14 ms·

I find it inconceivable that you'd want to encourage high risk of stds by advocating something that only prevents pregnancy

by Ntrails 10y ago

mjohn 10y ago
Sure, but condoms fail too. There is no reason not to use both.
- OJFord 10y ago
  > There is no reason not to use both. Fear of it not being as reversible as it was supposed to be would be a pretty good reason not to use this one. If you're married, with children, and looking for an alternative to vasectomy, that risk is lower in the sense that should the reverse procedure not go as expected, it would probably be less crushing than the same experience as a newlywed.
  - anothercomment 10y ago
    How about combining it with freezing some sperm, just in case. Too expensive perhaps?
    - LeftTriangle 10y ago
      Freezing sperm costs on the order of $200-400 per year depending on how far you pay in advance. Worth paying if you're getting a vasectomy, but probably not worth it for this kind of (hopefully) temporary BC.
      - anothercomment 10y ago
        What makes it so expensive?
        LeftTriangle 10y ago
        You have to be able to guarantee that your liquid nitrogen powered freezer (expensive) will never fail even once over decades of storage (extra expensive). I'm not sure what kind of profit margins sperm banks are working with, but there's quite a bit of competition, so I suspect the prices are mostly pretty close to cost. It's all very labor intensive as well; they need to employ a bunch of lab techs, all of whom have biotech or medical degrees.
- pluma 10y ago
  I think what most people usually miss when dismissing the "condoms fail" argument is that while it's indeed unlikely that condoms literally break if properly used (they're stress tested to ensure a ridiculous level of quality so while possible that's still extremely rare) "user error" is not exactly unlikely. It's also extremely likely that user errors will be reported as condom failures instead.
TheAdamAndChe 10y ago
The same could be said of female contraception, yet I don't see many people complaining about that. Why do you think that is?
- mikeash 10y ago
  Oh, there are a ton of people complaining that female contraception encourages people to have sex they shouldn't be having. It's not usually framed in terms of STDs, but I'm pretty sure the STD argument here is just a cover for a moralistic argument anyway.
  - mehaveaccount 10y ago
    How sad that arguing virtue for its own sake is now politically incorrect.
    - mikeash 10y ago
      Argue it all you want, just don't try to force it. If you're going to argue for sexual restraint but want to let people make their own decisions on it, you're going to have to work really hard to distance yourself from e.g. the people who fight against the HPV vaccine because they're more concerned with premarital sex than with cervical cancer. It's really rare to find anyone who merely wants to argue for it. Most either keep it to themselves or try to impose their morals on others.
      - mehaveaccount 10y ago
        Because morals are a good thing. Isn't it funny how all the real religions came to the same conclusion on all the controversial issues of our day.
        mikeash 10y ago
        Oh yeah, it's great how every religion came up with the exact same views on how many women you should marry, how you should treat people who worship different gods, what kind of food it's OK to eat, whether religion should be subservient to the state or vice versa, and so forth. "Morals are a good thing" whose morals, exactly? Let me guess, yours happen to be the correct ones?
mikeash 10y ago
I find it inconceivable that you'd equate contraceptives with "encourage high risk of stds."
tehlike 10y ago
not sure why this is downvoted. It highlights something very important.
- _jal 10y ago
  You're right, it does. It highlights the strange special status sex is given, and the awful consequences caused by that special status. I can't think of many other situations in which (all else equal) a parent would choose to increase a child's risk of life-altering mistakes because reducing that risk would not reduce other risks as well. Don't tell Becky to brush her teeth; she might just fall down and break them out anyway. Everyone's child is a special snowflake, but we know abstinence-only education is a failure at reducing unwanted pregnancy and STDs. What it doesn't fail at is increasing human misery by weaponizing moral choices about sex.
- criddell 10y ago
  He's highlighting something important, but I think it's the phrasing that's garnering the downvotes. The original comment didn't encourage high risk behavior or say anything about ignoring the risk of STDs.
  - Ntrails 10y ago
    I don't think I don't deserve them tbh, I was being super glib/lazy. I interpreted the parent as implying that was going to be "job done" for getting a child prepared and it struck me as odd. Personally I would preach Condoms over pills (although I freely acknowledge they can fail, and indeed suspect it's even more likely when teens are the ones using them).
    - nommm-nommm 10y ago
      Its not one or the other, you preach the virtues of using both. I did that (condom and pill) with all my sexual partners before I got married and it wasn't uncommon among my peer group from what I saw. Just like you can and should preach the value of abstinence and the consequences of sex to your teen while also teaching about safe(r) sex.
_jal 10y ago
So because seat-belts are not also interlock devices, you assume your kids won't drive?
aianus 10y ago
Children are worse than the worst STD. You can live a pretty normal life with HIV, Syphilis, herpes, etc.
- mehaveaccount 10y ago
  What are you going to miss in life if you have children?
  - aianus 10y ago
    Ability to take risks (like starting a business or moving to a new city or country) is the biggest one. Otherwise: money, sleep, free time, dating pool shrinks significantly, peace of mind, ability to travel
    - mehaveaccount 10y ago
      What are you going to do with your extra money, sleep, and free time? You don't have to worry about the dating pool when you are married, something you should couple with who you are having sex with. Also the dating pool shrinks with age regardless. On ability to travel: most people eat sleep go to work go to the bathroom and spend time with their families (another reason the dating pool shrinks so significantly). And I don't know what kind of peace of mind you get by living for your own pleasure. If you're not dedicated to raising others up, either your kids or in some kind of missionary work, then not really sure you can say you're living your life and are doing anything worthwhile.
      - callinyouin 10y ago
        > most people eat sleep go to work go to the bathroom and spend time with their families > I don't know what kind of peace of mind you get by living for your own pleasure > If you're not dedicated to raising others up, either your kids or in some kind of missionary work, then not really sure you can say you're living your life and are doing anything worthwhile Are you unable to look at life through any lens other than your own? There are lots of different types of people in this world living a myriad of different lifestyles, many of which offer plenty of personal satisfaction, add real value to the world, and should be considered worthwhile. Having kids and doing missionary work might personally give you a sense of self worth, but that doesn't mean there aren't other paths to finding self worth/meaning that aren't just as valid. Your worldview is not the only one that matters.

