Poll #577947… - Sally's Journal
|Date:||September 27th, 2005 08:13 pm (UTC)|| |
And condoms are yack and the spawn of satan, but that is another arguement and should be had another time...
Why are they yack? For reasons other than those mentionned below?
|Date:||September 28th, 2005 11:59 pm (UTC)|| |
- the time at which it's most suitable/practical to put them on tends to be a time at which other things are uppermost in the mind
- the things that were uppermost in the mind may become less uppermost as one focuses on the mechanics of condom application
- the manufacturers of condoms probably do not produce, and certainly do not advertise, a range of condoms that appropriately matches the range of sizes and (perhaps more importantly) shapes that they may need to be applied to. Finding a particular brand and type that suits you makes an enormous difference to the ease of use and lowers the probability of condom failure; but there's not much done to make the process of discovering this straightforward or unembarassing.
- they smell
- (apparently) they fail; worry is not an aphrodisiac
On the positive side, they're a readily available, immediately effective, reversible means of contraception that doesn't screw with peoples' body chemistry. Furthermore, their use is overt and apparent to both the participating individuals, in a way that other means of contraception aren't; sadly, people sometimes say that things are taken care of, when they aren't.
Errm, that was rather more than I was expecting to have to say on the subject 8-)
|Date:||September 29th, 2005 07:22 am (UTC)|| |
Ah, that was pleasently comprehensive. (Had I been avoiding answering that? I want my LJ to be a place of free and frank debate, and believe avidly that people know very little about the range of contraception available and how it works* and this should be changed, and yet managed to get myself all embarressed about talking about sex :) It's a good job I have friends to do these things for me)
You didn't mention them as a potential cause of thrush, (even the extra hypoallergenic ones seem to be mildly triggery), or emphasise the "No, really, THEY FAIL" part as much as I would have done though :)
Stick-in-the-arm at least covers overt and apparant... I have yet to hear a case of someone implanting a hair grip into their own arm just so they can lie to their partner to get pregnant...
* This amazes me even in very intelligent and well researched geek friends, so I dread to think what the standard must be like in the general population.
|Date:||September 29th, 2005 09:08 am (UTC)|| |
Stick-in-the-arm at least covers overt and apparent
Yes-ish. It still requires (if there is concern about this) to be actively checked rather than being unavoidably apparent; and is not in widespread enough use to be well understood by many. And has not been available for long enough for there to be many people with used-up ones, possibly? (what _is_ the lifespan, and means of getting rid of them, out of interest?)
|Date:||September 29th, 2005 09:12 am (UTC)|| |
Oh, I'm sure it's possible to subtly fondle a loved ones arm when in a relavent situation... but yes, it lacks that "adorable" unavoidability of condoms.
I only had mine put in once the first batch had *just* started to be taken out, so concievably there are people with dead ones out there. You'd like to think the NHS were better at chasing things up than that though...
3 years, and then they Slice Your Arm Open With A Knife.
A hair grip?
The contraceptive implants are large and rigid, then? That seems to be a significant disadvantage.
Do they have any benefit over the pill, other than being fit-and-forget?