This Instructable explains how to properly put on a condom, where you can get condoms (for free and for purchase), and a little bit of background info on condoms for those who would like to know a bit more about them.

The entire process is shown on a foam model that was borrowed from a professional sexual educator. As a result, this Instructable contains no inappropriate photos, and is safe for anyone to view. That being said, I'll still give the following warning:

***This Instructable contains information of a sexual nature. While this information is publicly available in middle school classrooms, at local health centers, and at sexual health websites on the internet, the author recognizes that some may believe that this knowledge may not be suitable for all audiences. If you are offended by the subject of sexual health, then please, cease reading this Instructable and navigate to another website so that those who wish to view this information may do so.***

Step 1: Condoms 101

Rather then sift through the broken pieces of fact intertwined with fiction in my head that I can remember from my days in sex ed class, I'll take most of the background information on condoms from the World Health Organization's document The Male Latex Condom, Planned Parenthood's page Condoms, Wikipedia's entry on Condoms and from the links and references contained in those documents.

Definition and usage

A condom is a device designed to prevent the passage of fluids between individuals during sexual intercourse. It provides a barrier that physically blocks the transmission of semen during intercourse. Condoms are used to prevent pregnancy and transmission of sexually transmitted diseases. 1

Condoms have been used for over 500 years. In the early twentieth century, with the invention of disposable latex condoms, they became one of the most popular methods of contraception. 2 Condoms are now used during sexual intercourse and other sexual activities where and individual or more than one individuals require an effective protective barrier between themselves and something else.

Because condoms are waterproof, highly elastic, and very durable, they are also used in a variety of unconventional applications. See below for examples:

Knit Condom
Condom Ecosphere
Novel Use for a Condom
Condom Light Party
Dual Waterproof Consumer Electronics - the condom
Creative Discontent: Part 2

Condom materials

Most condoms are made from latex, but some are made from other materials such as lamb intestines (called lamb skin condoms) or polyurethane. Lamb skin condoms prevent the transmission of semen during sexual intercourse, but do not adequately protect against sexually transmitted diseases.


As a method of contraception, male condoms have the advantage of being inexpensive, easy to use, having few side-effects, and of offering protection against sexually transmitted diseases. With proper knowledge and application technique, and use at every act of intercourse, users of male condoms experience a 2% per-year pregnancy rate. 3, 4

The most frequently cited condom effectiveness rate is for typical use, which includes perfect and imperfect use (i.e. not used at every act of intercourse, or used incorrectly). The pregnancy rate during typical use can be much higher (10-14%) than for perfect use, but this is due primarily to inconsistent and incorrect use, not to condom failure. Condom failure, the device breaking or slipping off completely during intercourse is uncommon. 5

Disease prevention

Laboratory studies have found that viruses (including HIV) do not pass through intact latex condoms even when devices are stretched or stressed.

In Thailand, the promotion by the government of 100% condom use by commercial sex workers led to a dramatic increase in the use of condoms (from 14% in 1990 to 94% in 1994); an equally dramatic decline in the nation-wide numbers of bacterial STD cases (from 410,406 cases in 1997 to 27,362 cases in 1994); and reduced HIV prevalence in Thai soldiers.

The most convincing data on the effectiveness of condoms in preventing HIV infection has been generated by prospective studies undertaken on serodiscordant couples, when one partner is infected with HIV and the other is not. These studies show that, with consistent condom use, the HIV infection rate among uninfected partners was less than 1 percent per year. Also, in situations where one partner is definitely infected, inconsistent condom use can be as risky as not using condoms at all. 6

Allergy to latex condoms

Latex allergies are very rare among the general population. While 1-2 billion condoms are used per year in the USA, the FDA only received 44 reports of allergic reactions associated with condom use between October 1988 and end of 1991. The Centers for Disease Control estimate that the population risk of an allergic reaction to latex is 0.08% and the nature of the reaction tends to be very mild. Concerns about latex allergies should not inhibit sexually active people who are at risk of exposure to pregnancy and STDs using condoms, since the risks associated with unprotected sexual contact are far greater than those from exposure to latex.

