Talk:Condom/Archive 1

message: Where and how does one dispose a used condom ?
: In a bin, as they may block up pipes if you put them in the toilet. --Drak2 19:33, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Condom disposal 

message: The female condoms I'm quite familiar with do not advertise that they "slide on the penis".  That is only applicable to circumcised sex.  I believe the "slide on" sentence should be removed, unless further explaination is given as to the mechanics.  Tightly circumcised men often cannot use these types of condoms without adding large amounts of lubricants, or just jamming the thing into the vagina quite easily with our nerve-deadened genitals.  DanP 22:18, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: A female condom is supposed to be inserted in the vagina or anus, not put on the penis, before intercourse. They could not even "slide" on a penis (cut or uncut) because they would just drape around one, they even have little rings which secure the condom in the orafice. Hyacinth 22:33, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why does it say "The instructions for use of female condoms are of necessity different from those of male condoms, since they are inserted rather than worn, and designed to slide on the penis, rather than to fit tightly over it."  I know them well, yes they drape around a penis once it's inserted.  But the sentence says "slide on", which is totally different.  Uncut or restored, the penis does not need to "slide" skin-to-rubber.  Something has to "give": the latex, the penis, the vagina, or a some layer of lubricant somewhere in-between.  Cut tightly, the penis has only the lubrication for give, or else the condom gets shoved in.  First-hand experience.   So "drape around" is OK, but saying "slide on" is misleading unless copious lube is applied on one particular side of the condom.  DanP 22:53, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see now. Any condom should be used with lubrication, in my opinion, and I think in the opinion of the person who wrote "slide on". Being uncut, having one's foreskin, is not, in my personal and "first-hand" experience (including uncut and cut), any advantage or disadvantage when using a condom. Hyacinth 23:07, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, I changed it to "drape around" unless objections arise.  Unfortunately, with severe cuts there is a great difference.  Before restoring, only a fraction of the condom could be unrolled.  Restored, I can unroll the entire length, and have full mobility in the vagina for limitless time, rather than the artifically-lubed few minutes until lube dries out.  But I can see your point, as some artificial lubricants are good in both situations.  My point was the speed of drying with deep air-exposed surfaces, and hence causing the condom to get shoved in (and not even feel that it went in!) DanP 23:17, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Female condoms 

message: I do not think that instructions for effective use of condoms qualifies as encyclopedic material. Does one go to, say, the sexual intercourse page and find instructions for effective conception? I think the page should simply document what a condom is, and not how to use it.
Furthermore, I am going to insert a section about objections to condom use.--Mm35173 14:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes you do. In fact there is a page on wikipedia dedicated to a List of sex positions. Just because you may or may not find it morally objectionable, and don't want the "inconvenient" information out there doesn't mean it should be deleted. Also its relevent to state that many other medical entries of drugs, herbs, etc have mentions of use, contraindictions, etc, which are on similar footing as instructions on how to use a condom.SiberioS 05:57, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I think wikipedia has the potential to be something much greater than a conventional encyclopedia. The only point I see in advocating brevity is the possible problem of information overload (devoting a section to an arbitrary pair of george washington's shoes on a george washington page or something). But maybe a lot of this can be solved by summarizing stuff as a single link that leads to another wiki page with more subtle detail.
I think it certainly qualifies as material for Wikibooks.
AirBa 16:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Instructions for Condom Use Encylopedic Material? 

message: I didn't see any mention of what I see to be the MAIN reason for a dislike of condom use in society, which is that it provides a false confidence. (unsigned: 216.49.220.19
:Confidence? In what? Or whom? -- Ec5618 17:25, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
::Perhaps this relates to the idea that the Pope wants everyone to use condoms "because he can't stand to see a man have a good time"? -- Cspalletta 19:51, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Anonymous may mean that some people think that as long as they use a condom, they can't catch any STIs or become pregnant/cause a pregnancy.  This is a valid observation, but opposing condom use because of it is ridiculous, as not using condoms is much, much more likely to result in a pregnancy or infection. --Icarus 23:41, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

text: rolls eyes Yes, a person having false confidence in something with effectiveness in the high 90th percentiles is so much worse than using nothing effective at all.  Give it up.  -Kasreyn 00:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  About anti-condom people 

message: I am removing the condom use instructions, because they are prohibited by WP:WWIN. We do not give medical advice, and a condom is a medical device. --Mm35173 18:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing instructions

