Talk:Condom/Archive 2

message: Moink, regarding your recent note that there is no source for the claim of websites endorsing sabotage (good catch!), I'm doing some looking.  So far I can't find any current threads at babycenter with sabotage advice being handed out.  It appears they really have turned over a new leaf.  They have also apparently deleted or hidden all the old posts from back when the site was used to give out sabotage ideas to women who wanted children.  I admire their turning over a new leaf, but not their sweeping their old behavior under the rug.  
There is one user, "Olenka9", who seems to have a very bitter attitude towards men, and provides advice on trickery here:   (look for first reply by olenka9), but the regulars and administrators usually scold Olenka.  Therefore while it might be possible for people like Olenka to provide sabotage advice on the forum, it would not be appropriate to insinuate that the website endorses it.  Sadly, the site lacks user search functionality so I can't browse this "olenka"'s comments to see if she's provided more advice on sabotage.
Here is an example of someone asking for advice on trickery ("forgetting" to take BC pills; not really condom related though).
On the same topic as the one with olenka9 above, a user provides another example of ways to become pregnant against a partner's wishes:  "next time you are ovulating take control, You on top, he can't pull out.  Or wrap your legs around his butt so that he can't pull out."  As far as I can tell this user was not reprimanded by anyone.  This is also not condom-related, merely advice on how to defeat the notoriously failure-prone "pull-out method".
This thread is by a woman who is flushing her BC pills and deceiving her husband in hopes of having another child which he does not want:  "I know its lieing tohim, but it is my body."  Also, "I know he will be upset that the 'BC FAILED', but I also know he wants another baby, he just dont want it yet."
:P.S. in this thread on the forum, no one shows the slightest bit of upset over this manipulative and condescending attitude towards the husband (the conceit that she knows better than him what he wants!); in fact, the poster is congratulated and encouraged.  Kasreyn 22:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for all that work!  Sabotage definitely happens, but the article seems to make it seem like there's some sort of active group that advocates for such a thing.  I followed all your links and they made me feel the same way you do.  Wow, some of these people are seriously delusional.  Anyway, I'll think about how to reword the info in the article.  Perhaps this belongs somewhere else, like contraception, where we could link to those crazy people flushing their pills.  moink 22:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your most recent edit seems to have fixed the problem.  You're right that it's better to use the source to address "motivation" rather than advocacy, because we really don't have any proof of advocacy.  Thanks, moink!  Kasreyn 22:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sabotage Sourcing

message: The four pictures, giving step by step hints on how to put on a condom, lead in the german version to a constantly Edit War fought by anonymous who deleted this picture, albeit discussions showed a majority that wants to retain it. To prevent (or at least embank) this Edit War I did the image processing aside.
If this is an issue here too, you may invited to take into account using this image instead.
-- Pemu 22:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The images aren't offensive to me, but they could be more clear, I think. In the middle two, it's hard (pardon the pun) to see what is being done. Thumbelina 22:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proper use

message: I've seen it said (I just wish I could source it...) that passing out condoms has 0 effect on %teen sex activity... (I'll reserve comment on what the religious anti-sex loonies think of that.)  Trekphiler 23:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please avoid trolling on talk pages.  Cite a source if you want to make a valid point; and please review Wikipedia's civility guidelines re:religious slurs.DonaNobisPacem 23:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Odd how he merely mentioned "religious anti-sex loonies" in general, not naming any names, and then you instantly leap down his throat feet-first.  Methinks the Wikipedian doth protest too much.  ;)  Have you anything to say regarding the substantive matter of his discussion comment (effect on teen sexual behavior), or would you censor that as well?  I wouldn't get too worked up by people displaying their biases on the talk page if I were you; it's hard enough getting everyone to refrain from it on the article itself.  He wasn't insulting you directly until you designated yourself as an insultee.  So can we all please chill out?  -Kasreyn 08:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A factoid is something passed off as a fact, but is actually a lie such as the term "Safe Sex"... Chooserr 00:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Incorrect.  "Safe Sex" is a political spin word, a frame-word, a marketing term, a propaganda phrase if you will.  "Condoms cause penile cancer", now that's a factoid:  it has a (small) grain of truth, but it's taken out of context and overinflated to appear far more weighty than it really is.  "Safe Sex" doesn't even pretend to reference facts so much as a recommended course of behavior.  -Kasreyn 06:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhm, safe sex refers to the fact that sex with condoms is safer, in terms of STI's, than sex without condoms.  I don't see how this is particularly misleading, much less propaganda. Alienus 07:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't get me wrong, I'm not against the use of the term, I just believe in being honest with myself.  I'm personally in favor of having the government provide a free condom dispenser on every street lamp in every city in America.  But "Safe Sex" is much like "pro-choice" and "pro-life", it's a biased term which comes laden with its own freight of assumed points of view.  It is a term of persuasion, not merely description.  To a devout evangelical, no sex before marriage is "safe" because (to them) it results in eternal damnation - and how can a condom prevent that?  The "safe" in "safe sex" implies that only medical safety, and not social or spiritual safety, is involved, and therefore "safe sex", while a useful descriptive term, is not fair to all sides.  -Kasreyn 20:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I think safe-sex is overall a sad term though, just like on one of the commercials I saw, that said, "may increase risk of pregnancy" couldn't they have said "chances of pregnancy"? Chooserr 07:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Factoid

