I'm kind of in favor of any measure that decreases pregnancies while letting irresponsible morons spread diseases among themselves.
What, promiscuous sex with a no-pregnancy almost-guarantee? Sounds like a great recipe for spreading unpleasant illnesses to the people who deserve it most, without actually mucking up nascent lives.
Problem is that irresponsible morons will manage to muck up nascent lives one way or another (perhaps when they finally decide to TTC and their offspring get congenital syphilis or something). They wouldn't be irresponsible morons otherwise.
*TTC="trying to conceive"
So you'd agree with the statement "The only reason they don't give Darwin awards to people who get serious STDs is that there are too many of them"?
Dying in a strange and original manner because you missed common sense is still tragic. That's why I really dislike the Darwin Awards.
Dying because you willfully ignored basic safety, safety that society has attempted to drill into your head continuously for years and years...well, tragic though the mere fact of death may be, it was knowingly self-inflicted.
The problem with this is that most STDs are also blood-borne-pathogens, which means that accidents can pass them through blood. Also, I'm not cool with the unwillingly ignorant taking the brunt of the punishment for the willingly ignorant. And the poor. Prescriptions are not cheap.
Ah, I thought of one more little homily. I am not in favor of capital punishment or involuntary sterilization of idiots. What you're describing, while not doing what I've just mentioned in an active role, implies that you are willing to allow it to happen passively.
Yes, I am willing for idiots to shoot their balls off with a shotgun.
Beyond education, I do not think it is society's duty to protect people from themselves.
If you have a bicycle, and you've never heard that helmets are necessary for safety, and you get a head injury and die, then society has failed you. That is a tragedy.
If you have heard the (very common) warnings about helmet use and the dangers of not doing it, and you get a head injury and die, you've committed manslaughter. That is a crime for which you are fully responsible.
If you have never heard about STDs, and you get infected, society has failed you. That is a pity possibly ranging up to a tragedy.
If you have heard warnings, possibly the ones you would hear while seeking out prescription birth control, and you get infected, you share responsibility for any resulting disease contracted while you were not using a barrier method during sex.
The problem of an unknowing partner being infected is a knottier one. Slightly.
Are you defining promiscuous as "any sex that doesn't involve barrier protection" or are you using the more common form of "anyone who is having more sex than I am"? (I've not seen the former before and it seems like an interesting idea as a STD prevention meme, but I'm sadly suspecting you mean the later)
I define "promiscuous sex" as "any sex that does not include what I find to be minimal safeguards". Among those safeguards are:
1. Compiling of evidence WRT STIs.
2. Discussion (and genuine agreement) of what to do in the event of STIs/pregnancy.
3. Discussion of preferred techniques and hypothetical goal scenarios.
4. A night to sleep on it.
got it on the nose! Promiscuity, to my mind, isn't the number of partners so much as the total lack of research before you sleep with someone without a barrier method.
Sex without a barrier is responsible and fine in cases where you trust your partner and know that s/he has been tested. If you don't know him or her that well, you would be [insert extraordinarily judgmental invective] to dispense with the barrier.
So I guess I was thinking of other people's comments about the players who could take advantage of this. If you're the kind of person who sleeps around without taking minimal precautions, I figure you deserve what's coming to you.
2009-05-12 01:02 pm (UTC)
Wow, I find it really interesting that by everyone's definitions I am promiscuous. (How times change.)
I am probably having more sex than most of the people here. I am not using barrier methods. I have not discussed STIs with my "partner" or what to do if we "get one." My "partner" and I have not undergone testing for STIs.
As for the pill, if a man wants to inject hormones into his body, I suppose that's his choice. Except for my husband, he's not allowed to.
I am wondering if increased testosterone would lead to other side effects, though, like hair growth, aggressiveness, and increased sex drive?
So, uh, I owe the 'misanthropic bitch' jar about $500 for this one.
I apologize. I'm a firm believer in personal responsibility, but this parent comment is inexcusable.
I hope STI transmission doesn't increase with the new measure. I hope people are sane, and get saner every day, about taking precautions in their sexual adventures.