I find it inconceivable that you'd want to encourage high risk of stds by advocating something that only prevents pregnancy

by Ntrails 10y ago

I find it inconceivable that you'd want to encourage high risk of stds by advocating something that only prevents pregnancy

mjohn 10y ago

Sure, but condoms fail too. There is no reason not to use both.

OJFord 10y ago
> There is no reason not to use both. Fear of it not being as reversible as it was supposed to be would be a pretty good reason not to use this one. If you're married, with children, and looking for an alternative to vasectomy, that risk is lower in the sense that should the reverse procedure not go as expected, it would probably be less crushing than the same experience as a newlywed.
- anothercomment 10y ago
  How about combining it with freezing some sperm, just in case. Too expensive perhaps?
  - LeftTriangle 10y ago
    Freezing sperm costs on the order of $200-400 per year depending on how far you pay in advance. Worth paying if you're getting a vasectomy, but probably not worth it for this kind of (hopefully) temporary BC.
    - anothercomment 10y ago
      What makes it so expensive?
      - LeftTriangle 10y ago
        You have to be able to guarantee that your liquid nitrogen powered freezer (expensive) will never fail even once over decades of storage (extra expensive). I'm not sure what kind of profit margins sperm banks are working with, but there's quite a bit of competition, so I suspect the prices are mostly pretty close to cost. It's all very labor intensive as well; they need to employ a bunch of lab techs, all of whom have biotech or medical degrees.
pluma 10y ago
I think what most people usually miss when dismissing the "condoms fail" argument is that while it's indeed unlikely that condoms literally break if properly used (they're stress tested to ensure a ridiculous level of quality so while possible that's still extremely rare) "user error" is not exactly unlikely. It's also extremely likely that user errors will be reported as condom failures instead.

