Originally Posted By utahjosh <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/19/nih-funds-study-men-dont-like-use-condoms/" target="_blank">http://www.foxnews.com/politic...condoms/</a> Sure, it's a fox news link...but it seems like fun discussion - keep it clean, folks...
Originally Posted By utahjosh I'd love for Trojan or some other condom company to spend their money and find a way to make condoms even better and used more - but tax dollars do not need to go here.
Originally Posted By BlueDevilSF First, I think people need better instruction and education on how they work, how to use them, and the limitations of using them. Ideally this would be part of high school sex education, but that's a whole other can of worms... I don't know how much more "better" they can get. If they get too thin, there's a higher risk of breakage. There *are* alternatives out there, such as the "female" condom and condoms made of polyurethane.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>but tax dollars do not need to go here.<< Totally disagree. In the federal government, $500,000 is chump change. Not that we should waste it, but this is hardly a waste. Let's say that this study develops some quantifiable data on men and condom use. Then let's say the government decides to move forward with an education plan to help young men understand. Let's say that this education plan costs 10 million dollars. Let's say that over 5 years, this investments saves the country 100 million dollars in healthcare costs because there's fewer STD's, fewer pregnancies that lead to welfare costs, etc. Then is this money a waste? I'm just pulling numbers out of thin air, obviously. I'm all for saying government's wasting money - if it's really wasting it. But this is like mocking volcano monitoring. There is a value to this sort of thing - it just gets some conservatives riled up because it has to do with S-E-X.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt I have to agree with Josh; this is a complete waste of money. Anyone who has ever fumbled in the dark trying to "slip" one on knows why we hate condoms.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>I have to agree with Josh; this is a complete waste of money. Anyone who has ever fumbled in the dark trying to "slip" one on knows why we hate condoms.<< But that's not quantifiable data. With that data, we can move forward with better education and initiatives. What if we find out that 70% of young men hate them because "it doesn't feel as good" and 20% hate them because they're embarrassed to buy them? That gives us information to move forward with. Hey, maybe this particular government spending is a waste (though I'm not convinced). I just don't understand the "Look at what that wacky government is spending on now!" attitude. There's a legitimate public health case to be made to investigating condom use and ways to improve it and educate.
Originally Posted By utahjosh <There's a legitimate public health case to be made to investigating condom use and ways to improve it and educate.> Improving and education are good - but it doesn't take half a million dollars to FIND OUT WHY guys don't use them.
Originally Posted By gadzuux I posted my views on this topic before, and was roundly criticized for them. So let's do it again! I think that the most sensible plan is for the woman to bear the larger role in contraception and disease prevention - i.e, condoms and birth control. Is that sexist? Not really. Just an acknowledgement of what we already know - that women have greater control over sex - the whens, the wheres, the hows. They also bear the greater burden of unintended pregnancies and infection. They're also generally the more responsible person between the two. As to how to use condoms effectively, it's not exactly rocket science. But even then, the woman can ensure that everything is applied properly, and even turn it into a little game. Because when push comes to shove, it's more important to her than it is to him. As often as not, the guy would just as soon skip it entirely. This is not saying that I absolve men from all responsibility, just that I tend to have more faith in the woman actually getting it right.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***They're also generally the more responsible person between the two.*** Now THAT'S sexist (not to mention ridiculous).
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "Improving and education are good - but it doesn't take half a million dollars to FIND OUT WHY guys don't use them." Exactly. And this is often the problem when entities over think a problem. You don't need to spend a half million dollars to know why men don't like to use condoms. In fact, you don't need to spend a penny. "I think that the most sensible plan is for the woman to bear the larger role in contraception and disease prevention - i.e, condoms and birth control. Is that sexist?" Not all encounters with condoms involve men and women, so yes, it is sexist.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> Not all encounters with condoms involve men and women << Tell me about it. >> Now THAT'S sexist (not to mention ridiculous). << As a general rule, women have more control than men when and how sex occurs. I don't think recognizing that is either sexist or ridiculous. Reasonably attractive women can have sex pretty much any time they wish - there's no lack of volunteers. Since they have this control, it would be in their own best interests to be prepared to choreograph the event the way they want it to be.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***As a general rule, women have more control than men when and how sex occurs. I don't think recognizing that is either sexist or ridiculous.*** No, it's not. But it's also not what I objected to. Claiming that women are "generally" more responsible is a ridiculous statement. There are scads of utterly irresponsible women in the world (as there are men, of course).
Originally Posted By Sara Tonin I can't believe you guys are arguing about rubbers.... *note to self: never get stranded on a deserted island with Mr X AND anyone else.
Originally Posted By A Happy Haunt I'm having a bad day & I REALLY needed this laugh! Remember to get the ribbed kind!
Originally Posted By Mr F I don't see how this is a waste of money. It could potentially lead to the prevention of even more STDS and Unwanted pregnancies, thus saving more lives. I don't see how saving lives is a waste of money.
Originally Posted By quincytoo I am getting a tickle out of this whole thread but .. >>It's like enjoying a meal with a baggie on your tongue.<<< Made me spit my wine out....;D
