Talk:Condom/Archive 3

ADD SK version

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).

Advertisement

the section on preventing STDs includes what is most likely just an ad, "An article in The American Journal of Gynecologic Health[19] showed that "all women who correctly and consistently used Reality® were protected from Trichomonas vaginalis" (referring to a particular brand of female condom)."

Lubricated condoms

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)

Wet outside, dry in. It lessens friction and prevents tearing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ATNighthawk (talk • contribs) 18:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Causes of condom failure

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

People who intend to use a single contraceptive method as their form of birth control are considered "users" of that method. In withdrawal, for example, men who intend to withdraw - but don't always manage to pull out in time - are included in the typical failure rate of withdrawal. Similarly, with oral contraceptives, women who forget to take the pills are included in typical failure rate of the pill. Somewhat obviously, the pregnancy rate amoung forgetful pill-users is significantly lower than that amoung forgetful withdrawal-users.

The inclusion of such people in calculating typical failure rates allows people to compare the difficulty of using a method, and whether it still offers any protection if they sometimes forget to use it (hormones still offer some protection if not taken for a day, while things like withdrawal and barriers do not). Lyrl ^Talk _Contribs 13:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Protecting Rifle Barrels

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)Tom Miller

Condoms as gloves

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.{{dubious}}

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)

A "condom" over each finger is possible provided it was one of those "finger cots" see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finger_cot but that doesn't prevent contamination from reaching the palm of the hand or up the wrists as would a surgical glove. A standard condom would obviously be too large for a finger, and covering the whole hand would obviously be impractical. --Greenbomb101 14:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Weight gain

Why is that listed in the info box? Is weight gain a purported side effect of condoms? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.12.162.53 (talk • contribs) .

No, the box is a standard template for birth control methods. Weight gain can be associated with certain hormonal contraceptives, so it was incorporated into the template. Here it is a bit excessive, however, I agree. There is, unfortunately, no way to remove it without changing the template. --TeaDrinker 23:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for clearing that up! I thought it might've been some kind of weird joke.

Vandalism

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)

It was pretty slick, but I got rid of it. Selected the blank area at the end of the real text and deleted it. Poof! It's sad that someone would go to the trouble to add something so stupid in such a clever fashion.

There was also a bit about some guy using anal condoms, and his details such as address and phone number were given too. It was pretty ridiculous, I was gonna remove it but someone beat me to it haha.

--Littmann 07:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

HAHA? Wikipedia is not a place for jokes. Please leave them for other sites. Best Wishes. 219.89.103.84 01:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Pope vs. condoms

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)

Spray-on Condom

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)--69.138.54.21 23:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Questions about the article

Shouldn't polyurethane condoms get their own section, if they're not latex?

Should the question of getting the right sized condom get more coverage? Xiner 21:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed the polyurethane section.

If you can find sources for a discussion of condom sizing, that information might improve the article. It's a topic I would be hesitant to leave in without references, though. Lyrl ^Talk _Contribs 23:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Usage picture?

Image:CondomUse2 alternative.jpg has been in this article for some time. Recently, an anonymous editor has replaced it (twice) with Image:Posecondom.jpg. I prefer the first picture. What are other's opinions? Lyrl ^Talk _Contribs 22:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Posecondom.jpg appears much more clear. CyberAnth 04:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The second image is simply beter. Chavmusiksux 19:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The posecondom one shows the wrong use of condoms. You should always squeeze out the air from the tip. Although the user holds the condom by the tip, he should have contineued to hold on the tip as he rolled the condom on. Ole-p 21:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, from here:

For example, many condom instructions tell users to hold the tip of a nipple-ended condom or to squeeze the air out of the tip. There is no evidence that this helps avoid breaks (189). (Holding the nipple, however, guarantees that the condom is in the right position to unroll easily.)

So maybe squeezing air out isn't as important as we thought. Although this article just says squeezing air out of the tip "hasn't been studied". Lyrl ^Talk _C 22:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Etymology

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) Tom Hayden

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)

Indian size study

Despite its widespread reporting on MSN, Yahoo!, BBC, and others, I believe this news story is a hoax. Primarily, the organization that supposedly conducted this study, the Indian Council of Medical Research, has no mention of the study on its website. Secondly, the report gave data only for penis length, which has nothing to do with sizing (nobody unrolls a condom all the way). Actual condom sizes vary in diameter - which apparently wasn't measured in this supposed study. Unless more convincing evidence of this study is presented (like a PubMed citation, or a link associated with the ICMR), I'm removing the reference to it from this article. Lyrl ^Talk _Contribs 00:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The report was originally published in The Times of India, here:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Condoms_now_in_market_oversized_for_Indian_men/articleshow/738916.cms

The article states the Indian Medical Council will publish the findings in 2007. This explains the absence at the site.

As much as I find the study offensive, as its agenda is probably a roundabout way to drum up more support for retention of the caste system in India, I think the study is worth noting, even if for its oddity. I believe it is certainly no hoax.

CyberAnth 02:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, that article addresses both the lack of information from the IMCR and also the issue with length vs. girth (girth actually was measured). The IndiaTimes article also lends less credibility to the too-large condom claim, though, as that appears to be from unofficial "sources" reporting on "a smaller exploratory study", not from any official IMCR finding. Other editors seem to also be skeptical of this conclusion: Human penis size#Indians. Lyrl ^Talk _Contribs 03:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

No doubt it is a political study more than anything else, or at least how it has been reported. And let us just be real clear and spell out what it is "saying", politically: "Another way the Indian men of higher castes are better is that they have larger penises."

Note the order in which it placed the correlations: "The Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) study has correlated penis size with socio-economic status, geographical location and the overall dimensions of the male."

"Socio-economic status" - a euphemism for "caste" in India. The study "has correlated penis size and caste"!

Sheesh...if how I am reading this report is right, this is some VERY racist stuff, I think we'd agree, like with the idea that people of Black African descent are less intelligent because of larger penis size.

Gotta run. Gotta go puke....

CyberAnth 03:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

At any rate, I think the info should be retained in the article - just one sentence mentioning it. At the least, that will remind us to actually read the ISMR study when it comes out in 2007 to see what it was for sure saying. CyberAnth 04:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, am just saying I like how it reads now in the article. When I edited it to include the wiki link to the IMRC I felt like it needed to be rephrased but didn't have the time/inclination. Nice to see it is better now when I came to take a look at it again. Good work guys. Mathmo ^Talk 07:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Condom use in Decompression of Tension Pnumothorax

i added a citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.94.230 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 27 December 2006

"pregnancy rate" rather than "failure rate"

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)

Please note ongoing discussion on this at the above-mentioned talk page, specifically mentioning the Condom page. --Coppertwig 00:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Lambskin

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)

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)

Pregnancy from correct use

The article currently has a sentence Condoms may fail due to faulty methods of application or physical damage (such as tears caused when opening the package), bursting caused by latex degradation (typically from being past the expiration date or being stored improperly), and from slipping off the penis during intercourse or after ejaculation. Sometimes pregnancy may result even without an obvious failure at the time of use. The last sentence - that pregnancy may occur even if the condom does not fall off or noticeably tear - I thought was obvious (factory defects, or a tear or break too small to notice), but it has been fact tagged.

Doing Google searches for a source for that statement, I find a number of cites that claim 97%-98% effectiveness "if the condom does not break" (one example, scroll down to "condoms"). I don't think this statement is technically accurate, though. If I understand correctly the "correct use" failure rate does include some level of breakage and slippage. While incorrect use increases the risk of breaking and slipping, these things happen to even the "perfect" users tracked by the "correct use" failure rate. So I'm hesitant to use these sites as sources. But I haven't come up with anything else so far. Any suggestions? Lyrl ^Talk _C 04:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

On further reflection, I think the tagging editor was confused by the terminology of "no failure" (meaning no noticeable breakage or slippage) resulting in "pregnancy" (condom failure). Perhaps I'll just reword that sentence to be less confusing, and remove the tag as obvious. Lyrl ^Talk _C 02:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you're talking about this sentence: "Sometimes pregnancy may result even without an obvious failure at the time of use.[citation needed]" I think it needs a citation and that the tag should remain until the citation is found. If it's "obvious", it can simply be deleted since the reader already knows it. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. --Coppertwig 02:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

So you believe that, if a couple does not notice any breaks or tears, and the condom does not fall off, that they have a 0% chance of pregnancy? Lyrl ^Talk _C 14:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I believe that the citation tag should remain until either a citation is found or the sentence is deleted. Wikipedia is supposed to be based on reliable sources, not on the beliefs of Wikipedian editors. --Coppertwig 15:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

From WP:V: Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. and Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source. and Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require stronger sources. This strongly implies that material that is unlikely to be challenged, and that is unexceptional in nature, do not need sources. Nowhere in WP:V does it state that every sentence in an article needs to be cited.

Placement of a fact tag is generally to be taken as a challenge to said material. In this case, however, as explained above, I believe the tag placement was caused by a misunderstanding of what the sentence said, and indicates need for rewriting the sentence rather than need for a source. Does that make sense?

In this particular case, my concern is that the claim is so obvious that the best (scientific) sources don't bother to mention it. I can certainly find a number of unscientific sources for the claim (one example in my first post in this section). So, I see three ways we could proceed:

• Use one of the sites I can find through Google searching as a source
• Decide the sentence does not help any readers, and is not worth bothering to source, so delete it
• Reword the sentence to avoid the confusion between different types of failure (probably leave the word "failure" out altogether) and delete the fact tag

Lyrl ^Talk _C 22:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Even better would be to find more useful information to add to the article, such as the percentage of pregnancies for which there is or is not an obvious failure at the time of use, or mentioning the main reasons for failures that are not obvious at the time of use, or stating that it is not known what the most common causes are, if that is the state of the science.

