Talk:Condom/Archive 3

message: sk:Prezervatív
Add [SK] .. it isn't included in multi-lng list—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.229.220.155 (talk) 01:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ADD SK version 

message: Umm, is the lubricated side of the condom supposed to be inside the condom or outside the condom? Meaning, dry inside, wet out, or wet inside, dry out?
I would REALLY appreciate it if someone answer this soon. 
-G —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.117.157.7 (talk • contribs).
:Your best bet for questions is usually Wikipedia:Reference desk.  The key to determine the orientation of the condom is which way it rolls, not which side has more lubrication.  When placed over the penis, the roll of latex should not be covered by the rest of the condom.  Notice how this image (worksafe) shows the tip coming from the bottom of the roll--this is the correct orientation, it rolls onto the penis.  If you find you put the condom on the wrong direction, your best bet is to discard it and get a new one.  As for lubrication, it is primarily applied to the outside of a condom--be sure to use water-based lubricants.  Apply more if you don't think there is enough.  See the image in the article for more detail on how to put on a condom.  --TeaDrinker 08:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lubricated condoms

message: I removed the the following passage from the causes of failure section as non-use is in no way, shape, or form a failure of the condom.  Passage follows:
*Among couples that use condoms for birth control, pregnancy may occur when the couple does not use a condom. The couple may have run out of condoms, or be traveling and not have a condom with them, or simply dislike the feel of condoms and decide to "take a chance."
Again there is no mention of a condom failing in that passage. L0b0t 23:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you respond to Lyrl's initial explanation in his edit summary, that these so-called failure modes of non-use are being included in the statistics on typical-use failure rates, and therefore deserve discussion to avoid misrepresentation?  I mean, I for one would agree with you that non-use should never be considered a failure mode, but perhaps the eggheads who decided which failure modes should be included in the typical-use guideline felt differently.  If that is the case, then we should either a.) include Lyrl's section or b.) take the time to point out that the "typical use" stats are based on the inclusion of non-use as a "failure mode" (so our readers will understand the stats are slightly crocked).  Which do you think is best?  Kasreyn 01:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As pointed out to me in a previous discussion, it depends on your definition of failure.  If you define failure as breakage or slippage, then no, non-use is not a failure.  If you define failure as pregnancy amoung condom users, however (and this is how it is defined in the typical use failure statistics) then non-use certainly is a failure. Lyrl    Talk     Contribs   02:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I stand corrected.  I was unaware of the inclusion of non-use in statistics.  I would posit however that the malleability of statistical sampling makes it very dodgy and unreliable.  One would also have to define condom user. Being a "condom user" would seem to preclude any non-use as one would be using a condom.  Perhaps "test subjects that reported regular condom usage" or "habitual condom users"?L0b0t 06:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed.  It appears the researchers really didn't think carefully about this...  which would tend to lead one to suspect the quality of their measurements and results as well.  Can a different study be found, by researchers who have a better grasp of the initial premises involved in such a study?  Kasreyn 08:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I see your point I just feel some other name should be given for those people.  If you are a condom user you are using a condom, if you don't use a condom you cease to be a condom user by definition.L0b0t 18:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is a heroin user only a heroin user on the days he is able to find a fix?  I'm not sure the rule you are suggesting is actually the way "user" is generally defined.  The various terms "x user" are often construed to mean that the person is, generally speaking, a user-of-x-type person even when not specifically engaged in use of x.  Ie., "heroin user" describes a fairly well-accepted set of precepts about the person's likely behavior, the most important of which is "frequently uses heroin", but there are others as well, such as "more likely to be a criminal", "more likely to die of a heart attack", etc.  Kasreyn 08:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Causes of condom failure 

message: Stephen Ambrose's book D-Day has interviews with a couple of soldiers who talk about using condoms to protect rifle barrels from water and debris.  I've read it in a couple other places since, but that was the first place I saw it.  I was about nineteen and it seemed the funniest thing in the world to me.
71.199.115.160 06:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protecting Rifle Barrels 

