In this BBC article - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3885629.stm - about condoms v abstinence as the most effective strategy against AIDS, there is the following:
What exactly is meant by “elaborate” sexual intercourse that a condom would hinder? Watersports? Money-shots?
Condoms are always useful.
It’s practically criminal to see so much misinformation directed towards a rapidly deepening crisis.
Anything involving a catheter, i would imagine.
I’m really not sure where this guy is coming from. We were in Uganda a couple of years back, and I remember a friend there telling us that the president (that Yoweri Museveni guy) had decided that the AIDS crisis was partly because people weren’t talking about sex enough, so he got on National radio once a week and talked about his sex life with his wife. (can’t find a cite, sorry) He seemed like a pretty good guy, in general.
Well, once you’re strapped into the trapeze you might not be able to reach the bedside table, let alone have hands free to put it on with.
I read somewhere (I don’t remember where, but I think NYTimes) a few years back that in some parts in Africa, the presence of any sort of lubrication during sex is seen as unfavorable. Women will use herbs to halt their vaginal secretions, leading to “dry sex”, which many men prefer (and probably only a few masochistic women–that’s got to hurt!). “Wet” sex is what occurs when the vagina is left to secrete normally, and I think is what most of us reading this board prefer.
But anyway, as far as condoms go, prelubed condoms are out, because they lead to wet sex. Unlubed condoms are no good either, because they tear (or they tear the vaginal wall,) which sort of ruins the mood.
I don’t know if this “dry sex” is practiced in Uganda, or if it counts as elaborate.
A quick google search gave me this link