This doesn’t strike me as being a waste of taxpayer money at all. But I’d be interested in what the menfolk here think.
The Mahablog
Politics. Society. Group Therapy.
This doesn’t strike me as being a waste of taxpayer money at all. But I’d be interested in what the menfolk here think.
What question are you really asking?
Do I think that it is a waste of taxpayer money?
or
Why don’t men wear or like to wear condoms?
Um, I was mostly asking if you thought it was a waste of money. But you can offer any opinion you want to offer.
I’ll opt for waste of taxpayer money part. I would think they could get an answer for a whole lot less money. If there are men conducting the study, they should not need a study.
Speaking only from the receiving end of an unprotected male sex organ, I suspect a man’s biological (irrational?) urge to spread his seed is the reason he doesn’t like to wear a condom. I’m suggesting that the decision is an unconscious one.
Speaking from way out in left field – I spend a lot of time out here – I bet the no-condom-no-abortion-bunch is the same bunch calling the study a ‘waste of money.’
felicity,
I’ll bet that it is the men, left and right, that may be calling it a waste of time. Don’t think women really undewrstand.
I take it that part of the purpose of the study is to figure out ways to persuade more men to wear raincoats, so to speak, which seems to me a very worthwhile cause that might save taxpayer money in the long run.
It isn’t a waste of money. There should be some focus groups and messages developed that work to increase condom usage
It will find some well worn cliches as for why:
Decreased sensitivity.
Loss of arousal due to condom handling/preparation.
skin on skin is more intimate.
STDs aren’t that common, risk is low.
Maybe others, those are just off the top of my head. I’m not in the demographic cohort they are studying – my most promiscuous years were a generation ago. I used condoms for contraception, trusted casual partners if they claimed to have contraception handled and condom could be dispensed with.
It will be interesting to see what this study finds, and if they do work on messages that change behavior of the population most at risk.
I think it’s a waste of money if the object of what they are trying to determine is sincere. And I would assume that although there are multiple reasons men don’t enjoy using condoms the primary reason would be being deprived of natural sensation. It’s similar to hand washing dishes wearing playtex gloves where your skin can’t breathe and sensations of feeling is restricted. Even with surgical gloves (worn on the hands) where the ability to feel is minimized it’s still an uncomfortable experience.
Even before HIV hit, I never did the horizontal lombada without a raincoat. Not only did I not want VD or syph, I didn’t want to have any children I didn’t want to have. I would, of course, have left the choice of whether or not to have the baby to the woman, and then provided support. But, I never had to make that choice. I thank the raincoat industry for making durable products.
I think the survey is worth the money. Maybe they can discover something that’ll protect both parties.
Not a waste of money per-se, definitely an argument could be made in the way of AIDS prevention and unwanted pregnancies and what not, but the timing may be a little off. I, among many don’t like the idea of spending money on things that may be of a “lower priority” when we have much more urgent issues to throw our collective monies at… There it is, one a**holes opinion.
In order to not be a waste of money, the investigation has to come up with methods (advertising or whatever) that save enough money through preventing unwanted pregnancies to equal or exceed the cost. Half a mil isn’t really a lot of money in this context, unwanted pregnancies are incredibly expensive to society in the long run, so I think it can be worth it.
It’s not a huge mystery though. It breaks up the moment to stop & put on a condom, and it doesn’t feel as good as without. Money would be better spent developing the male pill.
I am not a man but I think it is a total waste of money. I agree with Swami. Working as a nurse and having to wear gloves to do certain procedures, I can understand not wanting to wear a condom. Even though the gloves were skintight like condoms, it does decrease the sensitivity. Finding a vein with a glove is much more difficult than without. However, wearing gloves was necessary to prevent disease and condoms are useful for that also. It apparently has to be up to the female to insist that condoms be used as I doubt all men are going to voluntarily always wear them, especially in the age group being studied.
As for a controlled scientific study that is totally objective, there is no such animal.
Any study that will help reduce the spread of HIV is not a waste of taxpayer’s money. The only people who think this is waste are selfish idiots. Everything they don’t agree with becomes a NIMBY.
wmd spoke of the clichés:
Decreased sensitivity.
Loss of arousal due to condom handling/preparation.
skin on skin is more intimate.
STDs aren’t that common, risk is low.
The last one is patently false. The first three are true (well, arousal may be more of an issue as one ages, I cannot speak for the youngsters). I think felicity’s point on the biological desire to spread one’s seed not only works subconsciously (and often consciously) but is part of millions of years of biological programming. Rational choices may prevail but we would be foolish to ignore our evolutionary heritage. In other words, I think it’s a reality we have to acknowledge and address.
WHY men don’t want to wear condoms does not require a dime to find out. Helping change behaviors for the sake of public health (and public expenses) is another story.
Waste of money. Easy answer. Would someone prefer wearing chain mail while receiving a massage? Inclination and practice are two different things. Lack of restraint in this regard is directly proportional to an all-about-me outlook.
Nothing complicated here… remember we’re talking about men…
Well, I’ll grant you that there could be a study of that nature that would be a waste. e.g., pay me the money, and I’ll collect some opinions. Or, running another study that’s been replicated five times already. Or, running a poorly designed study, etc..
But if the study is well designed, and has a decent chance of yielding results, it’s *great*. Condoms are the only form of birth control that offer some protection against STDs. It’s essential to know what causes them not to be used, and it could lead to multiple public goods… better condom designs, perhaps, and/or fewer unwanted pregnancies.
The market research aspect of it has another side: Are condom manufacturers funding any similar research? If they can increase usage they stand to have more sales. How much does a TV commercial for condoms cost to air? It seems to me that the messaging might already be taken care of by private business for commercial rather than public health reasons.
There’s still value in having accessible research on how to increase condom usage, public health and commercial interests align too seldom.
I’m not a guy, but the price tag is pretty cheap, all things considered. I vote yay… not that much money wasted, and who knows what unexpected things they can find? Seemingly stupid, ‘common sense’ questions often turn out to have unexpected and surprising answers.