Sexual Education
(why this Instructable is important)

One argument used against condom education and condom distribution programs is that providing condoms and condom education will increase condom use among teens and those groups targeted with the education programs. Many feel that condom distribution and education is a "license to have sex" especially for teens. Studies are surveys about the subject prove otherwise.

  • Five U.S. studies of specific sex education programs have demonstrated that HIV education and sex education that included condom information either had no effect upon the initiation of intercourse or resulted in delayed onset of intercourse.
  • Five studies of specific programs found that HIV/sex education did not increase frequency of intercourse, and a program that included development of skills to negotiate safer sexual behaviors actually resulted in a decrease in the number of youth who initiated sex.
  • A World Health Organization (WHO) review cited 19 studies of sex education programs that found no evidence that sex education leads to earlier or increased sexual activity in young people. In fact, five of the studies cited by WHO showed that such programs can lead to a delay or decrease in sexual activity.
  • In a recent study of youth in Los Angeles, an HIV prevention program focusing on condom use did not increase sexual activity or the number of sex partners. But condom use did increase among those who were already sexually active.

The data is clear and plentiful. Condom education is effective in decreasing STDs and HIV and did not give teens "a license to have sex" as opponents claim.


(Any information included in this step that is not cited below came from the the World Health Organization's document - The Male Latex Condom.)