The citation-needed tag was added on 06:53, 2 February 2007 by Grandmasterka, who is still very active in Wikipedia. I suggest you reword the sentence and then put a message on the user's talk page asking whether the user still thinks a citation is needed. If that user says it's OK and no one else objects, I don't object to the removal of the citation tag.

Deleting the sentence seems to me probably not the best option. If you can find a reputable organization whose website makes a statement like this, the sentence can be changed to "according to the <name of organization>, sometimes ..." with a link to the website and then the citation tag can be removed.

Thank you for your patience and for taking the time to look for solutions and to search for citations. --Coppertwig 00:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Re your most recent edit: Well done. I think your wording flows more smoothly than the previous version. I inserted "sometimes" to make it clearer that condoms are not totally useless.

This sentence contains weasel words: "It is believed that instruction in proper condom use also reduces failure rates." It needs at least a citation and perhaps rewording. E.g. a link to a reputable organization which believes this. --Coppertwig 13:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Hi there guys.

The issue at hand with the sentence I tagged ("Among couples that intend condoms to be their form of birth control, pregnancy may sometimes occur even if they do not notice slippage or breakage at the time of use") is this: Other than deliberate sabotage, which is mentioned elsewhere in the article, it is not obvious to me how a pregnancy might result after using a condom properly without any obvious signs of problems. (I hate to admit it, but I have yet to use one for intercourse.) Wouldn't there be some visible breakage, slippage or overflow? I feel that the sentence should be expanded to show how this might happen, and cited if it's not based on something mentioned elsewhere in the article, or it should be removed entirely. Wikipedia should not be pushing an abstinence-only POV (or any other POV) by saying "well, this might not work even if it looks like there are no problems" without further explanation and/or citation. Other than that, I am very pleased with this article. I suspect some people out there are counting on this article's quality. :-) Grandmasterka 01:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Grandmasterka. And I congratulate Lyrl for extensive work on this and related pages -- and all the other contributors. --Coppertwig 10:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

This study found for experienced users (had used a condom more than 15 times), male condoms broke or slipped off 2.3% of the time. For new users (up to 15 uses of a condom), the rate was 9%. This study found that male condoms broke or slipped off 8.8% of the time, though it seems like there were a lot of new users in the study group, and it references other studies that have found breakage/slippage rates anywhere from 1% to 12%. This study reports that for experienced users slippage/breakage rates are between 1.0 and 3.6%. Personally, I've used condoms hundreds of times and never had any issues, so am surprised to see rates that high. Breakage and slippage does seem to account for much or most of the 2% annual perfect-use failure rate.

However, many (I would think most) couples do not inspect the condom after intercourse. A small tear - sperm are microscopic, it would only take a tiny tear - is likely to go unnoticed. Or the shrinkage of the penis afterwards may change the shape of the condom so that a small tear is not visible. This is actually what people who sabotage condoms rely on - small punctures are unlikely to be noticed by their partner, so the partner has no reason to suspect sabotage. Reading stories of observant Catholic who have used punctured collection condoms to get a semen sample, they do not mention any noticeable spillage. Anecdotally, I have seen a few women post on the internet who used condoms, did not notice any breaking or slipping, and became pregnant. All of this makes me firmly believe that it is possible (though very, very unlikely) to get pregnant after using a condom with no noticed problems. However, none of it can be used as sources for Wikipedia.

In my reading about condom effectiveness, the research effort seems to be focused on a)getting people to actually use the things and b)preventing breaking and slipping. The tiny fraction of users who get pregnant despite using a condom, without any noticed breaks or slips, gets no attention. The closest I have found is here, which states "The authors of a study investigating leak-age concluded that if a condom does not break, it provides 10,000 times more protection than no condom at all." This means that unbroken condoms provide excellent but not foolproof protection (which I believe supports my position), but it's talking about HIV, not pregnancy. Anyway, I'm not able to find a source for the statement, and other editors have so far not shown interest. I (obviously) support leaving it in, but for now it's going to have to stay fact tagged or be removed. Lyrl ^Talk _C 03:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. That's an interesting PDF. HIV is obviously a lot smaller than sperm but one would think that a tiny tear would still allow both through... I really would want to know how they got the "10,000" figure. Nevertheless, I'm going to go ahead and remove that sentence. Right now, on its own, I think it gives the wrong idea, and we can always put it back when someone finds a proper source. Grandmasterka 10:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to look for sources, Lyrl. I agree with Grandmasterka re removing the sentence for now. If the instructions with the condom say to inspect it after use and people don't, then that doesn't count as perfect-use. If there's an instruction that many people are ignoring, I think it would be good to talk about that in the article: maybe something like "perfect-use pregnancy rates are x%, but that assumes people are following all the instructions, such as to inspect the condom after use." --Coppertwig 12:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Effectiveness, a better way to say it?

In the effectiveness section it states "... Actual effectiveness is the proportion of couples who intended that method as their sole form of birth control and do not become pregnant; it includes couples who sometimes use the method incorrectly, or sometimes not at all. Rates are generally presented for the first year of use. "

This section used to be worded much better, imo. I would word the entire beginning "Perfect use rates describe the pregnancy rates of people who use condoms properly and consistently. Actual effectiveness rates describe the pregnancy rates of all people, inlcuding those who either use condoms improperly or inconsistently." I'll hold off on making such a change until I hear some other input (or until I hear no counter argument)DanielZimmerman 14:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your proposed change. Sounds much smoother and easier to understand, and quite accurate -- except "all people" could be misinterpreted; how about "all users" or "all condom users" or "all users of this method" or "all couples using condoms for birth control" or something -- otherwise it might seem to include everyone even those who have no intention of using condoms. --Coppertwig 15:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Both actual and perfect-use effectiveness rates are lower for long-term users than for newer users. Couples who have been using condoms for several years can reasonably expect their pregnancy risk to be lower than what is listed in this article. So I think something about "first year of use" is relevant to have in there.

I think where the numbers come from is also relevant, thus the links to Pearl Index and decrement tables. If it's felt both links make for too much technical information, we could just link to the most common one (Pearl Index), which has a comparison to decrement tables.

Both "perfect use" and "method" are used to describe the pregnancy rates of couples who always use condoms, and use them correctly. I feel the term "perfect" implies average people can't hope to achieve that effectiveness, but that correct and consistent use is actually attainable for the vast majority of people. So I prefer the term "method" which doesn't have the connotation of "unreachable" that I associate with "perfect". "Method" also appears to be the more common term, with 1200 Google hits excluding Wikipedia [1], compared to 400 hits for "perfect use" [2].

I agree that "improperly or inconsistently" reads more smoothly than "incorrectly, or sometimes not at all". Lyrl ^Talk _C 00:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Almost the entire section on effectiveness re pregnancy is about definitions of method effectiveness etc.; only the last sentence is about condoms at all. There's even stuff about oral contraceptives in there. Maybe the examples re oral contraceptives could be replaced with condom examples.

Is the 2% method pregnancy rate for people using plain condoms? Or condoms which come with spermicide on them? Or using condoms and also using some spermicidal gel or something? Are they sure the people in this study aren't also avoiding intercourse during the most fertile times of the month? I mean, they can't be completely sure, but was advice about avoiding intercourse at certain times handed out with the condoms when the study was done? Could using spermicidal gel be considered to be simply following the directions that came with the condoms? --Coppertwig 03:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The examples of "user failure" should probably be converted from oral contraceptives to condom-specific.

Do others think the definition of contraceptive effectiveness is not relevant to this article? Or that parts of the definition add more difficulty to the article's readability than they add information?

Method failure is for one single method, used alone, not in conjunction with other methods. Using both a condom and separately applied spermicide would be two methods. Using a condom on less fertile days and abstaining on more fertile days would also be using two methods. The failure rate of condoms spermicidally lubricated by the manufacturer has never been studied, but they are more likely to break than regular condoms, so they are not currently recommended. Does that help? Lyrl ^Talk _C 02:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the definition of contraceptive effectiveness is relevant to this article. However, that particular section is not well-balanced. Perhaps it needs to be renamed to "definition of contraceptive effectiveness" or something and the last paragraph moved to a different section. Or, perhaps a shorter version of the definition could be given along with a link to a page with a more in-depth definition. Above all, I'd like to see more information about the actual condom effectiveness. For example, what you just told me above could be included: that these rates apply to plain, not spermicidally-lubricated condoms. (If that information can be verified.) Currently the section contains only one very brief paragraph addressing the topic its heading suggests it's about, and the reader has to wade through the whole section to get to that one paragraph. --Coppertwig 01:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. You might find current footnote numbers 2, 6, and 7 helpful in the rewrite. Lyrl ^Talk _C 22:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added it to my growing to-do list :-) --Coppertwig 01:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reason to use "perfect" instead of "method"? My reasons for preferring "method" were explained above, and I didn't see any objections.