message: Seriously:  What the fuck.  Is that actually what the medical establishment is calling it now?  What kind of nimrods are they?  How can you educate the public about the dangers of something if you keep changing its damned name?  This is the dumbest thing I've ever seen.  "STD" might be 0.001% less scientifically accurate than "STI" but it already has widespread recognition making it a useful piece of terminology for spreading information.  The public awareness campaign can only be harmed by the confusion this sort of blinkered foolishness will produce.  Someone explain to me why it should be changed on Wikipedia, and give a GOOD reason, not just "everyone else is doing it". -Kasreyn 06:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although the distinction infection versus disease is correct it is absolutely impracticle to discuss infection in the manner of this article. Since most people are infected by pathogens, in the pulmonary-digestive-urinary tract, these seldom result in disease. To suggest infection warrants medical treatment misrepresents current (non-US?) medical practise where usually asymptomic infections are rarely detected. To test all subjects on all possible infections would be impossible. Generally speaking, people will turn to their physician after symptoms have developed, in casu when disease is present, or when previous bedpartners are diagnosed with a STD.--Nomen Nescio 17:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Kasreyn, not all diseases are caused by infections, not all infections cause diseases.  "Disease" and "infection" are two different words, and they mean different things.  The official, or even just prefered, medical terms often change to reflect differences, or refinement of understanding in the medical community.  For instance, "Fetal Alcohol Syndrome" is now called "Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder" because it's a spectrum disorder, not a syndrome.  It might seem like hair-spliting to you, but it matters to those who work in the field.  As for why should Wikipedia go with the current accepted terminology, rather than that which you are most familiar with?  Because it is more correct and more accurate.  As an encyclopedia WP is committed to presenting what is the current authoritative view of the truth.  This is more important than whatever public service advantage might be served by propagandizing with incorrect terminology.  Just as WP does not serve it's intended purpose by presenting falsehoods as established facts, so it will also use the correct technical terms.  Please also consider familiarising yourself with other WP policies such as WP:CIVIL. Pete.Hurd 04:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  STI's?? 

message: There are statistics here telling you how likely it is to contract AIDS by using a condoms as opposed to not using one, but I heard that condoms provide protection primarily for women. I can't say exactly how, for I don't know all the workings, but I was told it stops the spreading of AIDS from Male-Female, but does little to stop the spreading from Female-Male. Can anyone confirm this? Chooserr 00:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First time I hear of this. Feel free to supply a source for what sounds like an urban myth.--Nomen Nescio 18:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My memory is that the transmission rate male -> female is about twice female -> male for unprotected penis in vagina sex in the United States. This was in a study reported in the Morbitity and Mortality Weekly Report of the Centers for Disease Control about ten years ago. But, by all means look for a more current study in the scientific literature. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Condoms and disease 

message: Chooserr, since you know by now that your edits are objectionable to some here, why don't you try discussing here first to see if you can get consensus?--SarekOfVulcan 23:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chooserr changes 

message: I don't want to violate the 3rvt rule or even get to a 3rd revert so I will try to ration out my reasoning for removing the link. My first point is that anything coming from that site will be biased. My second is that that link doesn't even pertain to condoms, nor their application. Chooserr 03:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Planned Parenthood 

message: Lifestyles is a brand of condom. You removed it without any reason whatsoever, Choserr. Please reinsert this link. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lifestyles removed. 