message: I removed the following from the article:
:* British SAS  troops are also reported to use condoms as make-shift gloves during emergency surgery on the field of battle: five condoms, one over each finger, can help prevent contamination from blood during the operation or application of dressings.
As the edit adding the "dubious" tag noted, condoms would be quit ill fitting and difficult to use.  With all due resepct to the ledgend of James Bond and the British, I can hardly imagine anyone going into battle with ten condoms per person.  I am removing it pending citation.  --19:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Condoms as gloves 

message: I noticed a passage under the "Invisible" condom section that is clearly vandalism, but cannot find it in any of the edit pages to remove it. Maybe someone else knows how this was done?74.64.60.85 22:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: The referenced article in the Independent is a good example of a widespread urban legend which should be addressed here.  The logic of it is very simple.  The Catholic condemnation of condom use as 'sinful' is based on their use as contraceptive devices; which, in the Church's opinion, trumps their use as barriers to the transmission of STD's.  These objections do not apply, ipso facto, in the case of homosexual relations.
:The Catholic birth control vs. STD protection issue is not only relevent to homosexual couples.  There has been one Cardinal (though I could not find it in a quick Google search) who promoted condom usage amoung prostitutes.  I did find an article mentioning a Cardinal promoting condom use by people known to have HIV. Lyrl    Talk     Contribs   01:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pope vs. condoms

message: I removed a reference to a German scientisit creating a "spray-on" condom.  It sounded fishy and was unsourced.  If it is legitimate and you would like to add it back please give a source.--Eric 23:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unsourced??? What are you talking about?  The source was linked to right in the article. There was both an html page and streaming video to the actual news article mentioned. Of course I am putting it back. CyberAnth 23:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, my apologies, I now see you are speaking of someone else's addition about it, which I would have removed on site as well. CyberAnth 03:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spray-on Condom 

message: I have seen in this and many dictionaries that the origin of the word "condom" is not known. It seems to me very likely that it is derived from one of the first discoverers of Latex, Charles-Marie La Condamine, a French scientis and explorer who discovered latex in Peru in 1735. See this link: 
http://www.iisrp.com/WebPolymers/00Rubber_Intro.pdf
It seems quite reasonable that tubes made of latex could have found general use and might have been called condoms from his name. It would be a small leap from there to the devices we now have for contraception. I am surprised that no connection to La Condamine seeem to hav ebeen made relative to the term condom.
68.21.231.254 23:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with that is that sheepskin condoms existed for at least a hundred years before the discovery of rubber by Europeans. And rubber condoms were not made for over a hundred years after that. Lyrl    Talk     Contribs   00:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: Note discussion at Talk:Birth control#"pregnancy rate" rather than "failure rate" re replacing occurrences of "failure rate" with "pregnancy rate".  I would also like to see the same change on this page.  Please make any comments there.  --Coppertwig 04:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "pregnancy rate" rather than "failure rate" 

message: Is there any info on the pregnancy rate/whatever of lambskin condoms? Or at least the risks of failure (slpping, breaking). As the pores are too small for sperm, they should in theory be as effective as latex condoms for birth control but it depends greatly on the various failure factors. Obviously if there is some info, it should be added 203.109.240.93 12:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: lambskin condoms are really expensive if you look at them they should make them a little bit cheaper so they can keep people safe some people will have sex because of stupidity especially if there is no cheaper way to prevent pregnancy. Yes the lambskin is a good idea for people allergic to latex but then again the prices are way too high. I am not too sure how affective they will be in the end. Shebbykz 01:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lambskin 

message: I'm not sure the phrases perfect use and typical use should be treated as quotes from the reference, with quotation marks.  I had not considered two-word phrases quotes, and had thought quotes around such short phrases were usually scare quotes.  While I do not think there is a danger of readers interpreting "perfect use" as a scare quote because of the context, I still feel it looks unencyclopedic.  I do see a benefit in marking the phrases as special the first time they are used - they are technical language being defined.  However, I would prefer to use italics rather than quotation marks.  Thoughts? Lyrl    Talk     C   23:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If using italics is a proper way to quote the source then I would have no problem changing it to that, to avoid the potential of having people think it might be "scare quotes". DanielZimmerman 15:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotes around description of pregnancy rate

