducing sensitivity can help prolong the act)

      Ever trying putting it in your wallet or a cool place? If you're girlfriend's a long-term, have you considered leaving a set at her place?

      Didn't they teach you never to put a condom in your wallet in sex ed class? Guaranteed way to damage it.

      Having them somewhere convenient helps to some degree but you still have to get out the packet, get out the condom, unwrap it and put it on. Sometimes that extra minute can kill the mood.

      Exactly. It's all subjective.

      Hate to break it to you but sex is like food. There's no accounting for taste. It's all subjective just about sums up sex in general. However it's clear that many people find condoms off-putting.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    8. Re:I'd think it was obvious to any man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While this is true, the good, thin and reliable latex condoms don't mitigate it by that much. From what I've heard, polyurethane condoms are an excellent alternative with CRAZY sensitivity, but it's a bit risky considering that its effectiveness is not as "guaranteed" as latex condoms.

      I have semi-phimosis (the foreskin will go back during sex but not all the way), I know a solution to this is to be circumcised but I'm not up for that at all.
      I'm a 19 year old and have only had sex 20 odd times, not once have I been able to come inside my lady-friend, every time I've had to finish up myself after or go without the orgasmic experience!
      Anyway I have also never used a condom, I can't imagine how I could possibly get off while wearing one!
      As I said, I'm not the most experienced in the field, and as such I'm still working at it! Hoping I may be able to later (go without masturbation for a week or so, more of a build up so I'm positively dying for it! Forcing myself to think harder about sexual fantasies, etc) but for now the use of a condom is right out of the question I'm afraid.

      Any advice is more than welcome! Just my two cents :)

    9. Re:I'd think it was obvious to any man by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      People aren't idiots.

      Yeah, right. When was the last time, you interacted with any non-NPC? :P

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    10. Re:I'd think it was obvious to any man by MrCrassic · · Score: 1

      I'm not trying to argue that condoms are something of a side effect; I'm pointing out that condoms don't necessarily spoil the sexual moment unless YOU as a partner allow them to. I've been tempted many, MANY times to go bareback, but after realizing that they can make the moment just as enjoyable, I haven't really had the desire to.

      The first condoms that I've used were horribly smelly and uncomfortable, so I sought for better fitting and more pleasurable condoms and found them. I took too long at putting them on, so I just got better at putting it on and found different ways to put it on without disrupting "the moment" too much. In my experience, I've found that when the moment's really, really intense, having sex with even the worst condom feels just as good as the times I've used the optimized ones.

      We're converging to the same point, though, in that this research has the potential to spark some really positive change for male birth/STD control. On a somewhat unrelated note, what's the deal with the polyurethane ones? Are those as safe to use, or is it that it hasn't been proven if they are?

    11. Re:I'd think it was obvious to any man by Burning1 · · Score: 1

      Great post. Minor nitpick:

      While this is true, the good, thin and reliable latex condoms don't mitigate it by that much. From what I've heard, polyurethane condoms are an excellent alternative with CRAZY sensitivity, but it's a bit risky considering that its effectiveness is not as "guaranteed" as latex condoms.

      The effectiveness of latex condoms is not guaranteed -- no one is going to pay your child support or replace the condom if it breaks. It has however been carefully studied.

      In my experience, a good polyurethane condom protects just as well as a latex condom if you treat it properly. However, poly condoms aren't as flexible as latex, and it can sometimes be difficult to get them on -- for that reason, they are a little prone to being nicked. Because poly condoms cost $3 a piece, and come in small packs, people are more likely to use a questionable condom.

    12. Re:I'd think it was obvious to any man by ajlisows · · Score: 1

      For what it's worth try Trojan Supra Microsheer Polyurethane. They cost a bit more but I've found them to be a worthwhile investment.

      My wife and I had some issues with Latex condoms. They really did smell quite poor and they caused her to feel burning after. Someone told us we should try lambskin and talk about smell....ewwww....I seriously had to stop once because the smell turned off my mood completely. Since we moved to the Microsheer things have been much better. Actually, they seem to be more sensitive than anything else so uhm, my performance uhm, dropped off a bit until I got used to the increased sensitivity.

      Seriously, find a way that works for you. Much better than the alternative.

    13. Re:I'd think it was obvious to any man by MrCrassic · · Score: 1

      But here's my question: does using polyurethane condoms really enhance sexual pleasure that significantly? I'm considering trying them, though the Durex condoms that I usually get now are working really well for me. I'm also a bit frightened by the higher risk of breakage.

      Most of the quick research I'm doing suggests that polyurethane condoms are nearly equal in effectiveness to latex condoms, but nothing regarding any differences in the sexual "experience."

      Thanks!

    14. Re:I'd think it was obvious to any man by syousef · · Score: 1

      I'm not trying to argue that condoms are something of a side effect; I'm pointing out that condoms don't necessarily spoil the sexual moment unless YOU as a partner allow them to.

      No, if you hate steak, it doesn't matter what you tell yourself. Your tastebuds are unlikely to rewire themselves.

      I've been tempted many, MANY times to go bareback, but after realizing that they can make the moment just as enjoyable, I haven't really had the desire to.

      Well I'm in a committed relationship - married with a child - and we have birth control that is effective. Both my wife and I agree they're awful. We stopped using them for a long time then went back to using them while she was breast feeding as the pill isn't safe when breastfeeding. Being a short term solution, we had no reason to think that we'd have to use them for a long time. Sure you can still have a good sex life, but it's MUCH better when you don't need to use them.

      The first condoms that I've used were horribly smelly and uncomfortable, so I sought for better fitting and more pleasurable condoms and found them. I took too long at putting them on, so I just got better at putting it on and found different ways to put it on without disrupting "the moment" too much.

      Yes experience does make a difference. No it's not the same as not having to put one one.

      In my experience, I've found that when the moment's really, really intense, having sex with even the worst condom feels just as good as the times I've used the optimized ones.

      I'm sorry but I think you're fooling yourself. They're a necessary evil as far as I'm concerned. No they don't have to ruin your sex life but a sex life without them is much preferred.

      We're converging to the same point, though, in that this research has the potential to spark some really positive change for male birth/STD control.

      Research is good but that's a lot of money to spend to find out something that a simple questionaire could give you good answers to.

      On a somewhat unrelated note, what's the deal with the polyurethane ones? Are those as safe to use, or is it that it hasn't been proven if they are?

      No idea. People and companies don't behave rationally when it comes to sex. I hope there are lots of options out there - the more there are, the more likely there is one to suit everyone - the more that use them, the less people die a horrible death and the less children born to people who can't support them.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    15. Re:I'd think it was obvious to any man by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Try a different brand and keep them ready on every conceivable occassion. I can't say I've ever noticed any smell.

    16. Re:I'd think it was obvious to any man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> If you're partner is willing, you can make it a part of the moment. No loss.

      Sometimes. Not all sex is the same. Sometimes you just want to tear each others clothes off and go.

      >> Ever trying putting it in your wallet or a cool place?

      Putting it in your wallet is dangerous; it basically destroys the condom, guaranteeing it will fail. Don't do that. And what is a "cool place" supposed to mean in this context?

      >>>>they're disgusting to take off,
      >> Subjective.
      >>>>they're awkward to dispose of.
      >> Also subjective.

      Really? You can't possibly mean this. After the fact, they are just disgusting. I don't think you'll get anyone to seriously agree otherwise.

    17. Re:I'd think it was obvious to any man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From what I've heard, polyurethane condoms are an excellent alternative with CRAZY sensitivity, but it's a bit risky considering that its effectiveness is not as "guaranteed" as latex condoms.

      Thankfully I'm married and don't have to deal with condoms any more, but fuck, they're annoying. I've tried everything on the shelves at the local pharmacy, and there's nothing that feels good. Period.

      Polyurethane condoms feel decent enough, except when they fold. Then it feels like you're fucking by the sharp end of one of those plastic electronics containers that need a knife to cut open. Tried a couple different kinds, and they all had this problem.

      Condoms suck, no two ways about it. But at least I was always responsible, and never once had unsafe sex. 13 years, sex with four different girlfriends, not once. It pisses me off when guys sacrifice their long term pleasure for short term enjoyment.

    18. Re:I'd think it was obvious to any man by Tom · · Score: 1

      They smell bad,

      Pick a better brand, there are some that aren't that bad. Plus as with anything non-toxic, preferences are often acquired and can be changed.

      they distract from the spontenaity of the moment,

      Not too badly, and if you're with a girl that's comfortable with using them, it's easy to make rolling it on a part of foreplay. There are very few cases where this is really an argument (e.g. the instant quicky in the elevator, where every second counts).

      they decrease sensitivity,

      For lots of men - or rather, their women - that's a good thing, because it makes you last longer.

      they're never handy at the moment you want them,

      Bad organisation.

      they're disgusting to take off, they're awkward to dispose of.

      Not any worse than using a towel to wipe your stuff away, is it? Oh, wait, if you think that's entirely the girls problem, then you could be right. If you think about both partners, it just shifts the responsibility of disposal from one person to the other. Plus it allows for some things you'd not otherwise consider (like going down on her to finish her off as well - unless you like doing that after you just came inside of her without a condom...).

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    19. Re:I'd think it was obvious to any man by syousef · · Score: 1

      Pick a better brand, there are some that aren't that bad. Plus as with anything non-toxic, preferences are often acquired and can be changed.

      Latex smells like latex. Most spermacides, being artificial poisons aren't going to smell like roses.

      Not any worse than using a towel to wipe your stuff away, is it? Oh, wait, if you think that's entirely the girls problem, then you could be right.

      That pretty much sums up your attitude doesn't it. If someone has a different view to yours they must be a selfish inconsiderate prat. Last I checked the guy had to wipe fluids away too regardless of condom usage, unless of course you're use to walking around with body fluids on you, or going to sleep in them.

      If you think about both partners, it just shifts the responsibility of disposal from one person to the other. Plus it allows for some things you'd not otherwise consider (like going down on her to finish her off as well - unless you like doing that after you just came inside of her without a condom...).

      For pity sake, now you're painting me as a selfish lover who won't even satisfy his partner. You know nothing about me you arrogant troll.

      There was no need for you to be so graphic or so rude!!!

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    20. Re:I'd think it was obvious to any man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mostly it's about sensitivity, but one thing that seldom gets talked about is size. Condom advocates say they are one size fits all but it's absolutely not true. I have 'small' friends who hate them because they lose them halfway through. I have the opposite problem: it's plain impossible to unroll the basic thick kind and I feel very constricted by the high-end stuff. I once tried real large (not the kind that only has 'large' written in big on the packet) condoms and they were much more comfortable. On the internet you can find companies that sell any width/length combination, but my wife and I prefer anal sex as a birth control method... C;-)

    21. Re:I'd think it was obvious to any man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're partner is willing, you can make it a part of the moment. No loss.

      That's all fine and good, but what should the rapists do?

    22. Re:I'd think it was obvious to any man by Tom · · Score: 1

      Latex smells like latex.

      Which is 100% an acquired preference. Some people like the smell of latex.

      Most spermacides, being artificial poisons aren't going to smell like roses.

      Agreed. Nevertheless, depending on the brand, it's better or worse. I didn't say there are condoms that smell so great you'd want them around to perfume the room, but there certainly are brands that smell better than others.

      That pretty much sums up your attitude doesn't it.

      No, but if you absolutely must become defensive then be my guest. :-)

      Last I checked the guy had to wipe fluids away too regardless of condom usage,

      That, exactly, is my point. You've got to clean yourself up anyways. If you use a condom, you've got to put that away, too (= more trouble for you), but your partner doesn't get your juice into herself (= less cleanup for her). Equals out if you think about sex as a cooperative two-player game. Plus if you do wish to do things to her afterwards, it's cleaner for you, too, which kind of balances the doing-away-icky-condom part.

      For pity sake, now you're painting me as a selfish lover who won't even satisfy his partner. You know nothing about me you arrogant troll.

      I said nothing like that, but here in Germany we have a saying: "Getretene Hunde bellen", translation: "Hit dogs bark", meaning: "If someone complains very loudly, you've probably hit where it hurts". ;-)

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    23. Re:I'd think it was obvious to any man by Scrab · · Score: 1

      If they're disgusting to take off, you're doing it wrong. As far as I can tell, condoms make post-coital cleanup easier, because all the mess that a guy makes is contained.
      You just need to tie a knot in the top of the condom, and throw it away. If you're feeling really fastidious about it, wrap it in a tissue first.

      --
      RoseColor red={0, 0xffff, 0x0000, 0x0000};VioletColour blue={0, 0x0000, 0x0000, 0xffff};find / -name *mybase*|chown you
    24. Re:I'd think it was obvious to any man by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      "Subjective."
      "Also subjective."
      "Exactly. It's all subjective."

      I'm going to go out on a limb here, and suggest that the moment some chick is moaning about how she wants you to nail her NOW, that if there is EVER a time that 'objectivity' should be tossed out the flippin' window, that would be the time.

      --
      -Styopa
    25. Re:I'd think it was obvious to any man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Man, there's a lot of hate here on slashdot about condoms.

      Here's my thoughts:

      1. Yes, they reduce sensitivity. If you regularly DON'T use one, then switch to using one, you'll be disappointed. But I've found the loss of sensitivity can actually be a good thing. Intercourse can last longer, you gain a lot more control, and the "plateau" part of sex lasts a lot longer. I've found that the overall experience can be just as pleasurable, if not more, because you can extend the pleasure. And my wife is a whole lot happier when it lasts longer.

      2. Let's discuss alternatives. Rhythm method? Unreliable. Vasectomy? Permanent (which can be a good thing, but for a lot of us, it isn't). Most people I know, their wives are on chemical birth control (the pill or something like it). And then they wonder why their wives aren't interested in sex very often -- it's because those chemicals lower sex drive. When we switched from the pill to condoms, my wife's interest in sex skyrocketed. Sure, that's an anecdote, but I've heard many other similar reports.

      3. Being a hassle, reducing the mood -- yeah, that's an issue. You learn to work around it. And the cleanup mess is actually significantly less mess overall than without. It's just messier for the guy instead of the girl.

    26. Re:I'd think it was obvious to any man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have semi-phimosis (the foreskin will go back during sex but not all the way

      If it's not real keratinized phimosis, you can fix this with gentle stretching. Watch some porn, pull it back as far as you can while fully erect and leave it there. Let it cinch tightly around your head and remain erect. If you can do this for 20-30 minutes a day, you'll feel it loosen up after a few weeks. In a month or two it should be fully retractable. That was my experience at least.

    27. Re:I'd think it was obvious to any man by Altus · · Score: 1

      Alternative:

      IUD. They come in non hormonal varieties, are reliable and reversible. Your wife will still have the same interest in sex.

      There is a lot of FUD out there about IUD's but they really are fantastic.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    28. Re:I'd think it was obvious to any man by rgviza · · Score: 1

      Having them somewhere convenient helps to some degree but you still have to get out the packet, get out the condom, unwrap it and put it on. Sometimes that extra minute can kill the mood.

      Not if you are going down on her while you put it on ; )

      --
      Don't kid yourself. It's the size of the regexp AND how you use it that counts.
    29. Re:I'd think it was obvious to any man by jimbolauski · · Score: 1

      polyurethane and other thin or high end condoms are not readily available for the larger man, heck some stores I can't even buy regular large ones.

      --
      Knowledge = Power
      P= W/t
      t=Money
      Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
    30. Re:I'd think it was obvious to any man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever trying putting it in your wallet or a cool place? If you're girlfriend's a long-term, have you considered leaving a set at her place?

      Wallet - NO NO NO. If you carry it in your pants pocket... your warmth will make the material defective. That's what I've read and heard anyway, makes me wonder how the warmth from the actual fucking isn't supposed to affect it but oh well, still better to do what I say below:

      For the one or two condoms you want to carry around with you...a cool place, shirt pocket, bag, murse hell anything slightly loose and cool, as long as there are no other sharp things in there with it, are good, best is really to have them protected in something, they handed around these neat little condom shaped cardboard cover thingies at my university once.

      And yeah it should be obvious that you ought to just keep most of your condoms in their original cardboard containers at your place. For a long-term relationship make sure that THEY also have such condoms in their original cardboard containers at their place. Thank you.

    31. Re:I'd think it was obvious to any man by Burning1 · · Score: 1

      The best answer to this question is to suggest that you give them a try. Nothing is lost by experimenting.

      Personally, I haven't used the widest variety of latex condoms. I switched to Polyurethane near-exclusively as soon as I tried them, despite the extra cost. In latex, I've tried the standard affairs, the ultra thins, and the Durex lightly ribbed condoms. I used polyurethane with a previous girlfriend who didn't want to take the pill, and switched to unprotected sex with my current girlfriend who is on the pill, once we went exclusive.

      On a scale of 1 to 10, with a standard latex condom being 1, and the pill being 10, I would rate polyurethane in the 4-7 range. Noticeably better than latex, but not perfect.

      If you decide to try poly, I would encourage you to test-fit a poly condom on your own at least once. It's hard to describe what a pain it is to put the little buggers on in a dark room with slippery hands.

    32. Re:I'd think it was obvious to any man by syousef · · Score: 1

      Which is 100% an acquired preference. Some people like the smell of latex. ...and many people don't. So are you saying that is somehow their fault? What do you say to a girlfriend who doesn't like the smell? "Stop whining and suck it up"? I don't think so.

      Agreed. Nevertheless, depending on the brand, it's better or worse. I didn't say there are condoms that smell so great you'd want them around to perfume the room, but there certainly are brands that smell better than others.

      It's still a chemical poison. None of them are pleasant. I guess there might be freaks that like the smell of spermicide too....but come on.

      No, but if you absolutely must become defensive then be my guest. :-)

      Defensive? You're the one that's implying I'm a selfish lover. What did you expect? That I'd be thrilled and enthusiastic about your unsubtle insults?

      I said nothing like that, but here in Germany we have a saying: "Getretene Hunde bellen", translation: "Hit dogs bark", meaning: "If someone complains very loudly, you've probably hit where it hurts". ;-)

      Putting aside for a moment that you've just compared me to a dog (and are wondering why I might be insulted or "defensive" - try getting some people skills) By that analogy you just "hit" me and are wondering why I'm "barking". You're a fool.

      In Australia we have a saying "Fair go, mate". As in don't be so dishonest. Implying I'm a selfish lover is exactly what you were intending to say.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    33. Re:I'd think it was obvious to any man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not just men either. I have yet to meet a woman who thinks condom sex is just as good as no condom.

      Really, it's a layer of plastic between you and the other person. It protects by preventing transfer of fluids but it's exactly those fluids that are a huge part of what makes sex feel good. The wetness, the warmth, the softness of bare skin. A condom kills much of that.

      There is absolutely no way they can make condom sex feel as good as bare sex because it's physically impossible.

    34. Re:I'd think it was obvious to any man by gonz · · Score: 1

      Despite that they're a good trade when weighed against the possibility of 18 years of child support, or your penis turning green and falling off.

      Not really. This site has some statistics:

      When used correctly and consistently every single time, condoms are about 98% preventive against pregnancy. However, the effectiveness rate for first-year condom users is about 86%, as only an estimated 3% of these users use condoms correctly and consistently during that time. After that milestone, the prevention rate increases, and with typical consistent use the pregnancy rate is 2-4 out of 100 women per year.

      Applying basic probability, if ("ideally") the chance of pregnancy is 2%, then the chance of NOT getting pregnant over 10 years is (100%-2%)^10 = 81.7%. In other words, 1 out of 5 dudes is gonna paying child support after 10 years.

      More realistically, if the failure rate is 4%, then that's (100%-4%)^10 = 66.4% chance of NOT getting pregnant. In other words, 1 out of THREE dudes will be paying child support after 10 years. Condoms suck!

