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

31–40 of 143 posts

Re: We Should Have a Better Condom by Now

#31

Post by jessaustin »

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?

Some condoms should be free. But since the point of TFA is that innovation is slow, it seems good for better condoms (as judged by consumers) to cost more. That way condom manufacturers have an incentive to make better condoms.

Re: We Should Have a Better Condom by Now

#32

Post by portmantoad »

tjradcliffe wrote: post #24
danso wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's actually a lot of interesting facts about the origin/manufacturing of condoms and of the regulatory process/history. I submitted the article because I thought the lead anecdote of the man taking it upon himself to improve it was interesting and inspiring, as it's so often the case that we just tolerate everyday things that could be better...but condoms are an everyday thing tied so closely to love/intimacy as…

The most interesting thing is also depressing: there was a fairly well-known researcher at the University of Manitoba who was working on designing a better condom in the early 1990's, and there is still work going on there today: http://news.nationalpost.com/news/condoms-treated-with-silve... The work I recall from the '90's (I was a post-doc there, working in a different field) involved changes to both shape and des…

that walgreens page is 100% polyisoprene (the latex derived kind from the article) or mis-categorized latex.

Re: We Should Have a Better Condom by Now

#34

Post by ars »

sz4kerto wrote: post #27
ars wrote: 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…

"That's basically worthless because after 13 uses there is a 50/50 chance of infecting someone." Well, there's 50/50 chance of not infecting anybody vs infecting at least one person from 13. That's a much better chance than say 50% chance of infecting at least 10 person from 13. When you are thinking about spreading a disease, this matters a lot. Sure, for couples, the chances of infection after N use is high, but th…

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.

Re: We Should Have a Better Condom by Now

#35

Post by pariya »

dpark wrote: post #13
eru wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Couldn't Americans import a wider variety from less stuck-up countries?

Probably not. The FDA controls all drugs and medical devices sold in the US, not just manufactured here.

What ARE the best condoms in the world? Does anyone know of a country with more superior condoms?

Re: We Should Have a Better Condom by Now

#36

Post by graeme »

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 measure of the penis circumference, then match that to the appropriate width:

http://www.condom-sizes.org/condom-sizes/suggested-condom-wi...

Note that you have to double check the comdoms. For instance, magnums list 58mm, but actually are 54mm at the base, which is the most important place.

Fitted properly, latex condoms will feel significantly better and work better.

Re: We Should Have a Better Condom by Now

#37

Post by hackuser »

larrys wrote: post #33

Highly recommended: "Female Condoms" http://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/female-... Don't want to get into a bunch of inappropriate talk but suffice to say much better for both parties.

> Don't want to get into a bunch of inappropriate talk but suffice to say much better for both parties.

I'd encourage you to talk. The more people know about it, the more they will use effective contraception and the fewer HIV (and other STD) infections there will be. And people who read it from you will tell others. We're all adults here; I don't think it's inappropriate.

Re: We Should Have a Better Condom by Now

#38

Post by sz4kerto »

ars wrote: post #34
sz4kerto wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"That's basically worthless because after 13 uses there is a 50/50 chance of infecting someone." Well, there's 50/50 chance of not infecting anybody vs infecting at least one person from 13. That's a much better chance than say 50% chance of infecting at least 10 person from 13. When you are thinking about spreading a disease, this matters a lot. Sure, for couples, the chances of infection after N use is high, but th…

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 remove these from cars because we end up with more fatalities with them as it is simply not the case.)

Re: We Should Have a Better Condom by Now

#39

Post by icebraining »

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.

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

Re: We Should Have a Better Condom by Now

#40

Post by puredemo »

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.

That's a pretty facile response. Lots of African countries with "strong" governments still have tons and tons of violence.
Post reply on HN