[game_ethic]

A lot of guys don't like using condoms—I know I certainly don't. Thankfully, a guy by the name of Charlie Powell is inventing a "tip-only" condom—it only covers the head of the penis, thus exposing the rest of your penis so you can get optimal pleasure during sex. The IndieGoGo campaign starts June 1 since they need the money to get FDA approval for the condom. What do you guys think?

Instructional and in-depth video here: http://youtu.be/XVhYD-1_bxs

[assman]

I wonder if foreskin interferes with it?

I'd be curious to try it. If that base is really securely bonded to your skin (without which this product would be a total fail), I assume you'll need soap and water or some other solution to remove it?

[vinman]

I don't know. Seems like more work than just rolling one on. And how the Hell do you get it off quickly for the facial if it's glued on?

[kosko]

I applaud at the ingenuity of it. Showing once more that men are at the forefront of reproductive science for both men and women, because men need to cover their bases on a wholesale level.

The complexity of it is the only draw back. Its a easy system, but its one more step that can fuck things up. Its funny that they need boat loads of cash just.. JUST... to get the ball rolling and get FDA approval. Adding more fuel to the fire that the FDA is just a shill shop and Sotheby's auction house to massive Pharmaceutical Corps to bid for exclusive approvals, and to close out the smaller man whom can offer groundbreaking advancements in health.

[Thomas the Rhymer]

I don't see how that will provide much protection from STDs. It may prevent male-to-female transmission of HIV; but it won't protect at all for female-to-male HIV transmission and for most other STDs.

And the name is silly. 'Galactic cap'?

[Vroom]

It's not going to protect me from getting shit on my dick when I'm giving it to the missus in the back door, which is the only time I use a condom.

[kosko]

(05-29-2014 01:33 AM)Thomas the Rhymer Wrote:  

I don't see how that will provide much protection from STDs. It may prevent male-to-female transmission of HIV; but it won't protect at all for female-to-male HIV transmission and for most other STDs.

Well...

Neither does Raw Doggin' & Pulling Out

[void]

Would try it in a relationship, not with ONS. Mediocre marketing though.

[Saweeep]

This is one of those products that I suspect will flop; ya know something that sounds great in theory but nobody ever buys.

I actually love using condoms as with one on I can go forever and consciously choose the moment to bring things to a head.

[assman]

(05-29-2014 01:33 AM)Thomas the Rhymer Wrote:  

I don't see how that will provide much protection from STDs. It may prevent male-to-female transmission of HIV; but it won't protect at all for female-to-male HIV transmission and for most other STDs.

Sure it would, assuming it actually stays on. Assuming the male doesn't have a cut on his dick, it should prevent fluid-borne viruses (including HIV) and bacteria. Of course it won't do anything to prevent skin to skin virus transmission, but neither do regular condoms (other than reducing the amount of skin available for contact with the female).

[Thomas the Rhymer]

(05-29-2014 08:47 AM)assman Wrote:  

(05-29-2014 01:33 AM)Thomas the Rhymer Wrote:  

I don't see how that will provide much protection from STDs. It may prevent male-to-female transmission of HIV; but it won't protect at all for female-to-male HIV transmission and for most other STDs.

Sure it would, assuming it actually stays on. Assuming the male doesn't have a cut on his dick, it should prevent fluid-borne viruses (including HIV) and bacteria. Of course it won't do anything to prevent skin to skin virus transmission, but neither do regular condoms (other than reducing the amount of skin available for contact with the female).

It doesn't fully cover the glans (head) of the penis, so it won't protect against infection. Also, if you still have a foreskin, it's not going to cover that either on an erect penis and the foreskin is one of the most vulnerable areas for infection transmission (hence why removing a foreskin protects against STDs)

[assman]

(05-29-2014 10:03 AM)Thomas the Rhymer Wrote:  

(05-29-2014 08:47 AM)assman Wrote:  

(05-29-2014 01:33 AM)Thomas the Rhymer Wrote:  

I don't see how that will provide much protection from STDs. It may prevent male-to-female transmission of HIV; but it won't protect at all for female-to-male HIV transmission and for most other STDs.

Sure it would, assuming it actually stays on. Assuming the male doesn't have a cut on his dick, it should prevent fluid-borne viruses (including HIV) and bacteria. Of course it won't do anything to prevent skin to skin virus transmission, but neither do regular condoms (other than reducing the amount of skin available for contact with the female).

It doesn't fully cover the glans (head) of the penis, so it won't protect against infection. Also, if you still have a foreskin, it's not going to cover that either on an erect penis and the foreskin is one of the most vulnerable areas for infection transmission (hence why removing a foreskin protects against STDs)

Since when do fluid-borne infections transfer THROUGH the skin of the glans? Serious question. I've never heard of such a thing being possible, and am open to education on this.

I tend to think circumcision as a prophylactic against infection, particular HIV, is bullshit. The studies supporting this tend to come from Africa. But if foreskin is such a big risk for infection transmission, why is HIV not such a big issue in Europe, where circumcision is NOT the norm? I think there's some other factor(s) occurring in Africa that is not being accounted for that better explains the HIV phenomenon there than intact foreskin.

[Thomas the Rhymer]

(05-29-2014 11:19 AM)assman Wrote:  

(05-29-2014 10:03 AM)Thomas the Rhymer Wrote:  

(05-29-2014 08:47 AM)assman Wrote:  

(05-29-2014 01:33 AM)Thomas the Rhymer Wrote:  

I don't see how that will provide much protection from STDs. It may prevent male-to-female transmission of HIV; but it won't protect at all for female-to-male HIV transmission and for most other STDs.

Sure it would, assuming it actually stays on. Assuming the male doesn't have a cut on his dick, it should prevent fluid-borne viruses (including HIV) and bacteria. Of course it won't do anything to prevent skin to skin virus transmission, but neither do regular condoms (other than reducing the amount of skin available for contact with the female).

It doesn't fully cover the glans (head) of the penis, so it won't protect against infection. Also, if you still have a foreskin, it's not going to cover that either on an erect penis and the foreskin is one of the most vulnerable areas for infection transmission (hence why removing a foreskin protects against STDs)

Since when do fluid-borne infections transfer THROUGH the skin of the glans? Serious question. I've never heard of such a thing being possible, and am open to education on this.

I tend to think circumcision as a prophylactic against infection, particular HIV, is bullshit. The studies supporting this tend to come from Africa. But if foreskin is such a big risk for infection transmission, why is HIV not such a big issue in Europe, where circumcision is NOT the norm? I think there's some other factor(s) occurring in Africa that is not being accounted for that better explains the HIV phenomenon there than intact foreskin.

Histology was never my strong point back in med school (so if there's anyone on this forum who is more clued up on it than me, please correct me) but as I recall the skin over the glans and inner side of the foreskin is not a true skin, in the sense that it is somewhat permeable due its thinness. I recall one of my lecturers referring to it rather as a 'specialised mucosa' rather than skin.

As for the reasons for HIV in Africa, here are a few contributing factors:

- Low rates of condom use, partly due to cultural resistance to condom use

- High background rates of syphilis, herpes simplex, genital warts, etc. If you have an inflammatory lesion on your genitals, your risk of catching HIV increases (i.e. one STD increases your risk of catching another STD, due to inflammation and weakened immunity the genital area)

- General lack of a culture of monogamy, meaning STDs rapidly travel between multiple partners

- A lack of education in some areas making it difficult for people to understand abstract concepts such as viruses. I've tried once to explain the concept of a virus to someone who was illiterate. He was polite and nodded while I spoke but he clearly had no idea what I was on about. Education gives you a powerful cognitive tool that most people take for granted - the ability to engage in symbolic reasoning. Most uneducated people engage in concrete reasoning - they can only understand what they see, touch, feel, hear. Education gives you the ability to understand abstract concepts, and a virus is pretty much an abstract concept. And if you can't understand the idea of a virus borne disease, it's hard to develop the cognitive mechanism to prevent getting it in the first place.

- High background rates of TB and malnutrition make it easier to catch HIV in the first place. HIV is actually a difficult virus to catch - if a man sleeps with a woman with HIV, the estimated risk is only about 10% to catch it. But if your immunity is weak to begin with, the virus will have an easier chance to establish itself.

- There is some evidence to suggest that a significant percentage of caucasians carry a gene that makes them resistant to HIV infection. So even if culture and economic circumstances were the same, Europeans would still have a lower HIV prevalence than Africans. In fact, some Europeans carry mutations that seem to make them completely immune to HIV infection.

I'm still not entirely convinced circumcision really reduced HIV transmission, but apparently due to the unusual concentration of CD4 receptor cells on the inner aspect of the foreskin, the foreskin is an easy entry route for HIV infection.

[Sailor]

Question is : how much will it cost? More than lambskin i guess (and those are not exactly cheap)

[TigerMandingo]

Dont care, still gonna raw dog...

[game_ethic]

(05-29-2014 02:51 PM)Sailor Wrote:  

Question is : how much will it cost? More than lambskin i guess (and those are not exactly cheap)

not sure, they haven't revealed the price yet. I'm pretty certain it's gonna be more than the standard condoms though...

[presidentcarter]

I'm an all or nothing kind of guy...preferably nothing in this case