      And statistics is counterintuitive. If contraceptive rates were quoted per-decade rather than per-year, contraception research would actually get the funding it deserves.

      -Gonz

    35. Re:I'd think it was obvious to any man by Tom · · Score: 1

      Putting aside for a moment that you've just compared me to a dog (and are wondering why I might be insulted or "defensive"

      See, that's your problem. There was no comparison. I was quoting a figure of speech that happens to involved a dog. However, the meaning does in no way compare to the dog in any form and is entirely contained within the metaphor.

      If someone calls you "cool like Elvis", do you complain that they've just wished you were dead? ;-)

      Implying I'm a selfish lover is exactly what you were intending to say.

      Your reading of my words does not have to be identical to my intentions when writing those same words. The transmission error can be in the coding (i.e. I didn't express myself very well) or in the decoding (i.e. you read something into it that's not there). In psychology you can write a book about the details of debating where the error occured. In information technology we've largely agreed that the productive way is finding out that an error occurred and initiating a re-transmit. I studied IT. Here's your re-transmit: Many of the alleged disadvantages of condoms are personal preferences, can be reduced by a better choice of condom brand, or can be offset by advantages that are not as obvious on first glance.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    36. Re:I'd think it was obvious to any man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One woman I knew used to tell me to take the condom off because she could not feel my penis give her pleasure when I wore the condom. This was in the face of she knowing that my eleven inches in her five foot nuthin body all the way past her navel was certain to make her pregnant when my volcano of several teaspoons full of cum shot even further into her. She would tell me to take the thing off no matter what cause she really wanted her ship to cum in and the condom was like a chain across cumm harbor. Her husband had had a vasectomy operation and it had made him impotent, a limpdick. Bitterness of the failure of his operation had made him a morose drunk who took his frustrations out on his wife, who turned to me and virtually the whole rest of the base NCO club for satisfaction. So she was a pretty good judge of the effectiveness of condoms in ruining the sex act.

    37. Re:I'd think it was obvious to any man by syousef · · Score: 1

      See, that's your problem. There was no comparison.

      Are you serious? YOU used the metaphor. A metaphor is a device in English for making comparisons to something more familiar. YOU brought it up. Take some responsibility for your word choice. This is NOT my problem; it is most definitely yours. One or more of the following apply to you:

      1) You are incapable of choosing your words so as not to cause offence. Your people skills need a lot of work and you are a poor communicator

      2) You are dishonest about your intentions

      3) You like to assume you're debating with an idiot who is incapable of understanding English

      I was quoting a figure of speech that happens to involved a dog. However, the meaning does in no way compare to the dog in any form and is entirely contained within the metaphor.

      Given the topic of discussion, I assume you have one or more partners - a girlfriend, wife, spouse? Go use that metaphor on them and see how much use you have for a condom.

      If someone calls you "cool like Elvis", do you complain that they've just wished you were dead? ;-)

      Are you being obtuse on purpose? "Cool like Elvis" is a compliment. You weren't complimenting me. You were putting me down and comparing me to a dog, not a rock star. Another poorly executed piece of mis-direction on your part.

      Your reading of my words does not have to be identical to my intentions when writing those same words.

      Go back and re-read your words. You have to work very hard (and perhaps live in an alternate Universe) to twist them so they are not derogatory.

      Here's your re-transmit: Many of the alleged disadvantages of condoms are personal preferences, can be reduced by a better choice of condom brand, or can be offset by advantages that are not as obvious on first glance.

      They are personal preferences that are shared by a large number, perhaps a majority. None of the brands I've tried have been pleasant to use. You like them. Great. Use them. Please use them! I hate them but I'm still smart enough to use them to keep myself safe.

      End of transmission.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    38. Re:I'd think it was obvious to any man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if most people are idiots that is not my problem.

      I have had sex with many women and I could not bless more the day condoms were invented.

      If most men are so impulsive and stupid that are willing to risk their health, their partners' , and to risk wrecking their life and their partner's due to health issues or unplanned pregnancy, all just because they are unimaginative about sex, well, allow me to say that I have not time for their selfish plight.

    39. Re:I'd think it was obvious to any man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL

    40. Re:I'd think it was obvious to any man by Tom · · Score: 1

      Are you serious? YOU used the metaphor. A metaphor is a device in English for making comparisons to something more familiar.

      Yes, but what exactly is being compared is what matters. See http://efl.htmlplanet.com/metaphors.htm - one other example with a dog: If you call someone the "top dog", you're not trying to say he is, looks or behaves like a dog. The comparison is not between the type of life form, but between the social status involved in each case.

      Given the topic of discussion, I assume you have one or more partners - a girlfriend, wife, spouse? Go use that metaphor on them and see how much use you have for a condom.

      I don't hit my wife, but I'll tell you if she barks when I do. :-)

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    41. Re:I'd think it was obvious to any man by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      Quiet, Hans.

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
  14. it interrupts the flow of things and so by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Funny

    it can make your dick go limp

    its the same as being in a sexually arousing situation and suddenly being asked to fill out form 1040A and pay your taxes right now

    (with apologies to all of the IRS fetishists)

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:it interrupts the flow of things and so by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

      I've figured a solution to that problem. Put to Joe Bag on while you're going down on her. Doesn't interrupt the flow at all. Once she realizes you're wearing it she asks "when did you put that on?!" You tell her, and she's amazed at your talent, horning her up all the more. Ta daaa!

      Seriously though, I don't know about guys who don't have foreskins, but condoms are deadly uncomfortable for a non-circumcised dick. More times than enough I've had to pull out before I've finished the job because it feels like my tip is being pinched. I think they need more lubrication on the inside. Plus they don't stretch very easily, you'd need to apply considerable pressure to get them to expand, and the average guy's blood flow is not going to do that. I suppose it's one of the trade-offs of reliability.

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    2. Re:it interrupts the flow of things and so by cruff · · Score: 1

      Plus they don't stretch very easily, you'd need to apply considerable pressure to get them to expand, and the average guy's blood flow is not going to do that.

      You aren't supposed to use latex balloons for condoms! No wonder you have those problems. :-)

    3. Re:it interrupts the flow of things and so by jfengel · · Score: 5, Funny

      its the same as being in a sexually arousing situation and suddenly being asked to fill out form 1040A and pay your taxes right now

      Are you really, really bad at putting on a condom, or are you really, really good at filling out your taxes?

    4. Re:it interrupts the flow of things and so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Serioulsy? If you can't hold an erection for a minute while in bed with a naked woman (or man, I guess), perhaps you really weren't that horny in the first place.

    5. Re:it interrupts the flow of things and so by adminstring · · Score: 1

      I think they need more lubrication on the inside.

      There's no reason you can't lube up before putting it on.

      --
      My truck is like a series of tubes.
    6. Re:it interrupts the flow of things and so by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      Put to Joe Bag on while you're going down on her.

      Errm. So you are going down on her while planning to use a condom to prevent STD? Do you see the problem with this?

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    7. Re:it interrupts the flow of things and so by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      Put to Joe Bag on while you're going down on her. Doesn't interrupt the flow at all.

      So when do you put on your dental dam?

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    8. Re:it interrupts the flow of things and so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I beg to differ. I actually find it kind of arousing to put it on.

      Also, the reduced sensitivity means I can go on... and on... and on...

    9. Re:it interrupts the flow of things and so by pi_rules · · Score: 1

      Plenty of people only use the condom to prevent pregnancies. At some point in the relationship you start trusting the person enough not to be lieing to you about having the herp or HIV.

    10. Re:it interrupts the flow of things and so by pi_rules · · Score: 1

      Here's one that used to work pretty well for me:

      Just bareback it for a while doing it bunny style. (Dogs having sex is kind of gross, but bunnies are cute!) Then you can work on the wrapper while you're doing your thing, get it ready, slide out, slide it on, and you're back in the game with only a 5 second interruption.

    11. Re:it interrupts the flow of things and so by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      What? You are supposed to 1. pull back the foreskin before putting it on top. and then 2. roll it down.
      Is that so hard? And I find them very flexible.

      Well, maybe you have to try bigger ones. I have too. We're not all equal.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    12. Re:it interrupts the flow of things and so by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      And with all the STDs too. This only works if you trust the other person enough.

      Oh, and have you ever seen bunnies having sex? Woman have a reason to call bad sex "bunny style". ^^

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    13. Re:it interrupts the flow of things and so by mjwx · · Score: 1

      it can make your dick go limp

      If this is a problem, then you either need to drink less or try a different kind of medication (normally blue although the generics from India are often yellow).

      its the same as being in a sexually arousing situation and suddenly being asked to fill out form 1040A and pay your taxes right now

      Here's a novel idea, ask her to do it for you

      and if you kept receipts are organised she'll be done before you are.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    14. Re:it interrupts the flow of things and so by pi_rules · · Score: 1

      And with all the STDs too. This only works if you trust the other person enough.

      Yeah, I'm one of the weird people that doesn't have sex with somebody until I'm pretty sure they're not trying to give me a deadly disease or a lifetime infection.

      What confounds me about this is that it appears I'm actually in the minority position. I'll never really understand people that rely on a 60 cent piece of rubber to keep them from getting a fatal disease so they can share an intimate experience with a person that might be killing them in the process.

      Then again, I don't get human social interaction a lot of the time. All I know is life's simpler when you don't fark people you don't trust.

    15. Re:it interrupts the flow of things and so by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 1

      A very large percentage of people with herpes don't have symptoms. So they can tell you they don't have it, but unless they've been tested recently they don't really know. As for a lot of other STDs: a lot of them don't have visable symptoms for guys but they do for girls. For example, ever wonder where girls get yeast infections from? Answer guys can have it but you can't tell, so she gets treated and clean and her boyfriend gives it to her again. The only way to be sure that the sex is safe is either not have it, or wrap it.

    16. Re:it interrupts the flow of things and so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some days I'm glad I met my girlfriend when we were both virgins and then we got married a few years later so I've never had to worry about any pre-existing sexual encounters (yes, I've asked and I trust her answer implicitly). Condoms for us was simply a way of preventing pregnancy until we wanted kids.

    17. Re:it interrupts the flow of things and so by Mab_Mass · · Score: 1

      If you think it interrupts the flow, have your partner put it on you and make the act of putting it on part of the fun.

  15. Stimulus (spending) by TopSpin · · Score: 5, Funny

    Stimulus....package

    Too easy. (not hard?)

    STOP NOW!

    --
    Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
    1. Re:Stimulus (spending) by david.emery · · Score: 1

      You beat me to that punny post...

      dave

    2. Re:Stimulus (spending) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stimulus....package

      Too easy. (not hard?)

      STOP NOW!

      Burma-shave?

  16. Unatural by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Another $100,000 will be used to investigate why people don't like to wear wet socks

  17. Hookers already know why... by bagboy · · Score: 1

    I'm sure they've heard all the reasons. Why not just ask them at a rate of $20 per hour.

    1. Re:Hookers already know why... by BeaverCleaver · · Score: 2, Funny

      Please tell me where I can meet some hookers who only charge $20 an hour. That will be the best two bucks I ever spend!

    2. Re:Hookers already know why... by Kavorkian_scarf · · Score: 1

      Your sexual prowess has succeeded in emasculating me. Thanks.

  18. Lovemaking vs. Hoagie Stuffing by zippthorne · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Can you really call it "making love" if you have to put on plastic gloves like a freakin' subway sandwich artist? Really intimate...

    --
    Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    1. Re:Lovemaking vs. Hoagie Stuffing by Elitist_Phoenix · · Score: 2, Funny

      Can you really call it "making love" if you have to put on plastic gloves like a freakin' subway sandwich artist? Really intimate...

      Great thanks for that mental image... now I can't eat my lunch.

      --
      "I'm going to f***ing bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I'm going to f***ing kill Google"
    2. Re:Lovemaking vs. Hoagie Stuffing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great thanks for that mental image... now I can't eat my lunch.

      And now I can't masturbate :(

  19. Brings up another issue. by Gerafix · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Another issue, and one might say more important, is that there are so few options for men for birth control. Let's see, we have... condoms or sterilization. Great. One isn't reliable and the other can have serious side effects. How about we put that money into researching new and improved methods that have fewer and less severe side effects? Personally I would absolutely take hormonal treatments if the side effects were reasonable. It drives me crazy that as a society we are complacent with half our population not having a reliable and effective means for preventing unwanted pregnancy. Better yet things like RISUG would be absolutely wonderful, yet they don't get researched in western bureaucracy because it wouldn't be profitable enough than having people constantly paying for condoms or hormones. The injustice that has befallen us males is absolutely cause for a revolution in how we conduct health care in our society.

    1. Re:Brings up another issue. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about just some kind of no-side-effects, no-permanent-damage pill for men that just kills your sex drive? As in, a once-daily tablet that flat-out kills the urge completely as long as you're taking it, and returns it full strength when you stop? Hell, I'd pay for that at this point...

      but I can see lots of abuse by women buying it and putting it in their SO's drinks... maybe give it a distinctive flavor?

    2. Re:Brings up another issue. by Gerafix · · Score: 1

      We have that already in non-pill form, it's called Slashdot.

    3. Re:Brings up another issue. by gmhowell · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Didn't you get the memo? Only women have reproductive rights in the US. They will split things with you however and give you all the bills.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    4. Re:Brings up another issue. by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

      or a distinctive side-effect... like a gold ring appearing around your finger?

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    5. Re:Brings up another issue. by Fred+IV · · Score: 1

      Such a thing exists...it's called World of Warcraft

    6. Re:Brings up another issue. by Ritchie70 · · Score: 1

      Thought that was called "marriage."

      --
      The preferred solution is to not have a problem.
    7. Re:Brings up another issue. by Octorian · · Score: 1

      I seem to have plenty of geek friends that I've sworn were on that pill. Never quite figured out what it was called, or where to find it.

    8. Re:Brings up another issue. by Itninja · · Score: 1

      there are so few options for men for birth control

      Say it with me now: Men don't give birth.

      Now, effective male contraception would be great. But since the male repro system is active (i.e. 'the pitcher') while a womans' is passive (i.e. 'the catcher'), stopping the passive side is the most efficient.

      --
      I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
    9. Re:Brings up another issue. by Macgrrl · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Most intelligent women would have difficulty in trusting a man to be honest about being on hormonal birth control - newsflash, guys lie to get sex. At the end of the day, women are the ones left holding the bag if an unplanned sexual encounter results in a pregnancy. Cue comments about child support payments, but most women, given the choice, wouldn't plan to be a single parent, and plenty of guys avoid child support through whatever means.

      While condoms are a form of birth control, even women on hormonal birth control would ask their partner to use a condom if they have any doubts about STDs. The love glove is here to stay until all STDs are eliminated, or an alternative barrier product is invented.

      --
      Sara
      Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
    10. Re:Brings up another issue. by spqr0a1 · · Score: 1

      They're called asexuals. http://www.asexuality.org/home/

    11. Re:Brings up another issue. by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1
      The progression of the rings:

      .
      1. The Engagement Ring
      2. The Wedding Ring
      3. The SuffeRing

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    12. Re:Brings up another issue. by Gerafix · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Great, that works both ways though. Most intelligent (or rich) men would have difficulty in trusting a woman to be honest about being on hormonal birth control. Newsflash, women lie to get pregnant for a free ride.

    13. Re:Brings up another issue. by cemulli · · Score: 1
      They are working on more non-condom birth control options for men.

      But then, like Macgrrl, I wouldn't trust a guy that he was on 'the pill' either unless I was living with him and thus knew for sure that he 1) had a prescription and 2) was taking it appropriately (or, y'know, was getting shots every few months to stay nice and sterile). A friend of mine found herself in the stereotypical situation where her boyfriend got her pregnant shortly after she started college, and then the guy suddenly skipped town. Quite a winner.

      My fiance hasn't voiced any complaints about condoms since we started using a specialty brand. If you're not just grabbing a box of Trojan Magnums to impress the hot girl at the checkout, or quickly throwing some random box into the shopping cart and covering it with a pair of boxers so people don't see you hanging around in the pharmacy department reading the backs of condom boxes, you might actually have better luck finding condoms that you can deal with. Hell, try buying online. Places like condomdepot.com also have sampler packs.

    14. Re:Brings up another issue. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you mean not reliable? A condom is far more reliable than your car. You have a well thought out point with regards to limited options available to men, but such a claim smells of abstinence-only propaganda.

    15. Re:Brings up another issue. by Gerafix · · Score: 1

      Compared to other methods they are not as reliable. Typical use failure rate with condoms can be as high as 15% while perfect use has a failure rate as high as 2%. While in comparison other newer methods have rates as low as 0.05% and are working 24/7, of course these are (female) hormonal procedures and it's not for everybody. Ideally one would want something with 0% failure rate, low side effects, and be reversable but we're not going to attain that without trying.
      Abstinence only is a ridiculous ideology. With all the time and money spent advocating it we could be closer to having better male contraceptives on the market to prevent unwanted pregnancy. That's definitely a much bigger problem than people having sex.
      Comparison of birth control methods: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_birth_control_methods#Effectiveness_of_various_methods

    16. Re:Brings up another issue. by Mr.+Roadkill · · Score: 1

      or an alternative barrier product is invented.

      Llamas. You don't pay extra for fur or ridges.
      (apologies to the rest of the slashdot community for this old in-joke)

    17. Re:Brings up another issue. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MSNBC had recently posted an article discussing the approaching possibility of hormonal male contraceptives. Would we have to deal with emotional side effects? Could it cause emasculating side effects? I would guess that there will be some trade-off with a male pill, too. Being happily married, it is easy enough to avoid condoms with my wife on medication; she also gains other benefits from taking the pill. Win/win. If you want more on the guy pill, though, here's the link:
      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3543478/

    18. Re:Brings up another issue. by LurkerXD · · Score: 1

      However, I don't think its unfair to make the conjecture that there's fewer guys that have to worry about women going for a free ride then there are women who have to worry about men that don't plan on supporting the children they produce.

  20. What exactly is the main thrust of the study? by Toonol · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If it's to study "why men don't like condoms", as it is being widely reported, then yes, the study is a waste of money. The reason is obvious to anybody that's ever used one.

    However, if the study is "how can we FIX what men don't like about condoms", then the study becomes very important, and might benefit society immensely. If a condom could be constructed that didn't impede feeling at all, there would be huge benefits, a great reduction in unwanted pregnancies.

    Also, if they made one that felt BETTER, we could eliminate women altogether.

    1. Re:What exactly is the main thrust of the study? by daid303 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Also, if they made one that felt BETTER, we could eliminate women altogether.

      You sir, are lining up for a darwin award.

    2. Re:What exactly is the main thrust of the study? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      Also, if they made one that felt BETTER, we could eliminate women altogether.

      Well, this being Slashdot, I think we've already got that one covered.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    3. Re:What exactly is the main thrust of the study? by Xistenz99 · · Score: 2, Funny

      You said "thrust"

    4. Re:What exactly is the main thrust of the study? by binarybum · · Score: 1

      If it's to study "why men don't like condoms", as it is being widely reported, then yes, the study is a waste of money. The reason is obvious to anybody that's ever used one.

      Have you ever been to the NIH? While there are plenty more women than here on slashdot, the net sexual activity is probably pretty similar.

      --
      ôó
    5. Re:What exactly is the main thrust of the study? by JamesP · · Score: 1

      However, if the study is "how can we FIX what men don't like about condoms", then the study becomes very important,

      Well, that's a tough one...

      INCREASE ITS BLOODY DIAMETER, THAT'S HOW

      --
      how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
    6. Re:What exactly is the main thrust of the study? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Also, if they made one that felt BETTER, we could eliminate women altogether.

      Ribbed for his pleasure alone?

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    7. Re:What exactly is the main thrust of the study? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      If a condom could be constructed that didn't impede feeling at all, there would be huge benefits, a great reduction in unwanted pregnancies.

