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.
It's because all men secretly want to pay child support.
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.
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
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.
Because it feels like picking your nose while wearing a latex glove....?
I will take that $400k now, thanks.
I for one will volunteer heartily for this *ahem* study.
Hold up, wait a minute, let me put some pimpin in it
I could have answered that question for half of what they paid.
Most of the stuff on
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
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
Stimulus....package
Too easy. (not hard?)
STOP NOW!
Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
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?!
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.
Yeh there nothing like a stable relationship to
stop you from having sex.
Oh wait you meant using a condom.
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.
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.
"Come on baby, it's for science!"
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.
Ooops, vasectomy not condom. That will teach me to read the subject line.
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.
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.
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
Two reasons: 1. I'm too drunk to know better 2. I'm usually by myself
$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.
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.
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.
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."
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)
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
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?"
i suppose its better than olfactory nerves
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
$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.
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!
sustainable living
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.
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.
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.
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."
Also, RISUG mentioned above is Reversible inhibition of sperm under guidance.
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.
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
'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?
... 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.
$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.
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.
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.
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!
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.........
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.
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?
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
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!
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.
You need more practice, simple as that.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
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.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2007/pr10/en/index.html
"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.
I know, ridiculous. That's what the woman is for.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
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.
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.
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.