Talk:Condom/Archive 1

Miscellaneous Concerns
Q: Does anyone want to mention the latex "condoms" used to cover rifles during amphibious operations in world wars? Or is this apocryphal. I've heard many different versions of this: one says that soldiers used actual condoms on their rifles, another said that the government purchasing these covers specially made from a condom company (12 inches long, leading to a joke about Churchill asking for them to be labbeled "Condoms, British, medium" or somesuch), and other versions have the soldiers merely using plastic bags or other covers. Can anyone clarify and update as necessary?

A: Yes it is true, i'm not sure of the exact size off hand, but it started like this, most used normal bags, 1 guy didn't have a bag so he reached down into his pocket and grabbed his condom, put it over the end, and then he used his spare lace(not sure if they still do but they were given 1 backup if i heard correctly just incase it ripped so they wouldn't get a limp boot) and tied it around the opening of the condom. So there's your answer, i havn't heard from a reliable resource yet that it was used on a regular basis, normally they used bags.

-Blue Face inc.

Why did you immediately revert my (female viewpoint) comment re: caps and diaphragms, O pompous twat?...oh, I see, I didn't mention dirty bum sex, did I !!!!!

"However, at least one website exists whose purpose is to provide females who want another child against their male partner's wishes, with advice on condom sabotage."

Can we add a reference to this? If not in the article, at least in the discussion. It is not obvious this is credible (does the site exist? Is it just a parody?).


 * I'm the one who added that statement. I can't recall the link at the moment; the site was linked from cruel.com as Cruel Site of the Day a couple years back.  As far as I could see, it was exactly as I've described.  I joined the forums and tried to open a dialogue about the ethics of sabotaging condoms without the male partner's knowledge but I was not listened to.  If I ever find the link again, I will definitely add it to the discussion page for reference.  So again, this is not a parody, but I suppose you have only my word for that.  Cheers,  Kasreyn

Someone else changed the page, with this notation as to the change:

"Those who care to have sex again will "withdraw" the penis rather than going to the extreme of "removing" it...."

That gave me such a good laugh that I just wanted to preserve it in the talk here. . . Thanks, Someone else.

--jaknouse


 * I liked "bursts and slippages"
 * Beautiful! Can we please BJAODN this? :) Aecis praatpaal 10:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

A friend of mine said that her partner had used a condom, and she was on birth control pill, but she had still became pregnant. -- JesseG 03:30, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Oh. --Drak2 19:33, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Neither is a 100% guarantee against an unwanted pregnancy. Used together the probability of a double failure is something close to one in ten thousand but still quite possible. There may be other factors in play: many women will occasionally miss a pill and couples who use double protection tend to be a little careless with their secondary method, i.e., putting on the condom just before ejaculation, not using enough spermicidal jelly, etc. Sex is a pretty passionate exercise and the best of us lose our heads. 12.207.81.16 (talk &bull; contribs) 26 July 2005 02:24:27
 * ... she probably got pregnant by someone else, heh heh.

Condom disposal
Where and how does one dispose a used condom ?
 * In a bin, as they may block up pipes if you put them in the toilet. --Drak2 19:33, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Most people flush them down the toilet, as I do.Regardless of warnings not to,it works with no problems.

Knit condoms
Did people really try to knit condoms? Not that I'm doubting the research of whoever put that in, it's just weird. Calieber 17:55, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * To people that do not understand the biology, and the importance of the transfer of fluids, any hood that prevented direct contact between the man's 'thing' and the woman's 'thing' would have seemed like a good idea. These were different times. -- Ec5618 20:23, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well the concept was decent (barrier method) the problem was that while the material to someone who did not have a microscope might appear to "stop" the fluid transfer, the reality is its not a matter of just stopping fluid transfer but also stopping absorption into the barrier itself. A soaked knit condom would still transfer the sperm due to the porousness even though it appears to be "catching" everything.SiberioS 06:09, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Etymology - Earl of Condom?
May it be possible to add something about the etymology?
 * List of inventions named after people says condom is named after Earl of Condom, personal physical to the King Charles II of England. Fact or fiction ? Jay 05:16, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I tend to doubt this. (1) King Charles' court physician, who tended him in his final illness, was Sir Charles Scarborough (1616-1694), though of course he may have had other physicians.... But (2) there is no "Earldom of Condom" listed in Burke's Extinct Peerage. And something also tells me King Charles wasn't using condoms all that regularly, since he fathered at least sixteen bastard children! -- Nunh-huh 05:37, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * But he had far more mistresses than the number of children. Now what does this prove ! Jay 06:06, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * That being a king is a really good way to get girls, and that condoms are not a really good way of avoiding begetting them? - Nunh-huh 06:11, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * 80 Google hits for "Earl of Condom". says William E. Kruck has written an article 'Looking for Dr Condom', Publication of the American Dialect Society, no. 66, 1981, which is a meticulous and effective repudiation of all those 'Dr/Colonel/Earl of Condom' myths about the origin of the condom. Can someone find that article online anywhere. Jay 06:18, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * The OED says "Origin unknown; no 18th-cent. physician named Condom or Conton has been traced though a doctor so named is often said to be the inventor of the sheath." -- Dominus 14:52, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Here is an entry at PubMed published in Hum Fertil. 1940 Dec;5(6):172-5. with title "Who was condom?":
 * "PIP: Research on the name "condom" is presented. Condoms, as contraceptives and protection against venereal disease, were popularized about 1840. It is surmised that Cundum was an actual man, an Englishman. He was not a doctor, probably an army officer. He popularized the device between 1680 and 1717." -- Delta G 02:35, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I am actually reading "Looking for Dr. Condom" right now. It proves pretty conclusively that condom doesn't exist (and also disproves many other theories, e.g. that it was named after a town in France, named after the latin condus named for the persian kendü). Zacharias P. Thundy states in "The Etymology of Condom" by  (American Speech 60, No. 2, 1985) that condom is derived from condamina or house. After I finish my essay I should probably put up a bigger version of this. 22:34 20 December 20 2005 (UTC)

