Of course condom’s work.  Condom’s and a spermicide work even better, or so I’ve been told.  There is no reason not to use one every time.  I think that a lot of young people who tell themselves that they are going to abstain from sex before marriage are running the risk of pregnancy because they don’t think they’ll be in a situation where they’ll need one, and of course they will. 

Aside from which, a lot of those young women taking virginity vows are only doing it because their parents want them too. 

Keeping children ignorant of dangers isn’t protecting them anyway, it’s just making it more likely that they’ll be hurt because they won’t know to protect themselves.

Condoms work! 42 years old. No kids. No STDs. I’ve NEVER had one break or anything like that. The most reliable product ever. Woot!

The anti-condom brigade is also a psychologically manipulative move.  Here’s how it works:

If you carry a condom (esp. females) that means you are preparing to have sex and it’s intentional, you dirty rotten (insert derogatory slur for sexually active female here) - even if you never follow through.

If you don’t carry a condom but have unprotected sex, then, there couldn’t have been intent to have sex, and it’s just a human failing which god will forgive - especially after you’ve paid with 21 years of childcare.

Even though the psychological flailings can go something like this - plan to have sex and if “nothing happens” i.e. no pregnancy, no STD, then god meant for me to have sex with this partner (often called a soulmate) and it’s OK to do so with this partner.  Again, and again until pregnancy and/or shotgun wedding ensues or STD - but the STD can acutally be considered kind of a warning ticket. 

At least this is how some Catholic members of this generation explained it.

The whole “condoms break” thing is a wonderful example of making perfect the enemy of very very good.

I must have used hundreds of condoms over the years and I have had exactly ONE condom break, and that was more user error than the fault of the condom. It was dark, I had some trouble opening the package, and I suspect I damaged the condom while struggling to get it open.

I have discussed this issue with other friends who use or have used condoms frequently and none of them has EVER had a condom break.

So condoms are not perfect, but in my experience they are REALLY REALLY good. Most people can get it on for years and never have one break.

BTW - there were no consequences from that one broken condom.

Condoms are a waste of money and violate the laws of G*d.  Personally, I use Saran Wrap as it seals the flavors in and refrigerator odors out.

Ok, RiM got me, that was funny. 

I want to second TomWinter.
I have had 2 condoms break, but in 15 years of sexual activity, I think that that is pretty good.  Two times without protection is better than every time without protection.

Ah, Sparky, WTF?

“Ah, Sparky, WTF?”

I thought it was just a bad joke, since I’ve never heard that before.

^ yeah, i was (and am) confused about his comment as well.

Condoms work a lot better than no condoms. But they aren’t perfect. User error is the major problem, and I would imagine user error is highest among young, inexperienced condom users. The kind who could benefit from better condom use training in schools.

So, the correct answer “condoms don’t work” is, “then you should support better condom training.” But that doesn’t usually go over well….

www.altpenis.com?  That’s where I always go for reliable data on negro sexual practices.  Thanks for the link Sparky!

Do condoms work?

Only if the guy puts them on, every time.

Plus, take a little care. Don’t store them on top of the radiator.

I’ve had one breakage. No lube at hand, suspected mismanipulation during application of the condom, and we felt the break and stopped as soon as we heard it. That was thankfully prior to the point of no return.

Coitus interruptus is not the best practice overall, but it wasn’t too bad of a plan B that one time.

we felt the break and stopped as soon as we heard it.

Oh, man, I don’t mean to take a voyeuristic interest in your sex life,  but you heard it break?  Was it a bang, or maybe sort of a squeal?

Was it a bang, or maybe sort of a squeal?

rea on 12/02 at 05:36 PM

Depends on the condom.  I understand if it’s the lambskin, it’s sort of a baaaa..

i’ve had a couple break. all user error, i’m pretty sure. usually not enough lube, or playing a bit too rough w/ the dick it’s on, or stretching it over a dildo waay too big…

ok i’ll just stop now

Thank you for this video Amanda!

