# Meet The Condom of the Future



## Gahars (Apr 8, 2013)

That's the title I've always dreamed of typing, but I never thought in a million years... kids, take this to heart: Dreams do come true!

As if the title _somehow_ didn't explain enough, though, here's some text.



> ...Despite the astonishing innovations of the last 100 years, the latex condom remains woefully old fashioned. It practically hasn't changed since its invention in 1918. And I think we can all agree that condoms are universally hated—a necessary evil of safe, protected sex.
> 
> Future patron saint (should his design work the way he says) Daniel Resnic is seeking to change all that with the first non-rolled, injection-molded, engineered, silicone condom. His invention is called Origami...
> 
> ...







Ladyish

And if you're curious what Oragami looks like...


Spoiler










Spoiler: Ha ha, but seriously...










Spoiler: It was all an elaborate ruse! Seriously, though, let's get down to business.
















The future is coming and it is ribbed for her pleasure.

In all seriousness, if this works as advertised, it could be a great step forward. An even safer condom can really only be a good thing. Less disease transmission and less unwanted child births equals happiness for all. Not condoning that is just con-dumb.

Plus, I can finally call something "Whore-agami". It's a win-win-win, really.

It's quite a bit away from hitting the market, though. It still needs to go through FDA testing (I'm sure there must be some very willing test subjects); the company doesn't expect it to hit shelves until 2015 or so.

Sure, the wait sucks, but look on the bright side,: It makes for a great excuse!


----------



## trumpet-205 (Apr 8, 2013)

Good for those who are allergic to latex, another option.


----------



## Tom Bombadildo (Apr 8, 2013)

Gahars said:


> It still needs to go through FDA testing (I'm sure there must be some very willing test subjects)


Where do I sign up??

But this is good, it's fairly surprising we haven't thought up a better solution for safer sex than a condom, it's the 21st century guys! C'mon!


----------



## dickfour (Apr 8, 2013)

It's basically a pocket pussy you cram into your gay lover's ass. I could see this getting a cult following in the fetish community but nothing beyond that


----------



## Taleweaver (Apr 8, 2013)

Of all the opinions the last pope had, there was one I actually agreed on...

CONDOMS FUCKING SUCK!!!! 


Yeah, yeah, I know about safe sex, hygiene, birth prevention and all that. And believe me: I don't take those arguments lightly. But what's all that worth if the act itself isn't fun to do anymore?


So...yeah. I'm curious as to how this will turn out. unfold.


----------



## Gahars (Apr 8, 2013)

dickfour said:


> It's basically a pocket pussy you cram into your gay lover's ass. I could see this getting a cult following in the fetish community but nothing beyond that


 
Good thing there's no model designed for heterosexual intercourse and the fact that it's supposed to be safer and more comfortable.

Oh wait.


----------



## porkiewpyne (Apr 8, 2013)

So XXXXXXXXXL condom/whatever is durable enough + rubber band = win?


----------



## ferofax (Apr 8, 2013)

It looks like a funnel that attaches to a big fat syringe.

Or maybe I've just seen too much weird JAVs.



dickfour said:


> It's basically a pocket pussy you cram into your gay lover's ass. I could see this getting a cult following in the fetish community but nothing beyond that


Then in that case... onaholes. Because if we're gonna talk about inside ribbing, nothing beats that except real folds of flesh tightly wrapped around... wood.


----------



## dickfour (Apr 8, 2013)

Gahars said:


> Good thing there's no model designed for heterosexual intercourse and the fact that it's supposed to be safer and more comfortable.
> 
> Oh wait.


Comfortable for who? You put that into a chick and she ain't gonna feel a thing.


----------



## Satangel (Apr 8, 2013)

dickfour said:


> Comfortable for who? You put that into a chick and she ain't gonna feel a thing.


Ah man I saw condom and last post by dickfour, I lolled. How do you keep doing it GBAtemp?!


----------



## Gahars (Apr 8, 2013)

dickfour said:


> Comfortable for who? You put that into a chick and she ain't gonna feel a thing.


 
I take it you're speaking from personal experience with the product here, right?


----------



## Tom Bombadildo (Apr 8, 2013)

Gahars said:


> I take it you're speaking from personal experience with the product here, right?


Ba-dum tiss!


----------



## dickfour (Apr 8, 2013)

Gahars said:


> I take it you're speaking from personal experience with the product here, right?


What are you stupid? It doesn't fucking move. Obviously you don't understand the mechanics of female orgasms
The female version looks like something made for sex workers. I bet you could turn a few extra tricks with that. Be less likely to put the ware on your delicate honey pot


----------



## omgpwn666 (Apr 8, 2013)

dickfour said:


> What are you stupid? It doesn't fucking move. Obviously you don't understand the mechanics of female orgasms


 
Yep, because when most people plow, they try to think about what is actually happening to her at that very moment.


----------



## Gahars (Apr 8, 2013)

dickfour said:


> What are you stupid? It doesn't fucking move. Obviously you don't understand the mechanics of female orgasms


 





(If you had bothered to check the source first, maybe watching the attached video...)


----------



## porkiewpyne (Apr 8, 2013)

dickfour said:


> What are you stupid? It doesn't fucking move. Obviously you don't understand the mechanics of female orgasms


By that "logic", males can't orgasm with the traditional condom because they don't "fucking move" either.

So unless the female's vagina and all share the same size and structure of a cave, she will be able to feel something. Reduced sensation maybe. But that's pretty much it.

Knowing the mechanics of (female) orgasms is useless when the logic is thrown out the window.....


----------



## Sicklyboy (Apr 8, 2013)

Nothin beats bare-backing it.

*NOTHIN.*

Not to say I wouldn't use this. Most definitely would.


----------



## p1ngpong (Apr 8, 2013)

I can't wait to try this out on all of ur mums.


----------



## WiiUBricker (Apr 8, 2013)

Gahars said:


>


These do look like sex toys, not condoms.


----------



## porkiewpyne (Apr 8, 2013)

WiiUBricker said:


> These do look like sex toys, not condoms.


Pretty sure those prototypes are more rigid than the real deal as seen in the vid in the source.


----------



## ForteGospel (Apr 8, 2013)

WiiUBricker said:


> These do look like sex toys, not condoms.


in the picture they look like some hard plastic, but if you watch the video you can see its just a normal condom with a weird form


----------



## Anakir (Apr 8, 2013)

Down with safe sex! No, but really, I hate using condoms. There's not enough stimulation in it. Hoping this new one would provide that.


----------



## Smuff (Apr 8, 2013)

By the time these are released I will have no further need for such things 

EDIT

On the plus side, anything that prevents this fuckwitted younger generation from reproducing has got to be worthy of two thumbs up  

and yes I am aware that could be taken the wrong way.


and yes, that one also.


----------



## FAST6191 (Apr 8, 2013)

Go science.

I do have to ask what are you people doing with condoms that causes so much lack of feeling? Granted other than well you know* I have not gone bareback since I was a moron kid but I have to say something like fault with the operator and all that.

*



Spoiler












Re condoms looking like sex toys.... because ribbed, flavoured and such wonders as the two-pound black ribbed nobler are not already in that territory?

Edit @Smuff they make pills for that or if tubes are to be cut other than a case of crabs it still has all the other benefits should you wish to avail yourself of the perks of a night out.


----------



## macmanhigh (Apr 8, 2013)

I'll just be happy once I can get them in these..


----------



## Prophet (Apr 8, 2013)

This seems like this would cost a fortune per condom. Monogamy and birth control pills >>>>>>>


----------



## Sicklyboy (Apr 8, 2013)

Prophet said:


> This seems like this would cost a fortune per condom. Monogamy and birth control pills >>>>>>>


 

Monogamy and birth control don't prevent STDs, nor do they (fully) safeguard against pregnancies.

Conventional latex condoms aren't the cheapest thing out there as it is; silicone isn't quite pricey either, you don't see silicone pot holders going for >$10 at most places. And that's a lot of silicone.  Sure, these will be more expensive at first because there are going to be small returns on how many people buy these versus how many are being manufactured, when compared to latex condoms, but over time, if these prove their worth, they'll lower in price to near or even below latex ones.

(I'm still going to stand by the fact that nothing beats bare backing it.  We always put a condom on towards the end though. That and her being on birth control has kept us safe so far.)


----------



## Lacius (Apr 8, 2013)

Sicklyboy said:


> Monogamy and birth control don't prevent STDs, nor do they (fully) safeguard against pregnancies.


Monogamy is 100% effective in preventing the spread of STI/STDs if neither person is infected. You're right that birth control pills do nothing to protect against STIs, however.



Sicklyboy said:


> (I'm still going to stand by the fact that nothing beats bare backing it. We always put a condom on towards the end though. That and her being on birth control has kept us safe so far.)


While putting a condom on towards the end reduces one's risks of pregnancy and STI-infection, it's common mistakes like these that bring down condom effectiveness to between 90-82%. Pregnancy and STI-infection are still very possible from pre-ejactulate, which you don't seem to be protecting against. If neither of you has an STI and she's on birth control pills, then you're odds are still in your favor. Still...



Spoiler


----------



## pokefloote (Apr 8, 2013)

Sicklyboy said:


> Monogamy and birth control don't prevent STDs, nor do they (fully) safeguard against pregnancies.


 
If neither of them have an STD to begin with, yeah monogamy "prevents" STDs. Aside from the stuff you can get outside of sex like from dirty needles or some shit.

edit: fucking ninja'd D:


----------



## Sicklyboy (Apr 8, 2013)

Lacius said:


> Monogamy is 100% effective in preventing the spread of STI/STDs if neither person is infected. You're right that birth control pills do nothing to protect against STIs, however.
> 
> 
> While putting a condom on towards the end reduces one's risks of pregnancy and STI-infection, it's common mistakes like these that bring down condom effectiveness to between 90-82%. Pregnancy and STI-infection are still very possible from pre-ejactulate, which you don't seem to be protecting against. If neither of you has an STI and she's on birth control pills, then you're odds are still in your favor. Still...


 

No I agree with you 100%, and you're absolutely right.  However, I am deciding to be a bit technical on it, and bring up the fact that being monogamous means you're only being with one person in a relationship at a time.  That does not eliminate the fact that should you two separate and get together with a different person, and still be in a new monogamous relationship at that point, that the new partner on both sides will be clean.

And we know the risk, also; her being on birth control and me being careful makes us feel comfortable taking the chance, and we're both clean so we don't have to worry about that aspect.


----------



## DiabloStorm (Apr 8, 2013)

The important question here is if we can stick these on our heads and inflate them with our noses.


----------



## Smuff (Apr 8, 2013)

FAST6191 said:


> Edit @Smuff they make pills for that or if tubes are to be cut other than a case of crabs it still has all the other benefits should you wish to avail yourself of the perks of a night out.


 
Sounds like an offer to me ? You're on mate. On like Donkey Kong!!!!


----------



## Clydefrosch (Apr 8, 2013)

It's too expensive for young people and those that would need many of them, they expect about 7 bucks a piece and its not reusable.
It's not going to change much for those that would fall into a high risk category...


----------



## SuzieJoeBob (Apr 8, 2013)

dickfour said:


> It's basically a pocket pussy you cram into your gay lover's ass. I could see this getting a cult following in the fetish community but nothing beyond that


I cannot look past the fact that your username is *dick*four. Between that and the post of yours I quoted, I am not sure what to say. Well, anything other than whether or not you are the pitcher or catcher on the baseball team.... (joking)


----------



## DinohScene (Apr 8, 2013)

I have Hello Kitty rubbers ;3
Meh I'll stick to the old fashioned ones~
They do the job pretty good~


----------



## Hop2089 (Apr 8, 2013)

Pretty innovative condoms and the presentation was nice as well.

I loled at the Pokemon condoms.


----------



## sergster1 (Apr 8, 2013)

Wasn't Bill Gates offering $100k to the person who could create the next generation condom?


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 8, 2013)

Latex condoms? _Pfft-_ you guys are so behind the times. Polyisoprene is the way to go - non-allergic, very skin-like and thin, you can barely feel you're wearing one, neat stuff. They're sold under the Mates SKYN, Unimil SKYN and Lifestyles SKYN brands. Like their advert says, it's _"The closest thing to wearing nothing". _


----------



## raulpica (Apr 8, 2013)

Okay, they look interesting (look at the vid guys, otherwise you won't grasp it) and probably pretty nice too. I'm looking forward to them.


----------



## Sicklyboy (Apr 8, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> Latex condoms? _Pfft-_ you guys are so behind the times. Polyisoprene is the way to go - non-allergic, very skin-like and thin, you can barely feel you're wearing one, neat stuff. They're sold in the UK under the Mates SKYN, Unimil SKYN and Lifestyles SKYN brands. Like their advert says, it's _"The closest thing to wearing nothing". _


 

My girlfriend got a shitload from this sexual health seminar she went to at Uni, so we're working on going through those.   Then we'll have to try those other ones.


----------



## Hop2089 (Apr 8, 2013)

sergster1 said:


> Wasn't Bill Gates offering $100k to the person who could create the next generation condom?


 
I think he found the winner as well.


----------



## The Milkman (Apr 8, 2013)

I kind of agree with dick, I don't understand how those designs work. They honestly look more like buttplugs then anything. (WHAT!? WE WERE ALL THINKING IT!)


----------

