Condoms.fm - Free Condom and Birth Control Info

The risk of acquiring HIV through unprotected anal sex is at least 20 times greater than with unprotected vaginal sex and increases if other infections are already present in the rectal lining. Could the use of lubricants - at least certain kinds - be another risk factor among men and women who engage in receptive anal intercourse? Two studies presented at the International Microbicides Conference in Pittsburgh, suggest the answer is yes.

In one study involving nearly 900 men and women in Baltimore and Los Angeles, the researchers found that those who used lubricants were three times more likely to have rectal sexually transmitted infections (STIs). Another study that subjected popular over-the-counter and mail-order lubricants to rigorous laboratory tests discovered that many of the products were toxic to cells and rectal tissue. If in humans, these products have the same effect, the cells might be rendered more vulnerable targets for HIV infection than they already are.

In the United States alone, receptive anal intercourse is practiced in up to 90 percent of gay and other men who have sex with men, according to International Rectal Microbicides Advocates. Moreover, the practice is not limited to men. U.S. estimates and surveys in the United Kingdom indicate between 10 to 35 percent of heterosexual women have engaged in anal sex at least once. Globally, estimates suggest 5 to 10 percent of sexually active women are having anal sex. While condoms are generally effective for protecting against HIV and other STIs, most acts of anal sex go unprotected.

Microbicides - substances applied topically on the inside of the rectum or vagina - could potentially help prevent the rectal transmission of HIV, and some are being tested in early Phase I safety studies. Another approach called oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) involves the use of antiretroviral drugs to reduce the risk of HIV in HIV-negative people. A large Phase III trial of PrEP involving men who have sex with men in South America, Africa and the United States is expected to report results by early next year. Yet, if either of these approaches is found effective in clinical trials, they will do no good if those most at risk don’t use them. Other research presented today sheds light on this issue. Summaries of all three studies are provided below.

M2010 took place May 22-25 at Pittsburgh’s David L. Lawrence Convention Center. Nearly 1,000 participants from 47 different countries attended the meeting to hear about the latest developments in HIV prevention research.

Use of lubricants with anal sex associated with more rectal STIs

Lubricants are typically used before and during receptive anal intercourse, but their use could increase the risk of rectal sexually transmitted infections (STIs), a study involving nearly 900 men and women in Baltimore and Los Angeles has found. Even after controlling for gender, HIV status, city, condom use, and number of sex partners in the past month, the association between lubricant use before receptive rectal intercourse and rectal STIs remained strong, reported Pamina Gorbach, Dr.PH, from the School of Public Health and the David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, who led the study. According to the study’s statistical analysis that considered the HIV status, gender, condom use and study site, participants who used lubricants before receptive anal intercourse were three times more likely to have a rectal STI. Although the analysis didn’t consider the specific lubricants being used, it may be that certain types of products are more irritating to the lining of the rectum than others, which could increase men and women’s vulnerability to rectal STIs, the researchers suggest.

The study, which was conducted between October 2006 and December 2008, examined the rectal health and behaviors of 879 men and women. Participants in the study were tested for gonorrhea and Chlamydia and asked about their sexual and hygiene practices in private computer-based interviews. Of the 879 participants, 421 reported having receptive anal intercourse in the past month (229 men) or in the past year (192 women) and of these 421, 302 provided the researchers with additional information about their use of lubricants. About half, or 147 (52.7 percent) said they used a lubricant when they last engaged in anal sex.

Of the 302 included in the analysis, 25 (8.3 percent) tested positive for a bacterial rectal STI (5.6 percent of women and 10.2 percent of men). But among those who said they recently used a lubricant, the number of STIs was higher. With STI test results available for 145 of the 147 recent users, the researchers found that 17 (11.7 percent) tested positive for a rectal STI compared to just seven (5.1 percent) of the 156 who said they did not use a lubricant. A higher percentage of African Americans (61.percent) reported using lubricants than did Hispanics (40.4 percent) and whites (23.2 percent). A higher percentage of HIV-positive participants (56 percent) were more likely to report using lubricants than were HIV-negative participants (43.7 percent). Most of the participants who reported using lubricants said they used a water-based lubricant (76 percent); 28 percent used silicon-based products, 17 percent oil-based lubricants and 6 percent said they had used numbing lubricants. More research will be needed to understand exactly how lubricants facilitate transmission of STIs, including HIV, the researchers say.