Are the examples of actual-use failure modes so unhelpful they should be completely deleted? Coppertwig had suggested moving the section or linking to a page with a more in-depth definition, but I hadn't seen consensus to delete it outright. For now, I've moved it to the end of the section where it hopefully will be less in the way for people after just the numbers and no explanation. Lyrl ^Talk _C 23:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

"method" is probably better than "perfect", in my opinion. I don't suggest deleting information; only moving it or replacing it with condom-specific information. --Coppertwig 12:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

most of the research I have done on this topic has used the terms "perfect use" and not "method use". How about we include both? Say something like ".... perfect (or method) use is..."

http://www.engenderhealth.org/wh/fp/ccon2.html uses the terms "perfect use" and "typical use" (words I included when I first contributed to the article months ago) And they refer to the "method" as what you are using (ie condom, female condom, etc). http://www.infoforhealth.org/pr/h9/h9chap4.shtml again, "perfect use" and "typical use" http://www.goaskalice.columbia.edu/2219.html ditto http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs243/en/ this is the "WHO" using the terms "perfect use" and "typical use". I think if the WHO is calling them "perfect use" and "typical use", as well as many other experts, that we should also be using those terms in order to be consistant with terminology. http://www.swimmingkangaroo.com/blog/2006/03/failure-of-abstinence-only.html " There are two ways to look at the effectiveness of all birth control methods – perfect use and typical use. " http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:gf7W1NQeOdUJ:www.umass.edu/uhs/uploads/basicContentWidget/10209/Effectiveness.pdf+condom+%22perfect+use%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=11&gl=us A university using "perfect use" and "typical use"

Googling condom "failure rates" "perfect use" gives 11,000+ hits. Googling condom "failure rates" "method use" gives < 1000... and that includes sentances like "If a condom does break and you are using no other birth control method, use emergency contraception to prevent pregnancy."

I think it is pretty clear that the proper terms are "pefect use" and "typical use". I shall follow what wikipedia says and "be bold" in changing it to those proper terms. DanielZimmerman 19:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:BOLD pretty specifically refers to issues that have not been discussed on the Talk page. Making changes while discussion on the Talk page is still active, without allowing consensus to form, is not encouraged.

There are a number of issues I have with these edits by DanielZimmerman.

• It reinserts language referring to the pregnancy rate among condom users as the failure rate. With condoms, "failure" is also commonly used to refer to breakage and slippage. To avoid confusion, and per extensive discussion initiated by Coppertwig (#"pregnancy rate" rather than "failure rate"), changes to this page have been made to specify "breakage and slippage" when that is being talked about, to specify "pregnancy" when that is being talked about, and to avoid the word "failure" in the text as much as possible.
• It deleted a citation of the Guttmacher Institute for a typical or actual pregnancy rate of 18% per year. The reasoning behind deleting a cited fact from a reliable source is not something I'm grasping.
• It puts descriptions of pregnancy rate types in quotes. This may be interpreted as detracting from the meaning of the word - "perfect" results may not actually be perfect, and "typical" results may not actually be typical. I see no reason to use quotes like this. Quotes may also be used to distinguish a phrase unfamiliar to many readers from the rest of the text; if this is the intent, I would suggest using italics instead.
• Not only was perfect changed to method (which at least had been introduced as a topic on the Talk page) but actual was changed to typical with no discussion at all!

As far as Google searches, the phrase method use is (as Daniel showed) almost never used to refer to pregnancy rates. Notice that I did not add the phrase method use in this edit, instead using method effectiveness and method pregnancy rate. Results from more relevant searches (the word condom was included in all searches):

• "method failure rate" - approx 1400 hits
• "perfect use failure rate" - approx 700 hits
• "method effectiveness" - approx 700 hits
• "perfect use effectiveness" - approx 200 hits
• "method pregnancy rate" - 25 hits
• "perfect use pregnancy rate" - 41 hits

If we're going for prominent organizations, among those on the first page of Google results for the method searches above are the Guttmacher Institute, Family Health International, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration, as well as a webpage from the University of Illinois McKinley Health Center.

Obviously phrase choice and placement of quotes may heavily influence hit counts. But from the searches I've been able to think of, method seems to overall be a more popular word choice than perfect when describing pregnancy rates of contraceptors. As stated above, I was previously aware that the phrase method use is never or almost never used to refer to pregnancy rates, and so my opinion is not swayed by the low Google hits for that phrase.

Actual versus typical is not something I have an opinion on. But again, making changes related to an active Talk page discussion before consensus had formed is discouraged. Lyrl ^Talk _C 00:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• The problem I have with the term "method" is this. Method, in many of the articles cited, refers to the method used to protect yourself. So the method in this case is using a condom. Perfect use is following the directions of the condom exactly and consistently. Typical use is not following the directions, using consistantly, etc. See this site as an example.

" Effectiveness rates are expressed in terms of how many women experience pregnancies during their first year of using the method. Perfect use reflects correct and consistent use, according to specified instructions, with every sex act. Typical use reflects the fact that most couples do not use their contraceptive methods correctly or consistently with every sex act; this rate, therefore, is considered more accurate than perfect use."(emphasis mine)

Saying "method use" does not state how well the user is using that method. You have people who use the method perfectly (perfect use) and people who dont (typical use).

And back to the "google proof".

Googling condom "perfect use" yeilds 27,900 hits (your use of quotes severely restricted the hits on perfect use).

Googling condom "method effectiveness" yeilds 760 hits. I think it is fairly clear that "perfect use" is the term that is prefered ofer "method effectiveness".... and in some of those articles the "method" referred to may be using more than one form of contraception.

• On the use of "pregnancy rate" vs "failure rate", what do you think the 2-5% under the "perfect use" category is? It is the chance that those condoms will fail... it is "breakage and slippage" that can occur. In fact, for both categories there is an inclusion of the chance of the woman getting pregnant because the condom itself failed. Perhaps a statement on that should be placed that says Included in both rates are the chance that the condom itself may fail (or something like that). The section is already labeled "effectiveness in preventing pregnancy".... so when the use does not prevent someone from getting pregnant, it is a failure. I can agree that there are circumstances where one term may be better than the other. In this case, because the section states that it is a section on the effectiveness in preventing pregnancy and because of the fact that the rates are partially caused by the condom not working (and not user error) that "failure rate" is the proper term.
• On the issue of putting terms in quotes, i believe it is proper when directly quoting a source, and not paraphrasing, to put quotation marks around those terms that are directly quoted. "Perfect use" and "Typical use" are direct quotes from the source that I cited. If I say that the sky is blue, and someone interprets that as the sky being sad, should I not have said the sky is blue?
• On the issue of removing a source, it was not something that was purposefully done and I would have no problem changing the 15 to an 18 (or even 21... see below) and including other references as sources for the information.
• Actual was changed to typical because typical seems to be the term that is used. Stating actual seems to say that this is what will happen. To state that it is typical says that this is the failure rate that MOST people see. Typical implies that some failure rates may be higher and some might be lower (which is more realistic), actual does not. typical use is used by the FDA, Planned Parenthood, NSRC, the WHO, UMASS, Americanpregnancy.org, The paolo alto medical foundation (pamf), Stanford (who actually lists a typical use failure rate of 21%!). actual use does have the same number of hits, but the information linked to in the typical use search in the first page of hits tend to be more relevent to the discussion of failure rates then the "actual use" search (which comes up with some information that is relevent but others that are not). For example, this article has the term "actual use" but it is not what we are discussing (an example of the fda being a "hit" in the terms of it matching keywords but not an actual hit for the purposes of this discussion). It is clear that "typical use" is the correct term. I would also point out that when I made the change last year that there was no objection to the use of the term "typical use" back then. DanielZimmerman 15:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

In preventing STDs

I made a wording change but my main concern is that the only study cited regarding direct contact exposure is of efficacy against HPV. The issue with HPV would be genital warts and related strains whereas there is less of an issue with cervical cancer related strains. This ignores the more serious risk of Syphilis. Syphilis is occasionally symptomatic in areas not covered by condoms and is infectious whenever symptoms are present. It can easily transmit despite condom usage in such cases. Syphilis is making a resurgence despite having been close to eradication levels only a few years ago. Being itself deadly, syphilis is the greater threat than HPV at present in regards to direct contact spread.

It also concerns me that only HPV and GC are mentioned in this section. The efficacy of condoms vary by disease and that fact seems to be glossed over in this section.

ATNighthawk 19:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Method effectiveness versus Perfect use effectiveness

Failures that are caused by user error are user failures. Failures that are inherent in the method itself are method failures. Typical failure includes the entire study population, both user and method failures. Does that make sense?

I agree that in a stand-alone context people are more likely to correctly interpret perfect use than method effectiveness. But in the effectiveness section, the definition of the term is right there in the second sentence. To me, that makes the danger of misinterpretation negligible.