Female condoms
The female condoms I'm quite familiar with do not advertise that they "slide on the penis". That is only applicable to circumcised sex. I believe the "slide on" sentence should be removed, unless further explaination is given as to the mechanics. Tightly circumcised men often cannot use these types of condoms without adding large amounts of lubricants, or just jamming the thing into the vagina quite easily with our nerve-deadened genitals. DanP 22:18, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * A female condom is supposed to be inserted in the vagina or anus, not put on the penis, before intercourse. They could not even "slide" on a penis (cut or uncut) because they would just drape around one, they even have little rings which secure the condom in the orafice. Hyacinth 22:33, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Then why does it say "The instructions for use of female condoms are of necessity different from those of male condoms, since they are inserted rather than worn, and designed to slide on the penis, rather than to fit tightly over it." I know them well, yes they drape around a penis once it's inserted.  But the sentence says "slide on", which is totally different.  Uncut or restored, the penis does not need to "slide" skin-to-rubber.  Something has to "give": the latex, the penis, the vagina, or a some layer of lubricant somewhere in-between.  Cut tightly, the penis has only the lubrication for give, or else the condom gets shoved in.  First-hand experience.   So "drape around" is OK, but saying "slide on" is misleading unless copious lube is applied on one particular side of the condom.  DanP 22:53, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see now. Any condom should be used with lubrication, in my opinion, and I think in the opinion of the person who wrote "slide on". Being uncut, having one's foreskin, is not, in my personal and "first-hand" experience (including uncut and cut), any advantage or disadvantage when using a condom. Hyacinth 23:07, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * OK, I changed it to "drape around" unless objections arise. Unfortunately, with severe cuts there is a great difference.  Before restoring, only a fraction of the condom could be unrolled.  Restored, I can unroll the entire length, and have full mobility in the vagina for limitless time, rather than the artifically-lubed few minutes until lube dries out.  But I can see your point, as some artificial lubricants are good in both situations.  My point was the speed of drying with deep air-exposed surfaces, and hence causing the condom to get shoved in (and not even feel that it went in!) DanP 23:17, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

polyurethane is not just for those allergic to latex!
it's also

1. many times stronger than latex, making it possible to manufacture condoms that are half as thick ==> more sensitive

2. polyurethane is MANY times more transcalent. this is extremely important since feeling the difference in temperature between penis & vagina is an essential part of sexual sensation

Instructions for Condom Use Encylopedic Material?
I do not think that instructions for effective use of condoms qualifies as encyclopedic material. Does one go to, say, the sexual intercourse page and find instructions for effective conception? I think the page should simply document what a condom is, and not how to use it.

Furthermore, I am going to insert a section about objections to condom use.--Mm35173 14:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes you do. In fact there is a page on wikipedia dedicated to a List of sex positions. Just because you may or may not find it morally objectionable, and don't want the "inconvenient" information out there doesn't mean it should be deleted. Also its relevent to state that many other medical entries of drugs, herbs, etc have mentions of use, contraindictions, etc, which are on similar footing as instructions on how to use a condom.SiberioS 05:57, 17 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I think wikipedia has the potential to be something much greater than a conventional encyclopedia. The only point I see in advocating brevity is the possible problem of information overload (devoting a section to an arbitrary pair of george washington's shoes on a george washington page or something). But maybe a lot of this can be solved by summarizing stuff as a single link that leads to another wiki page with more subtle detail.

I think it certainly qualifies as material for Wikibooks.

AirBa 16:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Catholic Church Prohibition of Condoms
The idea that 'the Pope' thinks use of condoms is 'sinful' is such a boring canard, so endlessly repeated, that it deserves to be addressed. Yet it is such a convenient straw man and so widespread that it has obtained the status of an urban legend.

It is certainly true, as stated in the article, that the use of condoms is forbidden to 'husband and wife' - presumably, Catholic married couples - as is the use of any other contraceptive or abortifacient.

Bearing in mind the Catholic viewpoint that sex outside of marriage is 'sinful', in and of itself, this leaves the question of how the Church regards their use in those types of relationships.

We start with homosexuality, since that is the easiest category to resolve. Since the objection is not to condoms, per se, but as birth control devices, the question of their use in same-sex intercourse answers itself automatically: there is no moral consequence to the decision to use condoms in homosexual relations, since there is no question of 'birth control'. As is well known, the Church condemns homosexual relations, but the question of condom use is a nullity and does not enter into it.

There still remain various types of opposite-sex relations: the unlawful categories of adultery, fornication, prostitution and rape; and lawful relationships in non-Catholic heterosexual marriages.

With regard to the 'unlawful' categories mentioned above the Catholic position is this: adultery, fornication, prostitution and rape are all grave sins; and the question of attempted contraception is so trivial by comparison, that to scruple at condom use in such circumstances is an instance of "straining at a gnat and swallowing at a camel", as Jesus once said, in a somewhat different context. It is like a thief saying that he considerately used a picklock to open the door instead of busting it in.

Thus, the question of condom use in the categories just mentioned is either a nullity or a best a very minor side issue, not worthy of consideration apart from the main 'offense'.

The sole category remaining to be considered is, lawful relations between non-Catholic married couples. The Church does not claim that such relationships are 'sinful'; indeed it has never claimed to possess any prescriptive moral authority over non-Catholics, directly. So there is not a clear position in this area. However, the Church regards non-canonical marriages as falling under the so-called 'natural law', a kind of unwritten Platonic shadow of Catholic morality. But what the Church thinks the 'natural law' says about condom use has never been defined. In any case, it is unclear why any non-Catholic would feel bound by the teachings of the Church.

Cspalletta 15:18, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


 * It's only a canard obviously, if you think somehow the Catholic Church does not have sway or power in Catholic heavy developing countries, where they have opposed comprehensive sex education, condom use, and the legalization of abortion, much to the detriment of many. Arguing that somehow that the Catholic Church does not have an effect on attitudes and thinking is either ridiculous, or an attempt to pull the wool over the sheeps eyes. Considering its sway, its opinion on the issue of such ways to deal with sex ARE relevant, and its not like Catholic officials haven't made comments saying as much (how many Bishops have opposed condom programming? etc).SiberioS 05:54, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

The official position of the Church is permanently and infallibly defined here :

Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary.

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means.

