Wasn't aware I needed it. Pregnancy is universal, but no one ever believes that they will be afflicted with some rare disease.
Colorados Effort Against Teenage Pregnancies Is a Startling Success
- Thread starter Cutlass
- Start date
Wasn't aware I needed it. Pregnancy is universal, but no one ever believes that they will be afflicted with some rare disease.
schlaufuchs
Break My Heart
lolwut. The notion of STDs isn't exactly arcane these days. I don't know if you know this but AIDS was (is) kind of a big deal.
:3
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
It isn't like we are still in the GWB dark ages when they intentionally infected millions with AIDs by insisting that only abstinence could be taught in American public schools, and free condoms could no longer be supplied to African countries using federal money.
But I imagine there are still some backward states where they still teach abstinence only "sex education".
But I imagine there are still some backward states where they still teach abstinence only "sex education".
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
It is generally acknowledged that all products have a production cost. The term "free," therefore, is usually applied based on having no cost to the end user. While it would be more technically correct to describe these condoms as "free to the users" there is really no need to specify that given the context and the standard usage of the term.
[/pedantry]
So the argument is that people think rationally?
Then it should be pretty easy to find data to support that, right?
OTOH, abortions or STDs. Pick one.
We often let perfect be the enemy of good.
It's a good idea to be more alert regarding STDs (the theory is sound, that a drop in the perceived need for condoms will allow more STD transmission), but this worry might not be worth the opportunity cost.
We often let perfect be the enemy of good.
It's a good idea to be more alert regarding STDs (the theory is sound, that a drop in the perceived need for condoms will allow more STD transmission), but this worry might not be worth the opportunity cost.
I can't name the specific bias, but it's an axiom of human nature. People don't anticipate that the rare, bad things they hear about will happen to them. Pregnancy can and does happen to everybody, and therefore is much more visceral.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
Except for everyone that is totally paranoid of getting herpes and/or HIV.
Already mentioned the pregnancies it prevented means that those folks weren't covering up to begin with, so why assume STD rates will rise?
It's sound theory, in that we expect people who were previously covering will reduce their perceived need to do so. I mean, clearly it needs data, but it's a sound idea worth testing (and even being concerned about)
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
It is really only a major concern if one of the people in the relationship has had multiple sex partners or uses IV drugs. In the case of typical monogamous relationships between two people who only have sex with each other, pregnancy is by far the more important issue.
Mise
isle of lucy
El Mac is right that there are good reasons to think that incidence of STDs might rise, but I agree with DT that we should seek to prove this empirically, before throwing the baby out with the bathwater (so to speak).
EDIT: Actually El Mac also said it needs data and testing too. So once again, I'll just let him do the talking
EDIT: Actually El Mac also said it needs data and testing too. So once again, I'll just let him do the talking
civvver
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 5,855
They ought to be supplying those ring sex thingys from coneheads and demolition man, this is an outrage! I demand sex without physical contact that still feels like the real thing in sci fi movies!
(but seriously, why are iud's so expensive? patents? time for a generic and free iuds for all!)
(but seriously, why are iud's so expensive? patents? time for a generic and free iuds for all!)
Patents plus doctor's time.
And this is one of those areas where the new ones really can be better than the old ones, so paying the patent premium is somewhat worth it.
And this is one of those areas where the new ones really can be better than the old ones, so paying the patent premium is somewhat worth it.
schlaufuchs
Break My Heart
The argument is that if they're cognizant enough to know that unprotected sex causes pregnancies, they're probably going to also know about herpes and HPV and AIDS. Could be different out in the deep south where even showing kids how to put a condom on is liable to get you fired, but at the very least here in California most people are smart enough to know that BC doesn't stop an STD.
Zkribbler
Deity
We need to spread the word that illegitimate babies grow up to vote Democratic.
Personally I am for this actually, in a guarded way I mean the last thing we need is more poverty and misery.
I would far rather contraceptives than abortions.
I fully understand the objection of Abortion but I just can't see the problem with contraceptives, we have plenty enough people.
I mean as to the is eugenics argument - surely IUDs can be turned off and or removed?(depending on type - physical or hormonal) thus making that not a problem.
I would far rather contraceptives than abortions.
I fully understand the objection of Abortion but I just can't see the problem with contraceptives, we have plenty enough people.
I mean as to the is eugenics argument - surely IUDs can be turned off and or removed?(depending on type - physical or hormonal) thus making that not a problem.
Similar threads