Back to Google, there are 19,000 hits from condom "method failure". Regarding the results from the perfect use search, I see that most sources on Google use a prose style to describe failure rates. Meaning, the phrase perfect use is separated from words like failure, pregnancy, or effectiveness. I think the ability to separate the perfect use phrase from the word it is describing (failure, pregnancy, etc.) makes it grammatically easier to work with than method, and may entirely account for the extra 9,000 Google hits. I think "method" is a technically better term, though, despite being more difficult to use when writing. To support this view, I offer the results from searches on PubMed, which catalogs all the articles from a large number of medical magazines. 18 hits for condom "perfect use" versus 21 hits for condom "method failure", and an additional five hits for condom "method effectiveness". Pretty even results, but a slight edge for method. Something similar is seen in a Google Books search, with 100 results from condom "perfect use", 100 from condom "method failure" and an additional 55 from condom "method effectiveness". Lyrl ^Talk _C 23:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it makes sense and that generally what I was saying when I was pointing out that since breakage and slippage is included in both the perfect/method use and in typical use. Perhaps if we introduced some terms in the beginning of the section we could create an even better section that includes both "perfect use" and "method failure"... perhaps using both in an opening sentance explaining what perfect use and method failure are and expanding from there. DanielZimmerman 15:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Including both terms would be a good solution for me. I'd like to repeat again, though, that I feel the connotations associated with the word perfect give an incorrect impression of how difficult condoms are to use. From a condom study published in the International Journal of STDs and AIDS (PMID 15949062), perfect use of a condom consists of four items:

• Starting the tear where the package is notched (The article does not say why, but I'm guessing this is to keep sharp things like fingernails and teeth to the side of the package rather than near the condom where damage is likely)
• Putting the condom on right side out
• Pinching the tip to avoid air entering
• Rolling the condom all the way down the penis

Regarding the third point, this article says that, while widely speculated as a cause of breakage, studies have shown that pinching the air out (or not) actually has no effect on breakage. So that brings us down to three items. To me, that does not deserve the difficulty connoted by perfect. Lyrl ^Talk _C 22:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I dont think perfect use says that it is difficult to do, I just think it states that there is a correct way to do it and if you dont follow the instructions you reduce the effectiveness. Im sure tearing at the notch is good because it keeps the fingernails away, but one should never use their teeth to open the package. Heck, we could even include "perfect use consists of...." to show people how easy it is. DanielZimmerman 23:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Quotes around description of pregnancy rate

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)

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)

Putting a range on method or perfect-use failure

I am not sure listing the method or perfect-use pregnancy rate as being 2-5% is accurate. The reference it seems to be using for the 5% number is actually describing female condoms. This article is currently set up to mostly talk about male condoms, with information on female condoms being isolated to the "Female condoms" section. I believe all sources for male condoms give either a 2% or 3% annual pregnancy rate. This issue was discussed some time ago (see Talk:Condom/Archive 2#Perfect use failure rates - 2% or 3%?), and the consensus at that time was to use 2% for this article. Is there a new argument for including the 3% number? Lyrl ^Talk _C 23:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, the 5% is relating to the female condom. I misread the source. The other articles do list 3% as the failure rate though.... so I would say use 3% unless there are other sources that list 2... then list 2-3%. DanielZimmerman 15:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the 16th edition of Contraceptive Technology - the publication that practically every medical establishment uses as the authority for contraceptive failure rates - listed a perfect use failure rate of 3% per year for condoms. And lots of webpages used that source.

The latest (18th) edition of Contraceptive Technology lists a perfect use pregnancy rate of 2% for condoms, and that is starting to appear in more recently created/updated websites. I assume the authors had good reasons for changing the rate and support changing the rates listed in this article to match.

I do not own (and have not asked my library for) a copy of the latest edition of Contraceptive Technology, so I do not know the exact reason they changed the failure rate from 3% to 2%. However, I have done a PubMed search for studies of pregnancy rates with condoms and found the following:

• Walsh T, Frezieres R, Peacock K, Nelson A, Clark V, Bernstein L, Wraxall B (2004). "Effectiveness of the male latex condom: combined results for three popular condom brands used as controls in randomized clinical trials". Contraception. 70 (5): 407–13. PMID 15504381.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - 1% failure rate in six months.
• "Avanti: similar efficacy to latex, more breaks". Contracept Technol Update. 18 (10): 123–5. 1997. PMID 12321211. - 3.1% failure for Avanti (polyurethane), 1.2% for latex in six months.
• Steiner M, Taylor D, Feldblum P, Wheeless A (2000). "How well do male latex condoms work? Pregnancy outcome during one menstrual cycle of use". Contraception. 62 (6): 315–9. PMID 11239619.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - 0% failure rate amoung 234 women followed for one cycle. (Because this was a very short and small study, however, the confidence interval includes up to 10% per-year failure rate.)
• Faúndes A, Elias C, Coggins C (1994). "Spermicides and barrier contraception". Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 6 (6): 552–8. PMID 7893963.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - says different studies find failure rates of 2%-13% (presumably the 2% is the perfect-use rate, and 13% is typical-use, as I've never seen perfect-use condom rate as high as 13%!)
• Dicker D, Wachsman Y, Feldberg D, Ashkenazi J, Yeshaya A, Goldman J (1989). "The vaginal contraceptive diaphragm and the condom--a reevaluation and comparison of two barrier methods with the rhythm method". Contraception. 40 (4): 497–504. PMID 2582773.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - 3.2% pregnancy rate after 2 years (note this is actual failure, not perfect-use, although the study does note "All [participants] were highly motivated.")

I did not find any studies on PubMed with higher perfect-use failure rates for condoms. The rates found in the above studies (1% over six months, 0% over one month, and 3% over 2 years) all support the 2% over one year assertion. Lyrl ^Talk _C 22:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Some sources say 2, other sources say 3. I say, lets word it like I have and say "depending on the source, the failure rate for perfect use can range between 2 and 3 percent". If your math is correct.... if it is 2% a year, wouldnt it be 4% over 2 years? The answer is no, and that is because you cannot just add probabilities of independent trials and get a correct result. DanielZimmerman 23:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

One source - the 16th edition of Contraceptive Technology - says 3%. All the web pages that say 3% got their information from that one source. One other source - the 18th edition of Contraceptive Technology - says 2%. All the web pages that say 2% got their information from that one source. If a second, independent source is found for the 3% number, my opinion would change. But I see no reason a Wikipedia article should provide information from an outdated medical publication. So I currently support including the 2% number only. Lyrl ^Talk _C 02:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I am missing it, but where on this site does it say what source it used to get the 3% figure? DanielZimmerman 15:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

A webpage that posts claims with no evidence to back it up is not a reliable source. My belief that their source was the old edition of Contraceptive Technology comes from the fact that engengerhealth's numbers match up with the numbers from that source - I may be wrong, that may be a coincidence. But lacking the original source, the 3% number given from that engenderhealth is not reliable by Wikipedia's standards. Lyrl ^Talk _C 00:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Re-indenting---- Did the Contraceptive Technology 18th edition give reasons why they changed the rates? Was there a difference in the methodology used? I find it odd that the 16th and 17th would list 3% yet the 18th would list 2%. (I have found an example of a source using 16 and saying 3 and another using 18 and saying 2, I just want to know what caused the difference). Is that 1% within a margin of error. (Is there a margin of error?) Those kinds of questions need to be answered before I will firmly support the 2% because 3% had been THE number for a while. DanielZimmerman 04:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I've emailed someone I think has a copy to see if she will look for that information and type it up for me. My local public library doesn't have a copy, and the medical libraries in my area appear to have 17th edition or older. I've not quite worked myself up to pay $40 plus shipping (the cheapest used copy on Amazon) to get my own copy, either.

If I don't hear back from my contact in about a week, I'll see if I can request a copy through interlibrary loan. If any editors have a copy or can access one easily, that would be very helpful. Lyrl ^Talk _C 00:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, got a response already! The following I have typed from a jpeg image of the text that was emailed to me. From the 18th edition, Perfect Use of the Male Condom:

Our estimate of the proportion becoming pregnant during a year of perfect use of the male condom is based on results from the only three studies of the male condom meeting modern standards of design, execution, and analysis.(22,41,42) In each study couples were randomly assigned to use either a latex condom or a polyurethane condom. All three studies reported efficacy during consistent use but only one reported efficacy during perfect use;(41) in that study the 6-cycle probability of pregnancy during perfect use (0.7%) was 70% of that (1%) during typical use. We assumed that in the other two studies the 6-cycle probability of pregnancy during perfect use would also be 70% of the 6-cycle probability during typical use, assumed that the pregnancy rate per cycle during perfect use would be constant, extrapolated a one-year probability from the 6-cycle probability reported for the latex condom in each trial, and took as our estimate the median (2%, also the mean) of those 3 estimates. This estimate is consistent with an estimate based on studies of condom breakage and slippage.(23) Under the assumption that 1.5% of condoms break or slip off the penis and that women have intercourse twice a week, then about 1.5% of women would experience condom breaks during the half-week that they are at risk of pregnancy during each cycle. The per-cycle probability of conception would be reduced by 98.5%, from 0.1358 to only 0.0020, if a condom failure results in no protection whatsoever against pregnancy, so that about 2.6% of women would become pregnant each year.(24) Unfortunately, breakage and slippage rates did not accurately predict pregnancy rates during consistent use in one clinical trial of the latex and polyurethane male condom,(22) and estimates of condom breakage and slippage during intercourse or withdrawal vary substantially across studies in developed countries,(23) from a low of 0.6% among commercial sex workers in Nevada's legal brothels(23) to a high of 7.2% among monogamous couples in North Carolina.(25)

And from the 17th edition, Male Condom (Perfect Use):

Our estimate of the proportion becoming pregnant during a year of perfect use of the male condom is based on results from the only study of the male condom meeting modern standards of design, execution, and analysis.(40) Couples were randomly assigned to use either a latex condom or a polyurethane condom for 7 months. Adjusted for the use of emergency contraceptive pills, the six-cycle probability of pregnancy during consistent use of the latex condom was 1.2%. Assuming a constant per-cycle probability of pregnancy, the 13-cycle probability of pregnancy during consistent use would be 2.6%. This estimate is consistent with an estimate based on studies of condom breakage and slippage.(1) Under the assumption that 1.5% of condoms break or slip off the penis and that women have intercourse twice a week, then about 1.5% of women would experience condom breaks during the half-week that they are at risk of pregnancy during each cycle. The per-cycle probability of conception would be reduced by 98.5%, from 0.1358 to only 0.0020, if a condom failure results in no protection whatsoever against pregnancy, so that about 2.6% of women would become pregnant each year.(15) Unfortunately, breakage and slippage rates did not accurately predict pregnancy rates during consistent use in the clinical trial of the latex and polyurethane male condom,(40) and estimates of condom breakage and slippage during intercourse and withdrawal vary substantially across studies in developed countries,(1) from a low of 0.5% among commercial sex workers in Nevada's legal brothels(1) to a high of 7.2% among monogamous couples in North Carolina.(30)

It looks like the 17th edition got a rate of 2.6% from just one study, while the 18th edition included two newer studies and averaged the results from the three studies, arriving at 2.0%. Lyrl ^Talk _C 02:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so this one journal has an average rate of 2.0%. And my original wording was that the rate depended on the survey given. How about we mention the contraceptive technology book specifically, stating that the average rate among many studies is 2% and that figure was obtained by 3 different studies. This way, people know that 2% isnt the absolute rate and that it depends on the specific survey. DanielZimmerman 02:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'm puzzled here. Why would there be a range on the method or perfect use rate? I understand for typical, because it includes user behavior, different groups of users are going to behave differently. But all condoms are manufactured to the same standards. Why would the failure rate of the condom itself have any variation?