      Condoms made in the USA are notoriously bad quality. They sell "ultra-thin" brands overseas that are quality-checked for small holes via lasers.

    8. Re:What exactly is the main thrust of the study? by Ironica · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's probably as much to say "how can we market them better so that men make a different decision." It might be about redesign, but there are a lot of limiting factors; you can't make them looser without compromising their reliability... you have few choices of materials for stuff that's thin enough without being porous to viruses and sperm... and there's not a lot you can do about putting them on.

      Or maybe there is. Maybe they can design a cardboard sleeve applicator, so you just slide it around your member and pull it off and there ya go, no fuss no muss. That might help a bit. It'd be harder to keep in your pocket maybe... but they could probably make it fold flat. Sort of like a Hot Pocket sleeve.

      --
      Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
    9. Re:What exactly is the main thrust of the study? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to worry, so is every gay person.

    10. Re:What exactly is the main thrust of the study? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      INCREASE ITS BLOODY DIAMETER, That's how

      Your fault. You asked. .......

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    11. Re:What exactly is the main thrust of the study? by FleaPlus · · Score: 2, Informative

      However, if the study is "how can we FIX what men don't like about condoms", then the study becomes very important, and might benefit society immensely.

      From reading the actual research proposal abstract, yes, the goal of the research is determining what sorts of interventions will help encourage proper condom use:

      Grant Number: 1R21HD060447-01

      Project Title: Barriers to Correct Condom Use

      PI Information: Name Email Title
      JANSSEN, ERICK (Contact) ejanssen@indiana.edu PROFESSOR
      SANDERS, STEPHANIE A.

      Abstract: DESCRIPTION (provided by applicant): Sexually transmitted infections (STI), including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), pose significant health risks. About half of the new HIV infections in the US are among people under age 25 years with the majority infected through sexual behavior. About one in three new diagnoses with HIV/AIDS are attributed to heterosexual transmission. Men who have sex with women play a major role in HIV transmission to women who can also pass it on to offspring. Consistent and correct use of condoms can be a highly effective method of preventing the transmission of HIV and many STIs. Yet, studies show that problems with condom use are common and that these problems pose a barrier to consistent and complete condom use. This project aims to advance our understanding of, among other factors, the role of cognitive and affective processes and condom application skills in explaining problems with condom use in young, heterosexual adult men. A multi-method approach - consisting of two studies and involving questionnaires, observational, and psychophysiological methods - will be used in conjunction with a skill-based intervention. The knowledge gained from the proposed research can be used to inform the development of innovative, more effective, and targeted intervention and education strategies tailored to the needs of individuals who have trouble using condoms effectively. PUBLIC HEALTH RELEVANCE: Sexually transmitted infections (STI), including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), pose significant health risks. Consistent and correct use of condoms can be a highly effective method of preventing the transmission of HIV and many STIs, yet studies show that problems with condom use are common. This project is one of the first to examine under controlled conditions the role of cognitive and affective factors and condom skills in explaining condom use problems in young, heterosexual adult men.

    12. Re:What exactly is the main thrust of the study? by Kuciwalker · · Score: 1

      However, if the study is "how can we FIX what men don't like about condoms", then the study becomes very important, and might benefit society immensely. If a condom could be constructed that didn't impede feeling at all, there would be huge benefits, a great reduction in unwanted pregnancies.

      Even more of of a huge benefit: sex would be more fun.

    13. Re:What exactly is the main thrust of the study? by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      "The reason is obvious to anybody that's ever used one."

      No, it is only obvious to someone who has used one, and also not had sex without using one. Someone with no points of comparison will not know the difference in sensation. I was once told that the worst thing someone can do is have unprotected sex before they are married -- because they will not want to go back to using a condom.

      Of course, there are other issues, like the fact that in the middle of an intimate moment, one needs to stop, open the condom wrapper (not always easy to do), get it on one's penis (while maintain an erection -- and of course, having your partner help you maintain an erection makes opening the wrapper that much harder), and then go about doing your business. Speaking from my own experience, it is usually easy to forget about the disturbance caused by getting a condom on during an intimate moment, but I know men who do not feel the same way.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    14. Re:What exactly is the main thrust of the study? by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      I am of the opposite opinion. Condoms that are too wide kill it for me -- it feels like having a sandwich bag on. Too tight is an issue, of course, but I have generally found that a "normal sized" condom, which is snug but doesn't cut off circulation.

      For those who choose to reply to this: please keep the comments about penis size mature (yes, I know that now everyone is going to make an immature joke about it, but really, save them for a thread where they are not as relevant).

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    15. Re:What exactly is the main thrust of the study? by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      ...which is snug but doesn't cut off circulation is the best condom to have on.

      [Oops I left that bit out in my first post...]

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    16. Re:What exactly is the main thrust of the study? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      Also, if they made one that felt BETTER, we could eliminate women altogether.

      they did, it's called the FleshLight(tm)

    17. Re:What exactly is the main thrust of the study? by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      Also, if they made one that felt BETTER, we could eliminate women altogether.

      Fleshlight.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    18. Re:What exactly is the main thrust of the study? by REggert · · Score: 2, Informative

      Also, if they made one that felt BETTER, we could eliminate women altogether.

      You sir, are lining up for a darwin award.

      I'm intrigued as to why this was modded "Informative"....

      --

      cp /dev/zero ~/signature.txt

    19. Re:What exactly is the main thrust of the study? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Found at scene: two cases of "I can't believe it's a rubber".

    20. Re:What exactly is the main thrust of the study? by Tom · · Score: 1

      The reason is obvious to anybody that's ever used one.

      Just as it was obvious to anyone before, say, 1500 AD that light travels at infinite speed? Or to anyone before around 1880 AD that time is a constant? Or, to be blunt, to anyone in medieval Europe AD 1200 that God exists, the earth is flat and witches are evil?

      One of the jobs of science is to question the obvious, and replace "obvious" with "scientifically verified".

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    21. Re:What exactly is the main thrust of the study? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      clearly you've never heard of the fleshlight

    22. Re:What exactly is the main thrust of the study? by JamesP · · Score: 1

      Condoms that are too wide kill it for me -- it feels like having a sandwich bag on.

      I think I know how you feel, even though the 'sandwich bag effect' is not that bad for me.

      Problem is, they are so tight (for me) I cannot unroll them. (not in the whole). I then go for the 55mm diameter (the largest one that's easily available here) and still is difficult to unroll.

      All in all, it's a lot of manouvers to get it properly placed.

      --
      how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
    23. Re:What exactly is the main thrust of the study? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      There are devices which can produce stronger and more reliable orgasms (e.g. sybian for women), but that's missing an important point: sex isn't just about sensation, it's about making a connection with the other person.

      Condoms reduce the intimacy of sex. Even ignoring the physical barrier, it's like saying you don't trust the other person not fail at taking the pill/knowing their cycle and are worried that they are diseased.

      Of course, the post-sex cleanup is easier but that isn't the first thing on your mind when you have a raging boner.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    24. Re:What exactly is the main thrust of the study? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, if they made one that felt BETTER, we could eliminate women altogether.

      Turn the ribbed ones inside out.

    25. Re:What exactly is the main thrust of the study? by jitterman · · Score: 1

      I just want a condom with frikkin' laser beams on it. Is that so difficult???

      --
      For conscience is the wound, and there's naught to staunch it
    26. Re:What exactly is the main thrust of the study? by commandlinegamer · · Score: 1

      I'm desperately trying to come up with a retort to that that involves sharks..

    27. Re:What exactly is the main thrust of the study? by DinDaddy · · Score: 1

      They sell "ultra-thin" brands overseas that are quality-checked for small holes via lasers.

      Don't the sharks' teeth make more holes?

    28. Re:What exactly is the main thrust of the study? by tim447 · · Score: 1

      He might be, but at least its a decent way to go!

    29. Re:What exactly is the main thrust of the study? by Toonol · · Score: 1

      The speed of light isn't a FEELING. It is obvious to me that apples are sweeter than potatoes. That FEELING is true, and scientific study can't prove or disprove that feeling. It can explain the feeling, quantify relative sugar amounts and so on, but it can't state that I'm not feeling what I'm feeling.

    30. Re:What exactly is the main thrust of the study? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or at least a spot advertising Fleshlights. :P

  21. Cheaper than treating AIDS for 1 1/2 people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
    >>"a project government watchdogs say is a nearly-half-a-million-dollar waste of taxpayer money"

    the lifetime cost of treating an HIV-positive person exceeds $400,000 and can run as high as $648,000

    (http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid19334.asp)

    So, if only TWO PEOPLE on government health care (Medicaid, Medicare, Veterans or Prisoners) DON'T get AIDS as a result of this study, then it saved us money.

    I'd say that's a pretty good investment.

    1. Re:Cheaper than treating AIDS for 1 1/2 people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you say "Fucking owned?" Thanks anon.

    2. Re:Cheaper than treating AIDS for 1 1/2 people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Why the hell do I have to pay for someone who chooses to get a disease? 98% or HIV infections are folks who made the choice to have unprotected sex or do IV drugs.

    3. Re:Cheaper than treating AIDS for 1 1/2 people by xednieht · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Letting them die costs nothing.

      We live, we F*CK, we die

      --

      Hope is the currency of fools
    4. Re:Cheaper than treating AIDS for 1 1/2 people by MrMista_B · · Score: 1

      And to carry on your thought, suicide is even cheaper. You're not a good person, are you?

    5. Re:Cheaper than treating AIDS for 1 1/2 people by xednieht · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nope.

      --

      Hope is the currency of fools
    6. Re:Cheaper than treating AIDS for 1 1/2 people by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      While i agree that your numbers might be correct, why is spending 400k for a 'mr obvious moment' worthwhile? 10 bucks for an 'official' pad of paper and and a random interview on the street would have been just as accurate.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    7. Re:Cheaper than treating AIDS for 1 1/2 people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love you.

      Fill my vagina with your sanctified cock and read me Psalms.

    8. Re:Cheaper than treating AIDS for 1 1/2 people by an+unsound+mind · · Score: 1

      CHOOSE to get a disease?

      Jesus Christ.

      Also, I call bullshit on your numbers. You pulled them out of your ass.

    9. Re:Cheaper than treating AIDS for 1 1/2 people by p!ngu · · Score: 1

      That's not true, and further, it's inhumane. Please try to avoid encouraging the death of people.

    10. Re:Cheaper than treating AIDS for 1 1/2 people by blueg3 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Simply reporting the "obvious" turns out not to be nearly as effective at obtaining useful information as performing studies. Of course, sometimes your studies show that the obvious answer was correct, but you don't know which studies those are a priori. (Also, while often summarized into simple, seemingly-simple statements, most studies gather substantially more useful information than the one-line summary.)

    11. Re:Cheaper than treating AIDS for 1 1/2 people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you, the Pope?

    12. Re:Cheaper than treating AIDS for 1 1/2 people by genner · · Score: 0, Troll

      Letting them die costs nothing.

      Burying a person is expensive too.

    13. Re:Cheaper than treating AIDS for 1 1/2 people by ZorbaTHut · · Score: 1

      Sure it does. Even ignoring the nontrivial funeral costs, there's opportunity costs versus what they would have contributed to society otherwise.

      And, hell, if he convinces one person to wear a condom so they, themselves, don't get AIDS, he's already paid for his own treatment.

      --
      Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
    14. Re:Cheaper than treating AIDS for 1 1/2 people by Sobrique · · Score: 1

      Particularly things carrying quite as much emotional baggage as sex. People will often lie or distort the truth when it comes to sex.

    15. Re:Cheaper than treating AIDS for 1 1/2 people by xednieht · · Score: 1

      Society would be better off if fewer people "contributed to it".

      Funny how people are so concerned about 1 1/2 people, yet stand by silent when 100's of women and children are murdered by bombs.

      --

      Hope is the currency of fools
    16. Re:Cheaper than treating AIDS for 1 1/2 people by xednieht · · Score: 1

      This world is inhumane. The only thing I encourage is the cessation of genocide in the name of national security.

      --

      Hope is the currency of fools
    17. Re:Cheaper than treating AIDS for 1 1/2 people by xednieht · · Score: 1

      Not really

      --

      Hope is the currency of fools
    18. Re:Cheaper than treating AIDS for 1 1/2 people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about no GOV healthcare you dalt

    19. Re:Cheaper than treating AIDS for 1 1/2 people by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      "the lifetime cost of treating an HIV-positive person exceeds $400,000 and can run as high as $648,000"

      Of course, one could assert that the government has no business rescuing people from their OWN SHITTY LIFE CHOICES (then the lifetime cost would be $0), but that would apparently be too radical for 2009. :(

      --
      -Styopa
    20. Re:Cheaper than treating AIDS for 1 1/2 people by Dark_Gravity · · Score: 1

      Letting them die costs nothing.

      Burying a person is expensive too.

      That's why we have cremation.

    21. Re:Cheaper than treating AIDS for 1 1/2 people by gonz · · Score: 1

      Interesting point... except that a lifetime cost of $648,000 is worth way less than $400,000 up front. Give me $400,000 today, and I'll happily pay you $1800/month for the next 30 years. Just tell me where to send the checks! ;-)

      -Gonz

  22. Because they are a con by zmollusc · · Score: 5, Funny

    Condoms are the biggest con around. You have to buy them in a three pack, you use one to test for fit, then you notice they have a use-by date only four years away!!

    --
    They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
    1. Re:Because they are a con by Elitist_Phoenix · · Score: 5, Funny

      Condoms are the biggest con around. You have to buy them in a three pack, you use one to test for fit, then you notice they have a use-by date only four years away!!

      It called the "hooker pack". One to test, two to double bag it.

      --
      "I'm going to f***ing bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I'm going to f***ing kill Google"
    2. Re:Because they are a con by ignavus · · Score: 2, Funny

      But think of the fun you can have trying to make catapults with them.

      --
      I am anarch of all I survey.
    3. Re:Because they are a con by Durandal64 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Funny, but it's worth noting that double-bagging drastically decreases the condoms' effectiveness. Latex rubbing against latex will tear easily.

    4. Re:Because they are a con by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow... if you can't use a condom inside of four years, I think you may have other problems besides worrying about the loss of sensation...

    5. Re:Because they are a con by PPH · · Score: 1

      And what are the odds that two unrelated females will wander into your parents' basement over the next four years (not counting female cats).

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    6. Re:Because they are a con by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...double-bagging drastically decreases the condoms' effectiveness...

      But tea-bagging increases it.

    7. Re:Because they are a con by Elitist_Phoenix · · Score: 1

      Funny, but it's worth noting that double-bagging drastically decreases the condoms' effectiveness. Latex rubbing against latex will tear easily.

      I take your point and raise you another.
      You see, this is when you put Tabasco sauce/Deep-heat between the layers, so if one of them does break you find out real fast!

      --
      "I'm going to f***ing bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I'm going to f***ing kill Google"
    8. Re:Because they are a con by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      You should apply for a grant. Remember: cheap hot sauce, expensive female models.

    9. Re:Because they are a con by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (not counting female cats).

      What about us furries, you insensitive clod!

    10. Re:Because they are a con by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Condoms are the biggest con around. You have to buy them in a three pack, you use one to test for fit, then you notice they have a use-by date only four years away!!

      That's why you use the "display item" to test for fit in the store.

    11. Re:Because they are a con by Rufty · · Score: 1

      But in Germany you get packs of seven, one for each day of the week. And in France the "nine pack" with two-a-day for the weekend. And in England a full twelve. January, February...

      --
      Red to red, black to black. Switch it on, but stand well back.
    12. Re:Because they are a con by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      then you notice they have a use-by date only four years away!!
      Maybe have sex more often?

    13. Re:Because they are a con by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      You're new here, aren't you?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    14. Re:Because they are a con by rgviza · · Score: 1

      That's right, you need to use the triple steel belted radial condom in that situation.

      --
      Don't kid yourself. It's the size of the regexp AND how you use it that counts.
    15. Re:Because they are a con by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      ... unrelated ...

      I'm not picky, you insensitive clod!

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
  23. Geeks all over the US can finally say by Freaky+Spook · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Come on baby, it's for science!"

    1. Re:Geeks all over the US can finally say by calmofthestorm · · Score: 1

      They've been saying that for years. I bet it will continue to work as well as it ever has.

      --
      93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
    2. Re:Geeks all over the US can finally say by Memroid · · Score: 1

      Fine... I'll be in the control group

    3. Re:Geeks all over the US can finally say by laejoh · · Score: 0

      My xkcd t-shirt will come in handy!

  24. DUH! by LoRdTAW · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Because bareback is the way mother nature intended and it feels a hell of allot better. My first girlfriend at first insisted on using condoms each time and I had no problem with that. Then one night right in the heat of the moment my rubber broke while putting it on. She pretty much just said to hell with it and we did it with no condom. At that point we liked the feeling so much better that we stopped using condoms and I just pulled out every time. After a scare she decided to go on birth control which increased the fun as I could now finish the job without worrying about being a father. She put on some weight (like 7 pounds) and that was enough for her to quit the pill. We went out for three years and contraception was only used for a total of about 6 months of that with no pregnancy. Not too bad. Although after her I always use rubbers after learning a friend got his girlfriend pregnant even though he pulled out.

    So its a big fucking no duh as to why men don't want to use rubbers. I still wish I could be that naive and uncaring but I have to be smart.

    1. Re:DUH! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a friend got his girlfriend pregnant even though he pulled out

      How unexpected...

    2. Re:DUH! by broken_chaos · · Score: 1

      WARNING: Story may not reflect your experiences. Do not attempt.

    3. Re:DUH! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy tard!

      Did they teach sex-ed at your school or what? Pulling out doesn't work because some guys have "pre-cum" and don't know it. Based on your experiences you or your ex-girlfriend might have fertility issues and be blissfully unaware. Never-mind STDs.

      "pulling out", rhythm method, etc. do work some what but have a very high failure rate. Get some sex-ed and save some lives man!

    4. Re:DUH! by swb · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It kind of mirrored my experiences.

      I was actually a reluctant but fairly consistent condom user but I kept dating these women who generally wanted me to stop using a condom and "just pull out". It seems strange but I would say about 75% of the time it was the *women* who instigated the reckless birth control. Of course since it felt like 10000 times better, I went along with it.

      One woman, who until she got on the pill a couple months after we started dating, was a fairly strong believer in the rhythm method. According to her explanation, which generally lines up with what I've read, it's harder than you think to get pregnant -- you basically have about a 48-72 hour window per month, otherwise it isn't going to happen. Of course it's not perfect, but it must account for a lot of the otherwise dumb luck myself and others have had.

    5. Re:DUH! by Tibor+the+Hun · · Score: 4, Interesting

      PULL OUT!?
      are you retarded or did you go to a private school?

      Do they not teach you kids that you can squeeze out juices prior to finishing, for the purpose of lubrication?
      Good grief. Well, good for you and your girlfriend.

      I got my wife pregnant while using spermicide, so that just goes to show that even with protection you can end up with what the mother nature intended for you.
      (And also that my little spermies are unstoppable!!!)

      --
      If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
    6. Re:DUH! by pi_rules · · Score: 4, Informative

      You know, before you call somebody retarded you should check your facts.

      Spermicide failure rate perfect use: 18%
      Spermicide failure rate for typical use: 29%

      Pulling out failure rate for pefect use: 4%
      Pulling out failure rate for typical use: 15-28%.

      So, under typical usage they're about equal. However, if you're good at pulling out you'll be the pants off spermicide.

    7. Re:DUH! by iNaya · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My last girlfriend and I used condoms AND the rhythm method, and she still got pregnant. I broke up with her because she aborted the child - this after saying about gazillion times over 4 years that she wanted a child with me. It was always my idea to use protection. Anyway, I've abstained from sex (but not sexual activity) and relationships since, 19 months now.