message: Lyrl: you stated "Failures that occur during application generally pose no risk to the user". I have an issue with this statement. To me, this reads that if someone fails to apply the condom properly that there is no risk to the user and this is absolutely untrue. What exactly was the source trying to say and how can we word it differently? DanielZimmerman 15:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what they meant was if the condom is obviously broken, the users notice, and replace it with a good condom. Feel free to reword it. Lyrl    Talk     C   00:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is very risky wording though, because if a failure in application (like using ones teeth to open the condom and causing a small tear that one might not see (given that many people do not have "good lighting" when applying a condom) happens, then the statement is clearly false and there is much to fear from that user. DanielZimmerman 04:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failures during application issue.  

message: I removed the piece about Ghana because it was ignorant and quite racist. Without explaining on which aspects of Ghanian culture clashed with condom use, the previous author declared that Ghanians were unable to understand the consequences of not using condoms. If there are citations to the contrary, please disregard this. 212.219.239.213 15:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your deletion of the content.  I didn't notice it in previous revisions I made.  JohnCub 16:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ghana 

message: Our article has a section on sex education, which is fine.  What isn't fine is that the part devoted to discussion of opposition to teaching about condoms in sex education in one single country occupies about 80% of that section.  This section is in severe need of balancing.  This encycopedia isn't about one single country and religious opposition is--at best--peripheral to the use of condoms in sex education. --Tony Sidaway 15:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have information from other countries, so can't help with the balancing, but I pruned the U.S. section to try to cut down on peripheral discussion. Lyrl    Talk     C   15:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sex education

message: "It is estimated that 61 million to 100 million condoms are improperly disposed of in Britain alone, often ending up in rivers or the ocean."
It should have a time period, shouldn't it? 61 million in a day? a month? a year? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.114.151.76 (talk) 22:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very true, and the fact should also be cited.  I have removed it until it can be clarified.  --TeaDrinker 18:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The ref at the end of that paragraph states, "The British Environment Agency estimates Brits discard 61 to 100 million condoms per year, many of which end up in rivers, the sea and on beaches." I would add it back it as it appears to be perfectly well cited, with a time period (per year), but it doesn't say "improperly disposed of" - so that number is possibly the entire British condom usage, not the fraction that is left on beaches. Lyrl    Talk     C   21:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something is missing in this sentence 

message: The main illustration for this article is pretty poor, showing only a foil pack with a brand name on it.  Shouldn't we put :Image:Condom_unrolled.jpg or, if possible, a better image to represent the condom?  Looking at the packaging tells you almost nothing about the shape of what's inside. --Tony Sidaway 06:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Main illustration

message: The opening sentence states that condoms are used solely in sexual intercourse (at least it is implied).  However, recently they're also being used to protect women from STDs during fellatio, as well.  I'd think that changing it to simply sex as opposed to sexual intercourse would be appropriate.  Any thoughts? TrevorRC 20:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Condoms only used during intercourse 

message: Benefit on top of the page is spelt "Benifits" but I can't find error in the edit
What does it means "condoms are the most distributed type of condom in the world"?
Please correct.
:It says "Latex..." (ie more than other types) GDonato (talk) 20:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested fix

message: I updated the Polyurethane section, specifically the outdated comparisons with latex. Studies 9 years ago suggested polyurethane was much less effective than latex, though recent lab tests equate their effectiveness, per reliable sources referenced therein.
I also updated all three Go Ask Alice! references to be more structured, and to have their last updated dates. Go Ask Alice!, while a reliable, extensive, and exhaustively researched site, does have some dated information they are in the process of updating en masse (even to the point of reversing the answer's conclusion, if recent lab tests contradict initial ones), including a couple of the references here. Peter 01:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Polyurethane

message: I've decided to remove the line that states "Natural latex condoms have a minimum thickness of 0.046 mm" as this is simply not true. there is no "minimum" thickness, as the thickness of condoms is continually going down with advancements in technology. currently the thinnest condom is just 0.03mm. I have replaced the sentence with "Currently the thinnest latex condom stands at 0.03mm thick."
Craptree 00:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  minimum latex condom thickness??? 