TheAdamAndChe 10y ago

The same could be said of female contraception, yet I don't see many people complaining about that. Why do you think that is?

mikeash 10y ago
Oh, there are a ton of people complaining that female contraception encourages people to have sex they shouldn't be having. It's not usually framed in terms of STDs, but I'm pretty sure the STD argument here is just a cover for a moralistic argument anyway.
- mehaveaccount 10y ago
  How sad that arguing virtue for its own sake is now politically incorrect.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    Argue it all you want, just don't try to force it. If you're going to argue for sexual restraint but want to let people make their own decisions on it, you're going to have to work really hard to distance yourself from e.g. the people who fight against the HPV vaccine because they're more concerned with premarital sex than with cervical cancer. It's really rare to find anyone who merely wants to argue for it. Most either keep it to themselves or try to impose their morals on others.
    - mehaveaccount 10y ago
      Because morals are a good thing. Isn't it funny how all the real religions came to the same conclusion on all the controversial issues of our day.
      - mikeash 10y ago
        Oh yeah, it's great how every religion came up with the exact same views on how many women you should marry, how you should treat people who worship different gods, what kind of food it's OK to eat, whether religion should be subservient to the state or vice versa, and so forth. "Morals are a good thing" whose morals, exactly? Let me guess, yours happen to be the correct ones?

mikeash 10y ago

I find it inconceivable that you'd equate contraceptives with "encourage high risk of stds."

tehlike 10y ago

not sure why this is downvoted. It highlights something very important.

_jal 10y ago
You're right, it does. It highlights the strange special status sex is given, and the awful consequences caused by that special status. I can't think of many other situations in which (all else equal) a parent would choose to increase a child's risk of life-altering mistakes because reducing that risk would not reduce other risks as well. Don't tell Becky to brush her teeth; she might just fall down and break them out anyway. Everyone's child is a special snowflake, but we know abstinence-only education is a failure at reducing unwanted pregnancy and STDs. What it doesn't fail at is increasing human misery by weaponizing moral choices about sex.
criddell 10y ago
He's highlighting something important, but I think it's the phrasing that's garnering the downvotes. The original comment didn't encourage high risk behavior or say anything about ignoring the risk of STDs.
- Ntrails 10y ago
  I don't think I don't deserve them tbh, I was being super glib/lazy. I interpreted the parent as implying that was going to be "job done" for getting a child prepared and it struck me as odd. Personally I would preach Condoms over pills (although I freely acknowledge they can fail, and indeed suspect it's even more likely when teens are the ones using them).
  - nommm-nommm 10y ago
    Its not one or the other, you preach the virtues of using both. I did that (condom and pill) with all my sexual partners before I got married and it wasn't uncommon among my peer group from what I saw. Just like you can and should preach the value of abstinence and the consequences of sex to your teen while also teaching about safe(r) sex.

_jal 10y ago

So because seat-belts are not also interlock devices, you assume your kids won't drive?

aianus 10y ago

Children are worse than the worst STD. You can live a pretty normal life with HIV, Syphilis, herpes, etc.

mehaveaccount 10y ago
What are you going to miss in life if you have children?
- aianus 10y ago
  Ability to take risks (like starting a business or moving to a new city or country) is the biggest one. Otherwise: money, sleep, free time, dating pool shrinks significantly, peace of mind, ability to travel
  - mehaveaccount 10y ago
    What are you going to do with your extra money, sleep, and free time? You don't have to worry about the dating pool when you are married, something you should couple with who you are having sex with. Also the dating pool shrinks with age regardless. On ability to travel: most people eat sleep go to work go to the bathroom and spend time with their families (another reason the dating pool shrinks so significantly). And I don't know what kind of peace of mind you get by living for your own pleasure. If you're not dedicated to raising others up, either your kids or in some kind of missionary work, then not really sure you can say you're living your life and are doing anything worthwhile.
    - callinyouin 10y ago
      > most people eat sleep go to work go to the bathroom and spend time with their families > I don't know what kind of peace of mind you get by living for your own pleasure > If you're not dedicated to raising others up, either your kids or in some kind of missionary work, then not really sure you can say you're living your life and are doing anything worthwhile Are you unable to look at life through any lens other than your own? There are lots of different types of people in this world living a myriad of different lifestyles, many of which offer plenty of personal satisfaction, add real value to the world, and should be considered worthwhile. Having kids and doing missionary work might personally give you a sense of self worth, but that doesn't mean there aren't other paths to finding self worth/meaning that aren't just as valid. Your worldview is not the only one that matters.