      --
      The Unicode standard is over 20 years old. Why does Slashdot not support it?
    8. Re:DUH! by walshy007 · · Score: 1

      I broke up with her because she aborted the child

      Er, perhaps she thought it was better to leave it until she thought she was ready to have a child? It is quite possible to want to have a kid with someone, but know that in the current situation it would not be fair to the kid.

    9. Re:DUH! by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Now do the math on the probability of conception if you have sex once a day for a week.

    10. Re:DUH! by shermo · · Score: 1

      Now read the wikipedia article he linked.

      --
      Insanity: voting in the same two parties over and over again and expecting different results
    11. Re:DUH! by pi_rules · · Score: 1

      The figures are normalized to account for a year of using that specific method. It's not a per-incident value.

      I'm not sure why this data surprises people. Ejaculating outside of a woman is pretty good at preventing pregnancy. It's basic biology.

    12. Re:DUH! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not too bad. Although after her I always use rubbers after learning a friend got his girlfriend pregnant even though he pulled out.

      So its a big fucking no duh as to why men don't want to use rubbers. I still wish I could be that naive and uncaring but I have to be smart.

      Smart??!?! You got a long way to go if you were fucking for three years (at least) before finding out that pulling out is meaningless.

      When did you find out fucking can give you babies?

    13. Re:DUH! by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 1

      However, if you're good at pulling out you'll be the pants off spermicide.

      And you get to find creative places to put it.

    14. Re:DUH! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because pulling out NEVER WORKS. You just got extremely lucky. Extremely. Lucky.

    15. Re:DUH! by devotedlhasa · · Score: 1

      You know what they call people who use the rhythm method?... Parents

    16. Re:DUH! by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Yeah, my bad. To be fair, the OP posted a failure rate with no denominator. Also, giving an annual failure rate for birth control is pretty silly since the individual value will vary wildly depending on how often you have sex.

    17. Re:DUH! by pbhj · · Score: 1

      We went out for three years and contraception was only used for a total of about 6 months of that with no pregnancy.

      Sperm come out before ejaculation. So I was thinking you're probably impotent or at least have poor sperm motility. Turns out that studies suggest ( eg http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/reprints/Contraception79-407-410.pdf from this month, June 2009; see http://menstrualpoetry.com/withdrawal-viable-method-contraception for a summary) that couples practising withdrawal have a 4% chance of pregnancy in a year vs. a 2% chance with a condom ... provided you do it perfectly! If you slip up the chances rise to 18% (vs. 17% with a condom). So you're only twice as likely to get pregnant using withdrawal perfectly as opposed to a condom. Ignoring your risks for STD/STIs of course.

      This could mean that the general population have potency problems too. Other studies show a general decline in sperm quality.

      My instinct is to blame oestrogen like compounds in personally grooming products (shampoos, etc.).

    18. Re:DUH! by bokske · · Score: 1

      Let me be the first to say that ....errr ... my parents used the rhythm method ... so ... here I am.

      My mother told me later that, back in the seventies, the method had something to do with minute monthly variations in temperature, she had to watch the fractions of a degree on a fever thermometer in order to figure out which was the "allowed" part of the monthly cycle. Anyway it instilled the firm belief in me that this method is medieval rubbish, so I'm astonished that it should still be in use to date.

    19. Re:DUH! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My last girlfriend and I used condoms AND the rhythm method, and she still got pregnant.

      By whom?

    20. Re:DUH! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Was your kids skin color different?

    21. Re:DUH! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I'm using rhythm and pulling out methods, and the resulting sex is lousy. Is it worth it?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  25. Get back on k5 already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    we miss yuor vertispam

  26. Thank F*ck by Elitist_Phoenix · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Finally our tax dollars doing something useful :-P

    --
    "I'm going to f***ing bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I'm going to f***ing kill Google"
  27. Re:Easy Answer by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 5, Informative

    No man would rather wear a condom if people didn't have pregnancies and STDs to worry about.

    There should be more R&D funding into liquid condoms, which are basically a spermicidal lube infused with nonoxynol-9. Problem is that many women complain about nonoxynol-9 being too harsh, causing itching or burning. Nevertheless, the liquid condom would be the best solution because, let's face it, condoms do not prevent bodily juices from getting into uncovered parts.

    Finally, condom manufacturers should offer more variance with respect to sizes. My favorite kind, Trojan Large, have been discontinued. The Magnums are too large for my weenie and regulars are too tight.

    My endorsements for men with slightly above-average penises are Kimono and jimmiehatz, which are black and may be weird for you and your partner if having a black dick is a problem.

  28. k5 is dead to me by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    i could handle all of the griefers and lamers and the dupes

    but the racism really bothers me

    i thought nothing in that cesspool would get to me, but k5 just kept sinking and getting sleazier by the day. so now i know my limits: i can't handle racists, i have nothing for them except revulsion

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:k5 is dead to me by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      Wow, I thought you were a lifer there. I left it ages ago for similar reasons. It's a real shame because it used to be a great place for an interesting argument.

    2. Re:k5 is dead to me by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

      K5: "I just read it for the bees"

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    3. Re:k5 is dead to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> bees

      tards?

    4. Re:k5 is dead to me by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 1

      no the stories written by the beekeeper dude.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    5. Re:k5 is dead to me by Nursie · · Score: 1

      Those were awesome.

      K5 is likewise dead to me, and has been for a while now. Shame, in the old days I did have some great arguments. Some fun flamewars too...

  29. Re:Easy Answer by Manip · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Men who disregard birth-control entirely are dicks. Condoms are pretty universally unpopular amongst men and are somewhat unpopular with women too.

    Why? You're stretching a piece of rubber across places and both parties are fully aware of that fact. Do I need to explain more?

  30. Its the ladies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As soon as the lady friend looks at you as a serious boyfriend they want to get rid of the condom. So to keep the rika-rika going the man says sure. Why the lady says that? Get another $400,000.
    But don't ask anyone on Slash/Virgin.

  31. No... by RichardJenkins · · Score: 5, Funny

    Two reasons: 1. I'm too drunk to know better 2. I'm usually by myself

    1. Re:No... by Elitist_Phoenix · · Score: 1

      Two reasons:

          1. I'm too drunk to know better
          2. I'm usually by myself

      So does this mean you crying about your daddy issues "during the moment" doesn't matter so much?

      --
      "I'm going to f***ing bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I'm going to f***ing kill Google"
  32. err by screamphilling · · Score: 1, Funny

    I think guys are biologically programmed to want to cum as deep inside a girl as possible. (at least I am) It feels so much better and more fulfilling. Whenever I clear the pipes inside the condom (at least when the reservoir is small) it's always disappointing. I can feel it hit that latex barrier. Even with pulling out, you've always gotta go somewhere. The second best place is the mouth of course...

    My girlfriend says that she finds it hott when I cum inside her.

    Granted, condoms are definitely worth it for the risk-reducing factor. The new Durex Avanti synthetic latex are pretty nice. Reservoir stretches out pretty nicely. Also the natural-lamb but they are hella expensive and don't prevent stds...

  33. How much do you think AIDS costs society? by Nicolas+MONNET · · Score: 0, Troll

    Such short sightedness, you gotta be a Repub.

  34. Re:Easy Answer by Klistvud · · Score: 4, Funny

    $423,500? They must be joking. They'll never get any firm results unless they come up with some hard, pulsating cash.

    --
    Intellectual Property: an immaterial non-entity, most fiercely contended by those with no proper intellect to speak of.
  35. Re:Easy Answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    No man would rather wear a condom if people didn't have pregnancies and STDs to worry about.

    Cpt. Obvious, is that you?

  36. Another political cheap shot at public expense by tgibbs · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I knew when I saw this news item that it would turn out to be dishonest. There is one very obvious reason why men don't like to wear condoms ("it doesn't feel as good...duh"). So I suspected immediately that this isn't actually what the study is about, and it's just a matter of a politician or lobbyist phrasing it this way to try to score a cheap shot at the expense of the public welfare. Because, of course, there is a huge public benefit to condoms: The reduce unwanted pregnancies, which often end up imposing a substantial financial and social burden on the public. And they reduce the spread of diseases that also end up costing the public money, not to mention placing those dear to us in peril--sometimes mortal peril.

    And while men don't much like condoms, there are many reasons for them to want to use them--to protect themselves against disease, to protect themselves against unwanted financial obligations, and even out of consideration for their partner's well-being.

    So any change that would shift that balance a bit to encourage correct usage of condoms, even by a small amount, could provide a huge public benefit.

    But of course, there are always going to be some selfish people who don't care about protecting other people's health, or reducing the financial burden on the public from diseases and unwanted pregnancies. All they see is a chance to score a benefit for themselves or their own cause--and if it ultimately at the expense of the public, well, that's not their problem.

    1. Re:Another political cheap shot at public expense by mattwarden · · Score: 1

      If you think it's a good idea, then why don't you and like-minded individuals pay for the research? Or perhaps you have a reason why this must be funded by federal tax dollars?

    2. Re:Another political cheap shot at public expense by ndogg · · Score: 1

      I'm scratching my head as to how you got modded insightful. The spending on this is pittance.

      There is one very obvious reason why men don't like to wear condoms ("it doesn't feel as good...duh").

      That's a good hypothesis. There should be data to back up that claim. If there isn't, there's no science to stand behind that claim.

      But of course, there are always going to be some selfish people who don't care about protecting other people's health, or reducing the financial burden on the public from diseases and unwanted pregnancies. All they see is a chance to score a benefit for themselves or their own cause--and if it ultimately at the expense of the public, well, that's not their problem.

      Of course, but if better condoms could be made, they'd have one less reason not to use them, and be more inclined towards them.

      --
      // file: mice.h
      #include "frickin_lasers.h"
    3. Re:Another political cheap shot at public expense by tgibbs · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you think it's a good idea, then why don't you and like-minded individuals pay for the research?

      I pay taxes too. So if it makes you happier, feel free to imagine that it is my tax dollars and those of other "like-minded" individuals that are paying for this project, while your tax dollars pay for the activities (of which I suspect there are quite a few) that you favor and I do not.

      Or perhaps you have a reason why this must be funded by federal tax dollars?

      You mean, aside from the fact that enhancing condom use will save you me, and everybody money by reducing costs associated with unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases such as Hep B and HIV? And aside from the fact that the research was approved by an expert peer review panel of scientists with the actual knowledge and experience to judge the scientific merit of the project and the benefits for public health?

    4. Re:Another political cheap shot at public expense by Sobrique · · Score: 1

      There is one very obvious reason why men don't like to wear condoms ("it doesn't feel as good...duh").

      Actually I'd refute that one. If your objective is to blow your load as fast as possible, then sure. If your objective is to allow your partner to enjoy herself, then reduced sensitivity is actually a good thing. Indeed, there's even condoms sold with that notion in mind.
      I'd say the major drawback of a condom is that they're inconvenient - when you're putting it one before hand, and when you take it off after. But hey, it's a good reason we have a study, so we can actually get a scientific approach, rather than listening to anecdotes.

    5. Re:Another political cheap shot at public expense by mattwarden · · Score: 1

      > I pay taxes too. So if it makes you happier, feel free to imagine that
      > it is my tax dollars and those of other "like-minded" individuals that
      > are paying for this project, while your tax dollars pay for the
      > activities (of which I suspect there are quite a few) that you favor
      > and I do not.

      I prefer to "imagine" the way it really works.

      > You mean, aside from the fact that enhancing condom use will save
      > you me, and everybody money by reducing costs associated with
      > unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases such as Hep
      > B and HIV? And aside from the fact that the research was approved
      > by an expert peer review panel of scientists with the actual
      > knowledge and experience to judge the scientific merit of the
      > project and the benefits for public health?

      That doesn't explain why it has to be funded by federal tax dollars. If you can make such a great cost-benefit analysis, you'd think we wouldn't have to force people to pay for it.

    6. Re:Another political cheap shot at public expense by tgibbs · · Score: 1

      That doesn't explain why it has to be funded by federal tax dollars. If you can make such a great cost-benefit analysis, you'd think we wouldn't have to force people to pay for it.

      So I take it that you are in favor of ending public funding for the military, and running it on voluntary donations? After all, you can make a great cost-benefit analysis for national defense, so it shouldn't be necessary to force people to pay for it. We can fund national defense from voluntary donations.

      Or is that only a good argument when applied to something that you don't agree with?

    7. Re:Another political cheap shot at public expense by mattwarden · · Score: 1

      That is akin to asking if I favor removal of federal tax funding for public services in general. If you want to talk about specific items instead of just "national defense", then we can discuss whether it makes sense to fund them with tax funding or not. There is a ton of stuff under the umbrella of "national defense", and no not all of it should be funded with federal tax money.

    8. Re:Another political cheap shot at public expense by tgibbs · · Score: 1

      That is akin to asking if I favor removal of federal tax funding for public services in general.

      Correct. You have made an argument that if a great cost-benefit justification can be made for a service, then it should be supported by voluntary donations rather than compulsory tax revenues.

      If this argument has any validity at all, then it must apply to all services for which there is a great cost-benefit justification. So I am asking whether you really accept this argument, or whether you are merely using it as a club to beat on public projects that are not to your personal taste.

      The example I raised was for national defense. To keep it simple, lets restrict it to those aspects of national defense for which you agree that there is a great cost-benefit analysis. Do you or do you not feel that those aspects of National Defense should be supported by private donation (presumably leaving the federal government to support those aspects of National Defense for which there is not a good cost-benefit justification)?

    9. Re:Another political cheap shot at public expense by mattwarden · · Score: 1

      I don't know how to answer your question, because it's too vague. I wasn't trying to set you up. I need a specific item in order to respond.

      You're really mis-stating my argument, though. My argument is simply that I don't see a reason why most public services need to be provided by the federal government. I see why you took my comment about gathering like-minded individuals to the extreme, but what I was really trying to say is that if your state wants highways, then let it pay for highways. If your town wants public education, let it pay for public education. But it doesn't make sense that a tax payer in Alaska pay for local transit in Milwaukee, and that's where the force comes in (because there is no legitimate cost-benefit analysis for that tax payer in Alaska).

    10. Re:Another political cheap shot at public expense by tgibbs · · Score: 1

      You're really mis-stating my argument, though. My argument is simply that I don't see a reason why most public services need to be provided by the federal government. I see why you took my comment about gathering like-minded individuals to the extreme, but what I was really trying to say is that if your state wants highways, then let it pay for highways.

      I suppose that one could argue that if the benefits of a project accrue almost entirely to residents of a particular region, that it should be primarily funded by residents of that region. There are counter-arguments as well, but this seems quite irrelevant to the issue at hand. It is not as people only get pregnant in Alaska, or catch HIV in Milwaukee. And the knowledge attained from basic research is not a highway, it crosses state boarders, and is shared by all.

    11. Re:Another political cheap shot at public expense by mattwarden · · Score: 1

      Are you suggesting that men have the same incidence of HIV across the country? Are you suggesting that men refuse to use condoms in the same proportion across the country? Are you suggesting that this is not a problem outside the borders of the US? Again, if all states have this problem and would benefit from the research, then have them pay for the research voluntarily rather than by force. It seems that the government loves red tape, unless it involves getting buy-in from the people funding the effort.

    12. Re:Another political cheap shot at public expense by tgibbs · · Score: 1

      Are you suggesting that men have the same incidence of HIV across the country? Are you suggesting that men refuse to use condoms in the same proportion across the country?

      No, I am suggesting that STDs and unwanted pregnancies, are problems everywhere. Given variations in diagnosis and reporting, accurately determining exact incidence on a state-by-level would be time-consuming and probably expensive. I suppose that you could propose a federally-funded study study to do this, but you would have to convince a NIH study section that such a study has a realistic chance of yielding significant benefits for public health. That would be particularly difficult these days. The NIH budget has been tight for several years, and NIH study sections are highly critical--only the top few percent of grant proposals, judged by panels of expert scientists as having the best chance of yielding information that will benefit public heath, are receiving funding.

  37. Reminds me of my "ex" blow up doll by Bob_Who · · Score: 1

    ....every time I see the rubber it reminds me of her.

  38. Needs to be a blinded, controlled study: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Man has sex 100 times, randomized half with condom, half without and he doesn't know which during the sex.
    Rate each time and see if sex with condom isn't as good.

    I volunteer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  39. Cutting to comercials. by fenring · · Score: 2, Funny

    Men hate condoms because it's like cutting to comercials right before the end of a good movie. You're really into the story, you really want to find out who's the killer and then Bam! five minute break. Might as well go get a sandwich or something.

    1. Re:Cutting to comercials. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea I mean its fine for her to stop you and say "wait what about the condom" but when I try to leave to go make a sandwich I'm "ruining the moment" and "weird"

  40. Re:cheap wow gold by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    blech, a spammer here too!

    please, next time use a condom or you too might father a child who grows up to be a goldspammer.

  41. Re:Easy Answer by Hubbell · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'll give them the answer for free, but I'll gladly take a 50k donation, or even 1k:
    IRC log which html in slashdot posts is gonna fuck up, but oh well:

    [19:39] Hubbell> 450k to find out why men don't like condoms [19:39] Hubbell> are they serious? [19:39] Hubbell> i can tell you why [19:39] Hubbell> cause they reduce the sensation [19:39] Hubbell> and [19:39] Hubbell> its so much more enjoyable to bust inside a bitch [19:39] Hubbell> than to bust inside a condom [19:39] Hubbell> mother fucking common sense
    bam. answered in under a minute.

  42. Re:Easy Answer by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Or to quote a Farker when the same story showed up there the other day:

    "Same reason you don't like eating steak with a balloon an your tongue... you can feel it, but you can't taste it."

    --
    A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
  43. Japanese condoms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I always thought Japan was way ahead of N. America when it came to condom manufacturing. A lot of the Japanese condoms I've tried (Crown, Kimono, etc.) are very thin, yet strong. It almost feels like you are wearing nothing at all.

  44. Easy solution. by B5_geek · · Score: 4, Funny

    I discovered that housepaint is made from latex. Condoms are made from latex.

    Now I keep a can of Sears Weather-beater next to my bed.

    --
    "The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
    1. Re:Easy solution. by PPH · · Score: 1

      Hmmm. My house is pink and has a floppy tip.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:Easy solution. by 4181 · · Score: 1

      Now I keep a can of Sears Weather-beater next to my bed.

      This is the start of a serious idea: Spray-On Condoms: Still a Hard Sell

      Trouble seems to be drying time:

      Liquid latex currently takes two to three minutes to vulcanize, making it impractical. "For people to buy it," Krause says, "it needs to be ready in five to 10 seconds."

    3. Re:Easy solution. by Elitist_Phoenix · · Score: 1

      The next question is which item takes priority on your bedside table/beer cartoon... the bottle of moonshine, the shotgun shells or that can of paint?

      --
      "I'm going to f***ing bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I'm going to f***ing kill Google"
    4. Re:Easy solution. by Elitist_Phoenix · · Score: 1

      Oh and to preempt you grammar/spelling nazi's... screw you!

      --
      "I'm going to f***ing bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I'm going to f***ing kill Google"
    5. Re:Easy solution. by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      I'm scared of the use of that word "vulcanize". To vulcanize rubber you impregnate it with sulphur and then place it on a oven-hot iron.

    6. Re:Easy solution. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Now I keep a can of Sears Weather-beater next to my bed."

      Something tells me you're only being partly honest, and that you've got "Master-beater" instead.

    7. Re:Easy solution. by OverZealous.com · · Score: 1

      I discovered that housepaint is made from latex. Condoms are made from latex.

      Now I keep a can of Sears Weather-beater next to my bed.

      So, just Dip It 'N' Stick It?

    8. Re:Easy solution. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I discovered that housepaint is made from latex. Condoms are made from latex.

      Now I keep a can of Sears Weather-beater next to my bed.

      Thats going to be painful to maintain... watching paint dry and all that.