message: From the article:
:Groups such as Planned Parenthood, which advocate family planning and sexual education, argue that religious opposition to teaching about condoms results in increased number of unwanted pregnancies and the spread of STDs.
This doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.  It would stand to reason that "failure to provide sufficient education" (perhaps as a result of "religious opposition to teaching about condoms") is what Planned parenthood argues "results in [an] increased number of unwanted pregnancies and the spread of [STIs]."  If Planned Parenthood draws the connection that is made by this statement, then it should be probably be cited as such.
Otherwise, the statement should be altered to reflect what PP actually advocates (and a cite would still be nice).—Kbolino 23:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Planned Parenthood, religious organizations, and sex ed 

message: The comment "ethnic differences may play a role in correct sizing" was added in response to news articles in December 2006 such as this.  See #Indian size study for discussion at the time.
It is now well into 2007, and the body that carried out this study, the Indian Council of Medical Research, still has no information on a condom sizing study on its webpage.  This leads me to believe the "advance information" that led to that series of news articles was inaccurate.  I'm leaning towards removing the statement about ethnicity from this Wikipedia article entirely. What do others think? LyrlTalk     C   13:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnic differences and condom sizing 

message: Hi.  This page almost completely ignores the usage of condoms during anal sex.  In particular, it doesn't discuss the effectiveness of preventing STDs during anal sex.  The study referenced deals exclusively with vaginal intercourse.  Ideally, similar numbers should be posted for anal sex or at least the language should be clarified.  I'll see if I can find some studies that can be referenced.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.252.150.116 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 23 August 2007
:Sounds like a good plan. LyrlTalk     C   22:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about condom usage during anal sex? 

message: Everyday there is a vandalism change by IP Addresses. I think this page should be semi-protected. C. Pineda 18:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You need WP:RFPP. Jakew 19:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi Block This Page 

message: About half the images in this article are not displaying.  If the caption is clicked, it takes me to the image page (where the image displays correctly).  Is it just my browser having this issue, or are other people not seeing all the images, either? LyrlTalk     C   17:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why are images not displaying? 

message: This is a non sequitor.  Fact that population vaires in some other egard provides no evidence that condom use varies dependent on those factors.
__Also some background that is needed on the group surveyed is that the marital fertility rate of the surveyed women were about five children per woman, and each of the women had a different level of education. About sixty-one percent had intermediate-level education, twenty percent had a primary education, and eighteen percent had trouble reading or could not read at all. This provides evidence that condom use varies dependent on social factors like the area’s cultural background and education.__  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.203.135.112 (talk) 09:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lebanon Study 

message: Republic of Ireland: Condoms and other contraceptives were legally forbidden there until 1979, when two clinics in Dublin distributed them and only to married couples. It took much effort by pro-contraceptive forces to effect changes in this direction, but the general public backed them. That the church opposed such legalisation through sermons and publications is probably a major reason why it has lost such influence in that country.Flake11 20:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Republic of Ireland

message: The instructions on how to put on a condom, :Image:Posecondom.jpg, do not specify a source.  Without source information, there is no way to verify the image is not a copyright violation.  Wikipedia policy is to delete images with no source information.  Does anyone have information on where this image came from?
Should :Image:Posecondom.jpg end up being removed, I would suggest :Image:CondomUse2 alternative.jpg as an alternative that has source and copyright information.  However, in a discussion a while ago (Talk:Condom/Archive 3#Usage picture?) several people liked the Pose image better, so I'd like to save it if we can. LyrlTalk     C   23:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: well maybe its worth playing it safe and getting a new "how to" picture, i mean i think someone just drew that in their school text book and scanned it here. maybe get a betterone. --Metal to the Max! 11:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: i agree with the replacement of the image for a different reason. :Image:Posecondom.jpg fails to depict you have to hold a thingy at the end with your other hand to prevent it being hoisted up your penis. :Image:CondomUse2 alternative.jpg does show that, so to prevent the promotion of improper use of the condom, i say replacement is urgent· Lygophile has spoken 02:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I think (If my memory serves) that the images is actually from the instructions included with Durex Condoms in the UK.
213.249.247.130 (talk) 18:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Heh, yes I also have a feeling I've seen those same drawings on a condom package leaflet, can't remember the brand though. Shadowcrow (talk) 22:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image copyright issue 

