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.
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
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?!
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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 ?
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.