My boyfriend and I have discussed becoming sexually active (in the penetrative, PIV sense, for clarification) and as much as I know that condoms are much more effective than any right-winger is going to let on, but it can be hard to shake the gut-feeling so much scaremongering can have. However, this video has really helped sort of make sense of everything.

Shorter Sparky: “DEM NEEGROZE IS STOOPIDZ”

Would you kindly go tie yourself to a cinder block and try to walk on water?

the use of the condom encourages people to have inconsequential and irresponsible sex, and promotes promiscuity.

Condoms do NOT stop the spread of std’s, particularly AIDS. If that were the case, then Africa would be experiencing an Aids reduction instead of an AIDS epidemic. Throwing condoms at the people without education about abstinence and fidelity is useless.

South Africa right now is rife with Aids because of the govt. throwing condoms at the people while telling them to have “safe” sex. Yeah right!
Condoms have a 15% failure rate. They WILL fail. In Uganda, which has had a govt. sponsored program in tandem with the Catholic Church, Aids has been brought down from and epidemic level of over 18% to just 6% by stressing abstinence, fidelity, and condoms as a last resort.(the Church does not support the condoms, but has been instrumental with abstinence and fidelity educataion)

We are not animals that live by instinct alone. We CAN control ourselves and live.
Throwing condoms at young people and saying, “Here, go have fun,” is like giving them clean needles to have fun with the drugs. Sooner or later, they will be caught, and it can be deadly.

Wow, you couldn’t have asked for a more mindless trollparrot than that.

Amanda, I have one tiny nit to pick: in one of your later statements, it sounds as if you’re saying “until we can control human nature”, which would seem to imply that people never having multiple partners is an ideal we should strive for, with condoms as a backstop until the messiah/millennium/whatever arrives. Maybe that’s a way to be palatable to your intended audience, but ultimately it’s also kinda negative.

What is with the crazy Catholics finding Pandagon today?

As opposed to non-crazy ones, just to clarify.

condoms condoms condoms!! the solution to the worlds problems!!

think.

Kevin, you just made my point for me.

>>Was it a bang, or maybe sort of a squeal?

Hard to describe. Sort of like a tear, but with latex… And I’m still not 100% sure if we actually heard it rather than felt it and our mind recontructed a sound out of the experience while we were being distracted by more intense and interesting stimuli. You know, like sometime I’ll swear I have heard a voice when it’s only ambiant noise that harmonized together so that my mind detected a voice-like pattern…

sometime I’ll swear I have heard a voice when it’s only ambiant noise that harmonized together so that my mind detected a voice-like pattern…

Odd.

In my experience, you don’t hear a condom break. You feel it instead. Luckily, on those rare occasions when it does break, it’s pretty obvious.

Liberals clinically mad, concludes top shrink
Eminent psychiatrist makes case that leftist thinking is a mental disorder

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56494

Dr. Rossiter says the liberal agenda preys on weakness and feelings of inferiority in the population by:

creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization;
satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation;

augmenting primitive feelings of envy;

rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government.

Amanda, I have one tiny nit to pick: in one of your later statements, it sounds as if you’re saying “until we can control human nature”, which would seem to imply that people never having multiple partners is an ideal we should strive for, with condoms as a backstop until the messiah/millennium/whatever arrives.

Paul, I think it’s really just a dig at the completely unrealistic expectations of the anti-contraception people. It is difficult for me to believe that anyone expects the populace to stop having sex when told to do so, but the anti-contraception people really do expect that, apparently.

Yes, Kevin, and soy is making our kids gay, according to the same website, moron.

“creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization;
satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation;”

All these poor victims. Oy, the alleged rape/abuse/trauma/no-health insurance stories on this site, and the racism they have endured. And then all the trollops who discuss their STDs and abortions here. Did they use condoms? Probably. But God will still smite them.