    9. Re:Easy solution. by MadKeithV · · Score: 1

      I'm scared of the use of that word "vulcanize". To vulcanize rubber you impregnate it with sulphur and then place it on a oven-hot iron.

      I agree, "Impregnate" is a very bad choice of words when talking about condoms.

  45. anonymous coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Being asked to wear a condom is like being offered a sumptuous feast prepared by your favorite chef and then being told you won't be able to taste it. Sure, you can eat the meal, feel somewhat sated afterward, but you've lost all the delicate and bold flavors, the textures and sensations. You've lost the joy of the experience, even if you aren't [as] hungry afterward.

  46. Is this a joke? by MrCrassic · · Score: 1

    If you have to pay researchers to study why men don't like condoms, then that says a LOT for the sexual lives of both parties.

    Seriously, folks, this is why school isn't just about academics.

    1. Re:Is this a joke? by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      I learned from school never to assume that what you think you know is true. Studies like this might seem like a waste, but they could also reveal something obvious that's never been considered. Maybe this information can be used to change the entire design of a condom, or the packaging, or the odor? There's not a lot of bad research IMO.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  47. And this is how this happened... by mauthbaux · · Score: 4, Funny

    from Drs. Erick Janssen and Stephanie Sanders, both of the Kinsey Institute.

    Erick: Hey Steph, I'll give you $100,000.00 if you sleep with me a few times.
    Stephanie: How many times is a few?
    Erick: Until we reach statistical significance.
    Steph: Cash?
    Erick: Sure.

    Two weeks later, Erick pockets the other 300 Grand.

    --
    "Operating systems suck: you're better off using only the BIOS" --trainsaw.com
    1. Re:And this is how this happened... by Ihmhi · · Score: 1
  48. Why do they only think of the men? by GabriellaKat · · Score: 3, Informative

    A lot of women don't like for men to wear them also. And it doesn't matter what flavor they come in.

    --
    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your politician, and hitting them?"
    1. Re:Why do they only think of the men? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since no one backed you up here (other than by moderation), I'm a man and my (monogamous, known-each-other-for-years) friend with benefits was the one to tell me she didn't want us to use them. She would fully agree with you.

  49. Well done sir! by jasonmanley · · Score: 1

    Funniest comeback evah!

    --
    http://projectleader.wordpress.com
    1. Re:Well done sir! by eltaco · · Score: 1

      Cpt. Obvious, is that you?

      --
      It's not about fate, it's about character.
      there be no shelter here, the frontline is everywhere!
  50. you have a tastebuds on your penis? by circletimessquare · · Score: 3, Funny

    i suppose its better than olfactory nerves

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:you have a tastebuds on your penis? by dargaud · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not taste buds, but actually yes, bodily fluids go both ways through the mucous of the vagina and the gland. Hormones like oxytocin and vasopressin contribute to bonding between partners. This is probably why after condom sex, you just get up to go throw the damn thing away, while in the other case you cuddle ! It's also why having a dried up and chaffed gland because of genital mutilation cuts down on the pleasure of sex.

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    2. Re:you have a tastebuds on your penis? by Dark_Gravity · · Score: 1

      It's also why having a dried up and chaffed gland because of genital mutilation cuts down on the pleasure of sex.

      Perhaps you mean glans.

    3. Re:you have a tastebuds on your penis? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those hormones contribute to bonding, yes. But you produce them yourself, you don't absorb them with your penis from other peoples orifices... if that were the case, then skullfucking would be the most effective way to bond with a person since both hormones are produced in the brain :/

  51. Women don't like either by siriuskase · · Score: 1

    Feels like masturbating with a pink pearl (TM)

    --
    If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
  52. am i the only one.... by CaptainNerdCave · · Score: 2, Insightful

    that has complaints about the false sense of security that condoms offer?
    how many of us have experienced condoms breaking during intercourse? what about when they start rolling back just a little, and then come off during intercourse?

    alternatively, i have also tried a few different types of condoms, and the ones that i thought were best were the sheepskin type and a micro-thin type. in all seriousness, they were not noticeable... but i still don't trust them enough.

    1. Re:am i the only one.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what about when they start rolling back just a little, and then come off during intercourse?
      Yes, I have experienced that! That was a long two weeks of worrying. I agree that the sheepskin type and a micro-thin types are best

  53. Abstract from NIH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From the NIH CRISP db:

    http://crisp.cit.nih.gov/crisp/CRISP_LIB.getdoc?textkey=7619840&p_grant_num=1R21HD060447-01&p_query=(condom)&ticket=97286703&p_audit_session_id=473066379&p_audit_score=100&p_audit_numfound=1&p_keywords=condom

    Abstract: DESCRIPTION (provided by applicant): Sexually transmitted infections (STI), including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), pose significant health risks. About half of the new HIV infections in the US are among people under age 25 years with the majority infected through sexual behavior. About one in three new diagnoses with HIV/AIDS are attributed to heterosexual transmission. Men who have sex with women play a major role in HIV transmission to women who can also pass it on to offspring. Consistent and correct use of condoms can be a highly effective method of preventing the transmission of HIV and many STIs. Yet, studies show that problems with condom use are common and that these problems pose a barrier to consistent and complete condom use. This project aims to advance our understanding of, among other factors, the role of cognitive and affective processes and condom application skills in explaining problems with condom use in young, heterosexual adult men. A multi-method approach - consisting of two studies and involving questionnaires, observational, and psychophysiological methods - will be used in conjunction with a skill-based intervention. The knowledge gained from the proposed research can be used to inform the development of innovative, more effective, and targeted intervention and education strategies tailored to the needs of individuals who have trouble using condoms effectively. PUBLIC HEALTH RELEVANCE: Sexually transmitted infections (STI), including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), pose significant health risks. Consistent and correct use of condoms can be a highly effective method of preventing the transmission of HIV and many STIs, yet studies show that problems with condom use are common. This project is one of the first to examine under controlled conditions the role of cognitive and affective factors and condom skills in explaining condom use problems in young, heterosexual adult men.

  54. Women need to help by StCredZero · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Pretty naked girl overrides sanity

    The savvy ones can use that power to order a guy to do anything. If they can keep you wondering, they can get you to agree to use one. The pretty ones with good self esteem also realize that they have other choices if you don't want to cooperate.

  55. Too Small by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I went through about 8 years of unprotected sex before I started using condoms.
    It always stressed me out a ton, and I tried to use them but I would lose my erection in less than 10 seconds every time..

    So it was either no sex AT ALL, EVER. Or unprotected sex.
    I talked about that problem, and asked for help, but all I got was a bunch of bullshit answers.
    Try having the girl put the condom on.. etc lame stuff that like that, which had absolutely nothing to do with the issue.

    The issue was that the condoms were too small (circumference), and they were cutting off my circulation!
    When I moved up to the larger sized condoms, suddenly everything worked for me.

    So I'd like to give a big f-you to our education system for failing me and exposing me to years of risk needlessly.
    I went for help with this issue multiple times and nobody every told me the real problem.

    It doesn't feel the same as raw - but my god condoms are a lot better now that they're the right size.
    And no - this is not some "my penis is big" internet tough guy lame speech.

    Unprotected sex is a pretty serious health risk, and I can't be the only guy that had this problem

    1. Re:Too Small by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've bought a variety of brands at big chain drug stores and had no problems.

      Bought a few (at a hideously high price, of course) as part of an "intimacy pack" from a hotel minibar because we forgot to bring any from home.

      Unusably small. As the parent said, I could barely keep it up and could barely get them on.

      So now I'm a bit fussier about what I buy, and always remember to bring with when we go somewhere.

      Personally, I would rather not use a condom, but my wife is on enough meds already. And no vasectomy, I want (insist) on being a dad one of these days.

  56. Re:Easy Answer by taucross · · Score: 3, Funny

    That's anecdotal, there is no scientific method in that statement. You can't trust pure sensation when science is involved.

    PS correlation isn't causation.

    --
    "In the absence of the ability to establish the attribute of truth they tried to establish the noble attributes."
  57. Study procedure by PPH · · Score: 1

    Hold plastic bag over the head of the NIH director until he hands over the $400K.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Study procedure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A technique being studied by David Carradine, actually

  58. Um... by njfuzzy · · Score: 1

    Because they don't let my penis touch the vagina (which is the whole idea). You can have that answer for 10% of the cost of the study.

    --
    My Photography - http://ian-x.com
    The Deathlings (comic) - http://thedeathlings.com
    1. Re:Um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey I'm gay you insensitive clod!

    2. Re:Um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're still not touching the inside of a vagina.

  59. Re:Easy Answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Magnums are too large for my weenie and regulars are too tight.

    heheheh you said weenie.

    captcha: itself

  60. Re:Easy Answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    No man would rather wear a condom if people didn't have pregnancies and STDs to worry about. There should be more R&D funding into liquid condoms, which are basically a spermicidal lube infused with nonoxynol-9.

    "Although [nonoxynol-9] was at one time widely promoted as a protection against sexually transmitted infections including HIV, subsequent studies have shown that it can in fact increase the risk of infection by damaging the physical barriers of the rectum or vagina."- Wikipedia (with reference!)

    So, not much help on the STD level.

  61. Re:Easy Answer by neokushan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Not to mention the fact that putting the thing on and taking it off afterwards are instant romance-killers. Just when you're getting all worked up and ready to dive in, you have to stop, fumble around looking for the damn things, then spend a solid 30 seconds messing with it because your dick is ever so slightly fatter than the average dick, then when you're all done and dusted, you have to take it off and clean yourself up.

    Whereas the alternative is, more or less, get all hot and bothered, get down to it, then roll over panting and sweating. If you're doing it right.

    That's without even considering the "It feels better" argument.
    Still, unless you don't mind having kids or seeing your dick fall off 3 weeks later, they're a necessary evil.

    --
    +1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
  62. I research condom use in teens... by thesandtiger · · Score: 5, Informative

    ... and the study mentioned in the article makes perfect sense. The article is propaganda that intentionally misunderstands what the study is about in order to stir up their readership.

    In one of our studies of (mostly queer) sexually active teenagers. One of the key things we look at is condom use knowledge and condom errors. Most people know that they should use a condom if they're having sex, but quite a large swath of the population doesn't know how to *properly* use them and what they do and do not protect against. Some people are perfectly willing to use condoms, but they get frustrated because they're using them wrong, and so the condoms break or come off, and they stop using them out of frustration.

    One measure we give is we have 20 different "steps" for using a condom properly, and they're out of order, and some are not real steps. Out of ~250 teenagers, most of whom have taken sex ed, been exposed to safer sex info all their lives, only 6 got that exercise 100% correct (all real steps in proper order, all fake steps removed), and only 42 got all the real steps in the correct order (but kept some of the fake steps). The kids have been taught, but retention isn't so hot - we're coming up with better ways to teach this.

    Another measure we have is taking an inventory of experiences with recent condom use, and most of our participants report some level of difficulty with condom use, with most of those reports coming along the lines of it being too confusing to remember all of the steps they were taught while in the heat of the moment etc. They want to use condoms, but they've learned all of that in a very "academic" environment - we're trying to develop interventions that will help teach people how to handle themselves when they're not at their most rational.

    A final measure we give which is related to condom use is an HIV & STI knowledge quiz with true, false and "don't know" answers. Most of our participants score 70% or better, but certain segments average scores below 30%. By identifying the lagging segments and then examining what it is that is leading to this dearth of HIV & STI knowledge, we're able to come up with plans to get this information out to those groups because the current techniques clearly aren't working.

    It's neither an obvious nor simple area of research, despite what some in this thread will say. $400k to potentially save quite a few lives (or protect the quality of many lives) is a bargain. If you're a wretched excuse for a human being and you think that people who get HIV "deserve" it, you probably don't care that a lifetime of treatment for a single case of HIV infection will run around $400-500k (minimum) so this kind of research is also cost effective from that standpoint.

    --
    Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
    1. Re:I research condom use in teens... by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ... and the study mentioned in the article makes perfect sense. The article is propaganda that intentionally misunderstands what the study is about in order to stir up their readership.

      In one of our studies of (mostly queer) sexually active teenagers. One of the key things we look at is condom use knowledge and condom errors. Most people know that they should use a condom if they're having sex, but quite a large swath of the population doesn't know how to *properly* use them and what they do and do not protect against. Some people are perfectly willing to use condoms, but they get frustrated because they're using them wrong, and so the condoms break or come off, and they stop using them out of frustration.

      One measure we give is we have 20 different "steps" for using a condom properly, and they're out of order, and some are not real steps. Out of ~250 teenagers, most of whom have taken sex ed, been exposed to safer sex info all their lives, only 6 got that exercise 100% correct (all real steps in proper order, all fake steps removed), and only 42 got all the real steps in the correct order (but kept some of the fake steps). The kids have been taught, but retention isn't so hot - we're coming up with better ways to teach this.

      Another measure we have is taking an inventory of experiences with recent condom use, and most of our participants report some level of difficulty with condom use, with most of those reports coming along the lines of it being too confusing to remember all of the steps they were taught while in the heat of the moment etc. They want to use condoms, but they've learned all of that in a very "academic" environment - we're trying to develop interventions that will help teach people how to handle themselves when they're not at their most rational.

      A final measure we give which is related to condom use is an HIV & STI knowledge quiz with true, false and "don't know" answers. Most of our participants score 70% or better, but certain segments average scores below 30%. By identifying the lagging segments and then examining what it is that is leading to this dearth of HIV & STI knowledge, we're able to come up with plans to get this information out to those groups because the current techniques clearly aren't working.

      It's neither an obvious nor simple area of research, despite what some in this thread will say. $400k to potentially save quite a few lives (or protect the quality of many lives) is a bargain. If you're a wretched excuse for a human being and you think that people who get HIV "deserve" it, you probably don't care that a lifetime of treatment for a single case of HIV infection will run around $400-500k (minimum) so this kind of research is also cost effective from that standpoint.

      It sickens me to read mass media criticism of scientific grants based off of an abstract and a bucket full of spin. The GOP doesn't need this right now. They have other problems. Regardless, this is becoming one of their memes. Remember the complaint a few months ago about hundreds of thousands of dollars (or a bit more) spent on an "overhead projector," which turned out to be a planetarium with capabilities equivalent to the one in New York, used for astronomy and public outreach? Remember the mocking complaint about spending money to monitor volcanoes? That one had a well timed eruption in Alaska to give the GOP some media embarrassment, but in all of these cases we're seeing particularly unintelligent and uninformed people passing judgment on grants that passed through multiple layers of peer review with very low rates of proposal acceptance.

      --
      "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
    2. Re:I research condom use in teens... by squoozer · · Score: 1

      Twenty steps to proper condom usage? I think I know where the problem might be. If you want widespread adoption you have got to get that down to at most three or four clear steps with cartoon drawings and a catchy slogan.

      --
      I used to have a better sig but it broke.
    3. Re:I research condom use in teens... by thesandtiger · · Score: 1

      You misunderstand the nature of the measure we give. We aren't, with that measure, trying to actually teach them - we're trying to understand where previous teachings have gone wrong or fallen short. The bogus steps are included to reduce the chances of someone randomly getting it right, but also to see how well what they have been taught has stuck. Some of the steps are "basic maintenance" kinds of things - making sure the condoms were obtained within the last 2 months, wrapper is unbroken, they're made of latex and not animal products, etc., but aren't directly related to putting one on.

      Once we know that, then we can come up with the easiest and most easily remembered way to teach proper usage. Right now, however, many of the programs that have been developed to teach people have been assembled based not on science but on (often completely wrong) well-intentioned intuition and "obvious" answers. Some programs have been piloted with a very specific group of teenagers and work well with that set, but are completely broken when it comes to working with teens from other backgrounds.

      On the cartoon front, you'd be surprised at how badly that actually works. Among kids who are already more or less doing it right or very knowledgeable about safer sex, cartoonish things and simple slogans work really well (my theory here is that they're very knowledgeable *because* the cartoons and keep-it-simple slogans work). But for teenagers from some other backgrounds, it absolutely doesn't work for a variety of reasons, and the education they need is a bit more involved because it needs not only to inform but also to overcome certain cultural hurdles.

      I really wish it *were* as simple as some people in this thread are making it sound - I'd happily turn my attention to other research areas if it meant lower HIV/STI and pregnancy rates among the teenagers we're studying!

      --
      Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
    4. Re:I research condom use in teens... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Re:I research condom use in teens...

      Really? Noone caught this?

    5. Re:I research condom use in teens... by thesandtiger · · Score: 1

      On the plus side, trying to find the humor in it, I'm lucky enough to work in a lab that, because we do sexual research, research on youth, and research on queer topics (and often all combined), I've been told that I, personally, am what's wrong with the world today. It's really kind of empowering, knowing that when civilization falls, it'll be because I asked teenagers about buttsex.

      Now I know how the butterfly feels! Rawr!

      --
      Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
    6. Re:I research condom use in teens... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hate to say it, but how stupid are these people?!

      * Preconditions: You need to be hard..

      1) Unwrap
      2) Find opening
      3) Unroll with no air in the tip
      4) Fark like bunnies
      5) Remove and discard

    7. Re:I research condom use in teens... by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      (snip) to give the GOP some media embarrassment, but in all of these cases we're seeing particularly unintelligent and uninformed people passing judgment (snip)

      You could've just stopped right there. For years the GOP has been primarily rallied around particularly uninformed and unintelligent people passing judgement. Why should their treatment of science be any different?

      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
  63. Good to know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obama didn't waste one bit of our taxpayer money with his wishlist....I mean stimulus plan.

  64. Re:Easy Answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On the other end of the spectrum, no one makes a condom small enough that fits well on me.

  65. Par for the course by copponex · · Score: 0, Troll

    400 grand is less than a minute of military spending the United States. But no one is allowed to mention that fact in the "liberal" media.

    Can anyone explain to me how killing a suspected terrorist and their neighbors with a few hundred thousand dollars of ammunition is a better investment than this study? Anyone?

    1. Re:Par for the course by khallow · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Can anyone explain to me how killing a suspected terrorist and their neighbors with a few hundred thousand dollars of ammunition is a better investment than this study? Anyone?

      Because a dead suspected terrorist is better than a live one? What did I win?

      400 grand is less than a minute of military spending the United States. But no one is allowed to mention that fact in the "liberal" media.

      Nor on slashdot. But suppose for a moment we were able to discuss such things. It still remains that 400 grand can easily be afforded by condom manufacturers who might have an interest in improving their product for some reason. So why is the US government to pay for condom research when there are plenty of private companies capable of doing the same? My take is that yes, a minute of military spending (which is generally considered to unsuitable for support or control directly by private businesses) is better spent than 400 grand on something that private industry should be doing instead.

    2. Re:Par for the course by Sobrique · · Score: 1

      Because it's the taxpayer who ends up carrying the bill for STDs and unwanted pregnancies, not the condom manufacturer.

    3. Re:Par for the course by khallow · · Score: 1

      The taxpayer chose to give that money away. Still not government's job to get worked up on why so many people are cashing the checks. It's a typical example of moral hazard. We give money for activity X, now there's more X going on. Now we want to spend even more money to figure out how to get less X so we don't have to spend as much.

    4. Re:Par for the course by thesandtiger · · Score: 1

      The problem with getting funding from sources with a financial interest in the outcome of your research is "What happens if your research leads to them losing money?"

      The answer to that is: They won't give out more money unless the people doing the research are willing to toe the line, which leads to such truly abhorrent things as "studies" that show no link between smoking and cancer.

      What happens if you go with non-corporate sources for funding? Well, if you go to any organization with an agenda (read: all of them) you wind up with research that is so methodologically flawed and the results so massively misrepresented for the sake of political expediency that it's worse than if no study was done at all.

      I know this may sound absurd, but federal funds are actually quite necessary if you want to have research (especially social/community psych or public health) stuff that isn't really just dressing to ram home an agenda.