- H.H. Paul P.P. VI, Humanae Vitae (1969) --Mm35173 20:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It is only as permanent and infallible as someone is Catholic. Wikipedia is not a Catholic encyclopedia, in so much as it holds a NPOV, and does not endorse one side or the other. It can mention the article you said above as evidence of the Catholic Church's oppositiont o condoms and other birth control. What it cannot do is what you have prefacing it, namely that the Church's doctrine is permanent and infallible.
 * SiberioS 17:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

About anti-condom people
I didn't see any mention of what I see to be the MAIN reason for a dislike of condom use in society, which is that it provides a false confidence. (unsigned: 216.49.220.19
 * Confidence? In what? Or whom? -- Ec5618 17:25, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this relates to the idea that the Pope wants everyone to use condoms "because he can't stand to see a man have a good time"? -- Cspalletta 19:51, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Anonymous may mean that some people think that as long as they use a condom, they can't catch any STIs or become pregnant/cause a pregnancy. This is a valid observation, but opposing condom use because of it is ridiculous, as not using condoms is much, much more likely to result in a pregnancy or infection. --Icarus 23:41, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * rolls eyes Yes, a person having false confidence in something with effectiveness in the high 90th percentiles is so much worse than using nothing effective at all. Give it up.  -Kasreyn 00:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Removing instructions
I am removing the condom use instructions, because they are prohibited by WP:WWIN. We do not give medical advice, and a condom is a medical device. --Mm35173 18:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC) I will put the removed section here in case the policy changes.

Proper use (removed section)
The use of male condoms involves the following:
 * Condoms should never be stored in hot places like car glove-compartments or wallets kept in pockets close to the body, as prolonged exposure to heat damages latex.
 * Sharp fingernails can damage condoms.
 * Condoms are best put on the erect penis as soon as an erection is achieved and before any contact with the other person's body, and should always be put on before contact with a vagina or anus.
 * Retracting the foreskin before putting on a condom maximizes mobility and reduces the risk of breakage during intercourse.
 * Room needs to be left at the tip of a condom to hold semen. Most condoms have a reservoir tip that should be pinched while applying the condom to avoid trapping an air bubble which could burst later.
 * Water-based sexual lubricants, such as KY Jelly, are safe for use with condoms, but oil-based lubricants weaken latex and may cause it to tear or develop holes. Lubrication can be used to reduce the abrasion on the condom during vaginal sex, and is virtually essential for anal sex.
 * Some condoms are designed specifically for anal sex. The material is slightly thicker, making these condoms less likely to tear than those designed for vaginal sex.
 * Condoms should be discarded after the expiration date on the package. Even ones that seem fine past that date may be more likely to burst later.
 * The penis should be withdrawn immediately after ejaculation, even if the erection can be maintained; leaving it in leads to needless risk.
 * The base of the condom should be held during withdrawal to prevent the condom from slipping off.
 * One's hands and penis should be washed before further physical contact with another person (including the sexual partner).
 * Condoms are for single use only, and should never be reused.
 * Condoms are available in special sizes for people who require larger or smaller ones.
 * Practicing applying condoms alone in a well lighted place can help a man learn to apply it correctly before using them for sex.

General instructions for putting on a male condom are as follows:
 * 1) Check the expiry date on the condom wrapper - Condoms have a printed expiry date and batch number. Do not use out of date condoms.
 * 2) Gently apply pressure to the condom wrapper to make sure it has a slight pillow-like quality to it, indicating air inside and proper and unbroken sealing. Otherwise air may have escaped from tear or punctures and the condom itself may be damaged as well.
 * 3) Exercising caution, open the foil (or plastic) wrapper along one side. Be careful not to damage the condom with sharp objects.
 * 4) If the condom is sticky or brittle, discard it and use another one.
 * 5) Press firmly together the tip of the condom to expel air that may be trapped inside the condom. Air pockets can cause the condom to burst. This tip is there to contain the discharge in ejaculation.
 * 6) Ensure that the penis is fully erect &mdash; a condom may fall off the penis which is only partially erect.
 * 7) Check that the condom is in the right direction to unroll down the penis and before unrolling put it on the tip of the penis. If you accidentally try to put it on the wrong way, discard it and start over with a new condom. Touching the wrong side of the condom with the penis can transfer bodily fluids, defeating its purpose.
 * 8) Unroll the condom over the shaft of the penis. Unroll it all the way. If it does not unroll, it is on the wrong way and you must start over with a new condom.
 * 9) Make sure the condom isn't loose or or at risk of coming off.
 * 10) Do not allow the penis to go flaccid at any time while wearing or putting on the condom; You will have to discard the condom otherwise.

All 12-packs of condoms come with these or similar instructions, and may contain additional information; be sure to read these instructions if you have never used a condom before.

Some men who feel a particular size condom is hard to put on because it is too small have reported that they partly unroll the condom, stretch it with both index fingers, insert the penis (asking their partner to expel air from the tip), remove fingers and unroll. This procedure is not recommended as one's fingernails can come in contact with the condom. Consider buying a larger condom, or practising the approved method above.

Canadian condoms
Is it true that because of stronger regulations condoms in Canada have or had to be noticeably thicker than anywhere else in the world (four times thicker) ? Please include info if you have it.

Disease transmission
Would it not be more true to fact to change


 * "Condoms do not protect against all STDs"

to


 * "Condoms do not offer effective protection against many STDs?"

It is known that condoms offer virtually no protection against HPV and genital warts, less reliable protection against diseases such as herpes, trichomoniasis and chlamydia, and are not gauranteed to protect against STDs that are passed through bodily fluids, such as HIV and gonorrhea - the AIDS virus, due to its small size, is actually able to move through the latex structure (as are individual sperm able to on a relatively high frequency). It would seem to me that the article is misleading in that it seems to indicate that they are mostly effective in STD protection, which is not really the case.

Taking into account the viewpoint of Icarus:


 * "Anonymous may mean that some people think that as long as they use a condom, they can't catch any STIs or become pregnant/cause a pregnancy. This is a valid observation, but opposing condom use because of it is ridiculous, as not using condoms is much, much more likely to result in a pregnancy or infection."

This may be true as such, but it is still a part of informed consent and NPOV FACTUAL INFORMATION (ie, encyclopedic content) that condoms are often innefective in the prevention of transmission of STDs, contrary to popular belief. Upon learning this, a person may wish to abstain, or explore the matter further; thus I think it is valid to include this information in the article content.