Study is first to evaluate safety of lubricants used in anal sex

A laboratory study that compared over-the-counter and mail-order lubricants commonly used with receptive anal intercourse found many of the products contain higher amounts of dissolved salts and sugars compared to what’s normally found in a cell. As a result, the products had toxic effects on the cells and rectal tissue studied. Some of the lubricants caused significant portions of the epithelium - the layer of cells that serves as a protective barrier inside the rectum - to be stripped away. Conclusions cannot be made based on this study alone, though the results are compelling enough to wonder if these lubricants might have the same effect in people and thereby increase susceptibility to HIV, commented Charlene Dezzutti, Ph.D., from the University of Pittsburgh and Magee-Womens Research Institute, who led the study for the Microbicide Trials Network. The study, which was conducted in collaboration with International Rectal Microbicides Advocates (IRMA), was undertaken because little is known about the safety of lubricants even though they are frequently used during anal sex.

Six products were studied. Five (Astroglide, Elbow Grease, ID Glide, KY Jelly and Wet Platinum) were selected because they had been identified as those most commonly used by the more than 6,300 respondents to an IRMA survey. The sixth product (PRÉ) was selected to serve as a control because it is isomolar. Osmolarity refers to the concentration of dissolved particles (salts and sugars) found inside a cell relative to the outside. A product that is isomolar has the same concentration of particles as inside the cell, whereas a product that is hyperosmolar has a higher concentration of salts and sugars relative to the cell. To correct this imbalance, a cell forces water out but then it becomes withered and dies. Most of the lubricants studied were water-based, except for Wet Platinum, which is a condom-compatible silicone-based product. The researchers characterized each product according to its osmolarity, pH and viscosity - or slipperiness. Studies then were conducted to determine the effect of each lubricant on different cell types, rectal and cervical tissue and on bacteria (microorganisms that are important to the health of the rectum). Based on the tests performed, PRÉ and Wet Platinum were shown to be safest, while Astroglide was the most toxic to cells and tissues, and KY Jelly had the worst effect on the good bacteria, essentially wiping out an entire colony. PRÉ was the only water-based lubricant that was not hyperosmolar and did not disrupt the epithelium. None of the lubricants had measurable anti-HIV activity. In future studies, the researchers hope to determine the effect that different lubricants have on susceptibility to HIV infection in tissues.

The bad news: Boston survey finds awareness about PrEP poor among MSM; The good news: MSM likely to use PrEP and microbicides for prevention

Despite being representative of one of the highest at-risk populations for HIV, a large number of HIV-uninfected men who have sex with men (MSM) surveyed as part of a study had never heard of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), the use of antiretroviral (ARV) drugs by HIV-negative individuals for preventing HIV. PrEP is being evaluated in several trials in different at-risk populations, including MSM. The study, which was conducted in the Boston area, involved 105 MSM who reported having unprotected receptive anal intercourse at least once in the prior year with a partner they knew was HIV positive or didn’t know for sure whether or not they were infected. The participants had been enrolled in a study to determine the acceptability of rectally administered placebo gels and suppositories. The survey was conducted at the time of enrollment to help understand the demographic and behavioral factors that may increase men’s likelihood for using a microbicide or oral PrEP, reported Kenneth Mayer, M.D., of the Fenway Institute in Boston and Brown University in Providence, R.I. The average participant’s age was 39; 70.5 percent had at least a high school education; 24 percent were African-American and 8.6 percent were Latino. Participants reported having an average of more than four sex partners in the two months prior to their enrolling in the study.

While 44.8 percent of the participants had heard of post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) for preventing HIV, whereby anti-HIV drugs are administered within 72 hours of an exposure, such as through unprotected sex or an occupational needle-stick injury, only 20 percent had heard of PrEP. However, once participants were informed about both approaches, as well as about rectal microbicides, nearly 60 percent indicated they would likely use PEP, 40 percent said they would use PrEP, and half said they would likely use a rectal gel for prevention. The responses did not differ by demographic characteristics. Men who indicated they were most likely to use rectal microbicides were also more likely to use PrEP. While the study was small, the results are instructive to efforts for raising awareness and understanding about the HIV prevention approaches that are currently in clinical trials. This in turn may help facilitate adherence to and improve effectiveness of these approaches if they become widely introduced, say the researchers.