As a side note, while Contraceptive Technology is the name of a journal, the publication we're talking about here is actually a book, unrelated to the journal. Lyrl ^Talk _C 00:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The rate listed is an average rate based on several surveys. This is why there would be a range, depending on the survey taken on usage. Someone can use a condom perfectly but still have different experiences with breakage and slippage that would impact the results. While breakage and slippage rates where not found to accurately predict pregnancy rates, they still have an effect on them. DanielZimmerman 17:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand that the three research studies found slightly different perfect-use failure rates. (As adjusted by Hatcher, if both the mean and median was 2.0%, and one study reported a rate of 2.6%, I'm going to speculate the other studies reported rates of 2.0% and 1.4%.) That doesn't help me understand why a perfect use failure rate would vary. I'm currently looking at it like this: a coin toss has an exactly 50% chance of heads. One study of 100 tosses might result in 46 heads. Another study of 100 tosses might result in 54 heads. This does not mean the probability of heads varies from 46-54%; just that the studies were not large enough to give an accurate result. Similarly (to me) the variation in study results of perfect-use rates does not mean the actual rate has a variation, just that the studies were not large enough to always give an exactly accurate result. Averaging them into effectively one larger study should give a more accurate result. Does that make sense? Lyrl ^Talk _C 03:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Failure rate vs. Pregnancy rate

Every study I've read for the 2% per year number was describing the pregnancy rate. The chance that condoms will "fail" (meaning break or slip off) is at least 1% per use. (This study found for experienced users (had used a condom more than 15 times), male condoms broke or slipped off 2.3% of the time. For new users (up to 15 uses of a condom), the rate was 9%. This study found that male condoms broke or slipped off 8.8% of the time, though it seems like there were a lot of new users in the study group, and it references other studies that have found breakage/slippage rates anywhere from 1% to 12%. This study reports that for experienced users slippage/breakage rates are between 1.0 and 3.6%.) Daniel, not to single you out, but your confusion in thinking the 2% per year number was the chance of breakage/slippage is an example of exactly why I support the change to "pregnancy rate" from "failure rate". Lyrl ^Talk _C 23:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not confused and the sources you cite actually seem to back me up and here is why. In those surveys, experienced condom users had a smaller failure/breakage rate than inexperienced ones. The ones who have more experience using a condom are more likely to use it "perfectly" so their numbers would tend to match the "perfect use failure rate" while those who are inexperience are more likely to make an error in the application of the condom, therefore tending to be closer to the "typical use failure rate". The reason why it is 9% and not closer to the 15% because those studies dont include non-use. When following the method perfectly, the only reason that one would become pregnant is condom failure. When following the method imperfectly, one of the reasons that one would become pregnant is condom failure. Since it is either a failure on the part of the user or failure on the part of the condom that causes the pregnancy, I think using "failure rate" is the best choice. (Especially since the section is already titled "effectiveness in preventing pregnancy"). The one thing I would suggest is perhaps adding terms like "user failure" and "condom failure" and rename the 3rd subsection of the effectivness section "causes of condom failure" while earlier informing the reader about these two possibilities of failures and how they come into play in the failure rates of a condom in preventing pregnancy. DanielZimmerman 16:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

A pregnancy can result from a tear or puncture too small to be noticed. So use of a condom with no failure can result in pregnancy.

Pregnancy is highly unlikely to result if a condom breaks or slips off in the middle of intercourse, is noticed, and replaced with a second condom that does not break or slip off (see the coitus interruptus article for documentation of no viable sperm in pre-e fluid). So use of a condom that did fail can be highly unlikely to result in pregnancy.

Furthermore, the lowest reported breakage/slippage rate for the most experienced users is 1.0% per use. So if a couple used a condom 100 times in a year, that could correspond to a 100% chance per year of condom breakage or slippage. Taking the same 100 uses a year, a 2% annual pregnancy rate would come out to a 0.02% per use risk of pregnancy.

To me, the numbers do not make sense if one is trying to say the breakage/slippage rate is directly related to the pregnancy rate. Lyrl ^Talk _C 23:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Lyl, if the tear or puncture is too small to be noticed is still a failure. I will have to check out the article on the "no viable sperm in pre-e fluid" because that is something that I have never heard before. I have always heard that a woman can be impregnated by the pre-e in every sex ed class I have ever had. Your math is incorrect as well. If I have a coin I have a 50% chance of getting heads "per flip", that does not mean that in 2 flips I have a 100% chance of getting tails. Each use is an independent trial as well. If I use a condom 100 times in a year, that does not mean that I will have one of those condoms slip or break... i may, but it is not definite. DanielZimmerman 23:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

A tear or puncture too small to notice is not breakage or slippage. The failure numbers for condoms from breakage/slippage studies refer only to breakage and slippage. Claims that the per-use study results from breakage/slippage studies directly correlate to annual pregnancy rates (i.e. what do you think the 2-5% under the "perfect use" category is? It is the chance that those condoms will fail... it is "breakage and slippage" that can occur. and ..."typical use failure rate". The reason why it is 9% and not closer to the 15% because those studies don't include non-use.) are untrue.

Studies have been done testing vaginal fluids for PSA (a protein found only in human semen) shortly after intercourse. An example would be PMID 15504381 - researchers tested 243 women after they had intercourse using a condom that did not slip or break: 1.2% tested positive for PSA. PMID 10717781 found that, of 47 women who had used a condom that did not slip or break, 2% tested positive for PSA.

If 100 experienced couples used a condom an average of 100 times a year, they would, collectively, most probably experience 100 breakages and/or slippages. And 2 pregnancies. I understand that one breakage/slippage per couple would be extremely unlikely (and the Family Health International article describes how the distribution is far from random) - but I'm trying to illustrate the point that breakage and slippage numbers (100 in this thought experiment) do not directly correlate to pregnancy numbers (2 in this thought experiment). They are certainly a major factor, but I have never read any article claiming that all pregnancies among consistent condom users result from breakage or slippage.

Even by including all the possible ways semen can get into the vagina while using a condom - slippage, breakage, and "inapparent failure" as the Contraception article called it - there are different levels of failure. Having a condom slip or break early in intercourse, and replacing it, carries practically no risk of pregnancy. Having a condom break results in more than twice the semen exposure of a condom slipping off (PMID 12586324). Using a condom that broke results in less than half the semen exposure of unprotected intercourse (same study). Presumably a lower level of semen exposure translates into a lower risk of pregnancy, though I doubt the relationship is linear. Lyrl ^Talk _C 02:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

A tear too small to notice is absolutely a condom failure and it is "breakage". What source are you reading that states that a tear is not a failure or is not breakage? The 2-3% rate under perfect use is ABSOLUTELY related to condom failure, breakage, or slippage. You may not have read an article claiming that pregnancies under "perfect use" are not from breakage or slippage. But answer me this... how else would someone following the condom guidelines perfectly become pregnant other than the failures of breakage (all forms of tears) and slippage? DanielZimmerman 15:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

To me, there is a big difference between a failure that was noticed at the time of use, and a failure that went unnoticed, both in the severity of semen leakage (probably much smaller if it went unnoticed) and in the implications for the users (having or not having the information they need to think about using ec, for example). Making the distinction more important in my eyes, the studies on breakage and slippage (that I have read) rely completely on user reporting. Failures that were not noticed by the couples are not included in the breakage/slippage numbers from those studies. So trying make a direct connection between the study numbers (failures observed by the users) and the pregnancy rate is missing an important part of the picture: "inapparent failure", as one of the PSA studies (PMID 10717781) called it. Lyrl ^Talk _C 00:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Reindenting: I would agree that a tear just a few pin holes wide and a huge gaping hole would havea difference. But they are still failures. I think the most important thing to note in all this is that when perfectly using the contraceptive method as described, condom failure (breakage, slippage, etc) plays a roll in the reason why someone who uses the method perfectly will still have a risk of pregnancy. DanielZimmerman 04:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Failures during application issue.

