 If you or your partner has a latex allergy, then you probably already know about non-latex condoms. Non-latex condoms offer a host of advantages over their latex cousins. Should you be using them, even if you don’t have a latex allergy? Years ago, non-latex meant lambskin condoms, also called natural skin or natural membrane condoms. Yes, they really are made of lambskin, specifically from lamb intestines. While they don’t cause problems to people with latex allergies, they don’t protect against sexually transmitted diseases, either. The new alternative to latex is polyurethane. Polyurethane condoms are available in both male and female varieties. According to the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, there are at least five good reasons to prefer polyurethane male condoms to latex. They’re thinner, stronger, resist deterioration better, have a less constricting fit, and may enhance sensitivity. In other words, polyurethane male condoms feel more natural than latex. A word about the less constricting fit: while a "looser" fit may be more comfortable, it may also be less safe. The less constricting fit allows for a greater possibility of exchanging body fluids. Polyurethane is better than latex at transferring body heat, which is part of what makes it feel more natural. Another reason to like polyurethane: because it’s not latex, it doesn’t smell like latex. One study of non-latex condoms reported that "substantial proportions of participants" preferred them over latex and would recommend them to others. Pick up a box of Trojan’s polyurethane line, Trojan Supra, and you’ll find a warning label: "The risks of pregnancy and Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs), including AIDS (HIV infection), are not known for this condom." That label is required by the FDA, which requires extensive testing on non-latex condoms. It’s true that because polyurethane condoms have only been available in the U.S. since the 1990s, their effectiveness has not yet been studied as extensively as that of latex condoms. This doesn’t necessarily mean that polyurethane condoms don’t protect against STDs. The female polyurethane condom (sold under the name Reality), has been tested for effectiveness against HIV and hepatitis B. It was found to reduce the risk of these STDs by 97.1%. By comparison, male latex condoms have been shown to be up to 99% effective in preventing HIV transmission with consistent, perfect use. Despite the warning label’s strict wording, though, polyurethane male condoms are generally thought to reduce the risk of pregnancy as well as latex condoms. One study found that the EZ-On brand of male condom was less effective as contraception than its latex counterpart. It’s unclear, though, whether that difference was because the condom was made of polyurethane or because of its unusual design (it doesn’t roll on like typical condoms). The female polyurethane condom is thought to be about 95% effective in preventing pregnancy if used properly. Its big disadvantage is that some women have trouble inserting it properly. It’s also fairly expensive, about $3 per condom. And you can’t use a male condom as a back-up when using a female condom. Male polyurethane condoms are also typically more expensive than latex, about $1.50 per condom. Polyurethane condoms do have their advantages. They’re a good alternative for couples who have latex allergy issues. Their more natural feel makes them a good choice for monogamous couples who aren’t concerned with their STD risk. However, they are more expensive and haven’t been on the market as long as latex condoms. Research on polyurethane condoms is ongoing, and until the results are in, it can’t be said for certain that they protect against STDs as well as latex condoms. Sources Church & Dwight Virginia Co., Inc. Trojan Supra Microsheer Polyurethane condom packaging. "Effectiveness of male latex condoms in protecting against pregnancy and sexuality transmitted infections," June 2000. www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs243/en/index.html Family Health International. The Latex Condom: Recent Advances, Future Directions, "Chapter 7: The Development of Non-Latex Condoms," 2007. www.fhi.org/en/RH/Pubs/booksReports/latex condom/nonlatexcon.htm Gallo, M.F., Grimes, D. A., and Schulz, K. F. "Non-latex versus latex male condoms for contraception," 2003. www.sexuality.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=sexuality&cdn=health&tm=168&gps=4 SIECUS (Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States). "The Truth About Condoms," 2004. http://65.36.238.42/pubs/fact/fact0011.html Silverberg, Cory. "Choosing a Non Latex Condom," June 10, 2006. www.sexuality.about.com/od/contraceptionprofiles/a/nonlatexcondoms.htm Silverberg, Cory. "Latex versus Non Latex Condoms," October 30, 2006. www.sexuality.about.com/od/contraception/a/latexfreecondom.htm © 2008 Erin O'Riordan Image: Avert.org Erin O'Riordan's fiction, essays and articles have appeared in webzines such as Clean Sheets, The Erotic Woman and Oysters & Chocolate. Recently, her work has been accepted by Playgirl (June 2008 issue) and the anthologies Love Bites (Torquere Press) and The Mammoth Book of Erotic Confessions (Carroll & Graf). Visit her online at aeess.com |
