Have any providers considered using them in lieu of traditional condoms? How about in addition to regular condoms for added security? Have any clients made such a request? What is your take on the issue? I just saw a snippet on CNN which talked about using them to curb HIV/AIDS.

I personally wouldn't find it comfortable - perhaps because I've never had sex without condom with anyone.

-- Modified on 3/13/2010 2:58:28 PM

I once saw a lady in dallas who insisted on using one.....I took one look at it and respectfully declined..
She happily obliged me with a standard male condom

1. Don't use it and a regular condom at the same time. Wrong kind of friction.

2. They are nice if a restrictive male condom causes you to lose an erection faster.

3. A lady should be able to insert it rather quickly or some guys lose erections waiting for her to get it just right.

4. Some find the sound it makes distracting.

5. Some women like to have their hand down there the whole time to make sure you don't miss and go in the side.

6. They get in the way if you like to mix penetrative sex with stopping to DATY and back to sex again.

A number of ladies I know keep them on hand for gents who like them. I had one lady read about my interest in them prior to me meeting her, and she let me know without me asking her that she kept some in stock.

I don't like the smell/taste of lube so go with whatever protection gives me the best shot at avoiding it. Since I have a lot of pre-cum, a female condom isn't an issue. A good pre-DATY session often gets ladies I've seen wet enough to not need the lube either.

Find a lady who uses them and give it a shot.

and I always use lube when engaging in sex with anyone. Being "wet enough" for entry does not guarantee staying wet enough to completion, and friction is a condom's #1 enemy. (Well, I suppose petroleum is technically a latex condom's #1 enemy, but only the truly inept and uneducated would consider pairing those two.) I would much rather apply the lube in the beginning before getting started, and sharply reduce the livelihood that we'll have to interrupt things to apply any in the middle.

Additionally, if you haven't found a lady who knows how to use lube outside of strict intercourse, then you are REALLY missing out.

As for female condoms, I keep them on hand and will happily introduce them to anyone I feel could really benefit from them, but on the whole, I find them to be less comfortable and aesthetically appealing, not to mention the cause of a larger number of interruptions in the act (even using tons of it initially, lube often needs to be reapplied to prevent the female condom from wanting to slide in and out with the male.

A lot of good points have already been made...but I must add my 2 cents.

While the female condom can be less restricting for the man, it can be more restricting for the woman. There is a much, much larger chance of slippage and leakage. And as much as I truly love semen in all of its delicious glory, I do NOT want it spilling inside my vagina!

While having sex with a female condom on, there is really nothing to stabilize it in its proper protective place. This can hinder various positions you may want to try.

And finally, cums the removal of the sperm-filled sac. That can be very messy if not done right.

In conclusion, I don't think I would ever carry female condoms opposed to the standard male condom.

xoxox
~Ice~

I know a provider who uses them. She cums to the DC area every once and awhile. Erica Stone.

Remember, all taste buds are not created equal. In the five groupings, salty, sour, bitter, sweet, and savory, the amount of each can differ from person to person. (Average ranges from 2k 8k per mouth).

Plus, I am a texture person. Haven't found a lube that matches up to the viscosity of the para-urethral gland excretions during a g-spot orgasm. Lube messes up that whole DATY experience, especially for a second round after intercourse has already occured.

offered them, & I tried them. Downsides: a little awkward inserting them, though if you make it part of foreplay it can be fun; they're statistically not as effective as male condoms, but mostly because they're easier to misuse (mostly when guys miss the condom & inadvertant bareback penetration occurs); they're also much more costly than male condoms, though increased demand will drive prices down.
Upsides:  if you suffer from latex aversion, this is a great solution; with one provider, I could have easily come in at least 2 positions (chose to hold out for CIM instesd), while I almost never can come wearing a male condom; and, as opposed to the earlier comment re: restricting back & forth between penetration & DATY, they greatly facilitate back & forth between penetration & BBBJ, probably a more commonly desired activity. And I don't recall any particular lube issues.
So if you & a provider are interested, give 'em a try.

For number of reasons (aestetics being one) I do prefer to used them when I know someone a bit.

now there are some statistics say that there is a difference in effectiveness from male condoms with the male condoms being more effective.

but i don't think that the statistical difference means anything. it is a very small difference and is easily explainable by the FC being a little cumbersome and folks failing to use it properly.

the physics and biology of it is that the effectiveness should be identical and any statistical difference is due to user error.

This quote from the wikipedia article linked is talking about pregnancy only, but, effectiveness of 98% (MC) vs. 95% (FC) is more than statistical error.

