4 ms·
Let's look at that problem from a few different perspectives. I claim that it's impossible to design a better condom while still being a condom. If you want to
by WA 14y ago
Let's look at that problem from a few different perspectives. I claim that it's impossible to design a better condom while still being a condom.
If you want to avoid STDs, you need some sort of protective material that keeps all fluids at their place. So, there's no other way than having this sort of material.
Exception would be to have some sort of material or liquid that:
- kills all bacteria and viruses
- thus prevents STDs
- has no health side effects
- avoids pregnancy
But then it's not a condom anymore, but a STD-reducing liquid.
To make a condom more pleasurable, you need to make it thinner or to "enhance" it by adding some sort of chemical that emulates a vagina to a certain degree and heightens the sensual experience.
Thing is, while it seems possible to increase the sensitivity of a penis with certain chemicals, you cannot design a condom that increases the PSYCHOLOGICAL sensitivity. There's a difference in having sex with a condom and without a condom. And the problem of that is the condom itself, no matter how pleasurable it is.
So, the ideal condom is probably not much different from the current condom, material-wise. Maybe the ideal condom is the same product but with an entirely different marketing strategy to get the psychological factor right. Or something along the lines where people get educated on how to train their mind sexually to increase their pleasure despite using a condom. Though I don't believe that this is possible on a broad scale.
- bradleyjg 14y agoIt's not fluids per se that are the problem. You want to block cells (sperm & bacteria) and viruses. So roughly 50nm. Everything smaller should be okay.
- s0rce 14y agoAlthough you could use a membrane with tiny pores you would tremendously slow down the rate of flow of the smaller molecules too even though they theoretically can travel across the membrane.
- Peaker 14y agoThis kind of proof is often named "proof by lack of imagination". You're reiterating the design ideas of the condom with a bit of expansion, asserting that it must be this way. But you really don't know if you've explored the entire design-space.
- WA 14y agoYou're right. But still: The statement in the article was to improve a condom. My statement is that condoms are perfectly fine, but the psychological aspect is what's "broken". And you won't fix that simply by designing a better condom. The condom itself is what makes it unpleasurable for some men. Or how would you explain that some men lose their erection if they simply try to put a condom on?
- majani 14y agoI think the STD-reducing liquid you're referring to is a vaccine.