Federal Government Spends Half A Million Dollars For Study On Why Men Hate Condoms

ABC News:

The federal government has spent nearly half a million dollars to fund a study to find out why some men would prefer not to wear condoms during sex.

Read the whole story: ABC News

Comments

[skippyB]

TWO Huffpost stories blend as we find the perfect modeling job for Levi Johnston - Poster Boy for Condoms. Give the kid half a mil to launch an education campaign on what tools men are turned into when they don't honor their DNA. Fund it with a "practice" child support tax fund, redeemable with interest after age 30 if no unwanted children are produced.
Ok, so it doesn't feel good, but a relationship with a woman you can trust is something that'll feel good too, and worth waiting for.
Upon graduating from a prestigious university, my brother immediately saw the light as he was beset upon by drawer droppers - Men, condoms are your only protection. Trust no one but yourself until you've partnered up big - time.

[sunnybunny]

What a great idea - Levi Johnston could be Planned Parenthood's spokesman for male empowerment. Wouldn't that get on Sarah Palin's nerves?

[deepblue13]

Wouldn't it have been cheaper to just ask Elliot Spitzer?

[Aabby]

Here comes the Anti-Science, not-so-smart crowd.

[quindy]

The money would have been better spent if they had instructors go from high school to high school and demonstrate the proper use of condoms.

[sunnybunny]

I think the purpose was to address the issues of why people who know where to get them, know how to use them, and understand the reasons for using them - don't use them. They actually have reasons and unless we respectfully address those reasons, we have people continuing not to use them who need to and that can create problems. (There are a variety of physical, cultural and emotional reasons why people might not like to use condoms)

[SoccerNana]

Why is this article featured in the "style" section and placed between an article about the Obamas' children and the White House Social Secretary?

What does condoms, in any form, have to do with style?

[ChelseaC]

I think condoms have to do with life "style" choices.
Indeed, I did wonder the same thing--but look at it this way, ice cream
and sex go well together..­..........­..........­..at least that's what I've heard :)

[FreedomTruth]

Why is the government allowing this?.Its a waste of money.

[RobinSeattle]

What's funny is that conservatives will get exercised over a few hundred thousand dollars studying condom use (which I agree is silly) while they cheer on the F-22 program that the Pentagon says it doesn't need while costing BILLIONS.
http://www.examiner.com/x-4120-Minneapolis-Progressive-Examiner~y2009m3d6-F22-Raptor-is-epitome-of-US-government-waste

Salient quote:

“no-bid contracts accounted for 40 percent of the Pentagon’s business.”

[jozinha]

Um... give me the half mil. It will be spent wiser.

[Artos]

When they can make a condom that doesn't have a three percent failure rate listed on the box for it then maybe they will actually be useful. That's one reason right there, and secondly, there is nothing to compare to the feel of the real deal.

[1differentdrummer]

Woww, 97% effective is too low? How about a backup protection? Is any system of birth control 100%? Of course, no one needs to fear herpes or other STDs so who needs condoms? Of course now, you could use the Palin Plan. Oh, never mind.

[Artos]

Hey dippy, I had a vasectomy when I was 32 and I'm 57 now, so are ya happy now or what.

[b93950]

I wonder how many responses one would get if they said that their main objection to condoms is that they just are not big enough.

[PresidentRobertBooth]

***I think I heard that they are close to announcing a birth control pill for men?***

VIAG-NO?

[liarsclub75]

LOL. This BC for men has been talked about since the 70's. There was one in the 90's that was a shot in the leg. Not sure how effective it was.

[PresidentRobertBooth]

I would support a birth control pill for men too, but on one condition.

If we take it, women should offer us more sex.


I think that's only fair.

[boomer1949]

Why? Did they bother to ask women?

Surely this study was approved by someone in the last administration. Puhleeeeze.

[glockman]

Half a mil? I could have told them for free.

It's all about the feel....

[chitown8]

I would have told them for the 500K. Ain't the Free Market grand.

[glockman]

True, but then I would have undercut and bid $250,000.

[AbstractionAction]

I don't get the view that this is a waste of money. If you want to get real about reducing abortions, you need to look at the REAL LIFE REASONS why people do not use the contraceptives available. Men don't like condoms, so we need to figure out why, so that we can create something that will be more readily accepted. Any opposition to this is probably the same mentality as that of the abstinence-only crowd.



For the record: I don't mind condoms, but my lady HATES them. So that should definitely be part of the study.

[flapjack]

WE KNOW WHY! You do not have to spend a single penny to understand this -- unless you are a woman or a man that has never worn a condom.

[epitomized]

The pill is one easy way to avoid pregnancy, thus abortion.

I think I heard that they are close to announcing a birth control pill for men?

[ChelseaC]

What an utter waste of money!!!!
Good grief!!!!

[PrehensileOne]

The grant went to Indiana University, and encompassed more than the headline indicates. Indiana University employs tax-paying Americans who buy goods and services in Indiana from other tax payers. If you can get the money to go around the economy a couple times before shipping it off to China, then the net cost is a lot less. Compare that to paying an Iraqi contractor $500K to rebuild some piece of infrastructure we spent millions to destroy, or just mailing people cash to buy consumer goods. Not all spending dollars are created equal, and it's possible to get less than nothing in return.

[flapjack]

What a silly argument.

Your view is we should just hand out money for any rediculous reason just because the beneficiaries are tax payers? The best use of this money would have been to leave it in the hands of its righful owners -- the taxpayers.

[larissa68]

As much as this is a wasted study, how ironic is it that they're not asking women about their choices?

Hmmm.