Curiosities
on the condom
Did
you know that...?
The
ten worst excuses not to use the condom
Condoms
in all languages
A
little mystery
News
from the world
- Did
you know that...?
20,000 condoms are sufficient to take the sea. Three Latvian
navigators proved this: they got on a raft made of condoms
and accomplished a 50 miles crossing. The exploit was publicised
by a well-known firm of condoms. They said: "We'll
soon make a new experiment, but with a boat that is composed
of 250,000 rubbers".
- In the past, goat bladders, leather sheaths and even
tortoise-shells were used as contraceptives.
- Since June 1998 all condoms that are sold in Europe are
presenting the mark of the CE.
- Latex condoms of good quality can be swollen with over
40 litres of air before blowing up.
- Vulcanised films of natural latex, in tension, can increase
for eight times their natural length before breaking.
- If a latex condom is kept in contact for 15 minutes with
oil for children, it looses about 95% of its tension's strength
(elasticity).
- During an intercourse there can be a difference of even
4°C between the penis and the vagina.
- Laboratory's trials proved that condoms operate as an
effective barrier against several organisms which are the
cause of sexually transmitted viruses, smaller than HIV
and hepatitis B.
- Clinical trials proved that a correct use of condoms
makes them reach 95-98% of effectiveness as contraceptives.
- 45% of all sexually transmitted infections are caused
by "clamidia". If it is not cured it can provoke
impotence and pelvic inflammations.
- It seems that those who are allergic to latex represent
1-3% of the world population. At present the new polyurethane
condoms is the only remedy.
The
ten worst excuses not to use the condom
- I have no diseases
- I have not found yet one that fits
- I have superb control
- Sex doesn't feel as good
- Condoms cut off my circulation
- If you loved me, you wouldn't ask me to
- They smell terrible
- They spoil the mood
- I'm too embarrassed to use one
- I've already had and been cured of a sexually transmitted
disease. I can't catch it again
Condoms in all
languages
ARGENTINA forro
AUSTRALIA love glove
AUSTRIA pariser gummi
BRITISH ANTILLES cocolock socks
BRAZIL camisinha
CANTONESE CHINA bai yan to
MANDARIN CHINA bao-shein tao
SOUTH KOREA woosan
DENMARK gummimand
THE PHILIPPINES supot
FRANCE capote Anglaise
GERMANY lummeltute
JAPAN sack
GREAT BRITAIN French letter, Rubber
GREECE kapota
HONG KONG pei dang yi
INDIA Nirodhj
INDONESIA koteca
IRELAND johnny
ITALY palloncino
LEBANON kabbout
NIGERIA okpuamu
HOLLAND rubbertje
PANAMA gorro
PORTUGAL camisa de Venus
SENEGAL chapeau de brousse
SPAIN globo
SOUTH AFRICA French letter
UGANDA kavera
HUNGARY u'vszer
U.S.A. jimmy hat
VENEZUELA capuchete
A little mystery
What is the origin of the word "condom", with which
the prophylactic is called in English speaking countries?
Some say it comes from the name of doctor Condom, a physician
at king Charles II's court, who tried in any possibile way
to prevent his Sovereign from having too many illegitimate
children.
Some others derive it from the French town of Condom, in the
district of Gers, whose butcheries used to provide lamb guts
to be softened with almond oil before any love meeting.
And what if the name had a Latin origin, from the verb "condere",
meaning "to hide, to defend, to protect"?
News from the world
Brazil wants condoms in explicit sex scenes
BRASILIA, Brazil (Reuters) - A Brazilian congresswoman is
pushing for a bill that would require TV and movie actors
to don condoms before engaging in explicit sexual acts, giving
a new meaning to the term "protectionist measure".
The bill, making its way through Brazil's Congress, proposes
a ban on imports, sales or the reproduction of all images
of sexual acts - including oral sex - that do not show a condom.
The ban would extend to TV, cinema, videos and magazines.
Nair Xavier, the bill's sponsor, argues that the condoms-only
stance would support Brazil's straight-talking campaign against
AIDS, which has been held up as a model for developing countries
in slashing infection rates.
