It’s Time To Start Asking Serious Questions About the Safety of Lube


About the Author:

Maggie Koerth-Baker is the science editor at BoingBoing.net. She also writes a monthly column for The New York Times Magazine.


The stuff you use to make sex a little more smooth might have some serious drawbacks. Nothing has been proven yet — most of the data comes from disembodied cell cultures and animal testing, which doesn’t necessarily give you an accurate picture of what’s happening in humans — but several studies over the last few years have drawn connections between lubricant use and increased rates of STD transmission. (It also looks like some lubricants might kill off natural vaginal flora — the good bacteria that live “up there” and make the difference between a healthy vagina and, say, a raging yeast infection.)

Some of these studies have provided evidence suggesting that the ingredients in lubricants damage the cells lining the vagina and rectum — which would explain why those lubricants might facilitate STD transmission.

At Chemical and Engineering News, Lauren Wolf has a really well-researched, well-written story that will give you the low-down on this research without hype and without fear-mongering. Her story is easy to understand and explains what we know, what we don’t know, and why this matters (besides the obvious, lubricants have been proposed as a possible means of applying topical anti-microbial STD preventatives).

A summary of Lauren’s Article is included below:

Right now, the Food & Drug Administration doesn’t typically require testing of personal lubricants in humans. The agency classifies them as medical devices, so the sex aids have to be tested on animals such as rabbits and guinea pigs. Rectal use of lubricants is viewed by the agency as an “off-label” application—use at your own risk.

Questions about lubricant safety arose nearly a decade ago when micro­bicide developers were testing whether the detergent nonoxynol-9 could block HIV transmission. Manufacturers had been incorporating the compound into spermicidal lubricants for years because of its ability to punch holes in the cell membranes of sperm. In 2002, however, a Phase II/III clinical trial of a nonoxynol-9 vaginal gel failed to protect women from HIV infection. Not only that, but the detergent actually increased the risk of HIV infection in the sex workers tested—women living in countries such as South Africa and Thailand who used the product three or four times per day.

Lab work eventually revealed the reason for the paradoxical increase: Nonoxynol-9 is so good at punching holes in cell membranes that it not only bores into sperm but also into the cells lining the vagina and rectum. The mucosal lining of the vagina is a good barrier to infection all by itself, says Richard A. Cone, a biophysicist at Johns Hopkins University. But if that barrier gets compromised, all bets are off, he explains. After nonoxynol-9—still used on some condoms today—went from promising microbicide candidate to malevolent cell killer, scientists like Cone began to question the safety of other supposedly innocuous spermicide and personal lubricant ingredients.

To read Lauren’s entire article: [click here].


Article source: The BoingBoing Blog by Maggie Koerth-Baker. Originally published at http://boingboing.net/2012/12/19/its-time-to-start-asking-ser.html, on December 19, 2012, and appeared there on June 20, 2014.

Please note that while this site offers information, it should not be taken as medical advice.

Please consult a trusted medical professional before using the information on this site.

Results should be expected to vary from individual to individual. Also, please understand that you may still need to do other things to support your health in addition to using the information on this site as the information on this site is not intended for diagnosis, treatment, prevention or cure.


Tagged with: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Adult Content

Leave a Reply

by Date
  • Pintrest

    Follow Me on Pinterest