message: There are a few religious movements that prohibit condom use for purposes of contraception - Orthodox Judaism, the Protestant Christian Quiverfull movement, the Roman Catholic Church, and probably some small groups I'm not aware of.  Of these groups, the RCC is by far the largest.  Only the RCC has a major influence on the extent of condom promotion programs targeted at reducing the AIDS epidemic.   I believe that including the RCC's position on condoms to prevent STDs is relevant to this article in a way that the positions of Orthodox Judaism and Quiverfull adherants are not.
However, this discussion was recently removed (diff) with the edit summary This is not relevant to the discussion of condoms. We do not list what each and every religion has to say about condoms.  This belongs in Christian_views_on_contraception#Roman_Catholic_Church.
What do others think? LyrlTalk     C   02:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Check out my most recent to get all the information in there.  The removed "Position of the Roman Catholic Church" section didn't make it clear how or whether the power of the RCC affects condom use, programs that encourage condom use to prevent HIV infection, etc.  We should work on a version that focuses on the scope of that if it is relevant enough for inclusion.  Photouploaded (talk) 15:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is this, my text isn't comprehensive enough, so it gets held hostage until I spend significant time researching for the article? :P LyrlTalk     C   01:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roman Catholic Church and condom promotion 

message: I recently expanded the lead section to try to conform with the Wikipedia guideline WP:LEAD, as recommended in the recent peer review.  Specifically, the guideline states "the lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article".  To me, something that has its own section heading is an "important point" in an article, so I tried to include something from each section in the lead section.  The guideline also states "Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source".  I tried to judge which statements were controversial enough to need a source in the lead itself, and which statements would be OK relying on the citations in the body.
My sentence attempting to summarize the "Debate and criticism" section was recently removed (diff) with the edit summary ""litter problems" and "the Catholic Church" in one sentence? ??? remove bizarre, uncited lede sentence".  I appreciate that my writing style is awkward at times, but I honestly think the solution here would be to improve the summary.  Removing it entirely takes this article out of conformance with WP:LEAD.  As far as citations, the "Debate and criticism" section is fairly well cited.  Those citations can easily be copied to the lead section if needed; I don't find that a compelling argument for deleting the sentence.
Thoughts on including "Debate and criticism" in the lead section? LyrlTalk     C   01:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section 

message: I just read at the link below that the Roman Soldiers made condoms from the muscles of their conquered foes.  I think it would be interesting to include this in the history section on condoms.
http://www.spicygear.com/sexed/detail.cfm/cid/121  --PaladinWriter (talk) 02:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Muscles are completely the wrong shape for condoms.  Intestines are what is used to make "natural" condoms, since they start out as a tube.  I'm not sure that article interpreted the authors statement correctly.  I'd be more comfortable adding that to the article if an editor read the book The Humble Little Condom and got more details rather than just that interview with the author. LyrlTalk     C   15:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just wanted to comment, I ended up getting this book from my library.  The book calls the muscle condoms a "legend".  Nothing in the book is cited, so there's no way to evaluate reliability other than the information presented in the book.  I can't see including something the author calls a legend, though, when the book is chock full of so much interesting information she claims is factual. LyrlTalk     C   23:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roman Soldier's Condoms Made From Muscles of the Conquered 