message: The IP/User 70.230.178.219 has changed the statistics for the Condoms test adding an extra condom so instead on "out of 32" it is "out of 33" this is not a content dispute...he didn't even give a summary. I do not wan't to violate the 3rvt rule so can someone fix this VVVVVvandalism??? Chooserr 23:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objection to changing it back, but how do I know if it is 32 or 33? AnnH (talk) 23:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked the link that was supplied as a citation, and it was 32. This is why Cites Are A Good Thing. :-)--SarekOfVulcan 23:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should I shout Vandalism? 

message: "Natural latex can be cured to be 0.046mm in thickness, while polyurethane can be set at 0.02mm thickness."
Is this a limitation of technology or a regulatory limitation? --Gbleem 02:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thickness 

message: "Natural latex can be cured to be 0.046mm in thickness, while polyurethane can be set at 0.02mm thickness."
Is this a limitation of technology or a regulatory limitation? --24.94.190.164 04:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thickness 

message: The article's effectiveness information is currently scattered everywhere, in multiple sections.  Some discuss effectiveness against STD's, some against conception, some both, and some muddle the two.  Contradictory figures are quoted without so much as a linking "however".  A separate section on "condom failure" exists, for reasons which completely escape me, with yet another set of figures on effectiveness.
This is a muddled mess.  The article needs exactly one section, describing effectiveness.  That's it - effectiveness.  "Failure" is another word for "ineffective", so the two sections are redundant.  
This combined section should be very near the top - preferably immediately below the contents section.  Why?  It's what most readers of the article will be very likely to be interested in learning.  Why bury it, when it's the most important section of the article?  
This merged section should have two internal sub-sections:  Effectiveness against STD's, and Effectiveness against conception.  We should draw a clear distinction when we are noting effectiveness rates assuming "best use" (translation: as directed) and when we are assuming "typical" (translation: ignoramus) use, because these do matter and are important distinctions.  We should make it clear when a cited report is based only on a specific kind of condom, such as non-spermicidal vs. spermicidal, or sheepskin vs. latex, or whatever.  Different readers may have different assumptions about what a "condom" is, depending on what is available in their area, and we shouldn't give them a false impression of effectiveness.
In general, the article at the moment is a bit of a mess thanks to endless warring by anti-condom and pro-condom partisans.  Rather than attempting to reach consensus, both sides seem determined to simply outnumber the other with more figures.  It does a disservice to Wikipedia readers, who simply want to be able to come here and find out if their condom will keep them safe and un-pregnant.  We ought to have an article that will tell them simply and up-front what the risks are.  It's been very difficult to reach a consensus on those risks, but if the figures are collected into a single section and carefully detailed, perhaps that might reduce the frequency of reverts.
Please comment below, I'm very interested in hearing what people have to say about this.  If no one objects within a week, I'll being making the changes.  Thanks.  -Kasreyn 09:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effectiveness sections muddled 

message: Can someone else help me out:
:At the same time, anti-condom movements like barebacking are remarkable social trends of simple, yet unsafe, defiance of an unnecessary precaution.
The above text seems to suggest condom usage is an unnecessary precaution? Am I reading this wrong? Nil Einne 10:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The entire section on "barebacking" is off-topic and original research, in my opinion, and I said so quite some time ago.  You won't hear me complaining if you just remove the section.  -Kasreyn 05:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Strange statement

message: I see that this issue has already been discussed briefly, but I'd like to bring it up again.  I agree that Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, but it seems to me that how to put on a condom is encyclopedic in itself, in the sense that people who don't plan on ever wearing a condom themselves might still want to know how a condom is used.  What do others think about putting those pictures back in the article?  --Allen 03:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  pictures illustrating condom use 

message: It's ESSENTIAL to show usage.  How the fuck do you show what a condom is and how to use it if there's no pictures? --CalPaterson 22:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We've already had this discussion.  I agree with you, but the consensus went the other way.  The decision reached was to leave a link to the Wikibooks page on condom usage (which you can find here).  As long as that link is there, anyone interested in learning how to use one is just a click away.  And it has all the pictures needed.  I personally disagree with that division of information, but it was a case of majority rule as I recall.  I don't think it's really that much of a problem.  -Kasreyn 04:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page needs a picture of a penis with a condom on it 