"... the typical use failure rate for the first-generation female condoms lies at 21% ... Of the women who used the female condom correctly, and used one at every act of intercourse, 5% became pregnant after one year. In comparison, the typical use failure rate for male condoms was 15%, while the perfect use failure rate was 2%."

and the incurable viruses are the most interesting problem.

first of all your use of "statistical error" is technically incorrect. the question is whether the difference is "statistically significant".

secondly you are selectively quoting the article in a way that gives an incorrect impression.

the more interesting question is the 5% failure rate versus 2% failure rate for perfect use.  what is this small but statistically significant difference is due to?

the leading hypothesis for explaining the difference is user error.

with regard to the virus issue the article notes:

"The effectiveness of the female condom at preventing STDs has not been studied to the same extent as male condoms, however it has been put forth that it should have similar effectiveness to preventing pregnancy. Female condoms are better at preventing some STIs than the traditional condom. This is because they cover more skin, which is the main way skin-to-skin viruses are contracted, such as herpes."

that gives a more balanced picture than your selective quote.

you also failed to note that early tests showed the FC to be more effective at preventing pregnancy. those early tests were conducted with better trained subjects than the large scale tests. which lends support to the difference being due to user error.

for smart and savy and sexually educated providers and hobbyists the FC is a good alternative and should be equally effective. for the not so clever or well trained there will be more user error.

it is so clear if you've ever used one, precisely where that difference lies.

Including incorrect use the rate is 21% FC vs 15% MC...CORRECT use is 5% FC vs 2% MC.

Let me reiterate, that the term "perfect use" and the related numbers EXCLUDE user error.

To me that is significant and worth noting.  Is a FC another option?  Yes.  Does a FC pose more risk than a MC?  Apparently...even though slight.

Just wanted people to realize there is a difference and not just assume it's the same level of risk.

a statistical "perfect use" rate does NOT EXCLUDE user error or material failure. it still relies on reports from users which are NOT verifiable.

the figures for "perfect use" include people essentially misinforming you about whether the use was perfect. people lie about making mistakes and also are ignorant and don't know whether their use was really perfect. since the FC is more complicated folks will misinform you at a higher rate over whether their use was "perfect".

the statistics only "estimate" the risks. social and other factors tend to confound the ability of statistical studies to actually measure them.

in the presence of the fact that there is no verification that folks actually use them "perfectly" it is faitr to conclude:

1) there is no physical or biological reason to believe that the FC should be less effective than the MC in preventing pregnancy or disease. that is safely true.

2) there is statistical reason to believe that there is difference in "perfect use" failure rates. this is likely due to complications in use and user error.

just wanted people here to realize that there is no known reason for the difference in failure rates but that user error is the leading candidate.

oh yes, i also want people to realize that you, whoever you are, are constructing a misleading argument statistical argument. it is improper to infer causation from statistics. "perfect use statistics" do not refer to actual perfect use just "user reported perfect use".

another piece of BS dissected.......

Interesting replies from everyone. After reading them I wouldn't mind giving it a shot if I am with a provider that I know a little bit.

You are interpreting the wikipedia data the way that you want in order to support the conclusion that you have already made.  Let people decide for themselves without trying to drown out data that contradicts your point of view.

I can really care less what you think...

1) you have not presented any technical data that indicates there is a reason for a difference in effectiveness between FC and MC devices other than user error. that idea is not contradicted by any data.

2) you HAVE presented the FALSE idea that "reported perfect use" statistics should be taken as "actual perfect use".

3) you originally selected a subset of the full wikipedia link that to twist the interpretation of article in the way you wanted. so i am highly skeptical that your motives are to "let people decide for themselves".

now you say that "B.S. = When you refuse to accept any other perspective". and that isn't true. BS is invalid arguments, which is what you offer.

it is completely legitimate to reject arguments that are technically flawed and which misrepresent the meaning of the statistics.

until you come up a valid argument that for the small but statistically significant difference in risk to be due to anything but user error, i am justified in rejecting your BS arguments.

i continue to point out your track record of BS so that people can think for themselves and make their own choices.

If you really want to parse the meaning of perfect use, here is the table where the wiki data came from.

http://www.fcfemalecondom.com/effectiveness.html



Here are a few random sites that support the same data presented in wikipedia...that FCs are NOT at effective as MCs

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/iyh-vsv/prod/condom-eng.php

http://www.nyu.edu/shc/medservices/female.condoms.html

http://www.myoptumhealth.com/portal/Information/item/Male+and+Female+Condom+Basics?archiveChannel=Home/Article&clicked=true

http://www.fhi.org/en/rh/pubs/network/v16_1/nt16111.htm

apparently, by the difference between statistical and causal inferences from data.

and there is really no additional data here. the studies in these links refer back to the same studies that the wikipedia article refers to.

again, there is nothing here that contradicts the idea that there is no reason for the measured difference in risk to be due to anything but differences in complexity and consequent user error.

perhaps the only BS in this post of yours is to pile up multiple links that _don't_ parse the meaning of "perfect use".

essentially you are arguing that statistics should be believed in raw, without trying to understand their meaning or the causal mechanisms that underlie them. that is intellectually lazy. the physics of the devices is such that differences in risk is likely due to differences in use.

your citations do not address that issue and so add nothing new.

with using the FC is less safe because of human error, go figure that's hard to believe hahaha

What's I also found from reading about FC's is one called a Panty Condom. Interesting idea - and I'm sure expensive. But these have not passed FDA testing as of yet.

except for the cases where

1) there is no need for a condom as female contraception, it's use is against STDS only (there might be an advantage for the FC in that case)

2) there is confidence in your ability to use them

what you said is reasonable advice.

amusing product idea in your pic.