Kevin, your description of liberals sounds more like George W. Bush than any liberals I know.  Are you sure the good doctor was studying the right subject?

As I understand it, condoms don’t work all that well when Catholic hospital administrators advise nurses to punch holes in them with pins to “give sperm a fighting chance.”

I’m pretty skeptical when people start quoting numbers about failure rates. Many years ago back when Limbaugh had a TV show I’d watch it sometimes. Limbaugh said that promoting safe sex through condom use was like playing Russian Roulette because condoms had a 20% failure rate according to official studies. Now as a young man who had become sexually active during the era when safe sex was being invented, I had already become aware of the studies this 20% figure came from and knew Limbaugh was full of shit.

Linbaugh was trying to make it seem like condoms broke 1 in 5 times. But the 20% figure came from two studies where committed couples used condoms as their exclusive method of birth control. 20% of the women in the study became pregnant within a year. Note that the study consisted of couples that probably had many more sexual encounters than the typical single might have. Furthermore, the 20% figure includes both “method failure” (condom breaks) and “user failure” (putting on condom in a way that it might slip off, simply deciding not to use a condom at all). And some of the couples in the studies may simply have decided they *wanted* a pregnancy! That’ll skew the results.

My main point is that when you see a number, you should ask what that number meant in its original context. 20% failure is quite sensible in its original context, but means nothing outside of that context. Limbaugh is either an incourious innumerate or an outright liar. I suspect he’s a little bit of both at times.

Best data on method failure of condoms is consistent with the anecdotal evidence in these comments. Condoms work pretty damn well.

Kevin, get fucked.  Take your hate and your lies and just fucking stop existing.

No alimentan los ogros

Kevin, you and all your snobby little friends can go eat shit.

I hate how all these anti-contraceptive, anti-anything groups get all smug about their sex lives.  Like those of us who are single need to just suck it up and live a dry (yuckyuck), solitary existence devoid of human contact.  Sex is a natural drive.  We all have it.  Requiring me, as a thirty-three-year-old, taxpaying adult to live a life of celibacy with a straight face is laughable.  Fuck you all.  Adults and, yes, teens should all be allowed to make the choices they want with their sex lives.  When you take away a safety net, you make things dangerous.  It’s like having a pool in your backyard, deciding you don’t want your kids to drown accidentally, so instead of teaching them to swim, you rely on the gate around the pool to save them from themselves.  Yeah, right.  Like if a kid is curious and wants to get in the pool they won’t get around that gate somehow.  Jackass.

I had already become aware of the studies this 20% figure came from and knew Limbaugh was full of shit.

Just from a business view this figure is insane. Forget Six-Sigma or ISO or regulatory standards, non-monopolies with a 2% product defect rate (and that’s being very generous) simply can’t last in the market.

Of course, when their “product” is BS, it’s easy for Limbaugh or Kevin to allow for a high error rate.

So, did Rush Limbaugh use condoms during his viagra fuelled vacation to the Dominican Republic?

As for me, personally, I have had a 100% success rate with condoms.

...

Kevin, I know that your brain isn’t even going to let you see any rebuttal to your prepackaged list of “the liberals can’t answer these!” attacks.  However, this is a public forum, so anything that educates the lurkers is worthwhile.  So:

1) There are a lot of factors to the HIV epidemic in Africa.  Off the top of my head: a) Lots of wars, which equals lots of rape, as well as poor medical care; b) The absolutely lousy status of women - a woman’s risk of HIV actually goes up when she marries.  She doesn’t have the power to refuse sex, insist that her husband use a condom, or even demand that he remain faithful.  There are other situations where vulnerable women are exploited by powerful men - leaders of the tribe, the village, or bosses in government - where the exact same problems come into play.  c) Grinding poverty, which forces many women into prostitution, in addition to adding to the effects of war and strengthening the inequalities and vulnerabilities mentioned above. d) A macho culture which causes many men to disdain the idea of wearing a condom or limiting himself to a single woman.  e) Lack of true education - sure, wearing a condom can prevent you from catching HIV, but why bother when you can cure it by having sex with a virgin? f) Assorted local traditions, like female genital mutilation and “dry sex” that make women more vulnerable to infection.

