Talk:Condom

"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?).

---

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

---

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)

Contents

1 Brief questions 1.1 Condom disposal 1.2 Knit condoms 2 Etymology - Earl of Condom? 3 Female condoms 4 polyurethane is not just for those allergic to latex!

Brief questions

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)

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)

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". [1] (http://homepages.primex.co.uk/~lesleyah/condoms.htm) says William E. Kruck has written an article 'Looking for Dr Condom', Publication of the American Dialect Society (http://www.americandialect.org), 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." [2] (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12332250) -- Delta G 02:35, 2 May 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