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)

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)

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)

Ghana

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)

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)

Condom confort and sensations

Somwhere there should be something that explains that condom does indeed reduce the sensations of lovemaking, and can be quite unconfortable for men. I think it's just important to explain it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.206.1.17 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 20 March 2007

Sex education

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)

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)

This section seems biased. It mentions Planned Parenthood's assertion that abstinence-only programs are ineffective but no citations to the contrary from abstinence-only supporters. It gives the impression that only PP has a study of efficacy (untrue)or that abstinence only advocates are somehow less reliable. It should be better balanced at a minimum. It also seems an unnecessary mention making it seem to be more a political than a informative mention.

If abstinence-only programs are to be discussed they should be better covered with an objective approach. It would also be worth mentioning that the majority of public school ed programs are abstinence-based.

I'm unclear as to why abstinence programs are mentioned at all in a section devoted to how condom usage is taught in schools. Actual teaching varies widely (from demonstrations to only passing mention) - wouldn't a discussion of the actual teaching of condom usage be more appropriate to the topic? ATNighthawk 19:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Good article status

I think this article is close to being a good article. Is anyone else interested in helping polish and shine it, before submitting it for GA review? The issues I think which need addressing (see Wikipedia:What is a good article?) are

• Length. Currently the article is 58kb, which is a bit longer than article size guidelines suggest is good. I already did a bit of trimming, but some additional places which could be cleaned up

• Etymology/French letter/Other terms could be shortened
• Prevalence and Laws sections can be combined. I don't think it would be a good idea to try and list the laws regarding condom access in every country. Perhaps if the specific countries listed could be worked into (shorter) examples of governmental restriction on access.
• Other uses could probably be culled to only the notable examples of alternative condom uses.

• Cite needed tags. There are many requests for citations. Some work is ahead at filling the bulk of the requests. In some cases, the claims may be incorrect or extremely rare, and thus we should just remove the claim.
• I feel like History should be more prominent in the article (and perhaps etymology made a subset of it?)
• General refocusing of the article on key topics and cutting back on the coverage of minor topics. (this one is a bit vague...)

What do folks think? Any takers on a concerted drive to improve the article and/or additional suggestions? --TeaDrinker 03:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to help. Lyrl ^Talk _C 18:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I noticed TeaDrinker removed the citations for the sabotage paragraph in the "Causes of failure" section. That paragraph was discussed extensively about two years ago at Talk:Condom/Archive 2#Sabotage and the consensus at that time was to leave it in. I agree with the arguments Kasreyn made for keeping the paragraph. What are the thoughts of other editors? Lyrl ^Talk _C 18:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the interest, the pointer to the old discussion, and as always, the superb work. My concern was the same as mentioned in the old discussion: the source fell short of being reliable in my view, and additionally may have moved on the interwebs. I have no problem with the inclusion of information about condom sabotage, but did not have any reliable citations. Some google searching, this source is marginally better, and may be sufficient, but there must be a proper study on it somewhere. This pdf also indicates male sabotage is supported. Would it be better worked into a larger section on barriers to effective use of the condom? --TeaDrinker 18:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the source suggestions; I'll take a longer look at that section tomorrow.

On article size, WP:SIZE says "Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 6,000 to 10,000 words, which roughly corresponds to 30 to 50 KB of readable prose." I copied the text into notepad and saved it on my computer; it was 37KB in size. So I think length-wise this article is in good shape. Lyrl ^Talk _C 01:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Something is missing in this sentence

"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).

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)

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)

Main illustration

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)

Condoms only used during intercourse

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)

Condoms are used in all forms of sexual activity that involve contact of mucosal tissues. An implication that they are used only for full intercourse of any type is false. The problem is that 'sex' can have different meanings to different people (many will associate it only with vaginal sex) - perhaps 'sexual activity' is a better choice? ATNighthawk 19:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Requested fix

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)

Aaah! It is a problem of how my browser renders the page. (Latex... [the photo] ...condoms are...)

Sorry for the noise!

Polyurethane

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)

History should be near the top of the page81.178.231.130 00:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

minimum latex condom thickness???

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)

Planned Parenthood, religious organizations, and sex ed

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)

Ethnic differences and condom sizing

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? Lyrl^Talk _C 13:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

History

I've come across a few references which state that in the First World War, condoms issued by governments to their troops (particularly the American and German armies) were designed to be re-usable, i.e; that they were made of much thicker rubber than today's versions, and were designed to be washed out after each use ready for future use. This would make sense for the early twentieth century, particularly considering the scarcity of rubber supplies and government desire not to have thousands of soldiers coming down with some nasty infection. I'm rummaging around for a reliable source, and was just wondering if anyone else had something similar about this? Rusty2005 11:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• I've found the reference and also a couple of others relating to "Other Uses for Condoms", particularly their use in smuggling illegal liquor into Soviet gulags in the 1970's. However I've noticed that all the references on the bottom of the page are web-linked, whereas the ones I have refer to published books and not electronic media. Is this ok? Rusty2005 11:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The early rubber condoms were thick and reusable because no one knew how to make thin, disposable condoms. The manufacturing process for making modern-type disposable condoms was developed by Julius Fromm in 1912, and was not widely implemented until after WWI. Meaning, it was a manufacturing issue, and not a rubber scarcity issue. Furthermore, to my current understanding the American troops were not issued condoms by the government during WWI due to lobbying by anti-birth control groups (birth control was illegal in many states and at the federal level for "interstate commerce" (mostly postal mail) until 1936). This is already in the history sections and sourced, but feel free to reword it if it's not clear.

Yes, book sources are fine. They are probably more reliable than web sources, and so actually preferable from that standpoint. The current predominance of web sources is more a reflection of the laziness of previous editors than of any stylistic preference. Lyrl^Talk _C 12:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

What about condom usage during anal sex?

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. Lyrl^Talk _C 22:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Your best bet are studies regarding HIV prevention - many cover condom efficacy in anal intercourse. ATNighthawk 19:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Semi Block This Page

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)

You need WP:RFPP. Jakew 19:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Why are images not displaying?

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? Lyrl^Talk _C 17:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Lebanon Study

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)

Republic of Ireland

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)

Other Uses

I noticed that there's a common use of condoms missing from the "other Uses" section. As a hunter, and from Vietnam veterans, I know that under inclement conditions, condoms are frequently used over the end of a rifle barrel to keep it clear of rain or debris. Soldiers in Vietnam depended on condoms for keeping mud out of the barrel of the M16 when crawling through jungle; hunters in forest territory often rely on them as well. If anyone can find sources on this, it's a use that should be included! Dismalscholar 05:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The first listing in that section is: Ongoing military utilization begun during World War II includes: * Tying a non-lubricated condom around the muzzle of the rifle barrel in order to prevent barrel fouling by keeping out detritus

That listing is already sourced. Is that what you were referring to? If so, do you have ideas for a different way to format the list so people can find it better? Lyrl^Talk _C 21:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The British RAF Regiment recently sent a letter to possible recruits saying what military uses condoms go through (at the RAF). That would certainly complement the information? Disclosure: I'm the author of the text, feel free to ask if there are any questions. Link to online reference Wikisisou (talk) 21:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

condoms are also used by alot of university students —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.92.97.111 (talk) 12:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Another perhaps interesting use comes, if I remeber correctly, from the Michael Palin television series Pole to Pole. I believe he uses a condom to cover and keep dry his microphone whilst white-water rafting. DWaterson 01:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Like this: "In his book entitled Last Chance to See, Douglas Adams reported having used a condom to protect a microphone he used to make an underwater recording. According to one of his travelling companions, this is standard BBC practice when a waterproof microphone is needed but cannot be procured."? That's one of the current listings, and is sourced to the Adams book.

Maybe the bullet points in the "Other uses" list need to start out with a short phrase summarizing the use, making the list easier to skim through. Lyrl^Talk _C 03:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The fish think is an urban legend —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.202.243.230 (talk) 00:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it true that a condom can be used to hold a liter of water, if you are stuck in the jungle without a water bottle (but of course, with a healthy supply of condoms, as any self-respecting man will carry) This use was mentioned in Full Metal Panic 98.208.65.56 (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright issue

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. Lyrl^Talk _C 23:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

You can find the original images in *vectorial* Corel Draw 3.0 format here : http://preservatif.maisonx.com/condom.zip. These images have been made in 1997. User:Béa 01:13, 9 February 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.89.173.224 (talk)

Roman Catholic Church and condom promotion

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? Lyrl^Talk _C 02:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

What is this, my text isn't comprehensive enough, so it gets held hostage until I spend significant time researching for the article? :P Lyrl^Talk _C 01:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Lead section

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? Lyrl^Talk _C 01:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Roman Soldier's Condoms Made From Muscles of the Conquered

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)

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. Lyrl^Talk _C 15:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

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. Lyrl^Talk _C 23:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

" 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)

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. Lyrl^Talk _C 22:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Polyurethane and Female Condoms

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)

Polyurethane Condoms

Under Varieties > Materials > Synthetic, the following sentence contains a poor footnote:

"Polyurethane condoms have gained FDA approval for sale in the United States as an effective method of contraception and HIV prevention, and under laboratory conditions have been shown to be just as effective as latex for these purposes.[82]"

Footnote 82 references a college student health website that notes polyurethane condoms have "passed the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) rigorous tests and have gained the FDA's stamp of approval for sale in the United States as an effective method of contraception and HIV prevention." However, it contains no reference to a study or even an announcement by the FDA.

