Using Nanotechnology To Build Thinner, Stronger Condoms

Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Discovery Magazine reports that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has granted $100,000 to Boston University School of Medicine (BUSM) and Boston Medical Center (BMC) to develop a nanoparticle coating for condoms that will make them more comfortable and stronger while simultaneously keeping them thin to preserve – and increase – sensation in order to make them more appealing to use. According to the Gates Foundation, in the time that condoms have been in use, not much has changed: '[Condoms] have undergone very little technological improvement in the past 50 years. The primary improvement has been the use of latex as the primary material and quality-control measures, which allow for quality testing of each individual condom. Material science and our understanding of neurobiology has undergone revolutionary transformation in the last decade, yet that knowledge has not been applied to improve the product attributes of one of the most ubiquitous and potentially underutilized products on earth.' The nanotechnology that the Boston doctors intend to use for their improved condoms will be superhydrophillic nanoparticles that coat the condom and trap water to make them more resilient and easier to use. 'We believe that by altering the mechanical forces experienced by the condom, we may ultimately be able to make a thinner condom which reduces friction, thereby reducing discomfort associated with friction increases pleasure, thereby increasing condom use and decreases rates of unwanted pregnancy and infection transmission.'"

Comments

Thinner, Stronger Condoms

[Anonymous Coward]

News for nerds.

Reduced Friction?

[amiga3D]

Isn't friction what generates sensation? That's part of the problem with condoms now, no feeling.

Re:Reduced Friction?

[BringsApples]

Not completely. Condoms squeeze the guy, sometimes (depending on girth) causing complete loss of sensation (much like cutting off the blood from you foot or arm). This same squeezing also causes less, how shall I say it, 'back-and-forth' of the skin on the penis. I don't know what the sensation is like for women, but they seem to hate them as much as men.

Re:Reduced Friction?

[Antipater]

Condoms squeeze the guy, sometimes (depending on girth) causing complete loss of sensation (much like cutting off the blood from you foot or arm).

This is important. I hope, while they're redesigning the materials, they also do something to combat the "one size fits all" myth of modern condoms. Many people's aversion to condoms are a result of a size mismatch. Penises come in many different sizes, not just "regular" and "magnum", so what's comfortable for one man may not be for another. A condom that's too tight can cut off all sensation, while a condom that's too loose can slip or tear. Nobody advertises one-size-fits-all running shoes, but one-size-fits-all condoms are our only option. I hope Mr. Gates works to fix that as well.

Re:Reduced Friction?

[QilessQi]

It depends on whose sensation we're talking about. :-) The wearer should experience almost no friction from the latex itself, since it's supposed to stay more-or-less in place. But the latex is thin enough that he can sense the temperature and "grip" of his partner, which is probably the primary stimulating sensation for him.

His partner, on the other hand, would certainly experience friction from the latex, which is one reason you should use lube with condoms -- too much friction, and thrusting becomes difficult for the pair and especially irritating (or painful) for the person being penetrated. That leads to irritation, soreness, and an eventual halting of adult activities.

(PSA: Make sure to choose the right lube for the condom you use -- some lubes will cause the material of the condom to fail, which leads to babies, and possibly also a halting of adult activities. But also talk to your partner -- certain women report high incidents of yeast infections after using certain types of lube.)

So I can see a thinner, lower-friction condom being a boon for both partners, as it would increase sensation for both, and also lead to fewer incidents of vaginal/anal tearing from friction, which are not only not fun but which also which increase risk of STD transmission.

Re:Reduced Friction?

[JamieIanMacgregor]

you'll need an outlet store with a computerised fitting system by the sounds of it. here, poke your member in this hole while we 3d scan it. oh, and watch this porn.

Re:Reduced Friction?

[barlevg]

this, I think, is more of a societal issue: not many men are going to feel comfortable going to the convenience store and checking out with a box of "size smalls." Shopping on the internet is an option, I guess, but do you really want Amazon knowing your penis size? I can just imagine the targeted advertisements on BOTH ends of the spectrum.

Re:Reduced Friction?

[Anonymous Coward]

Strangers in the night, exchanging rubbers.

This ones much too tight, I need another.

This ones much too loose, I'm losing all my juice.