[1] Condom. Planned Parenthood (April 2004). Retrieved on 11/19/2007.
[2] A History of Birth Control Methods Planned Parenthood (June 2002). Retrieved on 7/5/2006.
[3] Hatcher, RA; Trussel J, Stewart F, et al (2000). Contraceptive Technology, 18th Edition, New York: Ardent Media. ISBN 0-9664902-6-6.
[4] Wikipedia entry on condoms Retrieved on 2/26/2008.
[5] Effectiveness of male latex condoms in protecting against pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections The World Health Organization. Retrieved on 2/26/2008.
[6] Ibid.
I really love how New York City has its own official condom. I always thought a city with a more "progressive" reputation, like San Francisco, would be the first to do something like that, but as far as I know New York is the only city to actually have this kind of program. This leads to wonderful tidbits on a .gov site like: -Don't use two condoms at the same time to cover the penis—it can make the condoms slip off or break. -Change to a new condom if you have prolonged vigorous and/or anal sex -(If a condom breaks) Do not douche the vagina or anus. -You can urinate if the break occurs during vaginal sex. (I really hope they mean after the sex is over)
Yeah, the urinating thing is nasty but it is an effective last attempt at making sure you dont get pregnant (naturally washing the semen out).
Actually, I don't think it washes it out, but I think that the acidity kills it instead... but effective nonetheless.
Now, from what I've HEARD, it's pretty close to impossible to pee while you have an erection. That being said, I don't think any matter of trying to wash out the sperm will do you much good. Once an egg is fertilized, the damage is done. That's why you're supposed to use spermicidal jelly, birth control in addition to condoms, etc. If all else really fails, there's emergency contraception, which still isn't a sure thing.
Hi I agree with you 100%. It is impossible to pee since the "erection" which is done by the stretching or swelling of 3 individual muscles: corpus cavernosum (2) and corpus spongiosum "shuts" or constricts the ureter and although some guys can urinate (so I've heard and not very many), I assume its got to be extremely painful. Unfortunately, I disagree with the contraception methods "after" pregnancy I'm Pro Life. Everyone should assume their responsibility, although every person is a different universe.
It takes me an incredible amount of restraint not to point out the chauvinistic belief of pro-lifers, or their belief in a bible rewritten by a raving, serial-murdering lunatic....<br/><br/>Despite that the option to have a baby is a responsibility, there is another responsibility not to have one. Pregnancy does not occur during coitus, it occurs at conception, consciousness does not occur at the instant of conception (it is unclear as to exactly when, but observed results show that it is plausible once the fetus can respond to external stimulus), and life has already occurred before the man and woman meet before coitus.<br/><br/>Life in the uterus occurs every 28 days, only to be allowed to persist upon conception...So by definition, simply menstruating is murder (as it is the female body performing it's own abortion of an unfertilized egg), and all women of birthing age shall be jailed and crucified....Imagine the 12-14 year old girls flooding the jail system for murder....I'm sure it is the will of God to stone teenage girls to death for menstruating. <br/><br/>I'd rather abort a baby that could not be supported or cared for properly, than force it to grow up and live without all the care a child needs for natural development. Sex is part of the bonding between a male and female human that THEN leads to a coupling, not the other way around.<br/><br/>Per observed fact in the animal kingdom, the predisposition of the male of the mammalian species to &quot;spread his seed as widely as possible&quot; is nature at work. A persistently unwilling female is given up upon in search for one more &quot;receptive&quot; one. Humans are the only animal that will feel the need to believe an extensively-rewritten and loosely-translated book of the greatest story ever told, over their natural impulses inherited genetically, at least some are in touch with their nature, anyway.<br/><br/>While I don't believe in abortion when past the first trimester, it is more a sin to force the child to live in a way where it can't have a good life. &quot;Love thy children&quot; means knowing when to let go, even if you have to let go just after conception. This is not to say that I, nor any pro-choice person thinks that a woman should use abortion instead of birth-control, but even birth-control fails now and again, so in such instances, or instances of rape, a woman should not be forced to raise an unplanned child, regardless of what Jerry Falwell says (have you seen his corporate jet?).<br/><br/>Oops, I did it again.....I brought facts that confront the pro-life belief, despite knowing there is no way to educate the incorrigible. I'm leaving this alone now, as I have a condition that forces me to make sense, and hostile to televangelistic hate-speech under the cover of a religious overtone to appear &quot;family-oriented&quot;, loving, caring, and honest........because women are obviously not capable of making their own decisions.....<br/><br/>Sorry, you didn't spew hate-speech, but you triggered memories of all the hate-speech and homicidal actions of pro-lifers on the unfortunate. I couldn't stop myself...Pro-Life = Anti-Choice = Socialism. G.W. Bush's line, &quot;Life begins at contraception&quot; (no typo there, exact words) just fuels my hatred of willful ignorance, because so many turn a blind-eye to anything that does not adhere to *their* truth.....some call it &quot;blind faith&quot;, others call it a passive-obsessive disorder. I call it &quot;a refusal to challenge one's own beliefs for the sake of pride in one's self-importance and elitism&quot;....<br/><br/>Believe what you will, I'm fine with that, but &quot;pro-life&quot; is as offensive a slur to me as simply mentioning the Aryan Nation movement, because their methods are so congruent.<br/>
