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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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."
$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.
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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
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.........
... 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)
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.
The ______ Agenda