DonaNobisPacem 03:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Changed


 * "Condoms do not protect against all STDs"

to


 * "Condoms do not offer effective protection against many STDs?"

as proposed, based on above info/observations.DonaNobisPacem 17:23, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't agree with your changes. What's "many"?--SarekOfVulcan 00:01, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Read above - out of the seven listed, 2 are not protected against with condoms, 3 have unreliable protection, and 2 are fairly reliably protected against (that info came from a pro-condom site, not a conservative anti-contraception site). Perhaps less controversial would be


 * "Condoms do not offer completely reliable protection against many STDs"

DonaNobisPacem 02:23, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I really suspect that condoms protect against more than 2 STDs.--SarekOfVulcan 07:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I was simply giving sampling of some of the most commonly referred to STD's.DonaNobisPacem 07:55, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Have there been any published polls in regards to how effective the general public (of various countries/locations... or at least one location (USA?)) believes that condoms are in protecting against STDs? I'm curious, and perhaps it could be useful to mention in this section. I don't know, but I get an impression that condoms are widely believed to be far more effective than they actually are. Peoplesunionpro 20:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Alrighty - someone posted the link to the US Centre for Disease Control fact sheet on condoms/STD protection []. If you read the whole text (not just the big boxes)it basically asserts what I said above in terms of what it protects against - particularly when it comes to discharge diseases, which have conflicting studies on the effectiveness of condoms. One thing to point out - HPV can be spread without any genital contact (eg, kissing, skin-to-skin contact), but it seems unclear in sources I've looked at if the types (there are around 100 variations) spread through non-sexual contact are serious. I remember at a presentation I attended almost two years ago they stated that they were the nasty varieties. Anyways, I digress. The point: condoms are still risky business when it comes to STD protection, and I think the article downplays that a bit.DonaNobisPacem 08:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Religious attitudes towards use of condoms
This section is extremely POV - comments like "While the denial of this is a valid concern among those who hold these beliefs, denying those of differing faith sexual education on religious grounds infringes upon the universal right of religious freedom" are not giving information on religious attitudes towards condoms - it is a commentary on their beliefs against condom usage. Have deleted this comment. Also the section on Catholic belief is misleading as to their stance - as is currently worded, it seemed to give the impression they do not care what happens outside of canonically valid marriages. Will reword that section soon.DonaNobisPacem 23:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Have also removed "Teens participating in sexual activity experience the vast majority of condom failure, usually due to lack of sexual education.", which has nothing to do with religious attitudes, and changed


 * "Many religious groups oppose any sex outside marriage on philosophical grounds, which understandably exacerbates the education issue,"

to


 * "Many religious groups oppose any sex outside marriage on philosophical grounds"

as the second portion is again a commentary and not a statement on religious attitudes. The NPOV part to remember is that to religious groups, condom instruction is not good, and so they don't feel it exacerbates the issue; condom advocates feel it does exacerbate the issue; and so to take the neutral view is to simply state the religious attitude and allow the reader to determine their own opinion of it.DonaNobisPacem 23:07, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Simply removed the following:


 * " Many religious groups oppose any sex outside marriage on philosophical grounds. The primary argument in favor of abstinence is based upon the belief that sexual pleasure is a sacred experience, intended for husband and wife for the purpose of procreation. "

as in hindsight, as a standalone statement, it doesn't really fit the section anymore, as it is beliefs on sex, not condom usage. Will integrate this into the Catholic teaching statement, to better explain their position.DonaNobisPacem 23:12, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Not sure why the revert - the point is to provide the views of religious organizations and why they hold them, not to comment on them. And the comment on teen failure belongs in "usage," not in the religion section. Please explain.

If mention must be made of the education issue, some mention could be made to the effect that "contraceptive advocates feel that religious opposistion interferes with effective education." DonaNobisPacem 02:28, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, hopefully I have a happy rewrite of this section. A good source for the overall views of the religions listed is presented at http://users.drew.edu/sgreene/.DonaNobisPacem 07:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I think this works for me. I'll keep you posted. :-) --SarekOfVulcan 07:58, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Sarek - I think my first rewrite was more of a deletion spree, with little of the rewriting that was necessary...DonaNobisPacem 08:00, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

FCYTravis - some Christian denominations, for example, permit contraception within marriage but promote abstinence outside of marriage (for instance, with teens). These groups favour increased focus on abstinence in schools, while still allowing for contraceptive education; and do not oppose public contraceptive education for adults.DonaNobisPacem 08:14, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Right... does the current version work? :) FCYTravis 08:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I sure hope so - I wrote it!!!! ;)DonaNobisPacem 17:11, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

The Images On This Page
Is it absolutely neccesary to use such a graphic depiction of applying a condom? Giving such instruction is itself highly questionable, but in the interest of modesty, showing the human penis is even less responsible.--Thomas Aquinas 22:10, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Giving such instruction is part of the role of Wikipedia - how would you encyclopedically describe a condom without talking about its employment? Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors - even if not showing how to install a condom would somehow "protect minors" from... what, exactly? "The interest of modesty" is not a factor, beyond not linking the image inline. If someone is looking for information about condoms, they're going to get it. It's not like the evil Condom Monster is going to leap out at kids looking at Cookie Monster - OMG HERES A CONDOM OOOOOH LOOK HERE!! This is an encyclopedia. If a user takes the affirmative step of going to the Condom page and then takes the second affirmative step of clicking on a text link to take them to a perfectly encyclopedic, non-prurient photo series which shows how a condom is applied, why should that user not be able to find that information? FCYTravis 08:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
 * If someone takes that picture off the bad image list, though, I think it will come back into the article.--SarekOfVulcan 08:14, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
 * "Giving such instruction is itself highly questionable." No, it isn't. It is, in fact, not only wholly in keeping with Wikipedia's mission and purpose, but also an entirely responsible and commendable thing to do. -- Captain Disdain 13:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The picture should remain, but behind a link so that those who, for personal or religious or whatever reasons do not want to see such an image, do not have to.  Best of both worlds, information + propriety.  -Kasreyn

Strange sentence
Under "Proper condom use": "There is generally a porno picture on the condom for the male to look at for his penis to become erect." What?!?! If this is true, it's definitely not GENERALLY, because I've never seen it. Not to mention it isn't really relevant to the preceding sentence. Trojanpony 10:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Not just strange sentence. Strange article! It's as if monkeys sat at typewriters... Oh wait... Seriously, has anyone taken a look at this objectively? In the Prevalence section "In various cultures, a number of social or economic factors make access to condoms prohibitive". Hello? Which cultures? What factors? This sentence is totally vacuous and ought to be removed.

