Hacker News Reader

Comment by nailer | Hacker News Reader

I can imagine the early adopters: male actors, athletes and other men of high social value as a way to enjoy sex without the chance of unwanted offspring.

View on HN

Or, just normal people who don't want to have a kid before they're ready? I'm 24 and plan on getting this pretty much as soon as it's available in the US. What's so hard to believe about an average guy wanting this, who isn't part of the stereotypical "cool kid" clique?

Promiscuous people should be using condoms at all times, first of all.

"Indeed, various apps have done for sex in the NBA what Amazon has done for books. One no longer needs to leave home to find a party. The party now comes to you. And lifestyle judgments aside, the NBA road life is simply more efficient -- and less taxing -- when there aren't open hours spent trolling clubs.

"It's absolutely true that you get at least two hours more sleep getting laid on the road today versus 15 years ago," says one former All-Star, who adds that players actually prefer Instagram to Tinder when away from home. "No schmoozing. No going out to the club. No having to get something to eat after the club but before the hotel."

https://theringer.com/the-inside-story-of-the-nbas-newest-ga...

If your sperm is a meal ticket for life, then condoms might not be enough. And condoms decrease the pleasure of sex for many people.

In the US, the meal ticket typically only lasts 18 years, not a lifetime.

The court doesn't enforce that the woman spends all the child support money. So if you get impregnated by a rich enough man it can certainly be a meal ticket for life.

I might be an early adopter: 11y relationship, 2 kids, don't want more kids.

Pretty sure the early adopters are going to be any one who wants to have sex ...

Why do you assume that anyone who wants to have sex will be seeking out not only contraception, but an experimental, first-of-its-kind contraceptive?

I want to (and do) have sex and I never use contraceptives. Were I interested in curtailing the birth of my children, even before I was married, I would absolutely NOT use a drug that is brand new.

Ultimately this needs to be recognized as a convenience thing. Condoms are a very effective, extremely low-risk option. They require no modifications to your biological system and reliably prevent pregnancy (not to mention STDs).

Even drugs like "the pill", now old-school, put people at risk for scary complications that sometimes happen and significant undesirable side effects that frequently happen.

We all love science and technology and that's great, but drugs are risky, and effects are often not visible until they've been in public use for some years. There are a lot of really sad examples of this, where some widely-prescribed drug has a little-known side effect or misunderstood risk profile for some patients, and it can, and literally has, resulted in death.

One should consider the risk involved when weighing "Would I rather take five seconds to slip on a condom, or inject myself with this experimental and/or brand new drug?"

I'm sure there will be early adopters, but as someone who wants to have sex, there is no way I will be among them.

This would be extremely good marketing in our celebraty-obsessed culture.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com