Talk:Double Dutch
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I deleted the first paragraph.
-edit- oh it's back again...
Made some adjustments to the first sentence, sorry for deleting the whole paragraph =D. Turns out it's an actual term! (A purely English one though... must be like that boy-sticks-his-finger-in-a-dike-story... lol)
Perhaps the statiscal analysis should be moved into the linked, and as yet uncreated, article on double contraception. It seems out of place here.
The bit at the end seems quite POV
Unrelatedly: why would using a male and female condom simultaneously decrease the efficacy of both?
Contents |
[edit] decreased efficiency
The reason the efficiency is decreased is because the friction of the two latex devices rubbing against each other increases the chance or tearing.
[edit] Popular song
Double dutch was a popular hit by Malcolm McLaren in the 1980s who uses the Rope game for his television performances.
[edit] NPOV on contraception
Andycjp, I reverted the edits you made tonight. I don't think it's appropriate to say what Christians think of the "spiritual safety" of contraception -- certainly not without mentioning what every other religion thinks about it, and even then this wouldn't be the right place for it. You made a few other edits that I reverted all at once. I do agree with you that "a lot of official institutions" could use a reference, though. Bikeable 07:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I disagree. `Safe sex` is not neutral language so needs some qualification. Name the last time nobody ended up getting hurt when a relationship ended. Andy Christmas 2005
It doesn't say "safe sex", and you cannot refer to what one religion thinks without giving time to all the others. Were you going to add a Buddhist view in there too? But how about this: we lose the "a lot of official institutions", which you identified as the NPOV part, and the "Christians", which I think is wildly NPOV. A reasonable compromise? I'll make the edits now. Bikeable 07:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Going double Dutch
The last paragraph seems a bit un-Wikipedia-ish. Comments?
- Totally agreed. Editorializing. I've removed it. -- PKtm 03:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Split
I agree with the suggestion to split. --Gray Porpoise 18:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Me too. I think that each section might blossom if planted separately. ChristinaDunigan 18:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Nobody's done it yet? There are obviously no objections, so I'll do it. —Keenan Pepper 22:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Content with nowhere to go
I can't find anywhere to put this, but it's not like it's great stuff anyway: there are no sources, and it seems like a neologism to me. You can create a new article if you really want to, but for now I'm leaving this here. —Keenan Pepper 23:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "Going double Dutch"
The phrase "going double Dutch" means using two types of contraceptive: at the same time the man wears a condom, the woman swallows an oral contraceptive. This is supposed to be the safest type of sex, because it simultaneously protects against pregnancy and venereal diseases (like AIDS). It is not recommended to use two condoms (either two male condoms or one male condom and one female condom) at the same time, as this will increase the failure rate of both.
A mathematical analysis of the use of two contraceptives at once shows this to be a more effective practice. In theory, the reliability of the best contraceptives approaches or exceeds 99%. In practice, the reliability is usually much less. It is estimated that for most people who carefully use them, quality contraception has a failure rate of about 3%.
Given a failure rate of 3%, or 3 in 100, using dual contraception provides virtually certain contraceptive protection. If two forms of contraception each have failure rates of 3%, then the failure rate of the pair used in unison is the product of the failure rates of the methods used separately, or 9 in 10,000. Thus the rate of pregnancy drops from 300 in 10,000 to 9 in 10,000 (0.09%).