A quick search found this article by the US Department of Veterans Affairs which refers to some tests that suggest higher breakage rates by polyurethane condoms:

http://www.hiv.va.gov/vahiv?page=pr-kb-00&kb=kb-07-02-02&tp=Primary%20Prevention&tpage=prtop08-00-rr&sec=04

(Scroll to "Reasons for Condom Failure")

The reference links on this article resulted in blank pages for me, however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.153.96 (talk • contribs) 28 October 2008

How to put on a condom

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)

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.
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.
See also Wikipedia:Images#Image_choice_and_placement.--Onesbrief (talk) 13:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. Lyrl^Talk _C 22:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

Condom lattice size

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)

If you can provide references that contradict the above I will be happy to withdraw my objections to the assertions in the article.

P. S. In addition, the article you referenced (as a rebuttal) cited no references whatsoever and thus should be considered simply an opinion.

Also to claim my references are outdated ignores the fact NRL (latex rubber) is a natural material and has not ever changed (at least in modern times) in structure. The only improvements have been in the area of 'on shelf vulcanization' (loss of modulus over time-or hardening to use non technical terms). This has been improved by changing additives. The pore structure (lattice) cannot be modified.

ADDENDA

Latex glove specifications Studies done by Georgetown Medical University and the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Md., published in Nature, Sept. 1, 1988, show that latex gloves, made to much higher specifications than the condom, have pores 50 times larger than the 0.1 micron HIV virus.

Even if there were no pores in latex, in-use breakage and slip-off rates are "so high as to make condoms ineffective for protection against HIV," says biochemist and molecular biologist Dr. David G. Collart, Ph.D., of Stone Mountain, Ga.

Aimulti (talk) 03:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply

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. Lyrl^Talk _C 12:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

Controversy within the catholic church

I added a little clarafication of the controversy over condoms within the catholic church. Let me know what you think. HatlessAtless (talk) 18:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

My understanding has been that the Catholic Church opposes condom promotion because it believes such programs are not effective in reducing disease transmission, not on moral grounds. So the theological arguments pro- and anti- condom use aren't specifically relevant to the Catholic Church's position on condom promotion within anti-AIDS programs. Lyrl^Talk _C 21:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Just like within any large organization, there is a difference between the 'official' sound-byte teachings of the church and the more sophisticated, and subtler controversy within the church itself. The catholic church tends to be relatively receptive towards scientific research, which is why they usually rely on moral arguments to defend their position rather than effectiveness grounds. (Case in point, in both a catholic grade school and high school I was taught about the effectiveness of condoms in preventing STDs, as well as their proper use, alongside a healthy dose of how wrong premarital sex was). Just as importantly, many members of more liberal catholic organizations, such as the Society of Jesus are very pro-condom, especially when talking about distribution to non-catholics. (If I have time today I'll pull together some better references to defend this, but I'm at work atm and it may take a bit)

From the media dialog that I have followed the same organizations that oppose condoms by questioning their effectiveness tend to be the same groups that heavily promote ID and rely on the 'only a theory' arguments; specifically, the more conservative and/or fundamentalist protestant groups. The effectiveness of condom use is pretty non-controversial and pretty compelling, and the Catholic church made peace with science after its internal dialogs over the Big Bang. HatlessAtless (talk) 16:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Here are some references to back up my statements in my previous post;

From America Magazine, a Jesuit publication:

James T. Bretzke, S.J. (26 March,). "The Lesser Evil". America Magazine. Retrieved 2008-05-16. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)

National Review article discussing church position on condom use and the 'official' side of the controversy:

Father Thomas D. Williams (May 17, 2006). "Idle Speculation". National Review. Retrieved 2008-05-16.

An article from Commonweal Magazine that gives some decent discussion on the front lines of the AIDS issue in Africa and the catholics on it:

Marcella Alsan (4/24/2006). "Catholic Church condom prohibition comes face to face with reality of AIDS in Africa". Commonweal Magazine. Retrieved 2008-05-16. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

HatlessAtless (talk) 17:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I was not clear. It is not the effectiveness of condoms, when used correctly and consistently, that the Catholic Church questions. It is the effectiveness of programs that promote condom use in reducing HIV transmission that is questioned. From the second article you linked to (Idle Speculation):

One thing is abundantly clear: the Church will never “promote” condom use as the remedy to the AIDS problem in Africa. The reason for this policy is twofold. First, promotion of condoms inevitably means the sanctioning of promiscuity, and consequently, the increasing of AIDS itself. Second, existing data suggests that condom promotion simply doesn’t work, while abstinence programs have more of a shot. As much as we may wish to shout about “safe sex,” condom distribution first and foremost sends a message about sex itself: it is perfectly fine to be promiscuous. And only as a side note: oh, and be safe.

While I disagree with that conclusion (it rests heavily on the "success" of Uganda in reducing its AIDS rate, which may actually have occurred by letting HIV-positive people die rather than by reducing transmission rates [3]), it does seem to be the official position of the Roman Catholic Church.

There seem to be numerous complex theological arguments about the morality of condoms when used with the intention of preventing disease. I'm not sure we could do them justice in this article without violating WP:UNDUE; I believe such a discussion would be best placed in Catholic teachings on sexual morality. My preference for the Wikipedia article "condom" would be to leave the discussion of the RCC position to condom-promotion programs, and just mention (but not go into the arguments) that there is internal wrangling over the morality of using condoms to prevent disease. Does that make sense? Lyrl^Talk _C 12:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

While I would love to pontificate (pun intended) on every little point and spread in-depth knowledge into everything like foie-gras on toast, I have no choice but to agree. Thanks for being so straightforward with your response. HatlessAtless (talk) 14:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it is great for Wikipedia when editors pontificate and spread in-depth knowledge. The section I made in the Catholic teachings article (which is now linked in the RCC section of this article) is rather stubby and would certainly benefit from attention. I did not intend to discourage your contributions, just to redirect them. Lyrl^Talk _C 11:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

History section - reviews and copyediting requested

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. Lyrl^Talk _C 00:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

History of condoms, or shall we start a more ambitious History of birth control? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

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. Lyrl^Talk _C 01:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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? Lyrl^Talk _C 00:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

Ha, I had put both sections under history a while back. WhatamIdoing separated them out a few days ago. I don't feel strongly about it either way. Lyrl^Talk _C 00:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

Would it make sense to put female condoms next to or under varieties?

I was looking at the layout of the article, and thought it might make sense to put female condoms as a subsection under varieties. Or if not that, would it make sense to put female condoms next to the varieties section (since it is a similar device). Some of the other devices listed in varieties are appear to be at least as dis-similar from the standard male condom as the female condom is. Thought it might simplify the structure of the article a little to group these together. But figured that other eds may not agree, so thought would toss the idea out here rather than just being bold. Zodon (talk) 06:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I like that suggestion, and have gone ahead and moved the section.

I was also looking at the "see also" section, with a mind to include the links in the article and remove the section. The court case seems only tangentially related and should probably just be dropped. "Female condom" is already integrated. "Anti-rape condom" should probably go under varieties, but that section is getting a lot of sub-sections. I was thinking about removing the "experimental" subsection altogether (are those things really notable enough to be included?), and combining "collection", "novelty", and "anti-rape" into one sub-section "other". Thoughts on this? Lyrl^Talk _C 01:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I was also looking at the see also section, with a mind to removal. (I already removed Female condom from the list before I saw this.) I think mentioning anti-rape condoms in the article makes sense. In addition to their other properties, they appear to be a contraceptive/STD prevention device.

I think the information about experimental forms is interesting, though how notable these forms are I don't know. If inconvenient in varieties, perhaps it should be moved to a "Research directions" section?

I was thinking on the lines of dividing varieties into -

1. Available forms
   1. Latex
   2. Polyurethane
   3. Lambskin
   4. Spermicidally lubricated
2. Female
   1. Anti-rape condom
3. Experimental
4. Other
   1. Collection condom
   2. Novelty condoms

Some of these sub-chunks could be spun into other sections. (e.g. other could go under other uses, novelty condoms could be woven into Societal impact section, experimental becomes part of a research directions section).

I like having things called out in the table of contents, so I can zip right to them, but I can also see where one paragraph sections might not be to everyone's taste (don't feel strongly that sub-bits of other need their own sections). Anti-rape condom could go in other, or under female condom.

While drafting this I liked the test subdivision I was doing enough to go ahead and post the change. Mostly I like the idea of grouping the different material options together. (They should relate to the section on contraindications, when we get to doing that.) Also, separating/calling out spermicidal condoms seemed like a good move - along the lines of cautions/etc. Sorry to make change while discussing, still open to discussion, etc. Zodon (talk) 03:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Making changes is fine, sometimes it's helpful to see the suggestions implemented instead of having to imagine them from talk page descriptions.

I like the idea of separating the experimental items into at "research" section, maybe at the end? A "future of condoms" type discussion might be a good way to wrap up the article.

I'd favor removing the subheadings under "other", at least as long as the descriptions stay as short as they are. The "collection" description links to the "infertility" section, which is a nice navigational tool, I think. So I'm not sure integrating that into the "other uses" section would improve the usefulness of the article.

I favor putting the anti-rape condom in the other section; I'm leaning toward it not being common enough to justify its own listing in the table of contents.

Are there enough contraindications for condoms to have a section devoted to them? Allergy is the only one I'm familiar with. Lyrl^Talk _C 01:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Allergy is all I know about, but you could be allergic to not only latex, but also spermicide or lanolin (for skin condoms). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Contraindications - sensitivity to material(s) is main one (either to material in condom, or to lubricant or coating materials.). Inability to maintain an erection also appears to be a contraindication. There are various other disadvantages/cautions (some of which already covered in article) - inability to put on the condom, decreased sensitivity, male noncooperation, deterioration with age, heat, lubricants.