Source:
Lisa Rossi
Microbicides 2010 (International Conference on Microbicides)

Study Finds Condom Use Is Increasing
By GARDINER HARRIS
Published: May 26, 2010

Women and their partners in the United States are increasingly using male condoms when they have premarital sex for the first time, which may explain why teenage birth rates have declined in recent decades, according to a new government survey of contraceptive methods.

The proportion of women who used some form of contraceptive the first time they had premarital sex rose to 84 percent in the survey compared with 55 percent before 1985. Most of the increase came from the growing use of a male condom, used by 72 percent of women at first intercourse compared with 34 percent before 1985.

Contraceptive use varied greatly by the education level of parents. About 84 percent of women whose mother had a college education used contraception the first time they had sex compared with 53 percent of women whose mothers did not finish high school.

The numbers come from the National Survey of Family Growth , which is conducted every six to seven years by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The most recent survey was carried out from 2006 to 2008, and its results were released for the first time Wednesday.

The survey has long been used to help answer why half of all pregnancies in the United States are unintended, a far higher proportion than is found in many other industrialized countries. One clear reason is the relatively high share of unprotected sex that occurs in the United States.

“There are some pieces of good news in here,” said Bill Mosher, a statistician with the National Center for Health Statistics, “but what struck me was how persistent some of these patterns are. And that they’re different from some other countries’.”

About 40 percent of births in the United States in recent years are to unmarried women. In addition to about 4 million births that occur annually in the United States, there are 1.2 million abortions and an estimated 1 million miscarriages and stillbirths.

Eleven percent of sexually active unmarried women who are not looking to become pregnant do not use contraceptives, the survey found, with a far higher share of black women failing to use contraceptives than white, Hispanic or Asian women.

Among women who did not use a contraceptive before an unintended pregnancy, the most common reason they gave was that they did not think they could get pregnant.

Religious teachings forbidding contraceptives are almost universally ignored in the United States, since 99 percent of women between the ages of 15 and 44 who had sex at least once have used some form of contraception. The most popular method in the United States is the pill, used by 10.7 million women between the ages of 15 and 44, closely followed by sterilization, used by 10.3 million women.

The typical pattern among women is to rely on a male condom at first intercourse, the pill to delay birth and sterilization once a woman has had all the children she wants. Indeed, 54 percent of sexually active teenage women who used contraception chose the pill compared with just 11 percent of women over the age of 40.

The share who had ever used a contraceptive patch rose to 10 percent from 1 percent in 2002, but that share is likely to decline since warnings about risks caused a drop in its popularity.

The IUD is becoming increasingly popular in the United States, increasing to 6 percent of those who use contraceptives from 2 percent in 2002. Even among teenagers, nearly 4 percent of those who use contraceptives chose an IUD. There are now more than two million IUD users in this country.

Black and Hispanic men are far less likely to have had a vasectomy than white men, the survey said.

In European countries with far lower birth and abortion rates, women are much more likely to use the pill or an IUD and much less likely to use sterilization than women in the United States.

- Source NY Times

Why should taxpayers pay for condoms?

By Chris Krisinger
Burke

Holding to his belief that distributing condoms “was a good thing,” D.C. Council member David A. Catania (I-At Large) figured the shortcoming of the program was that “we never [before] asked the kids what they wanted”.

Has it ever crossed Mr. Catania’s mind that demonstrating some leadership and moral fortitude and standing for the idea that monogamous, committed relationships — even abstinence — would be better than asking taxpayers to foot the bill for condoms so young people can continue to have sex without consequences? Isn’t this even more true if the public health goal is preventing the spread of sexually transmitted diseases?

