Is the low rate of condom use really related to the time demands of putting one on? I've seen a few things like this and it seems rather more likely that any reason like that is dwarfed by cultural ones.
Is the low rate of condom use really related to the time demands of putting one on?
I suspect it is not related at all, this article is just a piece of very silly marketing. Condom use in developing countries seems to be hampered by several factors: most prominently religion, access to the condoms, and basic knowledge of how to use them. You'd assume the last point isn't a problem, but it turns out they do really weird stuff with free condoms in the absence of training courses, like hanging them on a wire over the bed instead of putting them on (as a kind of talisman) and re-using them multiple times.
Oh, I don't know. In developed countries at least, condom use is sometimes hampered by the fact that putting one on "breaks the mood", so shaving valuable seconds off the process would seem to be helpful there.
I have no idea if it will work for African subsistence farmers, but I can certainly see it increasing condom use among horny American college students.
but I can certainly see it increasing condom use among horny American college students.
Most likely. Although, to be fair, condom use is a lot easier after multiple applications. The first time is difficult, but after a while you get pretty fast at it.
If you're on the fence about condom use, and your first few times are failures, it might lead you to high risk behavior or in a country like South Africa you may contract HIV in these first few times. The Pronto condom could be a huge invention.
there was a fascinating tedX talk about marketing of condoms in africa a while back. people in DR Congo were avoiding the free condoms given out by aid groups in lieu of the marketed commercial ones (with names like rough rider, pleasure maxx, etc). There was also something about guilt or displeasure with the free ones as well.
lol, however cutting slits in a condom packaging would cause it to dry out, and more importantly you could end up ripping the condom itself... but couldn't someone do a perforated version?
We were taught in school that you're supposed to squeeze the tip (of the condom) as you put it on, to allow room for the semen. Apparently this reduces chance of breakage.
I dont see any tip squeezing in this new application method.. thats a worry.
I have a hard time believing this. You can pump liters of air in a condom. A couple of milliliters of semen is hardly going to cause breakage. I'd be much more worried about sharp objects (split fingernails) and slippage. Furthermore, anecdotal evidence would suggest that (1) the built-in reservoir in condoms is not large enough anyway and (2) condoms slip/stretch a centimeter or two from application to ejaculation, effectively creating a reservoir that's large enough regardless of whether the built-in reservoir contained air or not.
You don't want an inflated reservoir tip because it increases the risk of breakage during intercourse. It has nothing to do with ejaculation and everything to do with friction between two layers of latex.
Short version: it's far easier for latex to tear when rubbing against another piece of latex, than as a single layer sandwiched between two pieces of skin. Thus anything that you do that increases the incidence of latex rubbing against latex increases the chance of breakage.
That's why you roll condoms on, keeping the material taut (to minimize chances of folds/wrinkles) and that's why you don't want air in the reservoir tip.
I don't see how a non-inflated tip would decrease latex rubbing against other latex. If anything it is increased. Take a non-inflated plastic balloon and rub it against your hand => plastic rubbing plastic. Now take an inflated balloon and rub it against your hand => no plastic touching other plastic.
> to minimize chances of folds/wrinkles
Have you used a condom? The chance of lots folds/wrinkles during usage is pretty much 100%.
I was thinking the same. Also, I'm not sure it the plastic applicator is really a good idea: could it have a sharp edge that tears the condom? how much would increase the cost?
It's not the packaging that needs work, its the product. Popular forms of effective male pregnancy prevention are pretty limited. There really hasn't been any innovation in the field in a long time. Really we can launch people into space but we still have to put some sort of poly vinyl silicone sleeve on ding dongs? That's the best it gets?
Pregnancy prevention is not the issue, it's STI transmission that must be prevented, especially in africa.
I doubt we will have a viable substitute for a latex barrier in that regard until some sort of pathogen-hunting nanotechnology becomes mainstream. By that point we may well have transcended our present notions of sex/gender altogether.
all i need is a way to tell which way is "up". preferably a way that will also work in the dark, using one hand.
i'm sure there's statistically significant evidence of telepathic (in-)ability in the number of times i put the damn thing on upside down and then can't unroll it.
and easier opening packages. fix the basics already.
Amen. It doesn't matter if it takes a second or ten seconds of manipulation as long as the process is straight-forward and you don't have to distract yourself from the actual love-making.
A condom that can be mounted with one hand, correct side up, and preferably through one continuous movement would probably remove 95% of the annoying and frustrating condom usage problems, at least in countries with average Western education or better. (No hanging of the rubber above bed or anything, like somebody said.)
>A condom that can be mounted with one hand, correct side up, and preferably through one continuous movement would probably remove 95% of the annoying and frustrating condom usage problems
use correct size. When condom is smaller than needed - then you have all these problems (and in addition it still leaves enough uncovered skin for direct skin-to-skin contact thus potentially decreasing the STD protection efficiency).
Standard condom size should be good for virtually all people. They are extremely stretchable in width, e.g. you shouldn't have a problem putting one on your head (by which I mean the head that sits on your torso). Soft tissue is the real danger for STIs, which is well covered with a condom of any size. No matter the size of the condom, normal skin will always be exposed. Condom size also has no effect on doing the correct side up.
>Standard condom size should be good for virtually all people.
that a very overstretched (pun intended) statement.
>They are extremely stretchable in width, e.g. you shouldn't have a problem putting one on
with pretty much any condom able to hold a bucket of water, it is theoretically possible for any human male to put it on. On practice, when condoms are noticeably smaller that your size, it wouldn't roll over using one hand and it requires so much frustrating both hands finger acrobatics that it just becomes a separate activity on its own which understandably may affect the mood in some cases. Among the "standard size" i personally met wide variations in elasticity and size to the extent that some [rare] of them i couldn't practically put on (and i'm biologically pretty average). Correct condom size does matter.
I can't say I share your experience. Why is using two hands a problem? I always use two hands and it never takes longer than a couple of seconds. Putting a standard condom on a dildo that's well above the average human penis size is equally easy. Putting on a condom on a (partially) flaccid penis is indeed very hard though since you need one hand to hold it and trying to put it on will push the blood out.
Use which size suits you best, but be aware that a looser condoms will cause more slippage.
Abstinence works however at 100% effectiveness (for both prevention of conception and prevention of spreading disease) whilst condoms work at, what is it, about 97% prevention of pregnancy for experienced users and much lower for inexperienced users. I don't know the figures for disease spread but presumably things like genital warts and pubic lice aren't hindered much by condom use.
I don't think this is really the place for this discussion/ your snide remarks.
Abstinence _education_ was the point of my comment. South Africa, the origin of this product, has been subjected to various abstinence-only education programs from outside sources and these are known to have negligible results[1]. Anything that instead acknowledges that people want to continue having sex and instead prepares them for the event - such as this product, and the accompanying video - is going to be far more useful in the long run.
"At present there does not exist any strong evidence that any abstinence program delays the initiation of sex, hastens the return to abstinence or reduces the number of sexual partners"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21670758/
