Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We Should Have a Better Condom by Now

slate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 143 posts

Re: We Should Have a Better Condom by Now

#41

Post by jpgauthier »

alexashka wrote: post #19
jbhatab wrote: post #7

I could only imagine the positive impact a noticeable increase in condom usage would bring to the world. I feel like it would be a silent yet very beneficial change if condom usage went up about 10% globally.

Let's start with making them free. Are the medical/abortion costs really lower than providing everyone with unlimited plastic with a little lotion on it?

I'm from Québec (Canada) and you can easily find free condoms at your Local Community Services Centre or any anti-aids/healthcare organization. But, I'm not exactly sure that it helped to reduce AIDS transmission or the number of abortions (if we look at the numbers they have increased in past years), but there's a lot more to take into account than condoms usage alone. Still, I completely agree with you that it should be free. I'm curious, are we alone in this world to give free condoms or it's a common practice?

Re: We Should Have a Better Condom by Now

#42

Post by rpenm »

graeme wrote: post #36

Orthogonal to the article: condoms are not one size fit all. A lot of people think they are, and this causes problems. Too small, and condoms break. Too large, and they slip off. Either way feels far less comfortable than with a properly fitting condom. This ultimately leads to less usage. Condom boxes have something called "nominal width" on the side. To fit properly, you or your partner need to take a precise measu…

Not orthogonal: the article discusses the role of size in breakage and comfort. It also discusses how the FDA forced TheyFit to discontinue their custom-fit condoms due to unreasonable ASTM testing requirements.

Re: We Should Have a Better Condom by Now

#43

Post by peter303 »

foobarqux wrote: post #8
mkr-hn wrote: post #5

I'd probably worry less about this if PrEP were cheap enough to get without insurance (or wealth). The odds of finding a monogomous (or at least polyfidelitous) partner around here is slim, and I'm not too keen on taking my chances with Grindr. A better condom would alleviate a lot of worries.

Doesn't PrEP have serious side-effects?

About $15,000 a year for someone to pay. Insurance companies resist expensive drugs not used to treat an existing disease.

Seems to be readily available under medicaid. But you have to keep you income under $15K or ($10K in non-Obamacare states) to qualify.

Re: We Should Have a Better Condom by Now

#44

Post by graeme »

rpenm wrote: post #42
graeme wrote: post #36

Orthogonal to the article: condoms are not one size fit all. A lot of people think they are, and this causes problems. Too small, and condoms break. Too large, and they slip off. Either way feels far less comfortable than with a properly fitting condom. This ultimately leads to less usage. Condom boxes have something called "nominal width" on the side. To fit properly, you or your partner need to take a precise measu…

Not orthogonal: the article discusses the role of size in breakage and comfort. It also discusses how the FDA forced TheyFit to discontinue their custom-fit condoms due to unreasonable ASTM testing requirements.

Oops, my mistake. I read about halfway through the article, and didn't reach that part. Leaving the comment as is as I expect it may help some people get better condoms.

Re: We Should Have a Better Condom by Now

#45

Post by dsjoerg »

wdewind wrote: post #10

Yeesh what an overwritten article. I plowed through it because this is relevant to my interests but man this could've been 3 paragraphs. I'll try and sum it up: -People don't use condoms mostly because they are uncomfortable -Current condoms are highly suboptimal for anal sex in particular -Materials other than latex are generally difficult to get to pass FDA tests, and it looks like there is some disagreeing science…

Thanks for the summary. One of these days I should hire someone to write summaries like this. More than a one-liner, simply all the stuff that is... interesting. I guess your definition of interesting and mine line up pretty well.

Re: We Should Have a Better Condom by Now

#46

Post by psychometry »

alexashka wrote: post #19
jbhatab wrote: post #7

I could only imagine the positive impact a noticeable increase in condom usage would bring to the world. I feel like it would be a silent yet very beneficial change if condom usage went up about 10% globally.

Let's start with making them free. Are the medical/abortion costs really lower than providing everyone with unlimited plastic with a little lotion on it?

Opposition to contraceptive availability by right-wingers doesn't take into account the higher cost of not providing these services because that isn't as important as their moral crusade. Rather, it's about punishing and shaming people who engage in what they view as immoral behavior and controlling women's bodies, which is why you also see laws banning female sex toys alongside anti-sex ed and anti-contraception legislation.

Re: We Should Have a Better Condom by Now

#47

Post by Smoofer »

alexashka wrote: post #19
jbhatab wrote: post #7

I could only imagine the positive impact a noticeable increase in condom usage would bring to the world. I feel like it would be a silent yet very beneficial change if condom usage went up about 10% globally.

Let's start with making them free. Are the medical/abortion costs really lower than providing everyone with unlimited plastic with a little lotion on it?

There's tons of places in most major cities that give away condoms for free. When I was in my freshman year of college, the main study room for a program I was in had a big bowl of free condoms by the exit.

Re: We Should Have a Better Condom by Now

#48

Post by [deleted] »

sz4kerto wrote: post #38
ars wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are forgetting that people change behavior based on risk. Telling someone there is a tool to reduce risk, that doesn't actually reduce risk (enough), actually makes things much much worse.

Yes, they do change, you're right. However, if it comes to sex, people do not care that much about risks. Condom usage decreases the prevalence and spread of STDs. That is a very hard fact. Therefore I guess that in this specific case increased risk taking does not offset the advantages of decreased risk. (Same seems to be true for things like airbags or seat belts in cars. You could not possibly argue that we should…

[deleted]

Re: We Should Have a Better Condom by Now

#49

Post by foldr »

icebraining wrote: post #39
foldr wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which in turn can readily be explained by the lack of a strong government.

Can it? On what do you base that opinion? What particular facts from the modern history of Somalia have you used to support it?

The fact that it's currently in a state of near anarchy and has been for a while.

Re: We Should Have a Better Condom by Now

#50

Post by baddox »

foldr wrote: post #29
baddox wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The situation in Somalia can be readily explained by low incomes and decades of violence.

Which in turn can readily be explained by the lack of a strong government.

I presume you know very little about Somalia's recent history. It had a strong government from 1969 to 1991. It was a military dictatorship with a centrally planned economy ("scientific socialism"). After the regime's collapse in 1991, Somalia was essentially stateless, and there was dispersed fighting between various groups for control of various areas of Somalia. Yet, perhaps surprisingly to many people, it's not clear that things were worse under "anarchy" than under Barre's regime. For instance, life expectancy improved dramatically, as did access to health care and technology.
Post reply on HN