4 ms·
This 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
by Peaker 14y ago
This 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?