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

81–90 of 143 posts

Re: We Should Have a Better Condom by Now

#81

Post by jacquesm »

jaldoretta wrote: post #64

Contraceptive innovation is WAY behind other industries. Condoms are completely outdated, the pill really hasn't changed since the 1960s, the IUD since the '70s, the "new" implants are really just a minor evolution of the pill, etc. You'd think such a basic human need would be more of a priority. My startup is helping to tackle this problem by trying to inform people that menstrual cycle data, on its own, can help pr…

> My startup is helping to tackle this problem by trying to inform people that menstrual cycle data, on its own, can help prevent pregnancy with the same efficacy as hormonal contraception (and this isn't the rhythm method, despite the common misconception).

I think you should be very careful with making unqualified statements like that. If it isn't the rhythm method then you should explain exactly what it is because the 'common misconception' requiring you to distance yourself from the rhythm method before someone even brings it up is alive and kicking and it is up to you to provide the evidence that it isn't so by explaining how it does work.

Your marketing video certainly does nothing to clarify, and the app description on your website screams 'rhythm method in an app' from every page.

Re: We Should Have a Better Condom by Now

#82

Post by fobcat »

IanDrake wrote: post #61
icebraining wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are, you just can't be lazy about it.

Pretty sure it was clear. Government is lazy and callus about updating regulations regarding to development and testing of prophylactics. Innovative and better alternatives were taken off the market due to said regulations. The commentary was spot on. The point of the original comment was to provide bullets without lengthy justification and citation and it was upvoted. Then this "lazy" bullet was added and all the su…

Totally agree with your statement regarding the HN pro-gov't bias, unfortunately. Such is life.

Without the FDA and its outmoded regulations, there would be a flourishing of condoms for people to choose from, instead of just the three entrenched companies that can afford to deal with the gov't. If nothing else, the article details the fact that there are a LOT of people who care deeply about and are trying to solve this problem (and should be left largely unconstrained to do so).

Re: We Should Have a Better Condom by Now

#83

Post by sergiosgc »

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…

The condom reduces HIV infection risk by 80% to 95%, depending on the type of intercourse and the direction of infection (M/F->M,F). Since the rate of infection for unprotected sex is in the order of 0.5 per thousand, a 95% reduction brings the infection rate to 1 per 30 thousand. Your numbers are off.

Reference:http://www.catie.ca/en/pif/summer-2012/putting-number-it-ris...

Re: We Should Have a Better Condom by Now

#84

Post by anigbrowl »

baddox wrote: post #26
jfuhrman wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't explain why the innovation didn't happen in, say Somalia, where there are no government regulations to speak of.

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

That's why they don't have an industry there. But any western manufacturer could go to some lightly-regulated place, start handing out Better Condoms (tm) like candy, and then point to major improvements in user satisfaction, disease transmission rates, and so on in order to create pressure for a more careful evaluation in other markets like the US or EU.

Think back to news you've read about the deployment of improved mosquito netting and the like, which is tried out in Africa because that's where the greatest need exists.

Re: We Should Have a Better Condom by Now

#85

Post by anigbrowl »

baddox wrote: post #25
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…

> Yeesh what an overwritten article. So often, it seems that's what is meant by "long-form article."

Sadly true. Information that could be conveyed directly in a paragraph or two is dragged out to create a long and often dull narrative, usually without any points of reference. Condom designs don't change every year? Neither do penises. Medical gloves (whose technology derives from condom manufacturing) haven't changed much for decades either. Infection risks are mitigated with antimicrobial coatings and double-gloving. The basic problem is that condoms work well enough for most people and so there isn't that much economic incentive to launch different kinds, even before you consider the regulatory factors.

Re: We Should Have a Better Condom by Now

#86

Post by ywecur »

dsjoerg wrote: post #45
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.

There is a company that pretty much does that, give them a try: https://www.blinkist.com/

Re: We Should Have a Better Condom by Now

#87

Post by pdabbadabba »

mbroshi wrote: post #12
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…

Or, to sum up even more succinctly: - Government regulations have stifled innovation, thereby making existing products less safe, less comfortable, and less used than they would be otherwise. In other words, nothing new.

There's some truth to this, but your tone makes it a little hard to spot.

I'm not sure that the article provides much support for the broad claim, implied by your comment, that government regulation is always a bad idea, or that the government should get out of the condom regulation business. I for one think it's a pretty good idea for a regulator to ensure that condoms (like other health-related products) perform up to some minimum standard. The social impact of sub-standard products is too significant to leave to the market and there is good reason to think that the market would not adequately communicate the signals that consumers need in order to make rational condom-purchasing decisions in the absence of regulation.

I agree with your narrower claim that the existing condom regulations seem to be badly in need of reform. But I'm not at all convinced that they are worse than having no regulations at all.

Re: We Should Have a Better Condom by Now

#88

Post by JTon »

fadsasda432 wrote: post #58
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…

Very true. In particular a too small condom can be very painful ...

Easy there buddy... ;)

Re: We Should Have a Better Condom by Now

#89

Post by enraged_camel »

fobcat wrote: post #82
IanDrake wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty sure it was clear. Government is lazy and callus about updating regulations regarding to development and testing of prophylactics. Innovative and better alternatives were taken off the market due to said regulations. The commentary was spot on. The point of the original comment was to provide bullets without lengthy justification and citation and it was upvoted. Then this "lazy" bullet was added and all the su…

Totally agree with your statement regarding the HN pro-gov't bias, unfortunately. Such is life. Without the FDA and its outmoded regulations, there would be a flourishing of condoms for people to choose from, instead of just the three entrenched companies that can afford to deal with the gov't. If nothing else, the article details the fact that there are a LOT of people who care deeply about and are trying to solve t…

>>Totally agree with your statement regarding the HN pro-gov't bias, unfortunately. Such is life.

Really? Last time I checked, most HN users subscribed to the notion that the government is slow and inefficient and does not do as good of a job as private companies in most fields.

Libertarian viewpoints tend to be heavily downvoted though, and for good reason. There are some people whose love for private enterprise and the "invisible hand of the market" blinds them to reality.

Re: We Should Have a Better Condom by Now

#90

Post by bramjans »

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?

Agreed. It seems to me that the problem is that it is easy to get condoms for free/cheap in many places in western countries.

However, my experience living in Chile is that in countries that often need it more, they are much more expensive to get. In Chile, they were roughly twice as expensive as in my home country Belgium. Add in the big difference in wages and we're at approx. 4x difference. The argument that they are available for free is a joke, since it requires people to go to a doctor instead of simply a pharmacy.

I also believe that for many people, the difference between cheap and free is a big one.

Post reply on HN