The bill, which has been approved by a congressional commission
and is expected to reach Congress' floor in 2002, would complement
legislation recently passed that obliges pornographic films
and videos to carry a health warning, advising viewers to
use a condom to protect against AIDS.
"The inclusion of this warning is worthless if the actors
in the film have sexual relations without using a condom,"
Joao Paulo Borges, Xavier's aide and the bill's author, said
on Friday. If approved, the bill would serve as another weapon
in Brazil's battle against AIDS. Thanks to aggressive education
and awareness campaigns, Brazil has managed to keep infection
rates to less than one percent of the population.
The number of new AIDS cases fell to 15,000 in 2000 from 20,000
new cases annually in 1996, recent data showed.
Xavier belongs to the government's ruling coalition in Congress,
improving the bill's chances of getting passed. The Senate
must also vote on the proposal before it becomes law.
Nonoxynol-9: Better Safe Than Sorry?
A dispute over the regulation of lubricants reveals a potential
hazard for AIDS. Bohdan Zachary squeezes out the truth.
During the past two years a little-publicized health battle
has been waged out of the glare of the media. It concerns
nonoxynol-9, a disinfectant found in everything from baby
wipes to laundry detergent, as well as in sexual products
such as contraceptive foams and gels, condoms, and lubricants.
Invented as a contraceptive, nonoxynol-9 was found to help
prevent sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) such as chlamydia,
gonorrhea, and herpes by killing sperm and cells in the vaginal
tract. It also kills the human immuno-deficiency virus in
the test tube, according to laboratory tests of commercial
sexual products. As little as 0.05 percent of nonoxynol-9
in a solution stops HIV from reproducing, while a 1 to 5 percent
concentration may kill cells harboring dormant HIV.
Almost overnight nonoxynol-9 be came a household word, synonymous
with safer sex. By adding nonoxynol-9 to their products, cosmetics
and pharmaceutical manufacturers boosted their already multibillion-dollar
sales. It was not unlike the 1980s boon to skin-care products
that contained collagen, another advertising gold mine.
In the video commercial that helped turn Wet Personal Lubricant
into the best-selling lubricant in the world, porn star Rex
Chandler touches his nipple. "Touch me there." He
pours Wet over his erect penis. Another camera angle. "Tighter,"
he says, "longer-hotter-feel it." The camera closes
in on his contorted face as he climaxes. The screen credits
end with the words: "Wet, with nonoxynol-9, aloe vera,
and vitamin E". Unknown to most consumers, however, is
nonoxynol-9's reported toxicity, a downside that since 1990
has caused several national and international organizations
like the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and the World Health
Organization to quietly reconsider promoting its use. WHO
officials had gotten wind of an increasing number of complaints
by women using spermicides and contraceptive sponges with
nonoxynol-9 who experienced vaginal and cervical ulcers, burning
sensations, and recurring yeast infections. Many were Nairobi,
Kenya, prostitutes whose sexual experiences were dismissed
by some critics as unrepresentative of the average woman.
Their complaints also contradicted an initial 1980 Food and
Drug Administration study that had deemed nonoxynol-9 "safe
and effective . . . as a vaginal contraceptive" on the
basis of one animal study of vaginal use and "lack of
reports of significant adverse effect in humans [emphasis
added]." But the FDA study did not base its conclusions
on normal daily use of spermicides in women, nor did it address
nonoxynol-9's effectiveness against STDs and HIV.
In 1991 a very different picture was painted by Dr. Kristina
Bird, information officer at the London-based National HIV
Information Service. In a review of nonoxynol-9 for the journal
AIDS, Bird agreed that studies proved its efficacy against
HIV and STDs in the test tube, but she also found: "The
wider literature on these products reveals frequent minor
reference to local toxicity, with rates of reported genital
irritation ranging from 'minimal' to more than 10 percent."
She cautioned, "The protective effects of nonoxynol-9
have not been established in vivo [in the body] for any of
the viral STDs".