The Drug Use and Anti-Condom Trends sub-sections are a badly written collection of random thoughts, rather than informing about condom use. "There are several situations and groups who knowingly choose to not use a condom during sex for various reasons" - that's informative! The large section on barebacking (the middle of three paragraphs) doesn't even mention condoms - it's someone's rant about gay sex.

The French Letter section (maybe should be re-titled Slang Terms - and have French Letter as one of those terms) completely fails to mention "rubber Johnny" or "Johnny" as a popular English term, and rubber is mentioned only once (in the first paragrpah) in the context of a slang term, without attributing it as a mainly American slang word.

I looked up this article because I was describing the factory in NW London (in Park Royal) where a friend of mine used to work, lubricating Femidoms when they first came out. There is no mention of this factory, which exclusively "... manufacturers all FCs in a state-of-the-art facility in London, England." . JanesDaddy 17:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Heh. The two sentences you describe look like examples of wikipedia at work to me.  Probably they were featured in revert wars between idealogues until all meaning and specificity was gutted from them in a compromise.  It's a sad reality of the net that there is no objective proof of fact, just a vague democracy of opinion.  Usually it works out ok because a majority of users know the truth and are willing to uphold it, but in matters of politics, religion, and sexual hang-ups the articles tend to suffer badly.  It's wikipedia's greatest flaw.  -Kasreyn

Proper use
Well people we ought to remove the application part, because anyone who is intent on buying and using these barbaric devices can find out from the directions if they are capable of reading (though they probably can't in which case it doesn't do much good spelling it out here). Chooserr 07:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Diagram
What's wrong with it? For one, all its allegations are unsourced. For two, that "so-called HIV" line is unacceptable pseudoscience quackery. HIV is a scientific fact accepted by all but a few nutballs, and that line really makes me question the accuracy and neutrality of the entire diagram. FCYTravis 08:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Copyrigth status of the pic itself is unclear too. Out it goes (and stays, hopefully).--Sean|Bla ck 08:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Fine I'll leave it at that, but can we talk about the application bit. Wikipedia is not a how to guide, or so I was recently told. Chooserr 08:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: "Anti-Condom Trends"
Firstly, the section on "barebacking" is venturing way off-topic. I'm not saying it doesn't deserve treatment. It should be reduced to a small paragraph with a link to the main article on barebacking.

Secondly, the sentence that reads '"Also, since many of them have just come out of a long term relationship, they are starting over and they are too uncomfortable with their new partner to ask them to use a condom"' is expressing a particular set of assumptions which wikipedia shouldn't make. It's true that a new partner makes some people uncomfortable about requesting condom use. Alternatively, just as many people feel uncomfortable having unprotected sex with a new partner. I don't even see the point in having a long meandering paragraph about the middle-aged sex lives of Baby Boomers. What's that supposed to teach us? I'll be editing the section soon but I'll wait for comments. -Kasreyn

Illegal
I was reading the history bit where it said that condoms were outlawed in certain places...are there any countries, states/provinces, counties, or cities/towns in which they are still illegal. It would make an interesting addition. Chooserr 00:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Indeed it would. Let us know.--SarekOfVulcan 00:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I can't find anything on google about it. Chooserr 00:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Aren't there any countries who outlaw Condoms?!?!?! Chooserr 01:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

OMGWTFBBQ
Silicon and talc as carcinogens? Exqueeze me? You might as well say food contains bones you can choke on and die, Silicon and talc are minerals, and I think that if talc caused cancer, every baby born since the 1900s would be dead because BABY POWDER is talc. FCYTravis 00:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

What of silicon...? Also some are more prone to get cancer than others, and while Baby Powder might have talc it doesn't go within you. So the risks should be out lined even if must say "it's a possibility...". Chooserr 00:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm guessing here that you've never changed a baby girl's diaper.--SarekOfVulcan 00:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

No, I can't say that I have. Chooserr 00:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I feel strongly that you should revert your edit though for while it mightn't be a great risk it is still a risk. I also tried to make it more NPOV, and reflect the situation accurately. Chooserr 00:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I like the bit about "talc's chemical similarity to asbestos." Asbestos is dangerous when inhaled because its crystal structure consists of insanely sharp, tiny fibers which tear apart the lining of the lungs, causing an immune response, scarring and blockage. Talc's crystal structure... doesn't have insanely sharp, tiny fibers that tear apart the lining of the lungs. You could rub yourself all over with asbestos and as long as you didn't inhale any, there'd be absolutely no health risk. Handling and examining asbestos is part of any standard college geosciences course. FCYTravis 01:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Talc can indeed be dangerous when inhaled. "...there have been many deaths reported from aspiration of the powder...". (Let's hope the little tykes aren't getting the deadly powder off of condoms.) Also, asbestos sometimes appears in deposits of talc, leading to contaminated talcum. So a connection between talc and lung cancer is plausible, but a connection between it and penile cancer needs to be especially sourced. -Willmcw 09:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * If you inhale a bunch of talc it'll clog up your lungs. By that standard, cornstarch, powdered sugar, flour and anything else you inhale is deadly as well, and needs a warning label :) FCYTravis 03:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * FCYTravis, Hypothetically if I were to be nominated for adminship would you vote for me??? Chooserr 03:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The abbreviation ROFLMAOPIMP comes rushing to mind here...--SarekOfVulcan 03:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Good thing I don't know what that stands for...seriously. Chooserr 03:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Compromise
Maybe since wikipedia obviously isn't the place for the proper use section, we could add a small paragraph telling the reader to redirect to the wikibooks section where it would be more appropriate to find out how to apply the condom. It isn't erasure, and it would be clearly visable with it's own section...Chooserr 01:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced it shouldn't be here, but this might be an acceptable compromise.--SarekOfVulcan 01:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * "Obviously"? It certainly doesn't seem obvious to me.  The article on firearms contains notes on how to operate one.  Should that be removed as well?  For an article on a tool or device, usage is an appropriate detail to include.  In this case, you may be confusing "proper" as meaning culturally or morally proper, which is not the intention in this sentence.  Rather, the intention is proper use in order for the device to achieve its intended purpose.  Therefore the proper use section is not endorsing any particular viewpoint either pro- or anti- condom.  Proper Use should remain part of the article.  -Kasreyn