      --
      Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
  66. Female Condoms by NoBozo99 · · Score: 1

    Problem solved.

    Women don't have to worry about losing (ahem) enthusiasm while putting on a condom. Also, they have more motivation to insure that they don't get pregnant.

    --
    I may not be a smart man, but I know what an inode is.
    1. Re:Female Condoms by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      no, causes problems, sounds much more bothersome than regular condom: http://www.mcgilldaily.com/view.php?aid=3590

  67. Not only men by reason · · Score: 2, Insightful

    As a woman, I'm not keen on them either. They seem to increase friction and chafing, even with lube. Oddly, the ribbed ones seem better on this front - perhaps because the ribs break the seal.

  68. Answer by Delmania · · Score: 1

    $400k when any guy who's used one can give them the answer for free in a 5 minute phone call. Q: Why don't you wear a condom during sex? A: Because I can't feel a damn thing!

  69. Not actually sex by Beefpatrol · · Score: 1

    One major reason, (and as far as I know, there isn't any scientific evidence to support either the truth or the falsity of this argument,) is that even after having extensive condom-protected sex, the brain somehow thinks that you still haven't had sex. In my experience, one can get off in any number of ways that do not actually involve ejaculating inside a woman's vagina, and the grinding "need for sex" feeling never goes away. The pipes may be clean, relaxation may have set in, arousal may be difficult for a while, but I still feel like I haven't had sex, (the same result as having a wank.) I don't know how or why that occurs, but somehow, the brain *knows*. Maybe women have a substance in their vaginal secretions or something that gets absorbed by the tallywhacker thereby setting the "successfully mated" flag somewhere. I read an article a while ago that said something about the cervix secreting something that acts as a beacon for sperm so they know which way to go to find the egg. Perhaps the schlong needs to be exposed to that in order for satisfaction to be achieved?

    The other thing that I don't hear talked about that effects me with regard to condoms is that after going at it for a while, (usually not that long,) I start getting significant peehole irritation. Once that starts to set in, I know I've got only a minute or two more before I'm not going to be able to stand it anymore -- it hurts like hell. The minute or two being contingent upon any pleasurable feelings overriding the discomfort enough that the discomfort doesn't cause rapid boner deflation. I wonder if that is caused by the lubricant that comes with the condom being of poor quality. That lubricant always feels very different from any other sex lube; the lube on "lubricated for someone's hypothetical pleasure" condoms usually feels kind of gritty.

    Disclosure: I am circumsized. I once asked why my folks had me circumsized, and it was reported that the hospital just did it automatically. I wonder if they lied to me -- that the hospital would do it without asking first seems so ridiculous as to be implausible, but then again, I was born in the late 70s in America where circumcision was supposedly the norm. Messed up, that is. I'm glad American society seems to at least not be doing that automatically any more.

    1. Re:Not actually sex by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      You may have a latex allergy. Try polyurethane condoms instead. Won't solve any of the other problems, but there's no good reason to be enduring pain during sex. Also, avoid the spermicidal lubricants, they always irritate everyone (I don't know why they sell them).

  70. Just goes to show by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    That you can get funding for most anything if you make it sound scientific.

    Where is my cut of the pie? "Why do people like to breathe air"

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  71. Re:Easy Answer by Hubbell · · Score: 1

    Considering that damn near every guy that's ever worn a normal condom will agree that it DOES kill sensation (the only ones who claim otherwise have never fucked without one) and climaxing is not nearly as enjoyable as without one, I feel that my statement is 100% valid.

  72. Re:Easy Answer by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 1

    Try these. They're sold at sex shops and office supply stores everywhere.

  73. Re:Easy Answer by MeatBag+PussRocket · · Score: 1, Insightful

    i hate to break it to you, but, its sex, not science, anyone who gets the two confused has spent too much time in a lab/mothers basement. science is a wonderful tool which can answer and raise many questions about the world we live in, but it is not an answer for everything. in this case its the wrong tool for the job. i'll leave all the 'tool' related cliches and puns alone, they're just too easy.

    --
    i wage a holy war against the apostrophe.
  74. Re:Easy Answer by Quothz · · Score: 1

    Do I need to explain more?

    See? That's why you don't make the big bucks. You can bet when Kinsey is done they won't have to ask that, because they'll know that nobody will ever want anything explained to them ever again.

  75. Re:Easy Answer by Beefpatrol · · Score: 1

    There was a consumer reports article about condoms a few years back -- it reported that the ones least likely to break were the LifeStyles Extra Thin or Ultra Thin or whatever they are called. I don't remember the data from the study, so the conclusion might not have been statistically significant; It seems implausible that the thinner condoms were less likely to break than the regular condoms, but maybe they use a different rubber formulation in the thin ones or something.

    In my experience, LifeStyles condoms, (even the regular ones,) seem to be a better fit than the "magnum" or "large" Trojan products for a heat seeking moisture missile of somewhat larger than average diameter. I think this is because they are more elastic than the Trojans. I once had one of the Kimono ones break, but I've never had a LifeStyles break, and I've used a lot more of the LifeStyles.

  76. Re:Easy Answer by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 1

    Yeah, and they ought to put the "pleasure spikes" on the INSIDE, too!

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
  77. Re:Easy Answer by taucross · · Score: 1

    It was a joke. Sorry if it wasn't very funny :(

    --
    "In the absence of the ability to establish the attribute of truth they tried to establish the noble attributes."
  78. Re:Market good, Gubmint baaaad by __aarzwb9394 · · Score: 1

    Glad to see that the US has a big surplus in the budget that we can afford to fund this stuff.

    Gubmint no good, gubmint no good, gubmint no good.

    You and anyone who moderates you up are seriously poor thinkers.
    Condoms are used to stop sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies. They have costs to the population, and they are certainly greater than $400,000.
    Also increased sales of condoms are good for business.
    I presume you believe that would be "a good thing"?

    It must be because The Market (blessings and peace be upon its holy name and works) says so.

    Please learn to use your brain. Or at least realise that you are talking to adults who can see through your disingenuous talking points.

  79. "unless you don't mind having kids" by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 1

    unless you don't mind having kids

    WOOT!

    As long as you (the tax payer) is providing... the more the merrier.

    If I have 50 tax payer supported kids now, sure, their life may suck, but in 100 years, my offspring will OWN your offspring, in sheer numbers if nothing else!

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    1. Re:"unless you don't mind having kids" by darkpixel2k · · Score: 1

      If I have 50 tax payer supported kids now, sure, their life may suck, but in 100 years, my offspring will OWN your offspring, in sheer numbers if nothing else!

      You're missing another great side-effect. Instead of one kid having to pony up significant amounts of cash for your retirement home (meaning you live in a place that smells like pee), you have 50 tax-payer funded kids who can all afford to spend a small amount, putting you into a castle.

      --
      There's no place like ::1 (I've completed my transition to IPv6)
  80. Am i alone in this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I did not read every single pots, just most of them but i don't mind wearing condoms. aside from the cheep deli condom brand there are plenty of condoms that not only don't prevent sensation but sometime enhance it.
    beside i much prefer having used one when, after a while i want to go for a conilingus (how do you spell it anyway??), it prevents me from getting that white salty taste into my mouth.

  81. Re:Easy Answer by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

    There should be more R&D funding into liquid condoms, which are basically a spermicidal lube infused with nonoxynol-9. Problem is that many women complain about nonoxynol-9 being too harsh, causing itching or burning.

    There's another problem. That itching and burning means that the spermicide is irritating the epithelial tissue. This is important because it can actually increase the risk of HIV transmission. Though nonoxynol 9 kills the HIV virus, at the same time it increases the risk of male to female transmission. Your "liquid condom" idea serves men fairly well, but it's not such a great deal for the ladies.

    http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/who55/en/index.html

    My endorsements for men with slightly above-average penises are Kimono and jimmiehatz, which are black and may be weird for you and your partner if having a black dick is a problem.

    It may be a problem for you, but it's probably a dream come true for her.

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  82. What's the point? by cybereal · · Score: 0

    It's like taking a shower with a raincoat on.

    I'd rather not have sex than have it with a condom eliminating the thrill.

    --
    I read the script, and I think it would help my character's motivation if he was on fire. -Bender
  83. Re:Easy Answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not quite as simple as some people think it is, either. The aversion to condoms I mean. I certainly don't want kids or STDs, so they're a must. Unfortunately this makes me involuntarily celibate. I have no performance trouble at all, and in fact stay up even during the awkward fumbly time trying to get the condom on. Soon as it's on though, down I go. Looks like I'll just have to wait until there are vaccines for every STD and a contraceptive pill that doesn't permanently sterilize men.

  84. nonoxynol-9 is BAD! by Cedric+Tsui · · Score: 1
    nonoxynol-9 is BAD!

    ...recent findings indicate that it may actually increase a person's risk of contracting STDs, especially if used frequently. This is because the chemical causes tiny abrasions inside the sensitive vaginal and anal walls. These abrasions may make transmission more likely especially if condoms are not used.

    from Wikipedia

  85. THEY HURT!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The fact of some men use condoms all the time, some not, is meaningless. It is irrelevant. Condoms are unpleasant and often painful. Some men will do the right thing and just be happy enough to be getting action while using a condom, while others find the insensitivity/discomfort/pain to be intolerable. That's not the point.

    The point is that condoms *are* uncomfortable, reduce stimulation, and are often painful for the larger gents out there. There are not reliable size measurements and selections for condoms, which means that guys who are well endowed end up being shrink-wrapped like a damn hoagie. The end 'ring' of the condom is even tighter and less elastic than the rest of the device, which means that you get a rather painful crushing feeling where that ring comes to rest, which can (and does) result in a *bruise*. So when you factor in the fact that even when it isn't painful, it feels like you're not so much having sex as rubbing up against a deflated balloon, it's easy to see why condoms don't get used anywhere near as often as they should.

    Condoms aren't good enough. A better way must be found.

    (have been with my woman for almost a decade - condoms are a distant memory for me. :D )

  86. In response to the "romance-killer" argument: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Invariably, your lady-friend will depart to go to the bathroom at some point during foreplay. In her absense, slip it on and no harm done.
    Failing the bathroom scenario, it's easy enough to slip it on while making out. Multi-task, gentlemen!

  87. Is that what double blind means? by NotSoHeavyD3 · · Score: 1

    You mean it isn't what happens if you masturbate too much with both hands?

    --
    Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
  88. Tag Suggestion by allometry · · Score: 1

    Here's a tag for this story:

    "One of many ways to waste $423,500"

    --
    http://www.allometry.com
  89. I'm gonna disagree with this reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am circumcised and I get off fine with a condom on. Once I'm doing the deed, it feels great.

    For me, the problems are before and after:

    • Loss of spontaneity while fishing for a condom
    • Sometimes I lose my erection while focusing on finding one, such a distracting non-sexual task
    • Nothing other than actual vaginal sex is fun with a condom on... can't do oral or enjoy being touched
    • If I pull out, I lose my erection pretty quickly with a condom on. Hard to switch positions or take a short break.
    • Can't take it off and switch to oral sex without an awful taste in the woman's mouth
    • After sex, I have a limp, slimy, semen-filled balloon hanging off of me... gross, interferes with cuddling
    • Ejaculating directly inside the woman is much more emotionally satisfying

    Thoughts? Any other reasons why condoms aren't fun?

  90. !condom = better for the girl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It may just be my wife, but after getting married and actually trying for children, my wife reports a much better general health and hormone balance. That's been going on for over half a year now, and while she isn't pregnant yet, she feels a lot better overall than during the time I didn't... deliver... the package... into the house... (maybe better a car analogy?)

    Anyone with similar observations?

  91. Sometimes A Condom IS A Good Thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Having problems holding-back before pleasing your partner? Put a condom on and fuck her brains out. After she's come several times, pull it off and jack off all over her tits.

    She'll think you're the best thing since her Rabbit and you'll feel like a pr0n star.

  92. The neverending stupidity by BCW2 · · Score: 1

    People wonder where our tax money is wasted?
    Another fine effort from the Thundering Herd of Dumbass formerly known as Congress.

    --
    Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
  93. I'd rather remain celibate than use a condom by angevin · · Score: 1

    A wise man does not make chasing after pleasure a priority but makes avoiding pain one. I view sex from a utilitarian perspective a practical Aristotelianism. Sex is to reproduce from a evolutionary and biological point of view therefore having sex with a condom is trivial and hedonism. I'm pretty anti-sensual in general. Don't want kids or STDs ? Simply don't have sex instead of using a condom. Using a condom just isn't as pleasurable so the only reason I can see for doing it is perhaps to get to an intimidate level with a female partner but players that go around sleeping with lots of people with condoms and have no significant relationships with their partners make no sense to me. So I choose celibacy over sex with a condom (yes I really can practice self-restraint even with a beautiful woman).

  94. Re:Easy Answer by retchdog · · Score: 1

    Second the Kimono recommendation, for any and all penises. They pioneered the thin condom and are significantly more comfortable (i.e. feels a little bit more like not wearing one) than the others.

    --
    "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
  95. Could be useful by LarrySDonald · · Score: 1

    It's far from clear why men don't like to wear condoms and women don't like for men to wear condoms. The former is probably more likely, but the latter isn't unheard of. Sensitivity issues enter in, but there is certainly a psychological issue involved as well. You aren't skin on skin, not really. With the adult products now, some situations I'm not even sure a lot of people could pass a double-blind. However, there is also correct use, being able to get people to use it correctly (both for effectiveness and for not messing it up). You won't be in your right mind at the time. Or, at least that's what we're all hoping you won't be. So it kind of matters how much is what here and you won't get answers out of humans (yes, I'm one) because it doesn't work like that. Take out ten edge cases of people who would have otherwise not used rubber and you've easily paid for yourself (in actual cash, they have to be raised/treated). Not sure if that's the states job, but at least it's pretty likely to not be a waste. If, oddly, it produces nothing then at least we know a little more about the matter which would be handy.

    1. Re:Could be useful by junglebeast · · Score: 1

      Having sex with a condom is like trying to eat a sandwich without taking it out of the baggie. There is less sensation through a thick condom than the imagination of sensation, and the only sensation through a thin condom is that of crinkly plastic. It's not safe to use as a contraceptive because half the time when you pull out you notice the tip ripped off during action anyway. After putting it on, there is an implicit expectation to perform and this increased pressure makes it more difficult to be relaxed. You can't go back and forth to mouth while wearing a condom which means you're putting them on and off constantly during sex. It's not far from obvious why people don't like condoms.. there are a MILLION reasons not to like condoms, the only thing that is questionable is what the top 100 reasons not to use them are for any particular man.

  96. Re:Easy Answer by eltaco · · Score: 2, Insightful

    don't apologise - you were spot on. the best he can offer is some random anecdotal evidence. seeing as this is /., it's hard to believe he actually has slept with a woman - thus his 'evidence' succumbs further scrutiny. don't apologise for his shortcomings.

    and listening to someone who calls themselves "meatbag pussrocket" and actually apologising to them, is YOUR shortcoming.

    jesus.

    --
    It's not about fate, it's about character.
    there be no shelter here, the frontline is everywhere!
  97. True Lies by DynaSoar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Of course Fox News is reporting things even across the board, rather than engaging in yellow journalism. Their reputation is such that they don't need to research the grant itself or the ongoing project it stems from.

    NIH has been funding AIDS related research for over 25 years. This includes behavioral research regarding risky behaviors such as unprotected sex. That's going to produce results long before any research into vaccines or cures.

    The first question that comes to mind is how many saved lives would be worth US$432,500? The second is how much is the Kinsey Institute's time worth, keeping in mind it's going to pay the salaries of researchers, technicians and assistants for the duration? Along with that, consider that any research done under any academic umbrella ends up paying a significant cut off the top to the university. The amount varies, but I've had one university try to take 70% off the top.

    Anyone that thinks they could do such things better for less are free to submit proposals to NIH. They make it very clear how to go about it. In order to be able to judge whether the amount quoted is unreasonable one would have to be able to evaluate such a proposal in its own terms, if not be qualified to put one together. I find it hard to believe that the person that Fox News calls "government watchdogs" (pluralizing being a perfectly allowable journalistic technique) is qualified to evaluate the text of the grant proposal to point out just what parts of it are wasteful, what parts are just overpriced, and what parts are reasonable, rather than pointing at the whole thing without reading any of it and making a sweeping claim.

    --
    "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
  98. Re:Easy Answer by eltaco · · Score: 1

    so it does not protect homosexual men and heterosexual females?
    I can guess who made / will make this mainstream.

    --
    It's not about fate, it's about character.
    there be no shelter here, the frontline is everywhere!
  99. Trojans=Tight by phorm · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'd have to agree on the Trojans. Way too damn tight, and nothing sucks quite as much as having your little friend being squeezed and chaffed. I've found that Durex tend to fit a little better in that regard though, and besides, who the heck decided to name a condom Trojan... you know, like the group who supposedly snuck their little soldiers secretly into the enemy fortress.

    1. Re:Trojans=Tight by colinrichardday · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Trojans weren't the ones in the Trojan horse, The were the ones whom the occupants of the Trojan horse killed.

    2. Re:Trojans=Tight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Must be the first time Greeks didn't go in at the back door.

    3. Re:Trojans=Tight by SiChemist · · Score: 1

      Must be the first time Greeks didn't go in at the back door.

      Okay, that's just frickin' hilarious!

    4. Re:Trojans=Tight by immcintosh · · Score: 1

      I've honestly always thought Trojan was possibly the most brilliantly named product of all time.

    5. Re:Trojans=Tight by starakurva · · Score: 1

      Close, Immcintosh.....The best condom name has got to be this one, I'm not kidding here, "Family Plus Retard", as seen in a grocery store in Spain...They're made in France, and in French, the name makes a lot more sense than the Anglicized interpretation....But the Anglicized interpretation is MUCH more fun :)

      Great...Just what I'm looking for in a condom :)

      --
      All you need is lurv.
  100. Re:Easy Answer by cayenne8 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    The answer is easy.

    Because fucking with a condom on, is like eating a steak with one on your tongue.

    Sure, you know you're doing something fun, but what good is it if you can't sense it?

    I just don't usually use them...

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  101. Re:Easy Answer by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

    Men are actually at remarkably low risk of contracting most STDs during heterosexual sex anyway.

  102. Re:Easy Answer by malkir · · Score: 1

    You are CLEARLY a virgin.
    Holy fuck gtfo my Slashdot. This place is for nerds, not dweebs.

  103. Re:Easy Answer by The_AV8R · · Score: 1

    Finally, condom manufacturers should offer more variance with respect to sizes. My favorite kind, Trojan Large, have been discontinued. The Magnums are too large for my weenie and regulars are too tight.

    I always thought the "Magnum" sizes were the same size as "Large", but that they just changed the name to make average sized dudes feel good about themselves when condom shopping. "I guess I'm just too huge and need the Magnum size, that cost $4 more per box".

    --
    What? I can't assume Occam's Razor was a slick fold-up scooter?
  104. A cheap analogy would be.... cheaper by dilvish_the_damned · · Score: 1

    Rain-slicker in a massage parlor. ( $100,000 )
    "I thought you would have one" ( $50,000 )
    Barrier to entry ( $200,000 )
    "but there are two of you" ( $50,000 )
    Short sheeted. ( $100,000 )

    ( hooker expenses needed to derive these results: $23,500 ).

    --
    I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
  105. Because.... by Techman83 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    There are Jews in the world.
    There are Buddhists.
    There are Hindus and Mormons, and then
    There are those that follow Mohammed, but
    I've never been one of them.

    I'm a Roman Catholic,
    And have been since before I was born,
    And the one thing they say about Catholics is:
    They'll take you as soon as you're warm.