More important, Bird posed the frightening question that gave
pause to international health officials: "Does the ability
of nonoxynol-9 to inactivate Iymphocytes in the test tube
suggest that it may increase the body's vulnerability to infection
in vivo?" That is, will nonoxynol-9 increase your risk
for HIV instead of protecting you?
AIDS advocates shared a similar concern, worrying that consumers
-- gay men in particular -- were relying on nonoxynol-9 to
protect them and forgetting the main ingredient in safer sex:
condoms. "We get lots and lots of calls from kids, young
kids, wondering if they could get by with just using lubricants
instead of condoms," says Michael James Gong, a former
hot-line volunteer at the San Francisco Emergency AIDS Fund.
"That's like putting a loaded gun to your head."
Backing Gong's view are recent reports in the gay and mainstream
media suggesting that an increasing number of gay men have
abandoned safer-sex practices, and 'hence condoms. Meanwhile,
sales of dildos and lubricants with nonoxynol-9 to lesbians
have steadily increased.
Alarmed AIDS activists lobbed Bird's provocative question
to the FDA, only to see it fall into an abyss of regulatory
red tape, where it remains today. Government officials, it
seems, can't agree about how to classify different products
containing the disinfectant. Contraceptive foams and gels
are classified as over-the-counter drugs by the FDA, while
condoms are considered medical devices -- both classes of
products used internally and therefore subject to stringent
quality control. Manufacturers must list the exact percentage
of nonoxynol-9 and other ingredients; the minimum concentration
for contraceptives is 3 percent, but some spermicides go as
high as 15 percent.
Lubricants were initially developed for external use, on the
skin, particularly during sexual intercourse. As long as manufacturers
make no explicit claims for disease prevention or contraception,
the FDA labels lubricants as cosmetics, defined by the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act as 3articles intended to be applied
to the human body for cleansing, beautifying, promoting attractiveness,
or altering the appearance without affecting the body's structure
or functions." Most lubricant makers do not list the
percent age of their ingredients because of that gray area
in FDA guidelines, which do not recognize that the lubricant
is typically an adjunct to a medical device -- a condom. Many
AIDS advocates feel that lubricants in themselves fail the
cosmetics definition since they cause vaginal irritation and
yeast infections.
"The situation with lubricants and nonoxynol-9 isn't
all that different from what happened when the FDA did nothing
about the complaints it received from women about silicon-gel
breast implants," states Brenda Lein of the AIDS information
group Project Inform. "It's business as usual."
Lein is technically right: Breast implants, though placed
(like lubricants) inside the body, are intended for cosmetic
purposes not viewed as medically necessary, even for women
who have lost breasts to cancer. But as with the debate over
breast implants the real issue underlying lubricant regulation
is not consumer safety but profit.
While the distinction between cosmetics and drugs may appear
minor on paper, it represents millions to manufacturers. Getting
FDA drug approval is a lengthy, money-consuming process, and
many products fail the test. Not so for a cosmetic. Lubricant
manufacturers, under fire from AIDS activists over nonoxynol-9,
correctly argued that under FDA guidelines they are not required
to list the ingredient percentages. (The FDA could use such
labeling to reclassify the products as over-the-counter drugs,
subject to stricter controls.) Consumers must rely on the
manufacturers' claims of quality control.
Despite the growing controversy, the FDA has done little to
clear up the inconsistencies in its policy over nonoxynol-9
and has directed concerned consumers to independent state
agencies. Since most lubricant manufacturers are located in
California, Bird's question was directed to Allen Davidson,
director of the Food and Drug Branch of California Health
Services. Not surprisingly his agency balked at testing lubricants
with nonoxynol-9 to determine safety in terms of increased
exposure to HIV. "Given our limited resources, we have
to deal with those things that we consider real health hazards,"
contends Davidson, while admitting that "nonoxynol-9
has not been shown through well-controlled scientific studies
to prevent STDs; AIDS, and/or HIV."
Davidson's response frustrates some lubricant manufacturers
who worry about harming consumers and the possibility of future
lawsuits if such studies are done to show nonoxynol-9 is dangerous
-- even at 1 percent.
