snopes.com

snopes.com (http://message.snopes.com/index.php)
-   NFBSK (http://message.snopes.com/forumdisplay.php?f=20)
-   -   Lifestyles condoms kill gays (http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=44573)

snopes 13 April 2009 03:27 PM

Lifestyles condoms kill gays
 
Comment: I've been told that when challenged by the issue that the brand
"LifeStyles" condoms had a higher percentage of breakage when used during
anal intercourse, an executive representative for the corporation gave a
flippant, unconcerned response that indicated the company didn't really
care, as that would only serve to further the deaths of gays, and that was
of no concern to them. I do find this a bit hard to believe, if for no
other reason than it would stand to reason that most companies should
recognize, that, despite whatever their own personal perspectives on any
given subject matter may be, it's certainly not good business to alienate
a large portion of their demographic. I've found no evidence to support
the rumor, and, while I'm sure such a thing wouldn't have been widely
publicized, I can't even find anything to support there ever was a rumor
to such an effect.

A Turtle Named Mack 13 April 2009 04:02 PM

Let's see - bad business to alienate a segment of the community which is urged to use a condom every time they have sex. Really bad business to be flippant about your product not giving the protection that so many people use them primarily for (i.e. disease prevention, as opposed to birth control purposes, for which gay couples have no concern and hetero couples ought to be using a backup' method as well anyway), which could turn really bad liability claims into really bad liability claims with enormous punitive damages.

soooo - can executives be that stupid? Yes. likely in this instance - no.

Canuckistan 13 April 2009 04:06 PM

I find this incredibly hard to believe, if only because more gays = more sales of condoms = more profit.

But it's possible that the Lifestyles CEO is a member of the Church of Satan, so I could be wrong here.

vanilla 13 April 2009 04:10 PM

Waaay off topic: I have to admit that my first thought after reading the thread title was of the German horror flick Killer Condom. A condom with teeth. :lol:

Canuckistan 13 April 2009 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vanilla (Post 928746)
Waaay off topic: I have to admit that my first thought after reading the thread title was of the German horror flick Killer Condom. A condom with teeth.

That was an appalling movie. So bad, it is, in fact, good. :lol:

Bryan With a 'Y' 13 April 2009 04:29 PM

And of course, the obligatory observation that anal intercourse isn't the only sexual behavior gay men engage in, nor are they the only ones who do engage in it.

vanilla 13 April 2009 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canuckistan (Post 928768)
That was an appalling movie. So bad, it is, in fact, good. :lol:

I only wish I had gotten to see all of it beofre my Tivo deleted it. I don't think I have laughed so hard at a movie before. :lol:

"Don't use that one, it has a hole in it." said the Cop to Babette after he shot the discarded condom. :lol:

purpleiguana 13 April 2009 08:18 PM

Flaws with the comment in the OP:

Homosexuals aren't the only ones who participate in anal sex.
Not all homosexuals participate in anal sex.
A condom doesn't know what hole it's been put into.


I could maybe see that components in certain lubricants more commonly used in anal sex might weaken a condom more than KY jelly (or generic knock-offs), but that would be a condom + lubricant = breakage scenario more than it would be a condom + anal sex = breakage scenario.

geminilee 13 April 2009 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by purpleiguana (Post 929049)
Flaws with the comment in the OP:

Homosexuals aren't the only ones who participate in anal sex.
Not all homosexuals participate in anal sex.
A condom doesn't know what hole it's been put into.


I could maybe see that components in certain lubricants more commonly used in anal sex might weaken a condom more than KY jelly (or generic knock-offs), but that would be a condom + lubricant = breakage scenario more than it would be a condom + anal sex = breakage scenario.

The first two are certainly flaws. The last one, though... a condom might not know what hole it is in, but it does know how much resistance or friction that hole generates. Anal sex in general may be more likely to tear a condom because of the amount of resistance, and where the resistance is (mostly around the entrance as opposed to evenly distributed.