 * I would somewhat have to agree with Chooserr - if I think back to the many encyclopedias I've consulted, they generally explain how something WORKS, not how to USE it. Ie, in the firearms example - if one looks at a (traditional) encyclopedic entry, it will explain the firing pin mechanism, etc - but generally does not give step by step instructions on how to aim and pull the trigger.  I checked out Firearm on Wikipedia - it is the same.  Another example from a more related page - the abortion page describes what an abortion is and the basic procedure, but does not provide step-by-step instructions with photographs on how to perform one.  So basically, following the same vein with this article - a condom works by being placed over the penis and preventing ejaculate from coming into contact with the partner.  Step by step instructions on how to apply it does seem un-encyclopedic. I would agree with Chooserr's solution.DonaNobisPacem 02:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with Chooserr and DonaNobisPacem on this one. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. AnnH (talk) 07:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Protection against HPV
I'm going out shortly, and won't be involved in this, but I've just seen these two edit summaries. SarekOfVulcan, I don't think you should consider it as Chooserr's personal statement weighed against the official NIH statement. He was referring to the American Cancer Society, which in turn mentioned recent research. I quote from the extract:
 * Until recently, it was thought that the use of condoms ("rubbers") could prevent HPV infection. But recent research shows that condoms poorly protect against infection with HPV. This is because HPV can be passed from person to person by skin-to-skin contact with any HPV-infected area of the body, such as skin of the genital or anal area not covered by the condom.

I think it would be fairer and more NPOV to quote, with reference, those who say condoms can protect against HPV and those who say it can't. This should not be treated as a case of one Wikipedian going against established medical research. By the way, I have also seen references to studies saying that condoms offer little or no protection against HPV. AnnH (talk) 08:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I could accept both sections in there, as long as the research is not misrepresented.--SarekOfVulcan 08:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * How did I misrepresent the research (I think information is the word you meant but will go along with it)? I just listed how I interpreted it. Unlikely doesn't mean impossible, and I gave a link. Chooserr 08:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Your edit summary was inflammatory. I followed your link and a few others and came up with new wording. Does it work for you?--SarekOfVulcan 09:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * What was inflammatory about them? You just accused me of misrepresenting the research...how am I supposed to responed "Oh yes, dear".

I'm not doing anything I oughtn't. I'm trying to better wikipedia, and I have half a dozen stalkers who consistently oppose me on any edit I make no matter what it page it's on View "Cow Tipping"'s history for example. Chooserr 09:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

It also directly opposes this other study, your not being NPOV if you are favouring one study over another are you...? Anyway I've been up all night am going to bed. So long as I don't wake up in the morning to "Condoms are great fucking devices you should try them." I won't be too bothered by what you do with the HPV section. Ignore the facts. Chooserr 09:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * BACKGROUND: Although condoms most likely prevent HIV infection, evidence of their effectiveness against other sexually transmitted diseases is mixed. GOAL: The goal of the study was to determine whether condom use prevents genital human papillomavirus (HPV) infection and HPV-related conditions. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a literature review and meta-analysis of the effect of condom use on the prevention of genital warts, subclinical HPV infection, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN), and invasive cervical cancer (ICC). RESULTS: Among 27 estimates from 20 studies, there was no consistent evidence that condom use reduces the risk of becoming HPV DNA-positive. However, risk for genital warts, CIN of grade II or III (CIN II or III), and ICC was somewhat reduced. CONCLUSIONS: Available data are too inconsistent to provide precise estimates. However, they suggest that while condoms may not prevent HPV infection, they may protect against genital warts, CIN II or III, and ICC.


 * "no...evidence that condom use reduces risk" does not equal "evidence that condom use does not reduce risk".--SarekOfVulcan 09:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I have attempted a compromise, based on what I've read from the NIH manuscript. Also, Chooserr, I hope you mean no ill intent by adding me to your "Users to Watch" list. Uthbrian (talk) 09:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Interesting list, in view of his assertion above that he has stalkers. Re: the NIH manuscript: I think that I correctly characterized what it said about HPV-associated diseases. Could you take another quick look? Since you're in the medical field, and I'm a CS geek, you're probably better at summarizing this stuff than I am anyhow. :-) --SarekOfVulcan 09:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's helpful for Chooserr to keep such a list, but regardless of that, I can vouch for the fact that he is being stalked. I've noticed it for some time. Thanks for your compromise work, Uthbrian. AnnH (talk) 10:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Glad to help out, Ann :-)
 * Sarek, I forgot to remove the American Cancer Society material as part of the compromise.
 * --Uthbrian (talk) 10:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Uthnbrian,
 * I don't mean that you are my enemy by adding you to the list and I don't stalk those on it, but I do monitor their edits in case I am put on the admin notice boards...I like a chance to defend myself before they block me. That said I would like to talk to you on this issue, for despite what I said last night I truelly believe that we shouldn't ignore the study. I believe while their is a link to the NIH, and a paragraph on their findings there should also be one for the Cancer Society. I would appreciate if someone else would write that paragraph though for it might very well be targeted just for me penning it. Chooserr 23:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm good with the link. I left a reply on your talk page. Uthbrian (talk) 00:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Would you, as a non-biased party, mind adding a small paragraph to this page on the research conducted by the Cancer Society and their results to go along with the link? That one that's up now doesn't specifically adress their findings and tends to follow NIH's views. Chooserr 00:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Uthbrian (talk) 02:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I've added this key sentence: "If contact is made with uncovered lesions, transmission of these STDs may still occur despite condom use."
 * I removed the link because it only pertains to HPV, as opposed to all of the genital ulcer diseases I've listed.

