Condoms are designed with two issues in mind; to protect the user against STDs and pregnancy, while at the same time minimizing the loss of sensation during penetration. If manufacturers had their way, condoms would ideally be a great deal thicker than they are now to effectively prevent sperm and disease transfer - condoms would be easier to design manufacture. This, however, conflicts directly with the goal of maximizing sensation during sex. To attain an acceptable equilibrium, manufacturers design condoms to be as thin as can be achieved while the requirements of strength are maintained.
Because human volunteers cannot be made, in all ethical sense, to test condoms in high-risk situations, ‘empty-condom’ tests are carried out to ensure a minimum standard of quality is maintained.
There are usually six common methods used in condom testing; air burst tests, tensile property tests, dimension tests, leakage tests, package integrity tests and lubricant quantity tests. Other methods include testing the endurance of the latex used to make condoms, a highly degradable material, especially when exposed to oil (like vegetable oil) and heat.
The air burst test involves pumping air into the condom until it bursts. The amount of air that the condom is able to contain without before it breaks is used as a measure of the condom’s strength.
The tensile test measures the elasticity of the condom, and includes cutting a band of latex from the condom shaft and stretching it until it breaks.
The dimension test measures the length, thickness and width of the condom, ensuring that all properties meet standardized requirements.
Leakage tests are divided into two methods, the dry test and the wet test. In a dry test, the condom is placed on a penis-shaped metal bar and given a small charge of electricity. Intact condoms do not allow electricity to pass through them. In a wet test, the condom is put into a water-based solution in which electric currents are passed to ensure there are no holes in the body of the condom.
Testing standards vary according to country.
Package integrity tests have resulted in several regulatory organizations requiring that all condoms be packaged in foil, which prevents condoms from degrading quickly, as opposed to condoms packaged in plastic. The final package seals are also tested by applying stress to them. Lubrication, which is also present within a condom package, has also been found to slow condom deterioration.
In 2005, the non profit Consumers Union tested the seven top condom brands used in the United States for strength and reliability. Durex Extra Sensitive Lubricated Latex was found to be the most durable. Other top-performers included Durex Performax Lubricated, Lifestyles Ultra Sensitive Lubricated and Viva TheyFit Lubricated. (Reuters)
Encouraging statistics show that the risk of contracting STDs is as low as 17 percent when using a condom. This also means sex with a condom is over 10,000 times safer in terms of preventing HIV transmission than unprotected sex. Short of avoiding sex altogether, the math is simple: effectively, condoms are the only type of contraception method that also prevents the spread of STDs, including HIV. Odds are that, given the risks involved, you might definitely want to reconsider the next time you think about having unprotected sex.

RapeX is an anti-rape female condom invented by a South African woman named Sonette Ehlers. As a former employee with the South African Blood Transfusion Service, she treated many rape victims which served as her inspiration for creating this device. RapeX is a female condom that is inserted into the vagina much like a tampon. It is made of latex, like a normal condom, but it is lined with “shafts of sharp, inward-facing barbs.” If a man attempts to rape a woman, once he penetrates the woman, the condom would attach itself to the penis and cause severe pain to the man during withdrawal. Ideally, once the man is writhing on the floor, the woman would have enough time to escape the scene. In addition, the perpetrator would be unable to remove the female condom from his penis; he would have to get it surgically removed which would be a tell-tale sign to authorities and help in legal prosecution.

In all honesty, before learning the statistics of rape and AIDS victims in South Africa, I would not have even believed this type of device existed, nor would I have seen any reason for it to exist; however, knowing the horrific conditions that exist over there, I would donate money to any woman who lived there and wanted to invest in this type of device. In the Frequently Asked Questions section of her website Ehlers advises that women wear RapeX if “you have to travel long distances alone, on a train, working late, going out on a date with someone you don’t know too well, going to clubs, or in any situation that you might not feel comfortable or even just not sure.”

Of course, a device like this is not without its critics. Lisa Vetten from the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation in South Africa states, “It is like we are going back to the days where women were forced to wear chastity belts. It is a terrifying thought that women are being made to adapt to rape by wearing these devices … Women would have to wear this every minute of their lives on the off-chance that they would be raped.” Ehlers responds, “As with everything in life there will be negative attitudes and I can’t be responsible for people who refuse to educate men and feel the device is medieval. A medieval device for a medieval deed!”

When it comes to protecting oneself from sexually transmitted disease, especially from HIV, you would imagine that if one was fully educated in all the various ways of protection, they would do everything in their power to use whatever combinations of protection they could. Unfortunately, this is not always the case, even with those sexually active who are knowledgeable about protection. Findings from a study done by researchers at Brown University and The Miriam Hospital show those women who are not in monogamous relationships but who are sexually active and have used protection in the past are those candidates more likely to use microbicides. Microbicides are any substances that are applied to help prevent the spreading of a virus (in this case, a gel used to prevent HIV infection). At this date, there are no microbicides on the market that have been proven to prevent HIV although many have been created and are going through the process of clinical trials.

Lead researcher Kathleen Morrow states that while the findings may seem obvious, “they are important because science has very little direct evidence of what characteristics and situations in women’s lives would make them more likely to want to use a microbicide to prevent HIV infection.” She goes on to say that even if a microbicide was proven to be effective in preventing HIV infection, if a woman felt that it diminished the sexual experience or was too difficult to use, that woman would choose not to use it, despite the obvious benefits. Along with Morrow, researchers devised a scale called “Willingness to Use Microbicides.” This scale was a questionnaire which was administered to over 500 women hailing from New York, Rhode Island, Connecticut and Massachusetts. These women were all between the ages of 18 and 55, not currently pregnant, not infected with HIV (or status unknown) and sexually active within the year. Examples of questions include whether or not the woman would have used a microbicide in her most current sexual encounter if one had been available and whether or not a woman would buy a microbicide if its cost was comparable to that of a condom. Many variables were considered including household income, race, condom and spermicide usage and number of partners, to name a few. 

The study showed those women who frequently used condoms and/or spermicide in the past as well as those women who did not have one single partner were more likely to use the microbicide, if available. Morrow states, “How a woman defines or labels her sexual partnership appears to have an impact on her decision-making process with regard to protecting herself from HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases.” The researchers made an interesting observation that many women who were currently in monogamous relationships did not perceive a need to use extra protection; however, it is a known fact that around the world, women who contract HIV are more likely to get it from the man they feel is their monogamous sexual partner (in most cases, a husband). Because of this, Morrow suggests that it is crucial all women, including those women who are in “monogamous” relationships, be educated on the different prevention methods they can use. Morrow and her colleagues wish to further refine the study to include more variables as well as a more diverse and global study base.