Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwawaysf100 | Hacker News Reader

I am sure there are people who experience breakage or really hate the feeling of a condom while on, but IMO the thing to solve is the putting it on part.

1. (the good part of condoms) = When encountering a new person the condom serves as an easy way to ask for permission without saying: "Can I have sex with you now". Instead, it's just "Should I get a condom?" Easy enough for her to say yes or no without the pressure.

2 (the bad part) When already familiar with the other person, condoms stop the entire mood and then both people have to wait. IMO, this is the worst part of using them in a relationship.

I think if I were working on a replacement for a condom, I would try to tackle that second issue.

View on HN

IMO the thing to solve is the putting it on part.

There are actually a bunch of things to solve, which L.V. Anderson details in "We Should Have a Better Condom by Now. Here’s Why We Don’t" (http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/201...). The article is quite long but I found it fascinating, especially because of the FDA's role.

The female condom is both underused and underrated.

I tried some on a whim and a) the sensation is definitely better b) they seem less likely to break (thicker material) and c) much less likely to fall off.

The only downsides are a) they're more expensive and b) not generally available at drugstores (I had to buy them online).

Honest question - was the sensation 'definitely better' for both parties, or just one?

I tried it with two woman and they both reported that they didn't notice a difference in sensation.

Re: 1 - does No mean "Yes to sex, but No to condom" or "No to sex and no to condom".

> does No mean

"No", by itself, isn't really an answer here, as funny as the thought is. Realistically, "Should I grab a condom?" is proposed in a time of physical intimacy. That question would be followed with one of three responses meaning, "Yes," "We don't need one," or "We are not having sex."

Of course, "No," is a possible answer, I'm just trying to imagine a situation in which one person is ready to have sex but is unsure if the other person is or not and they actually lack physical or intimate context...

if the potential partner answers an open ended question alluding to sex with a short and vague "No" i think its pretty obvious that no sex is happening, and possibly whatever relationship was building is no longer.

saying nothing other than "No" to that question would be quite rude.

Agreed - definitely doesn't help makes the situation any clearer

For me, for sex with a new partner the first time, those are equivalent: nope :)

I think thats the idea. You can say no to the sex w/o rejecting the person. Its perfectly reasonable to not be ready for sex in a relationship.

You're missing the real question in the comment. The response doesn't necessarily say whether the other party wants sex or not if they answer no, it leaves the two options listed above as the possible interpretations.

Completely direct consent is something some partners expect and require, plus it's possible they find it a really, really, big turn on.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com