Dear Prometheus. I join this instructable because I like to learn new things. Sorry you had a bad experience, however; I don't want to deviate this valuable website to something I am NOT interested in talking nor pursuing. Mine was a simple comment, sorry if it offended you, it was not ment to do so. By the way... life does not occur in the uterus every 28 days "ovulation does" which is a "Potential for Life" first it needs to be fecundated. Pedro Martinez MD PRO LIFE
<p>Not hard for me to see where Prometheus was going, because it's something I also wondered about the religious beliefs. To some (many) sperm is life and a male who has a nocturnal ejaculation has committed a sin. These same persons also believe an ovum is life. In both cases they don't say potential life, the positively assert both are life. I believe it's correct that an unfertilized ovum is flushed out of a women's body during menstruation, but a women isn't considered a sinner because because she didn't conceive wasting one of a limited supply of ovum. Not that I saying they should be called such, nor that a women is to insure she become pregnant at every opportunity, but it's representative of hypocracy of some the part of the right to life faction.</p>
This whole thread has sort of gone off on a tangent, but since all the participants seem to be well informed and good tempered, I see no reason why it shouldn't keep going. <br/><br/>If you feel that ovulation is just the potential for life, what does fertilization change about that? The cell / cells are just one step closer, but two cells are still a far cry from being a living breathing human being. <br/><br/>In my opinion there are many <strong>many</strong> things required after fertilization, before the blob of cells can be considered a human.<br/>
My overall opinion, and not disputing your point because you make sense, unlike the liberal religious-right who are clearly offended by truth unlike their own here.<br/><br/>I thought science was blasphemy against God, what are religious nutjobs doing here if they are not unfaithful sinners against the word of God that they believe to be the absolute truth? Perhaps religious zealousy, a sin against the speculation of man, that the &quot;absolute faith&quot; of the faithful failed to cover because they did not have a book to give them a set of guidelines on how to live in tolerance....or a higher power to seek guidance from.....oh wait....Some call that a bible.....Too bad evangelists haven't found a real one yet. I guess intolerance of different ideas is why christians massacred palestinians simply for not converting to christianity. The violation of two key commandments was exempt during this time of course....&quot;love thy neighbor&quot; and &quot;thou shalt not kill&quot; had subtext not clarified on the old or new testament, but don't expect any bible-thumper to justify that in the actual text of their book itself. This is the best way to shut their self-importance up and make them walk away when they try to convert you.<br/><br/>Now I know how &quot;Scientology&quot; was formed. It's the modern-day formation of christianity re-evolved with new words and a revised story based on yet another book of philosophical fiction. The worst part is that the Bible (new or old testament) has morals we should all live by, but it is in no way an actual account of the past, which current bible-thumpers refuse to believe otherwise. It is simply &quot;the greatest story ever told&quot;. Too bad those who assume it as fact cannot even grasp the basic morals of the story, or even follow the ethics it intended to teach.<br/><br/>The pro-life movement believes that life begins at conception, failing to understand that a live ovum is required to be fertilized to eventually create something resembling a fetus. Or as their current presidential spokesperson believes, &quot;Life begins at contraception&quot;. This is an example of their gross misunderstanding of the process.<br/><br/>An ovum is the beginning of life, for any mammal, including ourselves. Fertilization only continues that, and God has nothing to do with it, no matter what you believe in. Noone can prove that they were conscious in the womb, much less past a year after being born, however I believe that birth is too late for an abortion, as do many who believe in women's equality and those with a general sense of reality.<br/><br/>Yes, only two cells are far from a sentient life, but these are the same people who massacre billions of bacteria daily with their Dow Chemical products &quot;to protect their family&quot;. The hypocrisy in their beliefs is nearly intolerable to me. If I was born at the wrong time, I would never have been who I am today, a fully fulfilled person of education and general intelligence as I am now. I could never have achieved my potential if my parents were brainwashed into being pro-life.<br/><br/>Pro-life is conservatism at it's core. Conservatives (aka conservationists, before they forgot how to spell it) have no ability to adapt nor handle change in any aspect of life in america. Conservatism is stuck in the '50's with no relevance to the here and now. The republican candidate has no viable answer for the Iraq war other than to say, &quot;The goal is to reduce/eliminate american casualties...