    You don't have to be a six-footer.
    You don't have to have a great brain.
    You don't have to have any clothes on. You're
    A Catholic the moment Dad came,

    Because

    Every sperm is sacred.
    Every sperm is great.
    If a sperm is wasted,
    God gets quite irate.

    --
    # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i cat
    Damn, my RAM is full of cats. MEOW!!
  106. How to use? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I am uncircumcised and have never been able to successfully use a condom.

    If I put the condom on while the skin is rolled up, the skin remains rolled up and I feel *absolutely* nothing.
    If I roll it down and then put the condom on, it feels good for about 10 seconds before it starts to feel like I am making love to sandpaper and just gets worse and worse.

    I have tried different condoms, latex, non-latex, all with the same results.

    Anyone else with similar experiences? Any ideas?

    1. Re:How to use? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Give a squirt of KY inside the condom before you put it on. The extra lubrication really helps...

  107. Epic Fail by Ian+Alexander · · Score: 1

    Geez, what a waste of money.

    I coulda told them why for only $100,000!

  108. Re:Market good, Gubmint baaaad by xyphor · · Score: 1

    Please learn to use your brain. Or at least realise that you are talking to adults who can see through your disingenuous talking points.

    If we had a budget surplus, this wouldn't be such an issue. We're charging this on the gov't VISA. Spending future taxpayer's money should be scrutinized vigorously.

  109. Tell your wife to get out more. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, it'll improve the relationship. She has a phobia that she can get you pregnant, and getting-out of the closet more will eventually lead her to a psychotherapist.

  110. Not big enough... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Honestly, I'm not hung like a horse or anything - but I've got massive girth - I'd have better luck with a freezer bag!

    It's all fun and games till my cock goes numb and turns blue...

    I've looked for larger ones, perhaps it's just Australia or the crap town I live in, but I've found 3 sizes larger then "regular" and not only are they all too small, the larger ones are completely without variety - no 'extra sensitive' no 'ribbed for her pleasure' just plain old 'you'd have more fun wearing an innertube'

    *edit: great captcha - springs*

  111. Re:Easy Answer by eltaco · · Score: 1

    no shit.

    --
    It's not about fate, it's about character.
    there be no shelter here, the frontline is everywhere!
  112. a science experiment for all who wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Pour two glasses of warm water. In the first glass stick your finger in, notice your finger now feels warm and wet. In the second glass place your finger in again, this time covered with a plastic bag, you will notice it feels similar, warm but not wet. That will be $423,500 please.

  113. Re:Easy Answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Dude, seriously? I'm no Don Juan, but provided I don't have to hunt for it beforehand putting on a condom is about a ten-second process, one-handed (and that's including opening the package). Some paper towels for afterwards, which you already need anyway, and you're set.

  114. Cultural reasons by pgbrandao · · Score: 1

    It's one thing for men to not like condoms, and it's quite another for them to not use them altogether even when they're aware it's needed. Most everybody knows they can be uncomfortable, reduce sensitivity, smelly, and all that, not to mention they kill the mood when you're aroused. However, they're necessary! So why be ignorant?

    I'm currently living in Brazil and it's consensus here that condoms must be worn. I'd wager a bet it has something to do with the openness with which we talk about sex. Condoms are distributed by the government at health centers and schools. Plenty of government ads promote the usage of condoms (especially during february). This seems to affect mostly younger people (up to 24 years), but the results are reasonable: 68% of the people between 15 and 24 years old used a condom during their last sexual relation with a non-fixed partner.

    Also, I think porn plays a role on this. It's actually common to see condoms in brazilian porn! Not so on american porn.

  115. Good, thin, reliable? What? by Zalminen · · Score: 1

    the good, thin and reliable

    I'd say pick two. Hell, most of the time it's pick one !

    I've yet to find a type of condom that I couldn't break just by having sex.
    Yes, even the 'extra strong' types. It's one of the downsides of having a much thicker than average member. And 'thin' and 'reliable' tend to be mutually exclusive.

    I've yet to find a non-latex condom that's big enough.
    Their added durability may allow for thinner condoms but they're of no use if I can't even put them on! (Damn euro standard size condoms) At least the normal condoms can be stretched a little if they're not big enough to just roll on....
    Plus the non-latex condoms tend to be a bit too costly for constant use anyway.

  116. But why don't women like condoms? by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 1

    Strangely, in my experience it is women who don't like condoms. I like the impression of safety they give me and don't mind the slightly different sensation during intercourse. It's a price I gladly pay.

    But many women I know much prefer to go without condoms. Some will actually use condoms for safety, but others really insist on not using a condom. I've always found that odd. They have various reasons: prefer the feeling without condom, feel more connected with their partner without a condom, allergic to rubber or the spermicides or the lubricant, religious objection and, a distant last, actually want to get pregnant.

    --
    Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
  117. Re:Easy Answer by Buddy+the+WIld+Geek · · Score: 1

    Sure. That's why STDs are dying out, because men don't contract them usually. Pull the irony level and scream as you fall.

  118. Re:Easy Answer by Tom · · Score: 3, Funny

    You need more practice, simple as that.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  119. Re:Easy Answer by B1oodAnge1 · · Score: 1

    It was a joke. Sorry if it wasn't very funny :(

    Pedantry? On MY slashdot?!??!

    ;-)

    --
    RUGBYRUGBYRUGBY
  120. Waiting for Pronto by feldhaus · · Score: 1

    When Pronto condoms (or the rights/designs for them) make it to Europe and the USA it will be a Good Day.

    These things can be applied in less than one second

  121. Darwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We are driven to do stuff because of the make up of our brain. Natural selection inevitably dictates that those practices which tend to result in more offspring will be favoured over those that do not.

    That's why men who want to f*** women without having an intervening layer of latex are more common that those who prefer it.Those that use them, usually do so under sufferance. It's not a rational decision to attain an end; it isn't an illness; it's just something which is hard wired into the brain.

    For what it's worth, that's also why homosexuals are a minority (meaning no judgement there), It's also why men who are attracted to old age pensioners are few in number, why paedophiles do not dominate society and so on. Those practices just don't result in offspring. The latter also happens to provoke a strong reaction from parents - another drive hard coded into our brains, which serves to maximise the likelihood that our children will survive.

    There is no dysfunction; that's just a bit of jargon used by members of the majority persuasion to make their rivals outcasts - another natural tendency driven by natural selection.

    If you ever wonder why you like something or dislike something or why you favour a political party even, just think about what it means for your offspring and you'll likely as not understand what is driving you. You don't have any choice in it.

    One last point. Begin a slave to our drives is not to say that we have no control over them.

  122. Re:Easy Answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No man would rather wear a condom if people didn't have pregnancies and STDs to worry about.

    Be gay, and solve half of the problems.

  123. Condom Anal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can't agree more. After 12 years married we still have sex marathon all days every once in a while, while I have friends who ask me what it's like to [insert fav sexual fetish] because they've never even dared to ask their wife. And to go back to the discussion, anal sex beats condoms way over when it matters with avoiding pregnancies... C;-) Some statistics say it's simply the most efficient way of birth control. I say it's simply the most pleasurable !!! Of course I don't have to worry about STD being married and way too satisfied to go look around.

  124. No Shit, Sherlock..... by IHC+Navistar · · Score: 1

    Why don't men like condoms?

    BECAUSE IT FEELS LIKE PUTTING YOUR DICK IN A VISE!

    (This answer provided free of charge)

    --
    Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
  125. Re:Easy Answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Holy shit! that is way to big....

  126. FORESKIN CAN'T MOVE -- CONDOMS NEED EXTRA LUBE by cies · · Score: 1

    strange this hasn't been mentioned yet (over i overlooked it)..

    when using a condom the foreskin cannot move freely. the foreskin is (in my opinion, and by just counting the nerve ends) more important than the head of the penis for sex. it also (in my opinion) helps keeping the vagina lubricated nicely, and naturally.

    so when using a condom the foreskin doesn't move: missing that pleasure and have to use some artificial lube. no problem for me: i keeps some lube with my condoms and beeing a litte less sensitive can have its advantages (as the foreskin-less amoung us often advocate).
    i rather have the sexual freedom that condoms bring me.

    so solution: sell each condom with a small package of lube (preferable high quality like durex sensilube), that, to me, would solve half of the problems associated with condoms.

    good luck with the research!

    (ohh.. just to mention: several girls have told me that the condoms+lube thing also made the sex better for them, especially in the end of a session)

    1. Re:FORESKIN CAN'T MOVE -- CONDOMS NEED EXTRA LUBE by dargaud · · Score: 1

      Interesting. It often mentions on condom packs that they are not to be used with lube, but it may depend on the type of lube.

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
  127. Re:Easy Answer by RotHorseKid · · Score: 0

    I have a latex fetish, you insensitive clod.

    --
    Nobody writes jokes in base 13. - DNA
  128. wheres the obvious chicken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Im with everyone else, in that theyre moment killers if you fumble getting the packet open (although find a girl who can put one on with her mouth and that goes away very rapidly once its open), and they kill the sensation. Sometimes thats good (read delay spray without the aerosols) but by and large its very not. And Ive tried the sensitive brands too.
    Now here's where I differ to your average slashdotter, Im in a very long term relationship, in fact Ive been married for 9 years and have two children by my wife. Even now we don't like condoms and the pill messes with her liver so she cant use it. So rather than have to use condoms I had a sterilization (and the old fashioned way, 2cm took out of each vas deferen for analysis, since where I am its illegal to have yourself "mutilated" without it being for cancer testing, damn catholic meddling) and then contracted adult chicken pox post op. And let me tell you it was a very very unpleasent combo...
    However, do it again? damn right I would. Guilt free pleasure.

    Of course if I ever were in a situation that I was going to be having sex with someone else, the old bin liner would have to come back out until I was sure she was std free.
    There? can I have the money now. I promise to spend it on some terminal servers for the racks...

  129. Polyurethane? by rastoboy29 · · Score: 1

    I can't believe no one has brought up polyurethane condoms (Avanti is the only brand I know of in the US).

    They are much thinner than latex or any other material.

    They feel damn close to like nothing at all.

    Stick a pencil in a latex condom until it breaks.

    Do the same with a polyurethane.  'nuff said.  Shit is the bomb.

  130. Re:Easy Answer by RotHorseKid · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Hey, I have a latex fetish, you insensitive clod!

    --
    Nobody writes jokes in base 13. - DNA
  131. Re:Easy Answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think the Magnum is the same length as regular Trojan, but the Magnum is wider (I can definitely notice a difference in the width).

  132. simple.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wearing a condom whilst having sex is like having a shower with your socks on

  133. Latex by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Latex sucks cause you have to compile every time to see the result.

  134. Re:Market good, Gubmint baaaad by __aarzwb9394 · · Score: 1

    If we had a budget surplus, this wouldn't be such an issue.....scrutinized vigorously.

    It sounds like you believe that the benefits of work like this cannot possibly outweight the costs. Is that what you think? It strikes me as very likely indeed that benefits will outweigh costs

    What I consider very unlikely is that Citizens Against Government Waste have a genuine belief that this research will not be useful. They are simply shouting loudly about a research project that many ignorant and prejudiced people (for example, those who get their news from Fox) will hate by reflex.

  135. Don't worry by nih · · Score: 0

    I will make good use of this 'research'

    --
    I'm a rabbit startled by the headlights of life :(
  136. Yes, W.H.O. could possibly reccomend this by mac1235 · · Score: 2, Informative
    1. Re:Yes, W.H.O. could possibly reccomend this by fbjon · · Score: 1

      Good point, but that's regarding countries with an AIDS epidemic where the reduced risk of transmission will actually make a difference, i.e. it is not a general recommendation.

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    2. Re:Yes, W.H.O. could possibly reccomend this by PachmanP · · Score: 1

      Good point, but that's regarding countries with an AIDS epidemic where the reduced risk of transmission will actually make a difference, i.e. it is not a general recommendation.

      Well Washington DC has a higher AIDS infection rate than Western Africa

      --
      You're thinking small. Why miniaturize the laser, when we could instead enlarge the sharks? -John Searle
    3. Re:Yes, W.H.O. could possibly reccomend this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well Washington DC has a higher AIDS infection rate than Western Africa

      ...even though around 60% of American men are circumcised? Fat lot of good that did.

  137. Longer is better by dugeen · · Score: 1

    Can't see the problem here. Decreasing sensitivity means a longer time to orgasm, and thus increased pleasure duration for both partners.

  138. Re:Easy Answer by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 1

    increase the risk of infection by damaging the physical barriers of the rectum or vagina."

    I thought my penis was doing that.

  139. Why men don't like condoms? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think the answer is pretty simple...

    We have a biological urge to pro-create. No offense, but I always get off on the idea that I could get a woman pregnant... until i'm finished that is. The heat of the moment carries me away and gives me a buzz... I can't believe i'm alone in this department.

    Btw, one other poster said you're better off shagging an average woman rather than a better looking woman? I say that you're better off with someone who you're personally and sexually compatible with - regardless of how they look. My ex was a bomb shell - but a nut job. My wife is good looking, but not a bomb shell. I preferred the physical side with my ex - but I just couldn't stand the high maintenance personality and constant mood swings.

    AC

  140. Confucius said that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Confucius say, "if it floats, flies or fucks, it's cheaper to rent."

    I don't have any preconceptions whether the quoted is true or false (though I bet on false), but where/when did he say that? Can someone give some (at least plausible) link?

    1. Re:Confucius said that? by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Confucius did not actually say that. It's a proverb of indeterminable origin. I mentioned Confucius as a joke.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  141. Re:Easy Answer by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

    No man would rather wear a condom if people didn't have pregnancies and STDs to worry about.

    Clearly so, as that's the reason condoms exist in the first place.

    There should be more R&D funding into...basically a spermicidal lube

    If you want to spread sperm-killing chemicals all over your one and only sperm-producing tool, go right ahead. I'll stick with the rubber.

  142. Re:Easy Answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was hoping it was a joke, but the replies assuming it wasn't made me unsure. The correlation is not causation bit should have been enough to tip them off tbh. In fact I'm going to go mod it funny just in case anyone else doesn't notice..

  143. Re:Easy Answer by taucross · · Score: 1

    I think the ones who took me seriously need to live a little. Thanks anon.

    --
    "In the absence of the ability to establish the attribute of truth they tried to establish the noble attributes."
  144. Re:Easy Answer by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

    cause they reduce the sensation...and...its so much more enjoyable to bust inside a bitch

    I think that last one is probably hugely underestimated. The fact is that guys evolved to like spreading seed where it matters. No amount of research is going to change that, unless it's essentially turning guys into something less than guys.

    But you did miss a few other important reasons:

    * they're awkward to put on, effectively becoming a test/demonstration of sexual experience when you're usually in the middle of way too many tests already, like saying (or not saying) the right thing, performing like that chippendale, etc.

    * the spoil the mood (which is difficult enough to build sometimes even without condoms getting in the way)

    * they leave nasty lube residues/odors that make things awkward later, just when you're hoping for a blowjob

    * you have to go buy them in a shop, which essentially means you need grocery-store approval to screw. In some countries, it is/was the relatively empty/unused/conspicuous pharmacy's approval to screw. In some countries, it's worse: society as a high-minded theoretical whole doesn't even approve of condoms, never mind the old fashioned people in the store.

    * if you're new to it all, the whole thing (given the above, the posts you made, general nervousness and lack of clue) can be a real turn-off.

  145. Re:Easy Answer by nizo · · Score: 1

    Certainly better than a latex allergy. Ouch.

  146. Circumcision by DeanFox · · Score: 1


    Maybe with enough studies like this circumcision rates in the US will continue to drop. If they're looking for it I'm sure they'll find a correlation between condom use and circumcision with complaints of sensitivity.

    Here's a decent link to circumcision rates by region: http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/USA/ Combined, 73% - 81% are still being cut in the USA. In 1932 around 30% of the USA populations was circumcised. It seems to have peaked in 1965 and will hopefully continue to drop. But it's studies like this that get things going.

  147. Re:Easy Answer by fuzzix · · Score: 1

    Second the Kimono recommendation, for any and all penises. They pioneered the thin condom and are significantly more comfortable (i.e. feels a little bit more like not wearing one) than the others.

    These are intended for those with a latex allergy but they are, in fact, the best condom I've ever used:

    http://www.pasante.com/product.aspx?=19

    It's a bit like cling film (saran wrap in the US?)... but pretty thin yet strong. Fitting isn't an issue as they sort of cling to you after a while. Not to be crass, but combined with a cock ring you may have better luck :)

    YMMV...

  148. Re:Easy Answer by fuzzix · · Score: 1

    Hrm, not sure the direct link works now. They're called the Pasante Unique anyway... You'll find them on there.

  149. Re:Easy Answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My favorite kind, Trojan Large [condomusa.com], have been discontinued. The Magnums are too large for my weenie and regulars are too tight.

    A condom can easily fit over your head - the one on top of your shoulders. They can be stretched like a balloon to loosen. The reason they discontinued those style of condoms is because they are simply not needed. Anyone who can not be fit by a standard condom simply suffers from small ego or a disproportionate sense of self. With condoms, one size truly does fit all. Those condoms were always about marketing to those that wanted bragging rights.

  150. Only 400 of them... by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    They were able to test about only 400 times the reason why they do not like condoms while fornicating....
    unless they went in further then the price drops to about 100$ per...making it more like 4000 times....
    Still, not enough times spent because you have a 1 in 5000 chance of catching something without wearing a condom...
    or so the commercial goes....!

  151. Second link is to irrelevant info by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Also that second link does not even consider what you says it does - look at the note attached to the figures and you will see it is most definitely NOT cunnilingus. It's possibly a transmission method for something but that link you quoted has nothing at all to do with it.
    Good point about breakage.

  152. Just as simple as... by kenp2002 · · Score: 1

    Couldn't it be just as simple as:

    A: It's in conflict with the basic instinct of breeding

    B: It's an additional expense

    C: It's a physical barrier

    D: We are lazy

    $400k to study this? Hell I just saved us at least $800k since when has anything the government done in the last 40 years been on or under budget?

    --
    -=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
  153. Re:Easy Answer by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

    This fact annoys me every time its brought up -- just because I can fit it over your head doesn't make it comfortable. The very elasticity of it squeezes against you on one of the most sensitive areas of your body.

    I can wrap a mail elastic around your neck too, and I bet you wouldn't find that any more enjoyable than a tight condom.

    --
    - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
  154. It's wrong by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

    I disagree. Seems like you're claiming that (1-p/2)^n is asymptotically equal to (1-p)^n.

    You are correct to disagree. The two terms are not asymptotically equal in n or anywhere close to it. They diverge quite significantly for large n. The proof is straightforward.

    Since p is a probability 0<p<1. Let a=1-p/2 and let b=1-p. Then, 1>a>b>0. Therefore a/b > 1 .

    Since a/b > 1, (a/b)^n=K grows without bound as n increases.

    So (1-p/2)^n/(1-p)^n = K
    => (1-p/2)^n = K (1-p)^n

    So (1-p/2)^n is K times (1-p)^n. And K grows without bound as n increases. The two terms are not asymptotic as n goes to infinity. In fact, the two terms are wildly divergent.

    p/2 can be replaced by r*p for any 0r1, and this proof will still hold. Reducing the probability of an event even slightly, pays off as the number of events rises.

    It should be noted, this mathematical proof makes no mention of the ethical or practical rationals for interfering with infants genitals.

    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
    1. Re:It's wrong by Xcruciate · · Score: 0, Troll

      Holy shit, no wonder you guys don't get laid. The discussion is about why men don't like wearing condoms, and you break it down into a mathamatical proof. Not so sexy.

      --
      It's like "looking busy" at your employment - it's actually easier to do real work than to fake it. - bmo
    2. Re:It's wrong by TyrainDreams · · Score: 1

      Agreed, plug your dick, D, into the following equation...