Canuckistan 13 April 2009 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by geminilee (Post 929059)
The first two are certainly flaws. The last one, though... a condom might not know what hole it is in, but it does know how much resistance or friction that hole generates. Anal sex in general may be more likely to tear a condom because of the amount of resistance, and where the resistance is (mostly around the entrance as opposed to evenly distributed.

Maybe, but I think purpleiguana's point is that the condom doesn't know whether it's gay or straight anal sex. Which goes to the OP.

geminilee 13 April 2009 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canuckistan (Post 929080)
Maybe, but I think purpleiguana's point is that the condom doesn't know whether it's gay or straight anal sex. Which goes to the OP.

I thought the point of that part was vaginal vs. anal sex, especially considering this line.
Quote:

but that would be a condom + lubricant = breakage scenario more than it would be a condom + anal sex = breakage scenario.
I was just pointing out how condoms + anal sex could lead to breakage more often, even using the same lube.

Canuckistan 13 April 2009 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by geminilee (Post 929086)
I thought the point of that part was vaginal vs. anal sex, especially considering this line.

I was just pointing out how condoms + anal sex could lead to breakage more often, even using the same lube.

But the which hole it's being put into could also refer to male or female. Miss iguana, which did you mean? Please put an end to this neverending feud!

crescent 13 April 2009 09:29 PM

They could be confusing spermacide with different brands of condom - spermicide kills HIV, but can also irritate, um, delicate areas ... inside. That increases the chances that HIV could be passed onto the partner. It seems like the use of spermacidal lubricant can slightly increase the chance of getting HIV.

purpleiguana 14 April 2009 01:36 AM

I actually meant vagina vs. anus. And while the anus does have the ole' double sphincter thing going for it, that doesn't necessarily mean that it would offer more resistance. I would imagine that folks who regularly partake of anal sex would be pretty good at relaxation techniques.

Ramblin' Dave 14 April 2009 06:05 AM

I heard a similar UL about Trojans back in the early '90s. Supposedly the company's owner said he wished gays would stop using his products so that they'd all die of AIDS or some such. As is usually the case with such stories, nobody ever seemed to know when he had said that, or even his name for that matter.

geminilee 14 April 2009 06:18 AM

I retract my claim* that condoms may break more often during anal sex. There is a greater risk of them slipping off with anal sex, but not a greater breakage rate. Or at least:
Quote:

Men having
sex with men reported slightly higher slippage rates than those having sex with women.
I think they are using all vaginal penetration for their "sex with women" data, because I really doubt that a condom can tell a male ass from a female one.

I was working from the conclusion, and logically deducing how it could be true. I should know by now to always check first to see if it is true.

purpleiguana 14 April 2009 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by geminilee (Post 929413)
I retract my claim* that condoms may break more often during anal sex. There is a greater risk of them slipping off with anal sex, but not a greater breakage rate.

See, now THAT, I buy.

Cowboy Joe 14 April 2009 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canuckistan (Post 929080)
Maybe, but I think purpleiguana's point is that the condom doesn't know whether it's gay or straight anal sex. Which goes to the OP.

Which is exactly why is is high time our nation funded research into smart condoms.

Canuckistan 14 April 2009 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cowboy Joe (Post 929665)
Which is exactly why is is high time our nation funded research into smart condoms.

Nuh-uh. Did you see the link to the movie that vanilla posted? That's inevitably what would happen. All the smart condoms would come back to bite off our willies! :eek:

BamaRainbow 14 April 2009 03:30 PM

I'm a bit curious. When did the condom manufacturers start doing massive testing of their products for anal intercourse?
Most condom manufacturers have notices on the packages advising that "any use for other than vaginal intercourse can increase the potential of damage to the condom". Seriously, outside the major metro areas which have large gay populations, I'd think the average condom-buyer would have to make do with regular condoms (or do mail order which can run into some big dollars).


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:17 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.