message: Is it absolutely neccesary to use such a graphic depiction of applying a condom? Giving such instruction is itself highly questionable, but in the interest of modesty, showing the human penis is even less responsible.--Thomas Aquinas 22:10, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Images On This Page 

message: Well people we ought to remove the application part, because anyone who is intent on buying and using these barbaric devices can find out from the directions if they are capable of reading (though they probably can't in which case it doesn't do much good spelling it out here). Chooserr 07:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proper use 

message: What's wrong with it? For one, all its allegations are unsourced. For two, that "so-called HIV" line is unacceptable pseudoscience quackery. HIV is a scientific fact accepted by all but a few nutballs, and that line really makes me question the accuracy and neutrality of the entire diagram. FCYTravis 08:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Copyrigth status of the pic itself is unclear too. Out it goes (and stays, hopefully).--Sean|Black 08:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine I'll leave it at that, but can we talk about the application bit. Wikipedia is not a how to guide, or so I was recently told. Chooserr 08:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diagram 

message: I was reading the history bit where it said that condoms were outlawed in certain places...are there any countries, states/provinces, counties, or cities/towns in which they are still illegal. It would make an interesting addition. Chooserr 00:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed it would. Let us know.--SarekOfVulcan 00:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't find anything on google about it. Chooserr 00:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Aren't there any countries who outlaw Condoms?!?!?! Chooserr 01:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illegal 

message: Silicon and talc as carcinogens? Exqueeze me? You might as well say food contains bones you can choke on and die, Silicon and talc are minerals, and I think that if talc caused cancer, every baby born since the 1900s would be dead because BABY POWDER is talc. FCYTravis 00:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel strongly that you should revert your edit though for while it mightn't be a great risk it is still a risk. I also tried to make it more NPOV, and reflect the situation accurately. Chooserr 00:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I like the bit about "talc's chemical similarity to asbestos." Asbestos is dangerous when inhaled because its crystal structure consists of insanely sharp, tiny fibers which tear apart the lining of the lungs, causing an immune response, scarring and blockage. Talc's crystal structure... doesn't have insanely sharp, tiny fibers that tear apart the lining of the lungs. You could rub yourself all over with asbestos and as long as you didn't inhale any, there'd be absolutely no health risk. Handling and examining asbestos is part of any standard college geosciences course. FCYTravis 01:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Talc can indeed be dangerous when inhaled.  "...there have been many deaths reported from aspiration of the powder...". (Let's hope the little tykes aren't getting the deadly powder off of condoms.) Also, asbestos sometimes appears in deposits of talc, leading to contaminated talcum. So a connection between talc and lung cancer is plausible, but a connection between it and penile cancer needs to be especially sourced. -Willmcw 09:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you inhale a bunch of talc it'll clog up your lungs. By that standard, cornstarch, powdered sugar, flour and anything else you inhale is deadly as well, and needs a warning label :) FCYTravis 03:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

text: FCYTravis, Hypothetically if I were to be nominated for adminship would you vote for me??? Chooserr 03:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The abbreviation ROFLMAOPIMP comes rushing to mind here...--SarekOfVulcan 03:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good thing I don't know what that stands for...seriously. Chooserr 03:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: OMGWTFBBQ

message: I noticed the request for comment and took the liberty of adding a line for balance.  To the citation you already have about nitrosamines in condoms I added a link to a Medline abstract that offered different findings.  On a related note, but somewhat off topic for this article, it also turns out that nitrosamines are present in baby pacifiers, baby bottle tips, and party balloons.  One wonders why a condom study received more coverage in the popular media. Durova 22:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC

message: The reason I have reverted your edit which, I believe was done in good faith despite the comment, is that if something isn't safe for surgery, and used on a device used every day it should be included. Talc - part of the dusting powders listed - is also believed to cause ovarian cancer. Chooserr 00:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The reproductive system is, generally speaking, open to the outside world, where the abdominal cavity isn't. I'm sure there are a whole bunch of things that would be very bad if introduced through an incision that are perfectly safe externally. Reverting again.--SarekOfVulcan 00:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm basing my revert on the information contained within the link, for I'm not positive how it does so either. But that university does seem to believe there is a risk. Chooserr 00:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Reading more carefully, I see what you mean. However, without knowing what the article actually says, I don't think we can use it as a reference.--SarekOfVulcan 00:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why not, maybe someone that knows how will add to it? Chooserr 00:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides the information is otherwise accurate, and just because it isn't specified doesn't mean it isn't possible, nor does it deminish the risk. Chooserr 01:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that the abstract does not quantify the risk.--SarekOfVulcan 01:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You've lost me there. But the important information addresses its risks. It doesn't explain exactly how, but most people will say radiation causes cancer without knowing exactly how. I am in favour of expanding this section...not deleting it. Chooserr 01:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you a student? If so, you can probably get the original article through interlibrary loan and let us know what it actually says about the risk. The article says that it classifies the risks: at no point does it actually say what they are.--SarekOfVulcan 01:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't necessarily have to be a student to get a book or article through interlibrary loan, and might even do that if need be, but until then should we delete a possibly vital addition? I don't think so. And I believe that we may be able to expand it without the actual article. You just need someone with some knowledge as to how it would "theoretically" make its way from the vagina to the abdomin. Chooserr 01:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ABSOLUTELY NOT! You cannot say that it's a theoretical issue. That violates WP:NOR. Note that this is a 10-year-old article: if it were "vital", I think they'd have found a lot more corroborating evidence by now.--SarekOfVulcan 01:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying that the risk is theoretical. I'm saying that you logically deduce how it would make its way into the abdomin...I don't see how that would violate WP:NOR but if it does "let it be", at least until one more knowledged than me can add his opinion/views/knowledge. Chooserr 01:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Talc, one of the dusting powders in that section is suspected of causing ovarian cancer as well. So maybe we should make an amendment to the article describing the first possible risk and the second more likely risk. Chooserr 01:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasoning the revert 

message: Recent research:
:Our results provide little support for any substantial association between perineal talc use and ovarian cancer risk overall; however, perineal talc use may modestly increase the risk of invasive serous ovarian cancer. [J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:249–52]
--SarekOfVulcan 01:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But others believe it a risk, and there must be some risk because the talc page addresses it (I believe). Chooserr 01:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In about 5 seconds I could have the talc page say nothing about it. Bad argument. :-)--SarekOfVulcan 01:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't. Past that if you give me a while I might find something on Pubmed countering your arguement. Chooserr 01:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  ? Chooserr 01:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's kind of weird that you consider that as refuting my "argument" when it's the exact article I already quoted.--SarekOfVulcan 03:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't know about that. I didn't really understand it, but the first line says "[Talc's] associated with ovarian cancer" Chooserr 03:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You shouldn't bother, these kind of people are never going to learn to see reason, this whole "encyclopedia" could use a major smarkectomy--Ytrewqt 03:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ovarian cancer and talc

message: Wait a minute... this seems to the point of absurdity. Condoms are an absolutely tiny portion of the solid waste generated every day. Is there a section on "Bibles and the Environment" - discussing the damage done to forests by clear-cutting virgin timber to make paper to print free giveaway Bibles on? Would you like me to start one to make a WP:POINT? C'mon now, this is just petty. FCYTravis 05:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Condoms and the Environment

message: Before adding potentially controversial edits, bring it to the talk page so that sources and info can be discussed.  If you edit the article, make a note of sources in the article as per Wikipedia guidelines, or at least mention it on the talk page.
As for the talk page - comments about Bibles being torn up and flushed, or their environmental impact, are meant to provoke - please avoid them, and if you notice a comment like it, just avoid reponding (see Internet troll).  Many new regular contributors of late have totally lost the desire for consensus-based results, instead just wanting to make sure their bit is posted - all that happens is an edit war.  Anyways, I've said my bit.....DonaNobisPacem 21:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I selected that one comment as an example...my main frustration (as is yours, I am assuming) is that people seem to be making changes willy-nilly (if you'll excuse the antiquated term) without listing reliable sources or bringing it up on the talk board to seek consensus, particularly in regards to suspect or lesser known information....DonaNobisPacem 07:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

text: *Would you suggest that we censor the truth and sugar coat our condoms? I think not, if a product has known hazards, I see no reason to not include them--63.22.55.169 21:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See above - I am not suggesting data is not included, I am suggesting it be discussedand sources provided, before inclusion in an article.DonaNobisPacem 07:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  I would suggest that it's a long way from conjectured or suspected hazards, especially those suspected by anti-contraception activists, to "known" hazards. And whether one likes to apply sugar, honey, chocolate syrup or whipped cream is entirely a matter of personal choice. FreplySpang (talk) 21:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is getting ridiculous....so is the talk page......