The new erection-enhancing condom CSD500—known as "the Viagra condom" awaits regulatory approval in Europe and could be on the shelves of European pharmacies and stores by the end of the year, reports The Wall Street Journal.
CSD500 contains a blood flow-boosting gel that helps men maintain a firmer erection for a longer time period as the agent is absorbed through the skin. The condom will be marketed toward men who have difficulty maintaining an erection while wearing a condom.
The technology is licensed to SSL International, the owner of Durex, the world’s leading condom brand, reports Portfolio.com. No word on when the condoms would be available stateside—but Durex is reportedly interested in marketing them in the U.S., the world's largest condom market. "It’s not clear whether the manufacturer plans to apply to the FDA to market the product here, but the agency would certainly require more data reflecting U.S. patients," adds WSJ.
Thoughts? Good idea or marketing gimmick?
Interesting idea, as so many men, str8 and gay claim they can't keep it up when they put on a hat,..now the hat actually helps you get it up and keep it up! Out the window with that excuse - I wonder how many people this could help who legitimately suffer from loss of erection with a condom on. I think it's 90% mental, but maybe it'll start turning barebackers into straight edge safe sex practitioners, maybe turn some bottoms into tops!
Posted by: Procrastination_Xtravaganza | 03 May 2011 at 11:01
I wonder what effect the condom has on the receiving partner.
Posted by: Nobilis Reed | 03 May 2011 at 11:17
"I wonder what effect the condom has on the receiving partner."
Well, Nabilis, I guess it depends on who's filling up the condom.
I know, you meant the actual physical sensation. The manufacturers are probably like the majority of the world: Tops is King...
...you're the top, you're the Eiffel Tower....
Posted by: Derrick from Philly | 03 May 2011 at 11:34
Derrick is sick - and funny! I guess by the time the FDA get their hands on this product it'll lose all potency. Nabilis' question is a good one, IMO, as this condom seems to be loaded with all kinda stuff.
Posted by: Brien | 03 May 2011 at 11:52
"Derrick is sick..."
And sometimes stupid. Nabilis and Brien, it never occured to me that y'all were referring to the health concerns about what is in the ingredients of that lubricating substance--and its possible damaging effects if it gets into the human body. Thanks for bringing that up.
I remember back in the early 90s, they put this stuff called "non-oxynol 9" in the lubricant of condoms. Supposedly, it would kill the AIDS virus. Child, I don't know about killing the Virus, but it sure burned the inside of "bottom's" bottoms. A Reggie Bush lookin' cutie could come on to you and you'd think about that burning sensation and go, "No. No, thank you."
Posted by: Derrick from Philly | 03 May 2011 at 12:34
Nonoxynol 9 was never marketed as an antiviral or antibacterial - it's used, even today, as a contraceptive - it breaks down the membrane of sperm cells,..unfortunately it breaks down the membrane of skin cells too, which is why people who use it are more likely to have burning and lesions, and actually become more susceptible to infections.
It's a good question about the effects of the drug on the receiving partner though, those drugs work by dilating penis blood vessels - dilating anus blood vessels would initially relax your hole,..but also increases susceptibility for bleeding, disease transmission through the stretched vessel walls, and hemorrhoids - doesn't sound worth it. Instead have the top take some viagra, or poppers, or wear a cockring, or...
Posted by: Procrastination_Xtravaganza | 03 May 2011 at 15:50
You're correct, Procrastination-Xtravaganza, but somehow the news that nonoxynol-9 "killed" the AIDS virus in test tubes got into the media and out to the public. Those of us desperate to continue (or resume) having anal sex were mislead by this news. And we ended up punishing ourselves in the end (pun intended).
As far as marketing goes, I don't believe condoms are marketed as preventing viral or bacterial infections (atleast not in the United States), but we've come to look at them as a necessity for (hopefully) safe anal sex practices. When I was sexually active I worried about the effects of latex on the walls of the rectum--did chemicals from the rubber penetrate into the blood steam. But I figured that's why a heavy application of lubricant was so important to cut down on excessive friction between the latex and membrane.
I've kinda' admired those Gay men/Gay couples who don't do anal penetration at all. It isn't essential to a happy sex life... (That's easier to say at fifty-three.)
Posted by: Derrick from Philly | 03 May 2011 at 16:42