Huh.  Pretty much all of those would be alleviated or even eliminated if the position of women were to improve, wouldn’t they?  Funny, that.

2) The 15% failure rate you mention is for “typical use” - that is, people putting them on wrong, not wearing one every time, etc.  Condoms are 96% percent effective when used correctly.  I can personally testify to two year-long stretches when my wife was off the Pill because of her blood pressure and we used condoms exclusively.  No kids to show for it. 

3) We don’t want to throw condoms at kids and say “go have fun”.  We want to hand them condoms with information packets, explain to them exactly how they’re used, what the risks are (“You know only abstinence is 100%, right?  These are 96%, which is pretty good, but…”), let them know that they should only do this when they’re ready and want to - you know, make sure they’re prepared for a good, fun, but not entirely risk-free activity.  Kinda like teaching them how to downhill ski.  Mind you, this is information kids should have whether they decide to have sex that night or wait until they marry.  The whole purpose of education is to make sure someone has information and skills they need before they need them. 

4) Your analogy to drugs is flawed in any case.  Clean needles only protect from HIV, which is only one risk of taking drugs.  Drugs are dangerous things in themselves, with the risk of overdose and addiction.  By contrast, sex does no harm in and of itself if the participants are protected from pregnancy and STD’s. 

5) And finally, a note on debating: Worldnetdaily is an extremely biased source, with a clear agenda.  That doesn’t automatically make them wrong (that would be an ad hominem) argument, but it does make them untrustworthy.  A more neutral source, like an AMA journal, would be much more convincing.

H. L. Mencken got it in 1916:

Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.
        A Book of Burlesques

So, Ramses’s Wager: what’s the downside to using condoms if they don’t work (aside from, perhaps, expense)?

Seraph:

We don’t want to throw condoms at kids and say “go have fun”.

Why not? If Kevin’s taking the line that we need STD and pregnancy risk to keep the kids from having too much sex, I’m not sure why the appropriate counterargument “oh, no, that’s all right, there are other ways to keep them in line.” You’re implicitly agreeing with him.

Hershele, did you read the rest of that paragraph?  Let me give you a hint: the comparison to downhill skiing was the key.  Downhill skiing is a fun, healthy activity.  Who could possibly object to it?  But it does have certain risks.  It would be irresponsible to just take a rookie, hand them some skis, and say “go have fun”.  You need to teach them how to snowplow so they can control their speed, tell them how to avoid frostbite and hypothermia, tell them what the various trail ratings mean so they can make an informed choice about which trails to go down, etc.

In other words, I wasn’t talking about how to control kids, but how to prepare them.  Kevin believes that the only options are: A) using fear of pregnancy and STD’s to force people to follow what he believes to be a Godly life, even if that means lying about the actual risks of both, or B) telling kids nothing about the risks of sex and urging them on into a 24/7 orgy using faulty protection (which we lie about) until unplanned pregnancy or infection results because…it just fits our liberal agenda somehow. 

I was knocking down that strawman, not for his benefit but for that of any lurkers, by explaining how what we want is for kids to have all the information, supplies and support to make the right choice for themselves.

And now here’s you, setting up another strawman.  What’s up with that?

And to answer your “wager”:

So, Ramses’s Wager: what’s the downside to using condoms if they don’t work (aside from, perhaps, expense)?

You mean if condoms don’t work at all, as opposed to a single condom failing?  A false sense of security.  You’re taking risks with pregnancy and infection that you might not take if you knew you were taking them.  Fortunately, they do work.  Unlike Pascal’s Wager, you have a 96% chance of winning Rameses’s.