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
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.........
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