&quot;<br/><br/>In case I didn't do my math right, isn't pulling out of Iraq the best way to reduce american casualties? Perhaps I don't quite understand republican math yet....I'm still working on imperical evidence of the here and now.....maybe I didn't do my math right when I suggested 1+1=2...maybe I forgot to carry the republican 10's digit, where 1+1=295.<br/><br/>This is the same for pro-lifers. There is no room for circumstance, there is no debate for an individual's rights.....It is simply &quot;do as we say and not as we do&quot; with them. Not one pro-Lifer has any argument to support the rights of an individual other than to claim the rights of an individual not yet an individual. They read and misinterpret from a book rewritten by a idiopathic and sociopathic war criminal and consider it to be the word of god, even though they have no clue as to how to interpret it properly. I need little justification to feel hostile toward this as a brainwashing technique for the purpose of gaining profit, as a God, as holy as he is, should have no need for money in any form.<br/><br/>Excuse me if I agree with some here grounded in reality and disagree by some simply following a cult-leadership that they call a minister, or worse, a god. I have a disease which makes me hostile toward the weak-minded cattle-mentality, especially when they are humans with the mental capacity of cattle or sheep. I only relate well with those that can manage opposable thumbs.<br/><br/>I sincerely apologise for those not capable of seeing the world around them, and I pray that they can eventually open their eyes to the manipulation they follow, so that they may eventually learn the true way of the God they supposedly believe in:<br/><br/>&quot;Respect your fellow man/woman as an equal without judgement, as it is not a mortal's place to judge the morality of another man on any basis, perceived or otherwise. Only God may judge man, and those who pass judgement on another man shall be judged themselves by God with greater scrutiny.&quot;<br/><br/>Evangelistic zealots, are you listening? This is the lesson of your God, or have you not been paying attention?<br/>
I used to be a weak-minded cattle, but then I took an arrow to the knee! Im sorry I just HAD to.
Ok so im guessing you're athiest/sub-christian/or sub-jew, and thats fine with me, but if you don't have a god, things can get really rough in life. For example, if you have a horrible accident and you idk lose your eye or something, you have a big guy in the sky you can blame it on, this removes some of the stress in a horrible time. Makes sense don't it? In the words of yoda or maybe obiwan <br>&quot;The force is something that all life forms draw power and faith from, and in return, they are given that which they ask.&quot; So you don't per-say have to worship the bible god, or even WORSHIP any god, just believe in somthing you like. Like me, I have 2 gods Big god, and Zenu. It's fun to make up a whole new religion and call it your own! {:)
Again, it seems ironic to me as a believer that the Atheists are the keenist to criticise Christianity and sometimes they even hit the nail on the head when they aren't accusing people of being racist or just saying &quot;There is no God&quot; over and over again. <br /><br />I will say that there are verses in the Bible that seem to be accepting of abortion e.g. &quot;If a man injures a pregnant woman and she has a miscarriage he is to recompense her for her injuries, but not her miscarriage.&quot; <br />
And I am assuming when you say you're hostile towards *cattle* you mean anyone who disagrees with you.<br/>
No, I mean weak-minded people who think that just because bible-thumpers think it's right that it is. Wearing "Jesus" as a badge is religious-elitism, of which I refuse to acknowledge any validity. "Cattle" are people who are easily led with a song, and do not take the time to verify or analyze a precept presented to them as an alleged fact. I was a Mormon, Lutheran, and Christian, and because of those experiences, I know how socially-damaging those cults are. I'm not against religion so much as I am against how it is interpreted nowadays. Christianity used to be about good-faith and goodwill towards others, now it only generates hate-speech to those who do not exactly-subscribe to their practices, and is used as a shield to allege righteousness and honesty, when most who do so lie and cheat more than the average atheist, and far more than those who follow "all those wrong religions" (wrong because they are not christian?) Hypocrisy is rampant in christian and catholic religions, but they are supposedly the only right ones? Who's calling foul because of ideology after all? Against gay marriage but molesting little boys? That's going so far into "foot-in-mouth" that you are up to the knee. This is your one and final lesson to check your value-system and your "reality-tunnel" before you judge others, lest you be judged.
It is a misnomer for you to say you were a Christian. If you are one, you can't stop being one. You only thought you were one. If you could see the merrits of Christianity then why would you abandon Christianity as a whole just because of the mistakes of others? Why didn't you simply become an example of what you thought a Christian aught to be?<br />I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on your &quot;molesting little boys&quot; remark and assume that you are a reasonably intellegent human being and ask you a question: If your ideals are so big and significant that they can make the God that millions believe in disgusting then couldn't your ideals be God? <br /><br />As a Messianic Monotheist, I say bravo for responsable reproduction in all it's forms. <br />