message: This section appears to need work.
Firstly, since the usage of male condoms was decided (against my objection) to be off-topic and was removed to wikibooks, the same reasoning must apply for the female condom.  How shall we go about creating a wikibook entry for usage of the female condom?  Once complete, I will remove this content and replace it with a link to the wikibook entry.
Secondly, the section is unsourced and tacitly supports a claim that female condoms are "the only available form of woman-initiated protection against HIV", which is laughably wrong.  A woman can protect herself against HIV by refusing to have sex, and she can protect herself against HIV by demanding that her partner wear a male condom.  Both these acts are woman-initiated.  The YWCA appears to be mistaking woman-worn with woman-initiated.  A woman can demand that a man wear a male condom.  If he refuses, she can relent (and choose to forego protection, at her own initiation) or she can refuse (which she also initiates).  If he then continues to try to have sex with her, we're no longer talking about choice, we're talking about rape.  The entire panoply of protection methods can be "initiated" by a woman, even the ones which require male action, by demanding them in exchange for sex.  A woman can demand that her husband get a vasectomy to prevent pregnancy.  If he refuses, she can stop sleeping with him.  I could go on all day with examples of ways women can "initiate" their own sexual protection against STD's and pregnancy.  
To fix this section, I'd say what's needed is a direct quote of the "woman-initiated" line from whichever YWCA official said it, so it's clear that Wikipedia is not making such an foolish claim.  I would add a counter-argument, but the section is already ridiculously full of original research needing citations.  I will attempt to find a quote from another organization countering the YWCA fallacy.
In the meantime, I will attempt to improve the clarity of the section and am adding a cleanup tag.  Kasreyn 23:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  I found a direct quote from the YWCA official, and replaced the "noted" with a "claimed" and a direct quote to avoid original research.  I've also added the necessary tags.  -Kasreyn 23:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I don't see anything wrong with the current, updated wording and sentence structure, I think you might be might be missing the point. It appears the primary issue is developing countries and especially among the poor and uneducated in these countries. While it's true that technically, the women can demand (male) condom usage and refuse sex otherwise, the nature of their societies may make this very difficult in practice. Teaching women to do so, is likely to be far more complex and difficult then teaching them to use female condoms. Also, if the women's two choices are to be raped or to willingly have sex without a condom, the second choice may be preferable in situations where the women has little ability to take any action when she is raped (indeed, in some cases it may not even be considered a rape if she were married to him). So while you have a point, I think you're also missing the wider issue which is what I think the YWCA is trying to say. NB, I'm not saying I necessarily agree completely with this view and I don't really know enough about these socities to say how accurate and common my assessement of the situation in them is. However I do think the issue is a lot more complicated then you seem to think and it's not just a case of the YWCA being silly. Nil Einne 06:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding Female Condoms 

message: In regard to the cleanup tag placed on the Female Condom sub-article in April 2006, source citations from two separate sources have been inserted to resolve the questions raised. Please review these citations and consider removing the cleanup tag. These citations include a reference link to the presentations summary page of the 2005 PATH Global Consultation on the Female Condom - where peer-reviewed research on issues of the female condom's safety, effectiveness, acceptability, and cost was presented - and a reference link to the September 2005 press release announcing the introduction of the FC2 Female Condom.Bryan Callahan 21:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source citations provided for female condom article 

message: There is a lot of misinformation out there about the different percentages given when discussing the failure rates of condoms. Some cite 3%, some cite 15+%. The wikipedia article mentioned the rates but did not explain the differences well enough. I edited the section to put a link to a verifiable source about the rates and also explained the differences between "pefect use" and "typical use". 
I also added information about HPV and that condoms do not provide a barrier to those areas that are not covered by the condom. DanielZimmerman 18:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing failure section.  

message: Condom is a very little town in France which is not located on the east coast. Take a look here. Indeed Condom is in the South-West part of France. Small contribution but still contribution. 8:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is the condom named after that town? If not then that fact has nothing to do with an article about the prophylactic called "condom". If it is so, then it should be included. DanielZimmerman 20:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Condom Geographical position in France 

message: Please see the section above on "sabotage".  I originally inserted the claim that there was a "site".  It was later edited to "sites" against my advice.  I only know, as in with concrete knowledge, of one site that passed out such advice.  I merely suspect there are others.  The section on "sabotage" above will explain how this section of the article came to be.  Cheers, Kasreyn 20:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Moink 