message: " condom is a device most commonly used during dinner. It is put on a man's erect thumb and blocks ejaculated pasta sauce from the body of a male , Condoms are used to prevent jews and transmission of [[SARS]. Because condoms are waterproof, elastic, and durable, they are also used in a variety of secondary applications. These range from creating waterproof microphones to protecting rifle barrels from midgets." Surely this is vandalism. I know something about the correct use of a condom, and this does not describe such use. Could someone please lock this page?
Pygmypony (talk) 18:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would semi-protect the page, but a significant amount (half or more, I think) of recent vandalism has been from registered accounts.  I'm opposed to fully protecting the page at this time.  You may want to post at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection for a second opinion, though. LyrlTalk     C   22:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: The source link for the polyurethane condom thickness that was in place linked to a product which I believe no longer exists, at least in America. I couldn't find a reference to it. I also believe the information regarding thickness and size was out of date, so I corrected it. 
I think we need more sourcing on the blurb about female condoms. I looked at the main article and it gives no references regarding the current state of FDA approval for latex female condoms.  Helixweb (talk) 09:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polyurethane and Female Condoms 

message: I don't see how adding an actual picture of a penis as opposed to the illustration we had on there makes the article any better. I think the addition of actual nudity to the article detracts from the overall message, might scare off readers, and most certainly will add to the vandalism problems that plague this topic.Helixweb (talk) 12:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The black and white picture is blurry, we don't even see a condom. The other one is accurate and pertinent in this article, it shows how to put a condom. </br>If you don't want to see a penis, don't read the articles penis, erection, condom, etc. The question is not about your feelings about nudity but about the best illustration for this article.</br>See also Wikipedia:Images#Image_choice_and_placement.--Onesbrief (talk) 13:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, the question isn't about my feelings about nudity, so don't assume to know what my feelings are, or attempt to bring them into the realm of discussion. The points I made were that the picture added nothing to the article, would scare off readers wishing to educate themselves about safe sex, and be a magnet for vandalism. Refrain from reverting my edits until a consensus is reached on the subject.Helixweb (talk) 14:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Most people who would benefit from learning how to properly put on a condom may get silly excited when learning from the photos. Also, keep in mind that in many different countries there are different regulations about pornography, but in some it is defined, among others, as showing photos of an erected penis. I'd be definitely reluctant to exchange a drawing with a photo, as the informational value is not dramatically increased, and indeed may scare some kids off (while agitating some others, but to a possible detriment of educational value). I seriously doubt if teachers will use Wikipedia as a resource on the subject, if we use real photos. Pundit|utter 15:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Photograph of penises improve the articles on penis and erection because that is the topic of those articles.  Just like photographs of condoms improve this article.  A photograph of a penis does not improve an article on condoms, and as others have pointed out will actually negatively impact the article. LyrlTalk     C   22:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The instructions in the photo version are more detailed and easier to follow; that alone is an argument for preferring it.  -- Zsero (talk) 04:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to put on a condom 