<strong>HEY</strong> you your self are stuck in the 1800s. 200 years later we christians do not kill b/c you will not convert! <br/>
What makes you think I'm &quot;Judgeing&quot; you? Can't I make an informed decision about your ethics from what you say on here? And please, if you want to make an <strong>Informed</strong> decision on my ethics, than do. I'm not angry, nor do I hate you.<br/><br/>To assume that Christians blindly follow some hypocritic man in robes is rude. I listen to all sides, all ideas, and I've chosen to follow the Holy Bible. People do stupid stuff, Christians do stupid stuff, I do stupid stuff. I'm human, am I supposed to be perfect? No, but I try to be perfect. I acknowledge that I do things that are wrong, and that I need to change.<br/><br/>Christianity has always been about faith. Not about being <strong>nice</strong> to everyone. Being &quot;good&quot; is not gonna get you to heaven. If that was so, than we are all going to hell. I'm good, and kind because I want to. Not because I have to. I follow no man, I follow God. I am not a stupid animal, and it's rude to assume anyone is. I look at the world with an open mind. Do you?<br/>
Actually, I digress...It's not that these people are that stupid, I shoudl expect that of america...it's that this person is expected to lead a state, or worse a country, and they cannot even get past high school!
WOW! You just described all my beliefs in 9 paragraphs! Are you some kind of masiyah?
A: Your rant has nothing to do with this instructable and... B: "Life in the uterus occurs every 28 days, only to be allowed to persist upon conception...So by definition, simply menstruating is murder (as it is the female body performing it's own abortion of an unfertilized egg), and all women of birthing age shall be jailed and crucified....Imagine the 12-14 year old girls flooding the jail system for murder....I'm sure it is the will of God to stone teenage girls to death for menstruating. " Give me a break!
He made a point with that bit of sarcasm. not only is there all sorts of life in a female reproductive system at all times(bacteria, body cells, egg cells. etc), once one of the egg cells meets with a sperm cell, they often, on their own, do not stick to the uterine wall. Past that, they can stick, then suddenly unstuck, could have joined outside of the fallopian tubes or uterus(ectopic pregnancy in the ovaries, etc), and fail to grow. So not only is menstruation removing life, daily biological functions are removing life, unknown causes are removing life, and even a bad match of sperm and egg can abort itself, if they together lack the necessary genes to grow. None of this means you have to think it's okay to take measures to prevent conception, or end pregnancy. I can understand the idea that is nature/god, and we shouldn't intervene(though of course I'd urge you to look up food, herbal, and enviromental abortificants. What someone eats or does can cause miscarriage too). I respect your philosophical and spiritual findings, and we all want to reduce abortions(hence this great instructable!) but that doesn't mean anyone else has to adhere to your philosophical and spiritual findings. They have their own. Yes, even women. so you definitely can dislike it, not wish to be a party to it, etc. but the words disagree and "don't believe" don't make sence in this context (these things exist, and it's not an argument that it happens, I think you'd agree. And you certainly cannot disagree with an action, as it cannot argue) Unless of course you're using that word in a British sence, in which case I think we all find abortion disagreeable, IE- not pleasant.
If someone dies of an accident there is little to no problem, but the problem is when someone chooses to kill another living being. To have an abortion means you are <strong>choosing</strong> to kill. That is <strong>murder</strong>. If your body by chance expels the fertilized egg you have nothing to do with it. <br/>
It isn't as if a woman doesn't suffer when she has an abortion and &quot;gets away with it&quot;. There is always some emotional and physical anguish. As a Believer I&nbsp;can understand you wanting so save some souls, but this isn't how to do it. It's okay to explain your beliefs to people and it's okay for you to listen to there's, but I think believers should be critiquing each other, not non-believers. We live in a different world to them so our advice isn't really relevent. God doesn't want people to obey him just because other people keep harrassing them. God wants people to obey him from faith and love. <br />Personally I don't think we can know God's stance on abortion because he didn't give any specific guidance about that, but if you feel it's wrong, then don't do it. Remember, if God gives these people free choice you should too. <br />
I did. The fact has freed you to be open to the world around you.
So what do you say to women who are pro-lifers, who have kept their child, and who have no regrets? And what &quot;raving, serial-murdering lunatic&quot; are you talking about?<br />
You say to be resposible you need to kill a child if you can't take care of it. So, to be responsible we should kill those who have transferable or life threatening diseases. Spare them from the pain, and spare ourselves from the pain. If we figure someone is going to die soon than we should exterminate them so they don't have to suffer any longer. And babys born with mutations should be tossed into a cave - the Greeks did that. If we don't know when consciousness starts, than we should asume it starts at the begining. Not whenever we please. SEX is not something you do for fun! Just because it feels good dosn't mean we should do it with every warm, wet, thing that walks bye. We do it to procreate.