message: I came across this link and I think details from it should be added, assuming there is no conflicting info . However I'm too tired (I've already added it to the anal sex article). Nil Einne 06:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Condom usage and lubrication 

message: I believe we should make some mention of the misnomer that undamaged condoms have pores large enough for HIV to pass through. While the article kind of hints that this isn't true, since this completely discredited claim is still repeated, I think we should mention it or at least mention that it isn't true (say something like, the vast majority of undamaged condoms do not have pores large enough... and are effective barriers...). These links may help http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a940506.html http://www.who.int/reproductive-health/rtis/male_condom.html http://www.iaen.org/qa/answer/10756/ Nil Einne 06:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Condom pores 

message: Let's all work on reaching a consensus for a new infobox to be placed on each individual birth control method's article.  I've created one to start with on the Wikipedia Proposed Infoboxes page, so go check it out and get involved in the process. MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 12:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I see a problem with this, though not a major one:  Condoms are not only a method of birth control, but also a primary countermeasure or protection against STD's.  As in, they have dual functions.  Would it be possible to have multiple infoboxes, or would we wind up deciding on one and structurally marginalizing the other function of the subject?  Cheers, Kasreyn 15:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's probably best to keep this discussion on the proposed infobox page, since there are so many birth control methods, and we don't really want the talk scattered all over the various article talk pages. MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 16:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Infobox for individual birth control method articles 

message: Hi There, 
I recently added a couple of external links. I believe the source is reliable and the content really  is of high quality. 
I'll sum them up and hope we can agree at least a couple of them should be in the list of external links.
Usage instructions movie normal condoms.
A high quality usage instruction movie in two different formats. Better of quality then the link to a condom usage instruction movie already in the external links.'''
Do's & Don'ts when using condoms
A list of things you should do and should not do with a condom.''
History of the condom
An article which describes the history of the condom.'''
Church and condoms
An arictle about the role of the catholic church and condom use.'''
Discovering the Rubbertree
An article by biologist Willem Meijer about the discovery of the Rubbertree.'''
Measering System for Condoms
How condoms are measure and the size of the condom (especially the circumference) is very important for safe usage.''
:These all appear to be commercial links to my eyes, especially if added en mass to the article.  Wikipedia is not a collection of links or a replacement for google.  If these topics are important to the article, we can discuss what link is best to represent it.  --TeaDrinker 15:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: I have heard that the italian term "goldone" is derived from "Gold One", first brand of condoms imported in Italy during WWII. I don't have any reference, though - could somebody have a check? Lo'oris - ロホリス 12:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gold One 

message: I don't think any other birth control articles are in both a sub-category (such as 'barrier contraception' or 'hormonal contraception') and also in the top-level category 'birth control'.  Is there a special reason for condoms to be in both categories? Lyrl    Talk     Contribs   23:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  duplicate categories? 

message: Does this really help the article?  The religions that oppose condom use (Catholicism, Orthodox Judaism, Quiverfull movement, and the article says Hindu but I've never heard of that) - all oppose a variety of methods of birth control, not just condoms, and have greatly differing rationales.  It seems appropriate to discuss in a general article such as birth control, but none of these religions have teaching specifically on condoms, so I'm not sure about that discussion in the condom article.
This section also ends in a sex education debate.  Because condoms (as STD protection) are a central part of most comprehensive sexuality education programs, I can see this discussion contributing to the article.  Would there be support for changing the religious section to a sex education section? Lyrl    Talk     Contribs   00:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I don't see why we can't just copy some of the information if it is needed on another page, but why must we remove it when it directly pertains to the matter at hand (condoms) instead of going into all the other forms as would a general religious attitudes to birth control article or even sexual education article. Chooserr 20:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No religion has a teaching specifically on condoms.  I don't see how it pertains to the matter at hand - except through religious opposition to programs that promote condom usage. So I would find a section on programs that promote condom usage, which would include discussion of religious opposition, to be relevent.  But a general discussion of "religious attitutes toward condoms" (which again, no religion has a teaching specifically on condoms) is what I'm not sure about. Lyrl    Talk     Contribs   01:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion and condoms section? 

message: "The method failure rate of condoms is 2% per year."
I'm really curious what's meant by per year. Does this mean if you have sex with a girl for a year then the chance of her getting pregnant is 2%?
:That is more or less it exactly.  See the above section titled Perfect use failure rates - 2% or 3%? for the discussion of this number.  --TeaDrinker 16:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2% per year