Just how low can public discourse on the issue go? I would be ashamed if I were the D.C. city employee making the claim that “the gold package [Trojan brand] certainly has a little bit of the bling quality.” The statement was indicative of the larger social issue of an “entitlement mentality.” A New York public official was quoted in the article saying she wants to ensure that people are given — at taxpayer expense, no less — what they want. Her agency “has received requests for ‘larger sizes’ and ‘extra thin’ condoms. New York, like the District, is happy to oblige.”

It is incredible that government “leaders” go along with these nutty social, public policy ideas and look taxpayers in the face and tell them we should pay for someone’s condoms.

Female soldiers being deployed to Afghanistan have been told by the British military to carry condoms following an alarming rise in pregnancies while on tour.

Although sexual relationships are allowed in the U.S. military, they are strongly discouraged, especially in a combat zone, with warnings that they “can have an adverse impact on unit cohesion, morale, good order and discipline.”

In Februrary 2010, the U.S. Department of Defense added emergency contraception, also known as the “morning-after pill” to U.S. servicewomen who are already provided an extensive range of reproductive care, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit organization focused on sexual and reproductive health research. Along with the emergency contraception, servicewomen also have access to contraceptive counseling, pelvic exams, HIV testing, condoms, and other contraceptive methods.

Officially, British military personnel are banned from having sex in a war zone. But, according to senior officers, a blind eye is turned if relations are between soldiers of a similar rank and do not impact operations.

An advertisement in an official Army magazine warns British soldiers to take protection because there will be an estimated “50 blokes to each woman.”

Figures show that 133 servicewoman became pregnant in Afghanistan and Iraq between January 2003 and February 2009. Condoms are already available at bases such as Camp Bastion, home to 8,500 British troops — including 700 women.

“Pregnancies are incredibly expensive for the Army,” Tory MP Patrick Mercer, an ex-Army officer, said. “One wonders why this sort of advert has only been used now.”

A spokesperson for the British military said they “do not encourage sexual relationships.”

The U.S. military did not allow sexual relations between unmarried men and women in the combat zone, until the ban was lifted in 2008 by Maj. Gen. Jeffrey Schloesser, commander of Combined Joint Task Force-101.

Before the new order was signed, soldiers of the opposite sex were even barred from going into each other’s living quarters, with the exception of married couples.

There is no record of how many female U.S. soldiers become pregnant with fellow soldiers while serving overseas.

Health department officials say such a requirement, sought by an AIDS activist group, must come from the California Legislature. And no lawmaker has stepped up.
February 03, 2010

Los Angeles County officials Tuesday rebuffed demands from an AIDS activist group that the county immediately require performers in porn films to use condoms.

County officials said the California Legislature would need to approve legislation requiring condom use for pornography shoots. They said it would be difficult to try to regulate the porn industry through the county’s Public Health Department.

“It is very, very difficult to implement. There are roughly 200 production companies with about . . . 1,200 actors,” said Dr. Jonathan Fielding, the county’s public health chief. “All you need is a room and a camera and a bed, basically, to do this kind of shoot, and we have no ability to police this.”

Fielding said it would be difficult for public health officials to prove if the movies were produced in L.A. County or elsewhere because producers often do not apply for filming licenses. In a memo to supervisors on Sept. 17, health officials warned that such an effort would be costly because the Public Health Department would need to identify filming sites and monitor compliance, which would require significant staff time.

“We worked closely with county counsel trying to see if there’s some other way that we could effectively do this under existing authority, and . . . basically, we’re unlikely to have an effective approach to prevent them from acquiring preventable STDs,” Fielding said Tuesday. “It’s very disturbing to come to that conclusion, but we also have to be realistic.”

Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, whose district includes the San Fernando Valley, where the multibillion-dollar porn industry is centered, agreed that adult film performers are vulnerable to sexually transmitted diseases and said they deserve some kind of protection through the law. But he said the state’s legislators would need to act.

“I think the only answer to this at the end of the day is a statewide approach to this, which would also empower law enforcement, and you run sting operations,” he said. “All you’ve got to do is make one or two arrests and the rest of the . . . industry will understand pretty quickly that there’s a risk.”

Yaroslavsky said, however, that no California lawmaker has been willing to sponsor such legislation.

Fielding’s department testified to California lawmakers in 2004 in support of a law that would regulate the adult film industry; require condom use during filming; implement STD screening requirements that would be paid by the industry; and have film companies pay for the local cost of monitoring compliance.

