Dutch Men Need Bigger Condoms…

Dodge, B., Reece, M., Herbenick, D., & Schick, V. (2010). Experiences of Condom Fit and Feel Among Men in Five European Nations International Journal of Men’s Health, 9 (3), 175-183 DOI: 10.3149/jmh.0903.175

‘Barebacking’, anal sex without the use of condoms, is on the increase. There is a culture among some Australian homosexuals to ‘bug-chase’, and to ‘gift give’. The former seek solidarity with other homosexuals who have contracted AIDS/HIV, the latter, having a twisted sense of benevolence, desire to impart it’ (21 Reasons Why Gender Matters, 2007, p.18).

The subject of wearing, or not wearing condoms is most contentious when discussed in the light of choices gay men make to engage either in safe, protected sex, or comparatively unsafe, barebacking. For example, Grov et al. (2010, pp.940-941) report that gay men are more likely than straight men to engage in sexually compulsive behaviours and therefore from that, one might deduce that unprotected anal sex would be one such compulsive behaviour. I see difficulty in that sweeping ‘gay men as sex addicts’ argument, insofar as there are multiple variables at work here, from the stray thought in that instant rush of passion to some defiant decision to take a stand against the overbearing, HIV/AIDS medical orthodoxy. Moreover, condom usage can present problems for men regardless of their sexuality: too big, too small, slipping off, leaking, breaking, diminishing sensitivity, killing erections, etc…

‘Negative attitudes to condoms are not uncommon. Men who have difficulty maintaining erections with condoms, especially while on drugs, have been found to be more likely to engage in UAI [unprotected anal intercourse] (Halkitis and Parsons, 2003). Men who have a clear intention to have safe sex prior to sex tend to be more likely to use condoms (Prestage et al, 2009c).Gold and Rosenthal (1998) discuss ‘on-line’ and ‘off-line’ thinking to describe how men make decisions in the ‘heat of the moment’, or more rationally when they are not under pressure. Often men describe an emotional barrier which condoms represented to them (Dowsett et al, 2008) giving them cause to reconsider using them and in some cases, abandon them‘ (The PASH Study, 2009, p.11).

In this article, Dodge et al. (2010), produced a survey sample of 2,350 men (p.178) in five European countries (France, Germany, the Netherlands, Germany, Slovenia, and Spain), and asked them about their condom ‘fit and feel’ (p.175) experiences. By completing, online, the appropriately named, ‘Condom Fit and Feel Scale’ (2010, p.179), these participants were able to impart such useful gems as ‘too loose, too tight, too long…too short’ or ‘fit fine’ (p.179, pp.180-181). While the majority of participants fell into the latter-mentioned category, some from the Netherlands and some from Slovenia previously had, for markedly different reasons, gripes with the product. (2010, p.179). In brief, Dutch men were most likely to complain that condoms had, on occasions, felt too tight or fitted too short, and Slovenian men, that condoms had felt too loose or fitted too long (2010, pp.179-180).

Does this nation-to-nation disparity reflect varying standards of sexual health literacy (2010, pp.176 & 181)? or

Is it simply the fact that Dutch men, on average, are way more hung than their Slovenian counterparts are?

Of more interest to me in this study were the responses given by participants to questions about their sexual experiences over the preceding three months (2010, pp.178-179)…

• 76.2% (n=1584) had engaged in sexual intercourse with a woman
  • 56.2% (n=1168) had used a condom
  • 74.2% (n=155) had engaged in vaginal intercourse
  • 19.5% (n=405) had engaged in anal intercourse
  • 52.6% (n=1092) had engaged in vaginal intercourse, no condom
  • 10.7% (n=251) had engaged in anal intercourse, no condom
• 17.7% (n=366) had engaged in sexual intercourse with a man
  • 11.9% (n=246) had used a condom
  • 10.3% (n=214) had engaged in receptive anal intercourse
  • 13.2% (n=272) had engaged in insertive anal intercourse
  • 3.9% (n=81) had engaged in receptive anal intercourse, no condom
  • 4.4% (n=91) had engaged in insertive anal intercourse, no condom

I note that across that same three month period, although 61.7% (n=1449) of participants stated that they had been in a ‘sexual relationship with only one person’ (2010, p.178), 16% (n=377) had two or more sexual partners (2010, p.178).

The above statistics demonstrate that unprotected sex between participants and women, and participants and men, was relatively common. Unfortunately, the data in this study does not chunk down far enough for me to be able to discern the precise sexual behaviours of those 2,350 participants. Why so many engaged in potentially unsafe, unprotected vaginal or anal sex is a question not answered here (2010, pp.178-179). Regardless, these findings provide further impetus for the need to recognise that whenever we discuss problems associated with condom usage, we should avoid casting homo- or heterosexuality as critical, determinative factors. Moreover, while there can be deep and meaningful reasons for why any man chooses not to wear a condom there can also be, as in this study, some stupendously straightforward reasons like, the pesky little thing is too big, or too small…

Please note…

This study by Dodge et al. (2010) was made possible through the support of Condomerie Amsterdam…