Talk:Condom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Condom has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
B	This page has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance assessment scale

	Sexuality Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

To-do list for Condom:

edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do: Requests: All single-sentence paragraphs should be expanded or merged into other paragraphs. Copyedit: Convert the list of "Other uses" into paragraph format. Verify: Find a better source for the reference to an Ancient Egypt condom image. Expand: Address cultural perception of condom use Discuss how introduction of pill and IUD dramatically lowered condom use, then AIDS epidemic led to a resurgence of use

Archives

/Archive 1 - March 2003 through December 2005 /Archive 2 - January 2006 through August 23, 2006 /Archive 3 - September 2006 through September 2007

Contents 1 Other Uses 2 Image copyright issue 3 Roman Catholic Church and condom promotion 4 Lead section 5 Roman Soldier's Condoms Made From Muscles of the Conquered 6 Vandalism 7 Polyurethane and Female Condoms 8 How to put on a condom 9 Condom lattice size 9.1 Reply 10 Controversy within the catholic church

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Roman Soldier's Condoms Made From Muscles of the Conquered

I just read at the link below that the Roman Soldier's 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 on 2008-05-16.

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 on 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 on 2008-05-16.

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 [1]), 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)