Live data from Hacker News

We Should Have a Better Condom by Now

slate.com

121–130 of 143 posts

Re: We Should Have a Better Condom by Now

#121
post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not trying to paint all governments with the same brush. I'm just saying that, perhaps, you don't know anything about Somalia and are just using it as a strawman against small government. edit: it's one, single country that has had a very violent history, not a case study in deregulation of markets.

I didn’t say anything about small government or market deregulation. Small vs large is orthogonal to strong vs. weak.

[deleted]

Re: We Should Have a Better Condom by Now

#122
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…

"never use a long word when a short word will do"

"if it is possible to cut a word out, cut it out."

Re: We Should Have a Better Condom by Now

#123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generally speaking I get the sense that HN readers are for an effective and efficient government. That's about as middle-of-the-road as you can get. For anyone interested in living in a country where there is little to no government intervention are more than welcome to move to Central Africa to see what they're missing out on.

Yeah, and people who want a strong government should move to NK! Seriously, don't you all get tired of burning the same straw man over and over again? I'm sure you don't support every possible kind of government, including Pinochet's Chile and the Khmer Rouge. It must also be democratic, somewhat respect human rights and such, no? Likewise, people who argue against them also have conditions they believe would be nece…

So basically what I'm getting out of this is you agree with me? And possibly the majority of HN?

It's ridiculous to me how people talk like they're so far apart on their views of what a government should be, but when we really get to the nuts and bolts we're all pretty much after the same thing.

Re: We Should Have a Better Condom by Now

#124
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There've been many people in this thread suggesting that condoms ARE already free, if you go and seek them out. It is like saying food is free when you go out of your way to select places. You'd have to know where to go and then be comfortable in grabbing a dozen free condoms there. Until you're out two weeks later. So a bi-weekly visit to your favorite free-condom location. Do you know anyone who actually does this?…

I do see your point regarding places that someone would go to explicitly for condoms - but the big bowl was in the study room for a college program. Almost all the people in the program were there everyday condoms or not - so maybe the solution is to put them in places where people already frequent?

School/work/etc.

Because I do agree that not many people are going to make a trip to Planned Parenthood, park, and go in just to get some free condoms.

I don't see a problem with condoms from a public bowl. I used them throughout my freshman year without a problem. As for your embarrassment factor, that's a problem regardless of free or paid. That's just the stigma around sexual activity in general.

Re: We Should Have a Better Condom by Now

#128

What I'd really like to see is research on a a male version of The Pill. The Pill was introduced in the 1960s. What efforts, research, has been done to bring a similar product for males? Though it wouldn't help on the disease transmission front.

Here it is. Very cool:

http://www.newmalecontraception.org/vasalgel/

Re: We Should Have a Better Condom by Now

#129
post #17

An article on ebola said that the condom provides 95% protection per use. i.e. a 5% chance of infection anyway each time they are used. That's basically worthless because after 13 uses there is a 50/50 chance of infecting someone. They are more effective with HIV only because HIV is not as infective, not because the condom is more effective. So the problem with the condom is not the design, but that they are not as e…

People aren't infectious with Ebola for very long before either becoming extremely ill (and likely not up to having sex). If you're reducing the number of sex-related Ebola transmissions in a population by encouraging condom use, I think that's a pretty good thing. At any rate, HIV is a much much larger virus than Ebola, and cannot get through micropores in the condom as easily. This contributes to the high rate of t…

Actually people appear to be infective sexually even 90 days after getting (otherwise) better.

So far no upper limit is known.

Post reply on HN