BTW - do "lambskin" condoms have lanolin? (Since made from gut.) Or is it just that if allergic to lanolin likely to be allergic to materials on/in sheep gut as well?

There probably aren't enough contraindications for it's own section, could combine with related material (e.g. disadvantages/cautions).

Putting research section at the end makes sense (per WP:MEDMOS). Zodon (talk) 08:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Most of those aren't strictly contraindications (which is reserved for must not use), so I don't think a special section is warranted.

I don't know whether lanolin is actually the culprit. I just remember seeing it called out as a problem once, and thinking that I would have never thought of it. Of course, most people aren't actually allergic to lanolin itself, but to other associated chemicals in it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Condoms help treat persistent HPV infection

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)

Prevalence section

For condom usage in Japan, there is also this 2004 CBS article that says, "Condoms account for about 80 percent of the birth control market." The PRB datasheet seems like a more "official" source, but I thought I'd offer the CBS article as an alternative.

Does the size of this section seem about right? I think it covers what I would expect it to, but it seems short compared to most of the other sections in this article. Lyrl^Talk _C 11:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice to also cover use by non-married. Seems especially important for condoms (as compared to other methods) in role in STD protection. (Since, at least in US, STD transmission is higher in younger, and age of marriage is higher). Covering use among non-married and men would also help address prevalence in non-heterosexual relationships, where marriage often is not available. Of course I realize the stats are harder to come by, so we have to use what we can get.

Or perhaps specifically addressing prevalence among groups not included (e.g. gays), and those at higher risk for STDs (e.g. sex workers).

I looked at the data for US unmarried vs. married women (because had the data), but though use of some other methods are a fair bit different (e.g. male sterilization much higher in married, injection much lower), the condom numbers work out fairly similar (16% of married contraceptive using women, vs. 18% of all contraceptive using women).

Thank you for explaining where the 28% figure came from. It wasn't obvious looking at the article. (Easy to overlook the among those using contraception.) I added a comment to the text to assist future editors. Zodon (talk) 06:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Those suggestions make a lot of sense. I think we'll be able to dig up a few area examples, even though worldwide data is not available. Also, after writing about section ordering at the task force page, I've been thinking we should break prevalence out of the "use" section. And maybe "role in sex education" should go down in the "debate" section, which should be renamed to "in society and culture"?

I like the comment - I feel silly for not thinking of that myself. Lyrl^Talk _C 22:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Effectiveness section

Ok, after reading the section on failure I do see the discussion there but I think it has some major cleanup that needs to be done. Many of the items discussed previously about "perfect use" versus "typical use" are gone and now we are left with some very strange (imo) wording describing when a condom might fail. The article restricts to discussion of typical use to "couples" when typical use need not be restricted to only couples. I also have an issue with the wording of serioconversion, 100 person years, and 85% reduction of risk. A layperson coming to get information on condom effectiveness is not going to get a good enough of a picture with what is presented there. There should be a better way to say it, while leaving the more clinical/technical information to the sources. DanielZimmerman (talk) 03:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed the paragraph that referred to couples. For the paragraph on HIV, would your concerns be addressed by changing the sentence to: "According to a 2000 report by the National Institutes of Health, correct and consistent use of latex condoms reduces the risk of HIV/AIDS transmission by approximately 85%, putting the infection rate at 0.9% per year with perfect use of condoms, down from 6.7% per year for unprotected intercourse."?

In the "causes of failure" section, none of the references talk about perfect or typical use, and the article reflects the references. I'm not sure what you mean by strange wording; could you be more specific? Lyrl^Talk _C 22:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Double bagging

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)

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. Lyrl^Talk _C 22:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

On the female condom issue, the NYU reference includes a caution against male + female condom. Lyrl^Talk _C 23:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

Infobox

The infobox now says "Benefits: No external drugs or clinic visits required". External drugs? Is there a particular meaning that's intended here? How about just "No medications or clinic visits required"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what that was intended to mean. I agree "medications" is more clear, and have modified it as suggested.

The "Ancient (other materials)" entry was modified to "Ancient (other materials, e.g. animal skin)". This causes that line to wrap in the box; I'm concerned this makes the box more difficult to read. It also implies that animal skin was more common than linen, waxed paper, and tortoise shell, other materials ancient condoms are claimed to have been made from. Would others support removing the e.g. phrase? Or do they find the animal skin example helpful? Lyrl^Talk _C 21:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the details on material is clear enough in the article, doesn't need to say animal skin in the infobox. It seems strange to have first use in reverse chronological order. What about saying "Ancient, 1855 (rubber), 1920 (latex), 1994 (polyurethane)" Zodon (talk) 06:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Language

I started reading the article and its really good, but sometimes the language is really out of line for an encyclopaedia. Like: "The person may have run out of condoms, or be travelling and not have a condom with them, or simply dislike the feel of condoms and decide to "take a chance." What’s with the language here... some of this is really self evident. There is also a western bias in that it fails to mention that in many countries condoms may not be affordable or not readily available (rather than "well, we went on a city-break and I forgot to pack the condoms, silly me, so we had a quickie without, but I think he pulled it out early enough"). Also, this sentence is under the heading condom failure, but not packing a condom for travel or not using one is not a condom failure, its a human failure. I am all for a section on availability of condoms though (i.e. youth, women, cost, in bars, give away at the Brazilian Carnival etc).

The language really gets unnecessarily casual at times. Why not say "dislike the feel of condoms" rather than "simply dislike the feel of condoms"?

Other examples are: "For the boom of the condom industry, it appears there is no end in sight."... very casual.

Also "Among people who intend condoms to be their form of birth control, pregnancy may occur when the user has sex without a condom."... well of course! I am not sure if this needs to be said again? and in any case not like this... --SasiSasi (talk) 20:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The "actual" or "typical" failure rate includes people who sometimes have sex without a condom. This article needs to be clear that those people (and that type of failure) are included in the "actual" or "typical" failure rate.

Other than that concern, I'd encourage you to be bold and fix the casual language you note in the article. Lyrl^Talk _C 00:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

That’s ridiculous... how can not using a contraceptive be included in the failure rate of the contraceptive... this is shocking.

Having said that I will try my best to stay well away from editing this article because I am trying to focus my grasshopper mind on other articles (some need it more than this).--SasiSasi (talk) 15:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

ah... if anybody has any time the Reproductive rights article could do with some contributions... access to contraceptives is a reproductive rights issue, so maybe any of the condom experts can be persuaded--SasiSasi (talk) 15:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

That is actually standard practice in public health. The typical failure rate should not be described as the ideal failure rate (used consistently and correctly, condoms are pretty darned good), but all the good will in the world is useless if the compliance rate is low. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

If it helps any to understand, consider other methods, like withdrawal or the pill. In withdrawal, if used correctly the semen is released away from the vagina, but it can be difficult to maintain control and do that in time. Likewise, the pill requires taking a pill every day, but sometimes people forget or run out, etc. In both cases they may be intending to use the method, but don't wind up using it properly. Barrier methods like the condom are treated in a similar fashion. Forgetting, or can't be bothered, or ran out, etc. is part of how people actually use things. (No let-up seen in Murphy's law.) Zodon (talk) 18:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

but lets assume I do use a condom, what’s the failure rate then? Has someone calculated that (is that the "ideal failure rate"? I can see what they are trying to do, i.e. how likely is a women/couple using a particular method of contraception to get pregnant in real life... but I would be more interested in failure rate assuming full compliance (just so I know the chances of things going wrong even if I do my bit)... I also think this is important with regards to STDs... I assume if used correctly the chances of contracting HIV through intercourse (using a condom!) is 0... (provided it does not break or has been damaged)...?--SasiSasi (talk) 17:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

According to Condom#Effectiveness, perfect use gives an annual 2% chance of pregnancy (35 years to 50% failure), and typical use gives 10—18% (4—7 years to 50% failure). Those numbers seem a little high (my friend cohort of people whom I have a reasonable expectation that I would hear about such events includes about five dozen sexually-active-couple-years without "surprises"), but the sources are not obviously unreliable. - Eldereft (cont.) 20:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Also in the article (Condom#In preventing STDs), correct and consistent use with an HIV-positive partner results in a 0.9% risk per year of catching HIV. The language in that section was said to be unclear earlier on this talk page (#Effectiveness section, but we had not worked out how to improve it. Lyrl^Talk _C 22:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

it might be a nice idea to have a separate article on the various standard ways of measuring the performance of contraceptives, which could also include some of the statistics on how different contraceptives compare based on different methodologies... I still think its a bit unfair to attribute non-use as a contraceptive failure, I guess its taking account of the "stupid factor", but I do wonder if a couple has chosen condoms as their main method of contraception, and then all the sudden decide they "simply don’t like the feel of it", and then do the responsible thing and decide to "take a chance".... there is only so much you can blame on a piece of latex. --SasiSasi (talk) 09:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

We do have Comparison of birth control methods#Effectiveness of various methods. I put it as a {{seealso}} link, but it might be better to work it into the text. - Eldereft (cont.) 10:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The failure rate of a contraceptive method is the "method failure" or "perfect use failure". The "typical" or "actual" failure rate is pregnancies among users of the method, not contraceptive failures. It might be helpful to this discussion to link to a similar conversation in the archives: Talk:Condom/Archive 3#Causes of condom failure

Lyrl^Talk _C 21:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Image option

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)

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? Lyrl^Talk _C 23:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

Polyisoprene Condoms

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)