Brian Chase, assistant general counsel for the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, accused the county during Tuesday’s meeting of having “done nothing” to protect adult film performers.

In December, an L.A. County Superior Court judge dismissed the foundation’s petition seeking a court order to compel county health officials to require condom use on porn sets or take other reasonable steps to stem the spread of disease. The court ruled that the county has broad discretion in how it oversees public health.

NOV 27, 2009 - TAMPA, FLORIDA

****HEADLINE ONLY****

CondomDepot.com, rated number one Condom Store In the world, has just released the results of its 10th Annual World’s Best Condoms awards.

Winners included.. Crown Skinless Skin, Durex Extra Sensitive, Lifestyles Skyn and other.

The full list is available here > Best Condom Review

The Federal Drug Administration has approved a lower-cost female condom, called the FC2 Female Condom, to help prevent pregnancy, HIV/AIDS, and other sexually transmitted diseases.

That news comes from Chicago-based Female Health Company, which makes the FC2 Female Condom and the original female condom, called the FC1 Female Condom, which the FDA approved in 1993.

A female condom is a thin, flexible sheath worn by a woman inside her vagina. Like male condoms, female condoms are sold without a prescription and each female condom should only be used once.

The FC1 and FC2 female condoms have the same design and work equally well. But the FC2 will cost up to 30% less than the FC1 because of less costly materials and manufacturing.

About 35 million female condoms were distributed worldwide in 2008, compared to about 10 billion male condoms, states a Female Health Company news release.

Durex Avanti condoms, always one of our favorite non-latex condoms, was discontinued by Durex Condoms back in early 2008. We have received word from a source that the Durex Avanti is due to be released in March of 2009.

The new Avanti product will no longer be made of Polyurethane instead being manufactured using Polyisoprene, the same material being used to manufacture the new Lifestyles Skynn Condom.

There have been industry rumors as to why Durex decided to remake this very popular condom including the most popular, Polyurethane may have never been approved as a product that provided protection against STDs and that “Testing was being conducted”.

What we do know is that both Polyurethane and Polyisoprene both provide FDA Approved protection against STDs and unwanted pregnancy. We also know that Polyisoprene is a much better material than Polyurethane for making a condom.

Polyurethane was much like Wax Paper in its characteristics. It provided little if any expansion and was very noisy making a funny crinkling sound when used. Polyisoprene is very stretchable and is more like latex in its characteristics. This makes it a much better choose as it will accommodate mens various sizes. Both offer greater heat transfer and both are an A in sensitivity (although polyurethane can be made much thinner than polyisoprene).

We applaud Durex for making the switch to this new breed Non Latex Product and are eagerly awaiting the arrival of the new Durex Avanti. We urge consumers to be very weary when purchasing these products as many of the older Avanti’s are still on store shelves. Highly reputable companies will be given the new products first, CVS, Walgreens, Eckerts, Condom Depot.. Expect a wide release to smaller retail outlets by mid 2010.

John Fidi
Chairman & Founder
CondomDepot.com
2/27/9

Gonorrhea

Symptoms

Content provided by MayoClinic.com

Signs and symptoms of gonorrhea may include:

• Thick, cloudy or bloody discharge from the penis or vagina
• Pain or burning sensation when urinating
• Frequent urination
• Pain during sexual intercourse

The first gonorrhea symptoms generally appear within two to 10 days after exposure to the bacterium. However, some people may be infected for months before signs or symptoms occur.

How gonorrhea affects men
In men, first there’s often a tingling sensation in the urethra, the passageway that carries urine from your bladder to the outside of your body. Later, urination becomes painful and you may notice a discharge from your penis. As the infection progresses, urethral pain usually becomes more pronounced and the discharge becomes more profuse and thick.

How gonorrhea affects women
In women, the signs and symptoms, if any, may be so mild you may not realize you have the infection. Often, the only clue that you may have gonorrhea comes when someone who you’ve had sexual contact with develops the disease. The infection usually affects the cervix and other reproductive organs as well as the urethra. In some women, gonorrhea causes frequent, urgent and painful urination along with an abnormal discharge from the vagina or urethra.