ANY sort of protection is better than none at all, so promoting the use of female condoms to men who bareback is something I can get behind (pun intended).
However... it sure seems like a whole lot of bother as compared to traditional condoms.
I mean... when there's a ten-step instruction pamphlet included to teach proper use... seems a little preposterous.
I guess the benefit is that probably these female condoms provide a slightly more natural feeling. Male condoms tend to desensitize the penis and can be bothersome if too tight (larger condoms tend to fix this problem, though we all know that a condom NEVER feels as good as the real thing, unfortunately).
With so many "perfect" conditions necessary to be met when using a female condom in order for it to work properly, I'd be hesitant about trusting my life to it -- if I were an active bottom, at any rate. Seems like the discussion in the included links gives a whole lot of circumstances wherein the female condom can fall out, go inside, bunch up or just generally not work as well as it should.
Also, I'm a little concerned that even though a study was mentioned touting the efficacy of female condoms and the willingness of gay men to use them, it's a bit too early to know for sure and from one study if these will provide as solid protection as regular condoms over a long period of time. I'd sure hate to see a lot of dudes get infected five years down the road from a failed female condom...
But again... SOMETHING is better than nothing. Personally, though: I think the tried and true male condom is the way to go.
This smacks of heterosexual females having to insert diaphragms prior to intercourse -- bothersome, awkward and often not effective if improperly positioned. Sounds like having your bottom du jour fiddle around inserting this thing would take a whole lot of luster out of the evening. A male condom rolls on in a few seconds.
Suck as they might, I would still recommend male condoms for anal sex.
|