message: Dear Lyrl,
You wrote : - "Latex condoms have significantly smaller pores than the study on latex gloves you cited. "
On what do you base this assertion? Can you provide a reference? Having worked with NRL I can assure you ALL latex has exactly the same lattice (pore) size and why would medical gloves select an inferior grade if such existed? Latex gloves have a longer dip dwell time and in most cases more coagulant dips than the two used for condoms. The formers (in terms of composition) and coagulants used are identical.
1). A paper in the February 1992 issue of Applied and Environmental Microbiology reports that filtration techniques show the HIV-1 virus to be 0.1 micron (4 millionths of an inch) in diameter. It is three times smaller than the herpes virus, 60 times smaller than the syphilis spirochete, and 50 to 450 times smaller than sperm.
2). Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) researchers, using powerful electron microscopes, have found that new latex, from which condoms are fabricated, contains "maximum inherent flaw[s]" (that is, holes) 70 microns in diameter.  
These holes are 700 times larger than the HIV-1 virus. There are pores in latex, and some of the pores are large enough to pass sperm-sized particles. Carey, et al., observed leakage of HIV-sized particles through 33%+ of the latex condoms tested. In addition, as Gordon points out in his review, the testing procedures for condoms are less than desirable. United States condom manufacturers are allowed 0.4% leaky condoms (AQL). Gordon states, "The fluctuations in sampling permits many batches not meeting AQL to be sold." In the United States, 12% of domestic and 21% of imported batches of condoms have failed to meet the 0.4% AQL.
REFERENCES
Lytle, C. D., et al., "Filtration Sizes of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 and Surrogate Viruses Used to Test Barrier
Materials," Applied and Environmental Microbiology, Vol. 58, #2, Feb. 1992. 
"Anomalous Fatigue Behavior in Polysoprene," Rubber Chemistry and Technology, Vol. 62, #4, Sep.-Oct. 1989. 
Collart, David G., M.D., loc. cit. 
AND
Carey et al.(xxii) observed the passage of polystyrene microspheres, 110 nm diameter (
HIV diameter is from 90nm to 130 nm) across 33% of the membranes of the latex
condoms which they studied (29 over 89 nonlubricated latex condoms). More recently,
Lytle et al., while criticizing the "exaggerated conditions" of the in vitro, polystyrene. 
The condom itself is not 100 % safe. Result of examination show the following :
A condom is made of rubber (latex), a hydrocarbon compound with polymerization, which means that it is fibrous and porous like woven cloth. By means of an electronic microscope the pores of the condom can be seen in a non-stretched state with a width of 1/60 micron, while the HIV/AIDS virus has a width of 1/250 micron. When the condom is stretched the pores of the condom are 10 times as wide as that of the virus; in other words, the virus can go through the wall of the condom. The condom was designed for family planning (to strain sperm, not viruses); and a condom is not meant for fornication/prostitution.
Research carried out in the U.S. on 89 condoms in circulation on the market proved that 29 out of 89 leaked, which means that the leakage was about 30 %. In Indonesia condoms imported from Hong Kong in 1996 were withdrawn from market because 50 % leaked. In practice in the field there is often failure of condoms use for family planning because of leakage, let alone for fornication/prostitution. As a comparison, sperm are as large as oranges and viruses as large as a period (dot).
Another examination conducted in the U.S. ( the Physical Division of Human Sciences, Maryland, USA, 1992) showed that particles as minute as viruses can be detected going through the wall of condoms.
In every condom there are 0.4 % pinhole, microscopic defect in the manufacturing process. The area of the condom is 80 cm2 and if you count 32,000 pinhole in each condom, and if each pinhole is 1/1000 micron, Cookies are really good at birthday parties. FOR REFERENCES (to above) AND TO READ THIS HIGHLY DETAILED ARTICLE go to: - www.humanlifeinternational.com/condom_facts_safe_sex_aids.pdf  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aimulti (talk • contribs) 03:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, AFAIK (although my knowledge is very limited in this respect) there is some threshold amount of viruses that need to go through to infect - just like it is very unlikely to get HIV from saliva (although the virus is present there), even if some make it through holes, they are just eliminated. Thus, the argument about the size of holes in latex gloves, based on a study 20 years back, is hardly relevant anyway, especially when considered the fact that there are actual, contemporary studies of condoms and HIV. Pundit|utter 16:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Condom lattice size 

message: Aimulti, this article's STD section is currently referenced with reviews from respected sources that combine many large studies.  These references, published in the past decade, support the current mainstream scientific view.  Your sources of individual studies published in the '80s and early '90s are believed to be accurate by only a tiny minority of today's scientists, and including them would violate Wikipedia's NPOV policy. LyrlTalk     C   12:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, AFAIK (although my knowledge is very limited in this respect) there is some threshold amount of viruses that need to go through to infect - just like it is very unlikely to get HIV from saliva (although the virus is present there), even if some make it through holes, they are just eliminated. Thus, the argument about the size of holes in latex gloves, based on a study 20 years back, is hardly relevant anyway, especially when considered the fact that there are actual, contemporary studies of condoms and HIV. Pundit|utter 16:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply

message: The history section has recently been expanded by quite a bit.  I'm sure some of the new text is somewhat raw and would benefit from copyediting and reviews offering improvement suggestions.  Also, the expansion increased the size of this article by 73%.  I think this is a bit much, and the history section probably needs to be spun out into its own article.  Help with naming the new article (Condom history? History of the condom?  History of condoms?), and doing the summary style in the main condom article, would both be appreciated. 
A recent editor questioned the relevance of the 1490s syphilis outbreak to this article.  The connection is that Fallopio's invention of the condom, and its rapid popularization, was primarily driven by fear of syphilis.  Consider this a solicitation for suggestions to make this relationship more clear in the text. LyrlTalk     C   00:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: History of condoms, or shall we start a more ambitious History of birth control?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: History of birth control is needed also, but in that article the use of condoms will be interwoven with use of other methods.  I think history of condoms will remain useful for those interested specifically in this method, even when someone ambitious expands birth control#History enough to merit a spin-out. So, a vote for history of condoms. LyrlTalk     C   01:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So I've created the page, largely by pasting the existing text over there.  Cutting down a summary here is the harder bit.  I'll have a go at it, and then perhaps someone else will take a turn.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A little more progress.  Does anyone have a general notion on how big the history section should be?  And I've been thinking that the section about the major manufacturers might move to the end of the article.  Any thoughts?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think with the cuts I made today, the size is about right.  Manufacturers does seem like it would be better at the end, I'll go ahead and do that.  What about the etymology section - any thoughts on its placement in the article? LyrlTalk     C   00:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How about making manufacturers a subsection of history?  The current content of the manufacturers section seems to be primarily historical.  Likewise the etymology is also a historical matter and might make sense in the history section. Either that, or maybe put them under "Society and culture" (if one wants to emphasize the current terminology part of etymology, and move manufacture/etc. towards an economic/societal impact view).  (The latter section name suggested because mentioned in WP:MEDMOS, I have been looking at various method articles, trying to adjust to more standard sections.)  But I would favor putting them in history.  Zodon (talk) 02:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I think that manufacturers should be separate, and should also focus more on their current state (number of condoms sold, for example) than on their founding.  I removed some historical information just now (have to give people a reason to read the whole History of condoms after all), but don't know the modern information.  I don't think this article will make FA without a bit more current information.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section - reviews and copyediting requested 

message: I added a couple of sentences (w/ references) mentioning use of condoms to treat persistent HPV infection (help in clearing infection/facilitate regression of potentially pre-cancerous lesions).  It appears that by decreasing exposure to immune suppressive agents in semen, condoms may help treat potentially precancerous changes.  Which seemed enough different from the more commonly known role of decreasing transmission of STD pathogens that worth mentioning.  Zodon (talk) 08:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Condoms help treat persistent HPV infection 

message: I added a sentence to link in double bagging.  Should double bagging be merged into this article (the whole double bagging article is 2 short paragraphs).  Perhaps leaving a disambiguation page at double bagging?  As I recall, use of a male condom with female condom also results in increased failure rate - I think I have a reference for that, but have to check.  What do other editors think? Zodon (talk) 05:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I support a merge.  I think any information on prevalence of and cultural attitudes toward double bagging could be included in this article pretty easily.  I've gone ahead and put merge tags up in case anyone watching that article wants to comment. LyrlTalk     C   22:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

text: On the female condom issue, the NYU reference includes a caution against male + female condom. LyrlTalk     C   23:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

text: A merge sounds like a smart idea, the double bagging article is small, and I think deletion has been supported at least once--moreover, the information the article does provide might be valuable to people reading this article.  --Joe Decker (talk) 04:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Double bagging 

message: Not exactly an urgent thing, but over on Talk:Semen there was a brief mention of possibly using :Image:SemenInCondom.jpg on this article. Might be suitable? – Luna Santin (talk) 09:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what it would help illustrate about condoms.  I'm a little biased because I find the image a slightly "icky", though.  Did you have a particular section of the article in mind? LyrlTalk     C   23:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not especially, just noting that it exists if needed. Sounds like it's likely to be removed from the other article, and wondered if people might head over here; looks like they haven't, though, so hopefully nothing to worry about. If you don't feel it's useful/appropriate/etc, that's fine by me. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image option 

message: For those of you who don't know, polyisoprene condoms are a new form of condom that is available.  To learn more about them, Google "polyisoprene condoms".  I think there should be a new section in the article under "Materials" about these.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.225.87.136 (talk) 17:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polyisoprene Condoms