RfC
I noticed the request for comment and took the liberty of adding a line for balance. To the citation you already have about nitrosamines in condoms I added a link to a Medline abstract that offered different findings. On a related note, but somewhat off topic for this article, it also turns out that nitrosamines are present in baby pacifiers, baby bottle tips, and party balloons. One wonders why a condom study received more coverage in the popular media. Durova 22:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC) The Talc Argument As a newbie, and well you know, human, I was interested in seeing the types disputes that might occur in a "user defined" encylopedia. I think that this dispute is among the most interesting because both sides present revelant scientific data that reinforces their respective views. So here is my comment: (I hope I am putting this in the right place, please be kind) I came into this argument with no preconcieved notion of who was "right", I just decided to look at the facts. Having trolled through Pubmed I found both sides of this argument to be equally represented. Having said that, I think that the following acticle adheres best to the scientific method More general information can be found at the American Cancer Society's page and states their position, in general. 

I propose that given that the ACS's position on this matter, a more cautionary statement be given. Some thing like: "Some condoms are produced with dusting powders, such as talc, a suspected carcinogen. The risks of talc powder have been vigrously debated (cites), however a definative link between talc and cancer has not yet been established." But that is just my opinion. 22:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

"French Letter"
Erm...this is considered a very old fashioned phrase for condom in the United Kingdom, now only used humourously.

Reasoning the revert
The reason I have reverted your edit which, I believe was done in good faith despite the comment, is that if something isn't safe for surgery, and used on a device used every day it should be included. Talc - part of the dusting powders listed - is also believed to cause ovarian cancer. Chooserr 00:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The reproductive system is, generally speaking, open to the outside world, where the abdominal cavity isn't. I'm sure there are a whole bunch of things that would be very bad if introduced through an incision that are perfectly safe externally. Reverting again.--SarekOfVulcan 00:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm basing my revert on the information contained within the link, for I'm not positive how it does so either. But that university does seem to believe there is a risk. Chooserr 00:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Reading more carefully, I see what you mean. However, without knowing what the article actually says, I don't think we can use it as a reference.--SarekOfVulcan 00:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't see why not, maybe someone that knows how will add to it? Chooserr 00:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Besides the information is otherwise accurate, and just because it isn't specified doesn't mean it isn't possible, nor does it deminish the risk. Chooserr 01:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the abstract does not quantify the risk.--SarekOfVulcan 01:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You've lost me there. But the important information addresses its risks. It doesn't explain exactly how, but most people will say radiation causes cancer without knowing exactly how. I am in favour of expanding this section...not deleting it. Chooserr 01:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Are you a student? If so, you can probably get the original article through interlibrary loan and let us know what it actually says about the risk. The article says that it classifies the risks: at no point does it actually say what they are.--SarekOfVulcan 01:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You don't necessarily have to be a student to get a book or article through interlibrary loan, and might even do that if need be, but until then should we delete a possibly vital addition? I don't think so. And I believe that we may be able to expand it without the actual article. You just need someone with some knowledge as to how it would "theoretically" make its way from the vagina to the abdomin. Chooserr 01:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * ABSOLUTELY NOT! You cannot say that it's a theoretical issue. That violates WP:NOR. Note that this is a 10-year-old article: if it were "vital", I think they'd have found a lot more corroborating evidence by now.--SarekOfVulcan 01:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying that the risk is theoretical. I'm saying that you logically deduce how it would make its way into the abdomin...I don't see how that would violate WP:NOR but if it does "let it be", at least until one more knowledged than me can add his opinion/views/knowledge. Chooserr 01:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Talc, one of the dusting powders in that section is suspected of causing ovarian cancer as well. So maybe we should make an amendment to the article describing the first possible risk and the second more likely risk. Chooserr 01:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Ovarian cancer and talc
Recent research:
 * Our results provide little support for any substantial association between perineal talc use and ovarian cancer risk overall; however, perineal talc use may modestly increase the risk of invasive serous ovarian cancer. [J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:249–52]

--SarekOfVulcan 01:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * But others believe it a risk, and there must be some risk because the talc page addresses it (I believe). Chooserr 01:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * In about 5 seconds I could have the talc page say nothing about it. Bad argument. :-)--SarekOfVulcan 01:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Please don't. Past that if you give me a while I might find something on Pubmed countering your arguement. Chooserr 01:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * ? Chooserr 01:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It's kind of weird that you consider that as refuting my "argument" when it's the exact article I already quoted.--SarekOfVulcan 03:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't know about that. I didn't really understand it, but the first line says "[Talc's] associated with ovarian cancer" Chooserr 03:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't bother, these kind of people are never going to learn to see reason, this whole "encyclopedia" could use a major smarkectomy--Ytrewqt 03:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Condoms and the Environment
Wait a minute... this seems to the point of absurdity. Condoms are an absolutely tiny portion of the solid waste generated every day. Is there a section on "Bibles and the Environment" - discussing the damage done to forests by clear-cutting virgin timber to make paper to print free giveaway Bibles on? Would you like me to start one to make a WP:POINT? C'mon now, this is just petty. FCYTravis 05:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC) (shifting left). I agree with FCYTravis. The previous version was sensationalistic and not focused on condoms. However, there is an anon ip who disagrees and is reverting without discussion. FreplySpang (talk) 17:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * and your comments could be considered hostile or offensive, tone down the smarck or find yourself a sandbox to go play in--Ytrewqt 05:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I still can't figure out what smark is.--SarekOfVulcan 05:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Hostile and petty... you mean, like adding every possible negative thing you can find about condoms, no matter how tiny or stupid? Yeah, hostile and petty. FCYTravis 05:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not adding evering I can find about condoms that isn't nice. And as for Bibles and the environment can you flush a Bible down the toilet. I'd like to see someone try...Chooserr 05:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Actions speak louder than words, Chooserr. As for flushing a Bible down a toilet, sure you can, just tear it into pieces. Paper flushes. But it does undoubtedly biodegrade in sewage treatment plants better than rubber. I consider the clear-cutting of forests a major environmental problem. I trust you won't have any problem with me adding such a section discussing how much forest is clear-cut to make Bibles to Bible? Not that I would, as that would be borderline WP:POINT. But I trust you get my, erm, point. FCYTravis 05:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I would like to agree with you, and maybe I do have a slight bias against condoms, but this is a concern raised and I didn't say, "Condoms are the only thing destroying our environment today." As for the bible thing you'd probably destroy your toilet in the process - I wouldn't advise it. Chooserr 05:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * ...maybe I do have a slight bias against condoms This is like saying the Pacific Ocean is slightly damp. Look, based on this and other edits you've made on contraceptive topics, you have an agenda, and this is merely a part of your anti-birth-control FUD campaign. Stop it, it's not going to get you anywhere. --Calton | Talk 06:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Sadly it has, just look at the article before his arrival and the article now. —Locke Cole 09:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I've removed the "environment" section - it's downright insipid at second glance. I'm going to rewrite it in a rather less pointed tone. FCYTravis 10:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Done. The "bag it" link is too general and too "how-to" for my tastes. If we're not going to talk about proper use, we oughtn't talk about proper disposal, either, at least not on this page. FCYTravis 10:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It wasn't a how too. It was an environmental campaign to ensure that the condoms did indeed reach the landfill. That along with the fact that it had 3 specific links is the reason why I've restored my version. But I did indeed leave the section on the Polyethylene, and their landfill capacity (?) being negligible. Chooserr 19:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Proper use
I've restored the full proper use section removed by Chooserr on the grounds that while Wikipedia may not be an instruction manual, in this case, it's possible for those who may never use condoms to wonder how they're used. —Locke Cole 08:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't wonder at all, and many have agreed that it doesn't belong here. That is why I've respectfully removed your edit. There is a link to the proper place for sex ed on wikipedia. Chooserr 08:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * "Many people"? I looked at the discussion above, and I count three people who thought it shouldn't be in the article (vs. two, at the time, who thought it should be in, not counting Sean Black who reverted your original removal of that content). It's now 4v3 in favor of keeping it. Please get consensus before removing content like that in the future. —Locke Cole 08:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Two points: First off, there never was a formal vote, not even a straw poll, (or maybe I missed it?), so I don't see how Chooserr can say it was decided upon.  Secondly, however, I've had a look at the wikibooks entry on condom use and I approve of it.  So with the proviso that the wikibooks proper use link must remain in the article prominently where interested parties can find it - NOT hidden at the end - I retract my objection to Chooserr's removal of Proper Use.  As long as the material is easily available, I don't mind.  -Kasreyn 09:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed on the first point, and sad to hear about your second point. Very well then. —Locke Cole 09:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

