Andrew Leonard's excellent article on the issue of specialty condoms (pleasure plus, inspiral and twisted pleasure) makes reference to two studies showing that men in Jamaica and in Africa seemed less interested in these specialty condoms, designed to stimulate the glans penis.

I suggest that a significant factor in the lack of popularity of these condoms is related directly to the fact that these condoms are aimed at providing stimuation for circumcised men. Those men who are intact, i.e. who still have foreskins, may be less inclined to use these condoms. It is movement of the foreskin over the glans penis (common for intact men during intercourse) that provides significant stimulation. In essence, the original Pleasure Plus condom was attempting to provide the type of stimuation that most American men lack because they were deprived of their foreskins as infants.

Another titilating crap article as headliner. Are RealDolls and condom chronicles really what Salon readers are telling you they want to see?

The condom blueprint picture while marginally interesting/funny is probably NOT work friendly for many of your readers who make Salon.com their browser's home page.

Shooting blanks,

Plymouth, Massachusetts

I have to respond to a letter complaining about "titillation" posted anonymously below, because comments like this have become a pet peeve of mine.

I've been employed by Salon for nine years, so I can say this pretty authoritatively -- stories about sexual issues have been a staple of our coverage from the very beginning. We've had at least three columnists who wrote about nothing else but sex. Our founding editor, David Talbot, wrote a book called "Burning Desire: Sex In America."

Alas, advertisers tend not to like sex, even if readers manifestly do, so it's always been a struggle to keep writing and reporting about what we want, which, in addition to politics, technology, entertainment and everything else, includes SEX!

Indeed, Andrew, many of us who have been on board as long as you are painfully aware of Salon's preoccupation with articles about sex, and in spite of being prudes, we even read and enjoyed some of them!

The RealDoll story - Salon's THIRD on the topic of RealDolls - was over-the-top, creepy and didn't belong as your lead story of the day - and this is the key to the criticism you are hearing...

Your loyal fans expect a certain type of article as the lead story every day. Perhaps somebody else can better articulate what sort of article that is, however I can tell you that it ISN'T RealDolls and "glans stimulation." Keep condom wars and masturbation toys in the Life section or start a special sex column. You won't hear a peep from us.

I haven't spent more than 5 minutes in the past 15 years thinking about sports and despite that, the presence of King Kaufman's sports corner raises no hackles. I'm glad that it's there for the sport-lovers amongst us.

Headlining a current-events relevant sports article when appropriate (Superbowl, for example) is good journalism and is likely important for many of your readers.

I sincerely doubt that you have a cabal of readers who are demanding more stories like the RealDoll and latex-shaft-magic in the pole position (no pun intended). Maybe I'm wrong?

Am I a typical reader - 35, married, suburban, parent, liberal, middle-class, college educated? I'll bet I am, and I'll bet I'm not the only one who thinks this way.

Still shooting blanks,

Plymouth, Massachusetts

Just wondered if the "Osterberg from Michigan" named in the condom article is related to Jimmy Osterberg from Michigan (aka Iggy Pop)?

Sorry. But are there that many Osterbergs in Michigan?

How about an article exploring the connection between RealDolls and condoms?

Conclusion: there isn't one.

I have no problem with stories about sex. I do, however, have a problem with stories that hype the importance of the subject in question (i.e., this tiresome patent-infringement case is of "critical importance" in the fight against AIDS, and concerns the potential for "serious profits") only to acknowledge in its concluding paragraphs that, in fact, the subject isn't very important at all (i.e., all studies of condom use indicate that men significantly prefer old-school, non-souped-up concoms, and besides, the new-fangled rubbers are less effective at preventing STDs). Oh, and none of the major players in the case could be reached for comment.

This strikes me less as a failure of reporting than of editing. Somebody at Salon should have been in a position to say "Uhhh, we don't really have a story here. And it's irresponsible to our readers to have them slog through four pages about a tedious, entirely routine lawsuit by promising that it is somehow 'twisted,' 'bizarre' and altogether momentous. It ain't. And no gaggle of adjectives will make it so."

So Andrew Leonard has been working at Salon for 9 years and gets a little pissed off when the readers/subscribers don't like something. I have been reading Salon since the late 1990s, and have been a subscriber for at least 4 years. I can tell you, I am not happy. This condom article is a big reason why. Let me clearly spell out my particular gripes:

1. The LEAD story should ALWAYS be an important NEWS story - NOT an opinion piece, NOT a book review, NOT a piece on sex issues (I usually enjoy those pieces, but they shouldn't lead). It would help if there was some investigative reporting, as there used to be in the good old days. This is the number 1 reason I originally started reading Salon and the number 1 reason I decided to give you $$ - you were reporting NEWS that was hard to find elsewhere during the Clinton impeachment fiasco and the 2000 election. You were so good then. Lately you seem to be all about preaching to the choir.

2. A lead article on sex issues (I usually enjoy sex articles, sexuality fascinates me) causes a huge problem for those of us who visit Salon from work. In fact, Salon used to be my home page at work. But I cannot afford it anymore. I do not need coworkers / senior management asking why I am visiting sites with large pictures of condoms and sex dolls when I am, in fact, looking for NEWS. This really should be a no-brainer, and indicates how out of touch you are with those of us who work in offices outside of the Bay Area.

3. Could you update the wire service feeds a little more quickly, please? I hate it when CNN or the WSJ website have big news up before you do.

4. What is up with all of these touchy feely women's issues? Enough already. Good god, I mean, did you guys decide to hire all the unemployed chicks who wasted their college years majoring in "womyn's studies"?

I guess the point is that I originally came to Salon (my wife and I had two subscriptions - now down to 1 - perhaps soon down to none) because you were a great PRIMARY source of news. In fact, this was also my reason for making it my home page at work, as my job requires me to keep abreast of certain types of current events. However, you seem to have lost your way, and no longer view yourselves as a primary news source. Long opinion pieces preaching to the choir with no new info and lots of rehashing of what we already know have taken the place of real hard news. That and stroies about how hard it is to help a 7 year old with homework and the cheeky new women's blog and new high tech rubbers and how creepy it is that some guys like fucking expensive dolls and comments from readers on their favorite TV shows. Enough!