Because they don't stretch as much they're a bit more difficult to put on. Latex, because of it's flexibility is a bit more forgiving.
As for failure rates...you're right about the variance. (I went to check what the package says, but I apparently have all the condoms in the condomfish and none in boxes at the moment.) IIRC, the Avanti package does have something about the FDA having approved the condoms but it doesn't make the same claims as the packaging that latex condoms do. My own experience (polyurethane is all I've used for the last six or seven years) is that they haven't broken at all, and I had more issues with latex than with polyurethane.
This is unfortunatly, from 1995, but that's just before the polyurethane condoms were really introduced to the market.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2002-08-20 04:46 pm (UTC)As for failure rates...you're right about the variance. (I went to check what the package says, but I apparently have all the condoms in the condomfish and none in boxes at the moment.) IIRC, the Avanti package does have something about the FDA having approved the condoms but it doesn't make the same claims as the packaging that latex condoms do. My own experience (polyurethane is all I've used for the last six or seven years) is that they haven't broken at all, and I had more issues with latex than with polyurethane.
This is unfortunatly, from 1995, but that's just before the polyurethane condoms were really introduced to the market.
Another article from 1998 or 1999 about efficacy and polyurethane condoms.
A study from Johns Hopkins, which quoted a 6.6% failure rate of polyurethane condoms...a bit small on sample size, but it looked reasonably valid.
From the American Medical Association's Women's health group and published in 1998 or 99.