      8=======D (())

  155. Re:Easy Answer by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

    Don't forget "keep refrigerated" (its on the box). Try applying it cold ;-)

    --
    - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
  156. $423,000 for Biphenyl Cancer Penis Answer? by ImitationEnergy · · Score: 0

    Solution to article => http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/06/22/1616239 i.e. Why don't you real men like condoms? Seeing as how I prefer earning my Gravity Wheel invention seed money (last pgh) and not gov't handout money extorted from your paychecks by Hussein Obama just send the $4.23-$423,000.00 consultant fee for solving these pressing sexual dysfunction issues to Member One Federal Credit Union #162895 in Roanoke Virginia please => the answer to this "Why men don't like condoms?" question is that men sense they are being poisoned by the biphenyl baby bottle plastic poison contained in rubber condoms. The male brain has a high flow of blood + the male penis having also the high flow of blood equals

    THE BRAIN DETECTS INCOMING POISON FROM THE CONDOM ENCLOSED PENIS

    FOLLOWING PLACEMENT & SUBSEQUENT INTENSE HOT HEAVY-SEX-HEAT

    AND SWEAT-RELEASED CONDOM CHEMICAL POISON INTO BRAIN-BOUND BLOOD

    RESPONSIBLE FOR AMERICAN MEN NEEDING VIAGRA & CIALIS TO RECOVER LOST PENIS FUNCTION.


    The human brain
    #1 recognizes the condom-released chemical poison coming its way &
    #2 makes the man feel uncomfortable using condoms because
    #3 MALES ARE BEING POISON-CASTRATED WITH CONDOM-DELIVERED BIPHENYL PLASTIC

    developed primarily to placate women ditto vasectomies.

    This solution will be added to my web sites for the record how I solved the worldwide male poisoning-by-condom by our present male-is-only-a-sperm donor despising society but no, Woodrow Riley isn't so brain dead stupid he thinks a "consultant fee" will be deposited in my bank account above. No one else does it. I could however stop receiving monthly disability checks with enough small donations of thanks were received so I could buy a tractor-trailer rig and get back to work or get to work completing the design of my Gravity Wheel that will power each person's home by a gravity-run generator => http://www.newpath4.com/firefox_best_links.htm. PayPal any help you feel motivated to send for me alerting you YOUR RUBBER IS KILLING YOU to riley101 at cox dot net. See also http://tinyurl.com/GravityWheelOne and, thanks for the help; it will come back to you many times over and likely your children,

    especially your MALE children who should be

    spared chemicals doused on their penis.

    --
    Industrial Age 2 + How-to Stop Malignant Cancers.
  157. See a doctor by RingDev · · Score: 1

    As a circumsized man I have never had any desensitization, I have only once had any issue with going all the way, and I think that had more to do with my emotional and inhebriated state.

    One thing I will say though, is make sure you are using an appropriately sized condom. I used to have a much more challenging go at it until I switched to a "large" size condom (Trojan Magnum is my current cover of choice) and I have have had much few issues with application and protection.

    If you are experiencing desensitization and having difficult reaching a climax, see your doctor!

    -Rick

    --
    "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
    1. Re:See a doctor by default+luser · · Score: 1

      As a circumsized man I have never had any desensitization, I have only once had any issue with going all the way, and I think that had more to do with my emotional and inhebriated state.

      One thing I will say though, is make sure you are using an appropriately sized condom. I used to have a much more challenging go at it until I switched to a "large" size condom (Trojan Magnum is my current cover of choice) and I have have had much few issues with application and protection.

      If you are experiencing desensitization and having difficult reaching a climax, see your doctor!

      Absolutely, I am circumcised, and have no problems with sensation. To be honest, bareback leaves me so sensitive that I have trouble making things last, but with a thin condom I have good sensation and good control, which I like.

      You are absolutely right about condom size. I tried-out Lifestyles thins for a bit, but they were too small, and I always felt like I was wrapped in shrinkwrap, and couldn't concentrate on the fun. Then I tried Trojan Ultra-Thins (a bit larger), and they made me a believer. As with all ultra-thin condoms, you have to be careful of breakage, but you can take steps to prevent it (and the extra sensation is worth it).

      Oh, and one last suggestion: if sex is lacking in stimulation, you might want to "prime the pump" a little more. A little extra titillation prior to getting it on can make you both more sensitive (and frenzied), which can help.

      --

      Man is the animal that laughs.
      And occasionally whores for Karma.

  158. condoms are still better by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    due to the whole avoiding chlamydia and child support thing

    but i suppose you can look deeply into someone's eyes and tell if they have an STD

    zzz

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  159. Re:Easy Answer by Creepy · · Score: 1

    Funny that you mention it - I actually don't mind condoms as much as my wife does - in fact, I generally perform much better with them due to the reduced sensitivity and initial lubrication (which can be bad, say, after a long hot bath). My wife, on the other hand, HATES them with a passion and would prefer abstinence to sex with a condom.

  160. This is pretty fucking pathetic. by maillemaker · · Score: 1

    >One measure we give is we have 20 different "steps" for using a condom properly, and they're out
    >of order, and some are not real steps. Out of ~250 teenagers, most of whom have taken sex ed,
    >been exposed to safer sex info all their lives, only 6 got that exercise 100% correct (all real
    >steps in proper order, all fake steps removed), and only 42 got all the real steps in the correct
    >order (but kept some of the fake steps). The kids have been taught, but retention isn't so hot -
    >we're coming up with better ways to teach this.

    This is pretty fucking pathetic. But partly, I blame you guys for coming up with TWENTY steps for putting on a condom.

    This is not rocket science. You take it out of the foil, figure out which way the thing rolls, stick it on your penis, and roll it on down until it doesn't roll anymore. Give it a couple tugs on the tip to make a place for the sperm to go and you're ready for battle, soldier. I count FIVE steps.

    --
    A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
    1. Re:This is pretty fucking pathetic. by thesandtiger · · Score: 2, Informative

      Let me explain in more detail, though I think I more or less covered this in my first and follow-up post:

      We're doing research to find out how much people actually know. To do this, we need to set up situations where there is a very small chance of people accidentally getting the "right" answer simply by guessing. So in addition to the proper steps, we add in ones that are not relevant when we do the sorting exercise and ask the participants to remove the steps they think are irrelevant. A participant who knows how to properly use a condom will be able to discard the irrelevant steps and put the few remaining relevant ones into proper order. If we simply gave them the steps that are relevant, there would be a non-trivial chance that we'd get people getting the right answer by guesswork, and that would be bad science.

      We're using the results of this research to come up with interventions/educational programs which present the information in vastly simplified ways, but ones that actually work. We're using the research to inform the intervention because, you know, just sort of guessing what might work doesn't actually work as well as some people would like to think. It turns out that in many unexpected ways many of the current educational models fail horribly. One example of this is the idea of catchy slogans and cartoons about condom use - some people assume that because cartoons are being used that it can't be all that serious a thing, since if it were important the educators would be taking it Very Seriously. Another example of the current model is that cultural competence is often missing - programs designed for affluent white suburban kids often don't work for poverty stricken african-american kids living in the city. Stuff that works great for guys does absolutely nothing for girls (and knowing how to use condoms properly is just as important for females, as is the idea that you can INSIST that your partner use a condom and refuse to have sex if he won't).

      And, though you say it isn't rocket science, you were, in fact, incorrect when you explained how to put it on. You neglected to check the foil to make sure it was sealed. You neglected to make sure that the condom was new rather than some crusty thing that's been sitting in a wallet for several years. You neglected to check to make sure it was a latex condom and lubricated rather than one made from animal products or dry. You neglected to make sure that whatever lubricant you're using is not oil based/is latex safe. Oops. You might say that those steps are no-brainers or implied, but the fact is, they aren't no-brainers, they aren't implied, and they are very, very, VERY important parts of proper condom use. I won't even get into things like knowing that ANY penetration without a condom is risky, or that if you do fuck up and put the wrong end on first that you can't just flip it over, and numerous other things - they aren't part of the "20 steps" measure, but the second measure I mentioned where we assess actual errors with condom usage.

      I really do wish it were as simple as some people want to make it out to be. I would love it if this part of my job were made obsolete.

      --
      Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
    2. Re:This is pretty fucking pathetic. by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      You neglected to check the foil to make sure it was sealed. You neglected to make sure that the condom was new rather than some crusty thing that's been sitting in a wallet for several years. You neglected to check to make sure it was a latex condom and lubricated rather than one made from animal products or dry. You neglected to make sure that whatever lubricant you're using is not oil based/is latex safe. Oops. You might say that those steps are no-brainers or implied, but the fact is, they aren't no-brainers, they aren't implied, and they are very, very, VERY important parts of proper condom use.

      No, they aren't no-brainers, and they aren't implied, but they *aren't* steps to actually using a condom. Those are all steps for purchasing and properly maintaining your condoms. ie, if you bought the condoms, you should've inspected them to see if they're sealed and aren't expired. You should've made sure to purchase proper latex condoms. You should be using a lube you already know is safe. Additionally, you should be storing them in a cool place where they won't be damaged. And you should be using condoms you've personally purchased, inspected, and stored, rather than relying on someone else's stash.

      So, at least in my mind, part of the problem is you're significantly over-complicating things. Maintaining condoms and actually using them are really two distinct aspects of condom use, so why convolve them?

    3. Re:This is pretty fucking pathetic. by thesandtiger · · Score: 2, Informative

      Because they aren't separate for teenagers. If teenagers actually did practice proper condom purchasing and maintenance behaviors, we could completely separate the two aspects - but they don't.

      Guy is over at his boy or girlfriend's house, they're making out and want to have sex. Does either one have a condom? What if they don't? Oh, "I think my dad has some... let me look..." Hey, if dad's using it, it's got to be a good kind, right? Oh, "I bought this from a bathroom vending machine, it should be good, right?" Oh, "Uh, I think I have one laying around that I got from some safe-sex deal..." In all of those cases, properly using the condom ABSOLUTELY means knowing the stuff you say is part of maintenance.
      People make the assumption that if there's a condom around it has to be good because it wouldn't be available if it weren't, and because of that, they need to know that all that "maintenance" stuff is essential to proper use.

      They have a condom, now what? "Oh, it's kinda tight... what can we use for lube?" I've had participants tell me they used *salad dressing* for lube because they couldn't find anything legit and thought it *had* to be safe because you eat it. Or people putting petroleum jelly on because "it doesn't say oil." What to put on the condom is every bit as important as knowing how to put the condom on for proper use.

      We absolutely have to consider realistic scenarios when talking about proper use, and that ups the complexity. We want to get measures of what people *actually* know and might realistically practice, not whether they know some overly simplified and idealized method of putting things on.

      --
      Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
    4. Re:This is pretty fucking pathetic. by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      I've had participants tell me they used *salad dressing* for lube because they couldn't find anything legit and thought it *had* to be safe because you eat it.

      ROFL, alright... you win. As a functioning adult, it's sometimes easy to forget how unbelievably stupid young people can be... :)

    5. Re:This is pretty fucking pathetic. by thesandtiger · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Just like with software Q&A, when we design research protocols we need to account for "What the FUCK were you THINKING?" moments on the part of our participants. The meetings where we try to brainstorm ways for our participants to break the interview are some of the most fun parts of my job.

      I've also developed an amazing poker-face thanks to conducting dozens of these interviews - you never know what you're going to hear, but we also ask some questions that are so incredibly personal and graphic that we require extensive training of our interviewers so that they don't completely lose it when asking.

      --
      Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
  161. Re:Easy Answer by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

    I should clarify - men are at remarkably low risk of contracting many STDs from an academic point of view. Phrased differently, male-to-female transmission is significantly more likely than the converse. That doesn't mean it's a good idea to go having sex with random HIV+ people just because you're male.

    Reference: http://books.google.com/books?id=7U9ZE_8y0kwC&pg=PA104&lpg=PA104&dq=HIV+transmission+rates+male&source=bl&ots=DGBEVHp57m&sig=0nxlYdd1GprIToXM131tjYix9gY&hl=en&ei=3OBASrvjGqaxtgeu55ScCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7

    Interestingly, that relationship doesn't seem to hold in developing countries, where the transmission risk is about equal: http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/ma?f=102239234.html

  162. $400K to figure out why men don't like condoms by rs232 · · Score: 1

    Cause it dampens the sensory inputs to your willie - DOH !!!

    --
    davecb5620@gmail.com
  163. Waste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a waste of taxpayers money. Everyone knows why men don't like to wear condoms. Now we need a study to determine why women are unbearable once a month.

  164. That doesn't change the fact... by sean.peters · · Score: 1

    ... that it's immoral to cut off bits of infant's bodies to protect them against a disease that could be more effectively prevented by using condoms. What's next - will we start cutting off the breasts of infant girls? After all, it's even more effective against breast cancer than circumcision is against HIV.

    If grown men want to get circumcised to help prevent STDs, that's their right (although they should understand they'd be better off with a condom). But doing so to infant boys, who can't consent to the procedure, is barbaric.

  165. Re:Easy Answer by sglewis100 · · Score: 1

    There was a consumer reports article about condoms a few years back -- it reported that the ones least likely to break were the LifeStyles Extra Thin or Ultra Thin or whatever they are called. I don't remember the data from the study, so the conclusion might not have been statistically significant; It seems implausible that the thinner condoms were less likely to break than the regular condoms, but maybe they use a different rubber formulation in the thin ones or something.

    No shit... really? The thinner ones aren't as sturdy?

  166. Re:Easy Answer by Altus · · Score: 1

    Really? I find lifestyles to be terrible and they always seem too tight and I'm not a magnum user.

    I use Okamoto Beyond 7, I find they fit well and are the least invasive. Ive considered trying out the kimono's, people I know who use them like them a lot.

    --

    "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

  167. Condom? by binaryartist · · Score: 1

    What is that? Sometimes, between my science projects and working on my toys in my parent's basement, I need more context when talking about such topics

    --
    When a thief sees a saint, all he sees are his pockets!
  168. Why men? by BishopBerkeley · · Score: 1

    In my experience, it's always been the women who don't want it. Naturally, I hate using them, but it has always been my girlfriend who has chosen to throw caution in to the wind.

    --
    "...who search the reason of things
    Are those who bring the most sorrow on themselves." --Euripides, The Medea
  169. Re:Easy Answer by Dark_Gravity · · Score: 1

    Not to mention the fact that putting the thing on and taking it off afterwards are instant romance-killers.

    You need to find a partner that knows how to put one on you with her mouth. That technique definitely is not a mood killer, and will certainly not disrupt the momentum.

  170. Re:Easy Answer by neokushan · · Score: 1

    Have you ever actually tasted a condom? They're not particularly pleasant. And the "flavoured" ones are either unusable as an actual condom, or cause allergic reactions in enough people to not be worth the trouble.

    --
    +1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
  171. Looking in the wrong place by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sex is in the mind. People like to "feel" close... If you put something between them, then the degree of contact is being restricted... If they don't know this is happening, I doubt they'd be bothered. But since they do know, it's a factor in the equation in their mind. That's all there is to it.

  172. Seriously? by CrustyMustard · · Score: 1

    I can think of so many better things to spend $400,000 dollars of my tax money on during an economic crisis.

  173. Re:Easy Answer by bkr1_2k · · Score: 1

    You can taste with your dick? Mine must be defective then, because I've definitely never tasted anything with it.

    --
    "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
  174. Because we want to reproduce. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can we stop ignoring the 900 pound gorilla in the room? We (men) want to ejaculate inside “her” to cause pregnancy. Wearing condoms eliminates that; we become consciously aware that we are defeating the process and that will diminish the biological urge.

  175. Are you kidding me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You gotta be kidding me right? 20 Steps? You can knock that down to FOUR and then "stupid teens" wouldn't get frustrated or make mistakes:

    1. Tear open package.

    2. Figure out which end is "up"

    3. Place on tip, roll down as far as possible.

    4. If the hole ain't lubed (either naturally or otherwise), it's not time to stick it in.

    Doesn't get any more complicated than this!

  176. Re:Easy Answer by bkr1_2k · · Score: 1

    Actually they are at low risk for contracting STDs and showing symptoms. Often men don't show obvious symptoms and are still carriers. Your advice to protect yourself is obviously correct.

    --
    "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
  177. Re:Easy Answer by bkr1_2k · · Score: 1

    Not to mention the lubricated ones...

    The advice still works though.

    --
    "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
  178. You're doing it wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Recently, we ran out of doctor-provided condoms and had to go into the shops and buy new ones. I bought a new brand, "Trojans". My god they were terrible. The were too thick, smelled terrible, and reacted poorly inside my partner. Apparently they stung. And they cost about 70c per condom, the cheapest in the store. We went to Condomdepot and bought Durex thin ones and they arrived in a couple days, cost about 25c per condom. They have better sensitivity, smell fine, and were cheaper. They are excellent. I don't know what people are complaining about. Get a better condom for crying out loud.

  179. Re:Easy Answer by retchdog · · Score: 1

    That chick in the lower-left doesn't look too healthy. :-/

    I'd give these a shot, if I were still having irreflexive intercourse these days.

    --
    "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
  180. Whomever... by SlashDev · · Score: 1

    .. conducted this research are either men who have never had sex without a condom, or women.

    --

    TOP DSLR Cameras Reviews of the top DSLRs
  181. Condom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is a condom?

  182. Re:Easy Answer by bckrispi · · Score: 1

    heat seeking moisture missile

    +1 Obscure Gwar lyric (You didn't bargain on the power of the Death Pod, didja?)

    --
    Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
  183. Re:Easy Answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    increase the risk of infection by damaging the physical barriers of the rectum or vagina."

    I thought my penis was doing that.

    Maybe you should get your girl turned on a bit. Or use some lube.

  184. Re:Easy Answer by skarphace · · Score: 1

    Dude, seriously? I'm no Don Juan, but provided I don't have to hunt for it beforehand putting on a condom is about a ten-second process, one-handed (and that's including opening the package). Some paper towels for afterwards, which you already need anyway, and you're set.

    Paper towels... really? I don't believe your entire post. Any man that can use paper towels across his meat piston afterwards without screaming bloody murder is a twisted man.

    --
    Bullish Machine Tzar
  185. Re:Easy Answer by kfs27 · · Score: 1

    theyfit.com

    Some custom sized condoms will be coming soon

    --
    Kenny Sabarese
    www.kennysabarese.com
  186. Re:Easy Answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Check out TheyFit condoms, which you can buy from condomania.com. They come in a large number of different sizes, and you print out a Fit Kit to measure your weenie.

  187. My Gripes by longbot · · Score: 1

    These are just my gripes: they're expensive (five dollars a dozen?!) and always expire before I get to use them.

    --
    I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it! --Longbottle
  188. Practice makes perfect. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    I buy in bundles of 200.

    Needless to say I know which one suits me best.

    It takes me less than 10 seconds to fit one, also you would benefit from the pleasures of holding your urges, your amorous session will last longer and the final outcome would be more memorable.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  189. Yours doesn't.... by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    ... mine does.

    I get plenty of sex and drinks , but sex only happens when I am sober.

    Don't blame your brain for what is clearly just lack of discipline.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  190. If you are a normally functioning male .... by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    ... you should get back to action in short time after further foreplay.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  191. Yes I can. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    Because it shows respect and caring for your partner.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  192. I am amazed .... by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    ... that there are people out there that still think that coitus interruptus is an effective birth control method....

    For all of you reading: once there is unprotected penetrative sex, all the bets are off.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  193. It works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    8 years of pulling out w/ 0 pregnancies. And we're both perfectly fertile. Just got to have a little self-control...

  194. Why bother? by KudyardRipling · · Score: 0

    Abortion is safe and legal, all STD's are treatable, and welfare is available. Sex and responsibility are like church and state. These must remain separate in an modern enlightened society.

    --
    Submission as evidence constitutes plaintiff and/or prosecutorial misconduct.