Polyurethane condom -latex free

Polyurethane condom is an external condom made of plastic. The modified material has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs).

Japan Sagami 002 Polyurethane Large Condom House
Polyurethane condoms are more common substitutes for latex condoms. Although people who are allergic to latex often seek protection from them, the characteristics of polyurethane condoms can also benefit others. Even so, they still have certain risks and may not be the best choice for everyone.
This paper explains the differences between polyurethane condoms and other types of condoms. It also discusses the advantages and disadvantages of polyurethane condoms in terms of safety, comfort and sexual pleasure.
use

Japan Okamoto Polyurethane 001 Medium-Condom House
Polyurethane is a strong and highly waterproof, grease-resistant and tear-resistant plastic. Condoms made of this material are one of several types approved by FDA.
1. Latex condoms,
2. Natural lambskin condoms
3. polyisoprene condoms (made of different types of plastics)
4. Polyurethane condoms
All condoms are classified as Class II medical devices by FDA. To be approved, condoms must pass certain tests, including air bursting test, water leakage test and tensile test (measuring the stretchability of condoms).
This does not mean that all condoms are approved by the same FDA. Only polyurethane, latex and polyisoprene condoms are approved to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, such as chlamydia, gonorrhea and HIV.
Lambskin condoms are not approved for the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases because they are porous and allow some microorganisms to pass through.

Condom house

Amniotic membrane-condom house
benefit
Polyurethane has certain characteristics, which makes it an ideal choice for condoms. Among them:
Polyurethane has better strength than latex.
Polyurethane is more durable in storage and less affected by long-term thermal exposure.
Polyurethane is resistant to oil-based lubricants, which can damage latex condoms.
Polyurethane has no smell, so people who smell like latex or lambskin are better.
Polyurethane condoms are thinner than latex and polyisoprene condoms, which may enhance sensitivity.
Polyurethane is thinner than other external condoms and has better heat transfer.
Polyurethane condoms are looser and more comfortable than other external condoms. They may be ideal for people who don't like the tight fit of latex, lambskin or polyisoprene condoms.

Polyurethane ultra-thin-condom house
Polyurethane condoms can be said to be the most beneficial to people who are allergic to latex. Given that 4% of the population is allergic to latex, it is important to have non-latex substitutes.
risk
Polyurethane condoms are strong and effective, but they have some disadvantages. Among them:
Polyurethane condoms are usually more expensive than latex, lambskin or polyisoprene condoms.
Due to the loose fit of polyurethane condoms, they are easier to slip off than other types of condoms in the process.
Polyurethane condoms are five times more likely to tear or rupture than latex condoms because of their low elasticity.
Loose fit can also cause friction, thus promoting breakage. Additional lubrication may help reduce the risk of this situation.
Most studies show that polyurethane condoms are not as effective as latex condoms in preventing pregnancy.
Although studies are contradictory, some people think that polyurethane condoms may be slightly ineffective in preventing sexually transmitted diseases because they are looser.

advantage
Better than latex
Can be used with oil-based lubricants.
Has a looser and more comfortable fit.
no objectional odor
Not easily affected by heat.
Because the texture is thinner, the sensitivity is higher.
Can be expanded in any direction.
disadvantage
Less elastic, easier to break.
Additional lubrication may be required.
It's easier to slip when you're at home.
The cost is higher
The effect of preventing pregnancy is poor.
It may be less effective in preventing sexually transmitted diseases.