There's 3 that listed their opinions there, I believe FYCTravis agreed on the edit history a while back - I don't know why he didn't participate there - and my vote counts so that is atleast 5 vs 1. But overall that isn't important because wikipedia isn't a democracy, it's an encyclopedia, and your edit is against policy. It has a clear link to the "how to apply a condom" page, along with a picture link. Easy access. So please don't revert it again. Chooserr 09:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * While I disagree, it appears you are correct. It is unfortunate that the article is being censored like this. —Locke Cole 09:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC


 * Cheer up. The information is still readily accessible via wikibooks.  If you're thinking "wedge", don't.  It's actually a reasonable argument to state that proper use is a bit off topic.  Not an argument I happen to agree with, but as long as the wikibooks link is there, it's simply not something that seems worth getting in a big fight over to me.  Now if someone were to try to remove that wikibooks link, I will of course immediately reinsert the entire Proper Use section.  ;)  -Kasreyn 10:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

This article is getting ridiculous....so is the talk page......
Before adding potentially controversial edits, bring it to the talk page so that sources and info can be discussed. If you edit the article, make a note of sources in the article as per Wikipedia guidelines, or at least mention it on the talk page.

As for the talk page - comments about Bibles being torn up and flushed, or their environmental impact, are meant to provoke - please avoid them, and if you notice a comment like it, just avoid reponding (see Internet troll). Many new regular contributors of late have totally lost the desire for consensus-based results, instead just wanting to make sure their bit is posted - all that happens is an edit war. Anyways, I've said my bit.....DonaNobisPacem 21:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Meant to provoke? No more so than a bunch of people coming into an encyclopedic article and attempting to inject as much negativity as they possibly can. FCYTravis 21:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I selected that one comment as an example...my main frustration (as is yours, I am assuming) is that people seem to be making changes willy-nilly (if you'll excuse the antiquated term) without listing reliable sources or bringing it up on the talk board to seek consensus, particularly in regards to suspect or lesser known information....DonaNobisPacem 07:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Would you suggest that we censor the truth and sugar coat our condoms? I think not, if a product has known hazards, I see no reason to not include them--63.22.55.169 21:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * See above - I am not suggesting data is not included, I am suggesting it be discussedand sources provided, before inclusion in an article.DonaNobisPacem 07:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that it's a long way from conjectured or suspected hazards, especially those suspected by anti-contraception activists, to "known" hazards. And whether one likes to apply sugar, honey, chocolate syrup or whipped cream is entirely a matter of personal choice. FreplySpang (talk) 21:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Catholic Condoms, a comment on my edit this date
As stated above on this page, the Catholic objection to condom use relates solely to birth control, not hygenic uses which do not involve birth control:


 * It is certainly true, as stated in the [Catechism] article, that the use of condoms is forbidden to 'husband and wife' - presumably, Catholic married couples - as is the use of any other contraceptive or abortifacient.

I accept DonaNobisPacem's argument that the link above is ambiguous as to whether the Church does or doesn't 'forbid' non-Catholic married couples from condom use, accordingly I am not persisting with the qualification 'catholic couples in canonically valid marriages'; although it is clear to me that the Catechism is intended to be taken or left alone, as a whole, and is accordingly addressed to 'Catholics', not for example to Protestants, Hindus, Muslims or Jews, who by definition can not accept many or most parts of it.

PLEASE DONT REVERT UNLESS YOU CAN PROVIDE DOCUMENTARY PROOF from official Church teaching - such as the recent Catechism or some Papal decree - that they object to e.g. homosexuals using condoms to reduce the risk of contracting AIDS. They don't. For that matter why should they object to condom use, as such, for oral or anal sex by anyone, of any orientation or marital status? It doesn't involve 'contraception'. Yes, I know they condemn homosexual acts per se, but that is not the issue in this article.

Again if you refer to the link above you will see why. BTW it is the only place contraception is mentioned in the entire 800+ page Catechism; and condoms aren't specifically mentioned, even once.

On a completely different matter - abortion is not 'contraception' since it destroys the thing (embryo, fetus, 'unborn child', whatever) that has already been 'conceived'; thus it is irrelevant piling on to mention abortion, therefore I have removed this reference.