SEX was designed <em><strong>FOR</strong></em> pleasure QUOITE BIBLE NIV Genesis chapter 1 verse 28 <em>God blessed them and said to them, &quot;Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.&quot;</em><br/>
o dear. 1. Corpus cavernosa are not muscular, they're cartilage structures containing many small chambers to be filled with blood. 2. a ureter is not part of the penis. both men and women have 2 ureters, they connect the kidneys to the urinary bladder. The urethra however, is surrounded by corpus spongiosum, and though the spongiosum does become engourged, the urethra is in no way "shut off". if it were, we would not be able to ejaculate as semen if fired out the urethra while the penis is still erect.
AHUWUH? Can you dumb that down for me?
Thank you I tried keeping in a low profile.. but thank you for the comment. Pedro Martinez MD Trauma department Baptist Hospital
Your obviously female? Every man can pee while fully erect. Only very few would not be able to. No it does not hurt, even in the slightest.
well it dose a bit for me well not like reall pain but a kind of pain that makes you feel uncomfortable
I can't pee with an erection. No matter how hard I try, when I'm fully erect no urine will come out. I just have to hold it till the hard-on subsides.
<strong>instead of trying to push the pee out, relax and&nbsp;gently massage or rub your thighs closer to your penis and it will relax the musles and even make the penis dis-erect while peeing</strong>
LOL you can actually pee with a erected penis it's just a bit painful and it comes out like a jet ( the jet you have on a hose if you don't have a the cap thing on it runs slower and not that much pressure but if u put a smaller end on it more pressure will be made and then it will come out faster and trying to expand the walls around it) so yeah if u got a erection and pee then it will come out like a jet and will hurt a bit from the pressure. Also off topic can somebody stop peeing after they started so like in the middle of the proses
<p><strong>thats not entirely true, yes it comes out faster and like a jet. but it doesnt always hurt, drinking more water will soften your pee and it will feel painless and the less painful it is the more likley it is for the penis to dis-erect</strong></p>
Ok, I'm wierd then, I can pee with an erection... It doesn't hurt (that much) at all.<br/>Ps- I agree with the &quot;pro life&quot; statement, It is your job to have a baby if you concieve(sorry if I spelled that wrong) and if you don't want a kid <em>that</em> much, then abstinense(same goes here) is essential.<br/>
I just want to make it clear that I didn't mention the morning after pill to spark a moral debate, I simply said it's an option. I completely agree with abstinence being the only 100 % affective method of birth control.
An aspirin held between the womans knees is pretty efective...for abstinence, and birth control...multi-tasking!!!
I disagree, one could hold an aspirin between the knees and still have many positions for sex!
Fortunately, it's not your job to choose what other people do.
ha ha.. you not weird, you have an advantage over me...!
ha ha, Ok...!
It's not contraception if it occurs after pregnancy. I guess you are referring to the morning after pill? It doesn't end an existing pregnancy, just prevents conception if it hasn't already happened. I'm also confused by your disagreement. Do you mean that you dislike it?
Not impossible to pee while fully erect, just "more limited" The only time it is impossible for a male to urinate is during orgasm, and at no other time. An erection can make urination difficult, but any male can do so "At full mast" when not confined to having to direct it, such as downward to a toilet. In the wild, a male's bladder is blocked during coitus, but in little way during an erectile state. It's not as easy, but not impossible. Urinating in such a state can actually help kill the erection in many cases, due to stimulus to the prostate and cross-stimulus to the keigel muscles. Urination can effectively counter a coital impulse in more than half of observed cases. Can you get wood when you have to pee? more often, not...afterwards is a different story, once that stressor has been removed....
Actually, its only impossible (or nearly so) when we have to try to aim an erection down (i.e. into a toilet). first off, it wont bend down hardly at all, and second, what little angle or bend can be achieved effectivly "kinks the hose". However, an erect man can pee just fine if he is in a location where the erection can be left pointing upwards (i.e., outside behind a bush {normal;im sure every guy's had to pee while dealing with an erection},or as was suggested, mid-coitus{just plain wierd.} Basically, the only times a man is unable to urinate are 1.during an orgasm, 2.when another guy's standing too close in the restroom. You're right though, i'm sure the morning after pill's alot more effective than a man peeing inside a girl....the things people come up with...
By emergency contraception, I'm guessing you mean the morning after pill?
Close, but not quite impossible....

About This Instructable



Bio: I've worked for Instructables off and on since 2006 building and documenting just about everything I enjoy doing. I am now the Creative Programs ... More »
More by noahw:How to Send Art Into Outer Space Cómo soldar 意式烤面包食谱 
Add instructable to: