Collapsible "Origami" condoms coming to a penis near you


33 Responses to “Collapsible "Origami" condoms coming to a penis near you”

  1. Christopher says:

    I can’t begin to describe how grateful I am for the individuals willing to take part in the clinical trials.

  2. MrScience says:

    I’d be concerned about the seams being failure points. Certainly looks like fun, though!

  3. alfanovember says:

    I’m enjoying the juxtaposition of this article above the photo for the “homeless tunnel city” article.

  4. Sinchy says:

    With a conventional condom your penis still looks like a penis.  With this, so far as I can tell, your penis will look like a weird contraption that may not leave your partner in the mood.

  5. legsmalone says:

    I rather enjoy this with the picture in the link immediately below.

  6. I’m under the impression that once the condom is placed on the appendage of choice, the ridges will not be as prominent.  I think the folding/ridging design is for ease of application and not meant to be some extreme version of “ribbed for his/her pleasure”…

  7. Stooge says:

    I’ve always wanted to play the concertina.

  8. GawainLavers says:

    …easily-torn rolled latex…

    I mean, knock on wood (huh-huh) and all that, but really?  I’m beginning to think I have an abnormally spur-less member or something.  I hear all these statistics about “condoms are 90% effective” and I have to wonder, they fail for other people one time in ten?

    “Oh, uh, yeah, no I totally used a condom.  Must have, uh, broke.”

    Or maybe everyone gets their contraception statistics from the Vatican?

    • retchdog says:

      the 90% efficacy is for “typical use,” so yeah, you’re probably right. it’s just the reported average failure rate for people who claim to use regularly a condom as their sole means of contraception.

      the estimate of failure for so-called “perfect use” is 1%, which iirc means that each year there is an average 1% chance of a pregnancy.

    • dragonfrog says:

      I think those figures are annual effectiveness – i.e. when couples use them regularly for years, they fail on average one year in ten.

      • jandrese says:

        Even that seems really high.  If you used a condom for a decade with a 10% failure rate each year the odds of having a child by the end of the decade would be 65%!  Over a 30 year marriage you would be almost certain (over 95%) to have an accident.  That’s just not what I’ve seen with condoms in the real world.

        • Gilbert Wham says:

           Do enough 1% failure rolls on a D100, eventually you’re gonna have a bad time…

        • Itsumishi says:

          No, the odds of becoming pregnant by the end of the decade would be (just under) 65%. The chance of having a child is entirely dependent on what happens after that. Between first term miscarriages (which frequently happens before people even realise they’re pregnant) and other reasons for pregnancy’s not resulting in children there are substantially lower than 65% chances of having children.

      • Tess says:

        Actually, they’re calculated based on percentage of women using said method as their primary form of birth control who become pregnant in a year.  “Typical use” includes people who don’t actually use a condom every single time, or use one condom for two rounds of PIV, or use expired condoms, or store them in wallets.  

        This is why the typical use effectiveness of abstinence is really very low.

  9. Ladyfingers says:

    Looks like it moves like a foreskin.

  10. SomeGuyNamedMark says:

    Now I know what Bill and Melinda Gates have been busy testing

  11. regondi says:

    Why would you want either “micro” or “soft” associated with your penis?

  12. swild says:

    Shit, by 2015 I’ll be finished with college. 

  13. bobtato says:

    I can’t applaud this kind of R&D enough.  It drives me insane that condom manufacturers basically have a license to print money, yet haven’t managed to fix their crappy design for a century or more.  I’m sure it says a lot about society that we haven’t demanded better, either out of embarrassment or some guilty sense that we deserve to not enjoy sex.

    It doesn’t matter how much you get on your high horse about it, the fact remains that millions of people have HIV and/or unwanted children because these $0.01 bits of plastic are badly designed and so they didn’t wear one.  To say that people should wear a condom, even if it means not enjoying sex, is no different to saying that people should abstain completely: it’s not incorrect, just a spectacular waste of time.

    Anyway, the main failure mode of condoms (tearing due to friction) results from the exact same design flaw that makes them unpleasant to wear, namely the way they (don’t) move.  This design looks like they’ve thought carefully about, you know, how sex works, which has to be a positive step.

  14. E T says:

    THis looks like the female condom,

  15. goopy says:

    This look like a perfect condom for masochist and sadist couple.

  16. Aram Jahn says:

    Comic Book Guy Says:


Leave a Reply