"They [regulators] don't want to categorize lubricants
because they don't know where it should fall," complains
Robin Ogilvie, president of Trimensa Corporation, maker of
the lubricants ForPlay and PrePair. "The FDA is not creative,
just very administrative." Red tape aside, others have
suggested another reason for the FDA stalemate. One agency
official who requested anonymity says frankly, "Since
lubricants are associated with anal intercourse, they sit
very, very low on the totem pole of priorities at the FDA".
Perhaps ironically, the gay media was the first to alert the
general public to the debate over nonoxynol-9, following the
recall of Wet lubricant batches by its manufacturer, Dynamic
Concepts, in February I992. In a letter to Wet retailers and
distributors, company president Michael Trygstad informed
them that "due to problems with our former manufacturer,
Topco Sales," certain shipments failed to meet "our
high standards for providing quality products." He urged
them to return "watery" or "discolored"
samples. Trygstad says that he also issued a similar letter
to inform consumers but that the gay press ignored it. While
regulatory health agencies ducked the issue, three independent
parties -- gay sexologist Dr. Clark Taylor, Condom Sense (a
trade magazine), and the late Dr. Larry Waites (my partner
and then columnist for The Advocate) -- commissioned independent
laboratory tests of Wet Personal Lubricant samples, using
FDA standards. All the conclusions were the same: Prior to
batch No. 1170, which was issued March 9, 1993, Wet contained
less than the recommended 1 percent concentration of nonoxynol-9.
When Waites published his lab's results in an Advocate article,
Wet's Trygstad protested and a fax war broke out between the
two. The debate spread to other lubricant manufacturers as
well, resulting in bad press for Wet but higher lubricant-industry
standards overall.
"Wet has contained a minimum of 1 percent nonoxynol-9
since the manufacturing of lot No. 1170," asserts Trygstad.
He confirms that at the time of the voluntary recall of defective
Wet batches in early 1992, "We changed to a new formulator
who has been doing an excellent job. All of the old formula
was replaced by the new formula, at no charge to the retail
outlets or distributors." From February 1992 until March
1993, however -- batches 1148 to 1170 -- Wet contained only
0.1 per cent nonoxynol-9. Currently most lubricants -- including
Wet Personal Lubricant -- contain at least 1 percent nonoxynol-9,
the concentration considered protective against HIV. But buyers
still won't be able to read the exact ingredient proportions.
And despite Trygstad's written assurances, no one -- not the
manufacturer nor state or federal officials can absolutely
verify that store owners have removed from their shelves Wet
samples issued between February 1992 and March 1993. Nor can
anyone say how many people bought and used or still have those
samples.
"The consumer has been left in the dark by the national
health watch dog, and that is unacceptable," fumes Dr.
Taylor. Barbara Garcia, an HIV educator with Planned Parenthood
in the Bay Area who has counseled over 100 HIV-positive women,
agrees: "The word is not out about nonoxynol-9. The only
way I learned about the irritation caused by nonoxynol-9 was
by listening to the women I work with."
For now the daunting question Bird raised more than two years
ago remains troubling: Can the minor toxicities associated
with nonoxynol-9 in sexual products increase one's risk of
HIV infection? At the FDA the anonymous executive defends
his agency's inaction: "When we had people get sick and
die from bad meat, we could put E. coli under the microscope
and see it. With HIV and STDs and lubricants and nonoxynol-9,
there's no way to know something for over 10 years, if someone
seroconverted because they used only a lubricant with nonoxynol-9."
Stuck in the gap between a drug and a cosmetic, he adds, "lubricants
with nonoxynol-9, therapeutic doses, intended uses . . . these
are just ethereal concepts in the FDA's eye".
The current demand for a vaginal microbicide may spur government
officials into action. Already a private epidemiologist in
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, has proposed a clinical
trial of nonoxynol-9 involving 1,000 women to determine its
safety in contraceptives.
With the jury still out on nonoxynol-9, AIDS activists do
have a simple word of advice for consumers regarding lubricants:
Don't take a chance. Always use a condom.
*Bohdan Zachary is a San Francisco-based journalist and Emmy
Award-winning television news producer.
|
