?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Interesting news - Kate Nineteen [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Kate Nineteen

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Interesting news [May. 11th, 2009|05:53 pm]
Kate Nineteen
[Tags|, , , ]
[Current Mood |curiouscurious]

Male hormonal birth control has a successful trial

Given the societal implications of the pill, I figure this (if it pans out) could also have major social and societal effects. What do you all think?
LinkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: benndragon
2009-05-12 02:24 am (UTC)
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)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: etherial
2009-05-12 03:35 am (UTC)
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.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: mariaklob
2009-05-12 09:08 am (UTC)
etherial 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.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: jjlc
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?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: nyren
2009-05-12 01:23 pm (UTC)
Uhh, I think being married to your partner changes things :P
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: mariaklob
2009-05-12 02:17 pm (UTC)
Virginity until marriage is sufficiently rare in today's society that I left it out of consideration.

I think it's wise to ask one's fiance to get tested, because abstinence is so very rare. There's a level of trust and ethical consistency beyond which you may not consider it necessary.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: etherial
2009-05-12 04:07 pm (UTC)
Indeed, requiring testing of syphilis for marriage licenses in Massachusetts resulted in dramatic reduction in the incidence of syphilis.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: etherial
2009-05-12 04:11 pm (UTC)

Yes

I do find it rather promiscuous to marry someone without ever discussing the possibility of parenthood.

Edited at 2009-05-12 05:21 pm (UTC)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: jjlc
2009-05-12 05:33 pm (UTC)

Re: Yes

That we discussed. STIs we did not. Our other discussions made this a non-issue.

Pregnancy comes with the territory if one gets married, often even if one does not intend it to. When I get pregnant, I mostly do what sane, moral women have done since the beginning of time: gestate.

It is just interesting that if one takes "number of partners" out of the equation completely, one's subsequent definitions may have some flaws.

I got married in Massachusetts and was not tested for syphilis that I remember; was that change recent?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: etherial
2009-05-12 05:52 pm (UTC)

Re: I got married in Massachusetts and was not tested for syphilis that I remember; was that change

That we discussed. STIs we did not. Our other discussions made this a non-issue.

You would call a complete immune system breakdown a "non-issue"?

Pregnancy comes with the territory if one has heterosexual vaginal intercourse.

It is just interesting that if one takes "number of partners" out of the equation completely, one's subsequent definitions may have some flaws.

Oh? I think my definition works pretty well for people who have hundreds or thousands of partners. I also think it works pretty well for people who are considering losing their virginity.

I got married in Massachusetts and was not tested for syphilis that I remember; was that change recent?

I know the testing was in place ~8 years ago. I recall hearing talk about getting rid of it after the infection rate stabilized. I know my flist was rather sad there was no talk of replacing it with mandatory AIDS testing.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: jjlc
2009-05-12 07:50 pm (UTC)

Re: I got married in Massachusetts and was not tested for syphilis that I remember; was that change

I meant that STI testing was a non-issue for us, because we had zero risk. I guess I must have gotten married after they got rid of the syphilis testing.

The problem with your definition is only that it seems rather superfluous for two people who have never had and never intend to have other partners. You can define it however you want, I just found it ironic that if I took your definition literally, I am promiscuous. And you are free to think that I am, and I am free to think it is silly if you do so.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)