SEXIS WRONG

ture, the problem of quality control remained. In one of the
first American surveys of the efficacy of condoms, that of
the National Committee on Maternal Health in 1938, it was
found that only about 40% of the rubber condoms sold in the
United States were fit for use.
One result of such a finding was a government decision to
assign the US Food and Drug Administration control over the
quality of condoms sold or shipped in interstate commerce.
This marked an abrupt change in federal policy, which went
from trying to outlaw contraceptive information, and when
this was no longer possible, to ignoring the existence of such
things as condoms, and was now recognizing condoms as an
important consumer product.
The first governmental effort to look at quality control found
that as much as 75% of the condoms on the market had
small pinholes caused either by the existence of dust particles
in the liquid latex or by improperly vulcanized latex.
This situation changed rapidly. By the 1960s, condoms were
among the most effective contraceptives on the market and
were probably the best prophylactic for use against sexually
transmitted diseases. They were simple to use, easy to buy,
inexpensive, and did not require a physical examination or a
physician’s advice. Because they simply served as a container
for the semen and did not interfere with any of the bodily
processes, they were also harmless.
their condoms were smaller than others, advertised them as
having a snugger fit. Rubber membranes could also be made
thinner, and better testing procedures developed.
As the use of condoms grew, numerous varieties were developed:
contoured, textured, ribbed, with a variety of colors
and other descriptors such as extra thin, extra strong, or
lubricated with spermicides. New designs were developed,
as well. The Rumdum Sicher covers both the penis and the
testicles and is designed for male-to-male sex. It features a
latex band that acts as a “cock ring” to help maintain erection.
Manufacturers also began to include better instructions
for condom use, and these vary somewhat since those for
circumcised men are different than those for uncircumcised
ones. Instructions are also given for removal so that sperm
do not escape.
Why a condom has been called a condom has been a subject
of much debate, with the origin of the word being attributed
to several mythical physicians, as well as an actual French village
named Condom. The latter seems more a coincidence,
although in 1999 this village began to hold an annual condom
festival, seeking to attract tourists. If the term was not entirely
made up by Lord Rochester, it might have been modified
from the Latin cunnus (the female genitals) and dum, implying
an ability to function. There is, however, a continuing and
inconclusive debate on the topic.
The use of condoms declined after the 1960s because of the
development of oral contraceptives, IUDs, and other forms of
contraception, the use of which was controlled by women,
but condom use increased in the 1980s with the appearance
of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) and the recognition
that condoms, used in either vaginal or anal sex, were
effective in decreasing the chance of infection. The variety of
condoms also increased. Originally, all condoms came in one
size, and the assumption of one-size-fits-all was challenged
only when the United States began exporting condoms to
Asian countries and found that they were too large for many
Asian men. Investigation in Thailand, for example, found that
the median erect penis length of Thai men was between 126
mm and 150 mm (approximately 5 to 6 inches) whereas that
of US men was between 151 mm and 175 mm (approximately
6 to 7 inches). The median erect penis circumference of Thai
men was between 101 mm and 112 mm (4 to 4.5 inches),
while that of the US measured between 113 and 137 mm (4.5
to 5 inches). This implied that there was also a large variation
in the United States, and most large international manufacturers
began producing at least two basic sizes, Class I (180 mm
in length and 52 mm in width) and Class II (160 mm in length
and 49 mm in width). Many manufacturers, fearful of saying
References
Antoninus Liberalis, “The Fox,” Chap. XLI in Metamorphoses, edited by
Edgar Martin. Leipzig: Teubner, 1896. § Astruc, Jean. A Treatise of Veneral
Disease in Nine Books. No translator listed. London: W. Innys, et al.,
1754, iii, Chap 1, 2. § Brodie, Janet Farrell. Contraception and Abortion in
Nineteenth Century America. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1994. §
Bullough, Vern L. “A Brief Note on Rubber Technology and Contraception:
The Diaphragm and the Condom.” Technology and Culture, 22 (Jan 1981):
104-11. § Bullough, Vern L. “Condom.” Encyclopedia of Birth Control.
Edited by Vern L. Bullough. Santa Barbara: ABC Clio, 2000. § Bullough,
Vern L., and Bonnie Bullough. Contraception. Amherst, NY: Prometheus
Books, 1997. § Casanova, Jacques. The Memoirs of Jacques Casanova
de Seingalt. Translated by Arthur Machen. New York: A.C. Boni, 1932.
§ Cautley, R.G., G.W. Beebe, and R.I. Dickinson. “Rubber Sheaths as
Venereal Disease Prophylactics: The Relation of Quality and Technique
to Their Effectiveness.” American Journal of Medical Sciences, 195 (Feb
1948): 1550-83. § Consumer Reports, 54 (Mar 1989): 135-42; 60 (May
1995): 322-4; 61 (Jan 1996): 6-8. § Fallopius, Gabriele. De morbo Gallico
liber absolutismsus. Pavia: 1564, Chap 89, p 52. § Finch, Bernard Ephraim,
and Hugh Green. Contraception Through the Ages. Springfield, Il: Charles
C. Thomas, 1963. § Foote, Edward Bliss. Medical Common Sense. New
York: n.p. 1862. § Fryer, Peter. The Birth Controllers. London: Secker and
Warburg, 1964. § Grady, W.R., et al., Contraceptive Failure and Continuation
Among Married Women in the United States, 1970-1976. Working Paper No. 6.
Hyattsville, MD: National Center of Health Statistics, 1981. § Gray, S.F.A.
Supplement to the Pharmacopoeia. 4 th ed., London: n.p., 1928. § Himes,
Norman. Medical History of Contraception. New York: Schocken Books,
1970. § Kestleman, P., and J. Trussel. “Efficacy of the Simultaneous Use
of Condoms and Spermicides.” Family Planning Perspectives 23.5 (1991):
226-7, 232. § Redford, Myron H., Gordon W. Duncan, and Dennis J. Prager.
The Condom: Increasing Utilization in the United States. San Francisco: San
Francisco Press, 1974. § “Update on Condoms – Products, Protection,
Promotion.” Population Reports, ser H., no. 6 (Sep-Oct 1982), vol. 10, no.
5. § W.A. Week and Company. Illustrated Year Book. Chicago: n.p., 1872.
294 EVERYTHING YOU KNOW ABOUT SEX IS WRONG