Re:Reduced Friction?

[DigiShaman]

A condom that's too tight can cut off all sensation, while a condom that's too loose can slip or tear. Nobody advertises one-size-fits-all running shoes, but one-size-fits-all condoms are our only option.

Length isn't usually an issue (for most men) as can you roll as much as needed to the base. But as you've pointed out, girth is. The girth of a man's member can dynamically change based on arousal and any length of time. So while that "magnum" may feel right now, it can become loose later before climax has been reached. It's already an issue having to interrupt the moment to roll on a rubber, but having to choose which size works best depending on the mood already kills it.

Preventing pregnancy aside, smart phones with terahertz scanning capability (say 6 years from now) might be able to detect STDs and other blood related issues in the future. Essentially a Tricorder that's not a medical device, but just as damn near as good. So if you're clean, and she's clean, to hell with the condom. Have fun! Just be sure to scan well before the mood sets in. Personally, i've never been promiscuous and trust is always important to me (I'm married). So all that technology is a moot point as far as i'm concerned.

Re:Reduced Friction?

[SpankiMonki]

...not many men are going to feel comfortable going to the convenience store and checking out with a box of "size smalls."

You're right! Small condoms should be labeled "Tall", with larger sizes labeled "Grande", "Venti", and "Trenta".

I bet they could charge a lot more for condoms if they did that.

Re:Reduced Friction?

[Anonymous Coward]

Condoms squeeze the guy, sometimes (depending on girth) causing complete loss of sensation (much like cutting off the blood from you foot or arm). This same squeezing also causes less, how shall I say it, 'back-and-forth' of the skin on the penis.

Citation please?

...with pictures please?

Re:Reduced Friction?

[S.O.B.]

You're right! Small condoms should be labeled "Tall", with larger sizes labeled "Grande", "Venti", and "Trenta".

I bet they could charge a lot more for condoms if they did that.

Over price condoms with pretentious names for the sizes...we can call them Starf*cks.

Re:Reduced Friction?

[amicusNYCL]

I didn't do very well in history class, but I'm pretty sure you're referring to The Battle Of The Bulge.

Re:Reduced Friction?

[Zynder]

Won't work. This falls into a category woman deal with all the time. In order to psychologically attract a buyer, many companies will sell tent size dresses that are only a size 6. No 2 company's size 6 will be the same either so it makes fitting a chore. A man with a small penis who's self conscious about it will not buy a 3", he'll want the 12" (even though it is actually a 3) and you'll find companies who will advertise "Our size 6's are bigger than all the competition!" And when I started typing this I intended to make it funny, but now that it's time for the punchline, I got nothing...much like my nonexistent penis.....sigh....

Re:There needs to be a completely different approa

[Overzeetop]

Well, the pregnancy prevention part is pretty simple - outpatient surgery will fix you right up.

Preventing microbe transfer when bodily fluids are mixed and parts are in direct contact - well, that's quite a bit more challenging without a physical barrier.

Say...

[fyngyrz]

Using Nanotechnology To Build Thinner, Stronger Condoms

Seems like a dick move to me.

Obligatory Tom Swifty:

[fyngyrz]

I am not a homosexual necrophiliac, said Tom, in dead earnest.

Thanks, try the veal.

Re:Ohhhh

[tripleevenfall]

I agree, this will be fantastic. I'm sick of wearing these bandages on my hands all the time.

Re:TLDR, Boston, nano-condoms

[cayenne8]

Definitely need to make them so they give more sensation.

Frankly, I find them akin to eating steak with one on your tongue.

A lot of effort, for no sensation at all. Hell, I find it hard to blow a nut with one on, hence I rarely use them.

Re:TLDR, Boston, nano-condoms

[Anonymous Coward]

Wishing there was a "Too Informative" right about now...

Re:TLDR, Boston, nano-condoms

[lgw]

So close to the right joke.

Gates Foundation gives $100,000 to help invent micro, soft condoms.

There we go.

Re:what's a condom?

[Anonymous Coward]

You put it on your dongle to practice safe hex.

Re:TLDR, Boston, nano-condoms

[Bayoudegradeable]

Hence I rarely use them?? Ahem, this is slashdot... THAT is why you rarely use them....