6 ms·

> How about we just don't fucking shame people for not wanting to use a condom as long as both (or all) parties agree. Especially when there is a drug like prep

by wtdata 7y ago

> How about we just don't fucking shame people for not wanting to use a condom as long as both (or all) parties agree. Especially when there is a drug like prep. That depends if it's those people bearing the full cost of buying PrEP, or if they expect the state/insurance companies to do it for them.

nerdjon 7y ago
Why not, in most not ass backwards places you can get free condoms. Maybe it should not cost $1300 a month for no good reason in the US.
- wtdata 7y ago
  The good reason is that PrEP has negative side effects, it's expensive, and you don't need it if you show some personal responsibility and use a condom. Nobody should be expected to be financing your personal preferences when it comes to the way you prefer to have sexual intercourse.
  - nerdjon 7y ago
    Seriously, people need to stop with this negative side effects bullshit. Yes there are side effects, there are fucking side effects to almost anything medical. The side effects are minimal at worst considering you have to go into the doctor every 3 months for testing (both for the side effects and a full STD panel). If they notice an issue they take you off of it. Condoms are not 100% though, neither is prep. Its just another option and if the US was not being gouged in the price of prep, the cost would not be much different than the cost of condoms depending on how frequently you are having sex. I am showing personal responsibility by both myself and my husband using Prep and getting tested regularly.
    - wtdata 7y ago
      > I am showing personal responsibility by both myself and my husband using Prep and getting tested regularly. Can't understand why you need PrEP unless you or your husband have unprotected sex outside marriage. That's the personal responsibility needed for both you and your husband: not having unprotected sex with other partners. Again, can't see why the state or the other people paying their health insurances should have to pay for your preferences when it comes to use a condom. Nobody likes to use condoms... yet, responsible people, do.
      - nerdjon 7y ago
        We are both on prep because we are in an open relationship, and yes sometimes that involves "unprotected" sex. Again though, if it was not for the fact that the US continues to charge significantly more than any other country I would happily pay for it myself. I already pay for the copay. I am not personally asking for the government or anyone else to pay for my Prep. But, as it is we offer condoms for free if you know where to look. (Ignoring the fact that this is under attack for a moment...) we offer reproductive services to woman that need it. So why the fuck is prep so different. God forbid as a society we focus on the society as a whole instead of demonizing the choices that people make.
        growlist 7y ago
        It's so simple to get condoms and wear them - or to just partake in a lower risk sexual activity. No one is forcing anyone to have risky sex: it's a choice, and just as we don't accept arguments that men's desires are so uncontrollable that they cannot be held accountable for rape, so we should be sceptical of arguments that a person cannot help themselves but participate in risky sex. And Prep won't protect you against the myriad other horrible STDs apart from HIV/AIDs now will it?
        fromthestart 7y ago
        >God forbid as a society we focus on the society as a whole instead of demonizing the choices that people make. Well, if we're focusing on society as a whole, then it could be argued that your doctor is right for discouraging promiscuity, since STDs tend to affect society at large as they spread. >So why the fuck is prep so different. Because it's an expensive medication, it's the only effective "treatment" for HIV, and just like overprescription of antibiotics, excessive use of prep is leading to resistance. So, arguably, these personal choices have serious consequences for society. And I think it's disingenuous to frame this as anti-LGBT and/or sex shaming. Yes, barring access to prep disproportionately affects gay men, but that's because gay men are the ones who predominantly need it, and their individual, ostensibly private sexual choices are impacting the rest of us.
  - i80and 7y ago
    The FDA hasn't approved condoms for anal sex, and the failure rate for latex condoms is high in that usage. And lambskin condoms, while stronger, are explicitly labeled as not being suitable for disease prevention.
    - gothack 7y ago
      One company has had one approved, the FC2 Internal Condom (previously called the FC2 Female Condom). You can buy a three pack on Amazon for $28.99. Insane pricing.
  - gothack 7y ago
    So for the same reasons: - No one should fund your child birth because of your personal preferences. - No one should fund your ER visit because of your own personal preferences. - No one should fund your mental health care because of your own personal preferences. Where do you stop with the personal preferences? Sexuality? Being transgender? Choosing to skydive? Ending up in poverty? Having sex? Abuse victims living with depression and anxiety? Paying through the nose for the same private insurance as you? I am not suggesting the above are personal preference, but some people use arguments that they are, and that people should be denied healthcare treatment because of it. Your insurance is covering a lot more than you spend on healthcare, that's how insurance works (and makes a tonne of profit doing so). A lot of people take pharmaceutical drugs to keep themselves healthy, PrEP is one of the many. I'm fully aware of the side effects, I'm one of the few who had a severe allergic reaction to it, that was a hellish few days I do not wish to repeat; but I'm still for people who can take it being prescribed it if it helps reduce risk. As for cost, maybe the patent system needs an overhaul, or maybe drug companies should have the same price for all customers, or perhaps healthcare should be centralized and and the current dictatorship of insurance and drug companies reduced to mere socialism instead, but that's a whole other discussion.
  - paviva 7y ago
    PrEP is very likely cost-saving, i.e. it costs less than the life-long treatment of new HIV infections it will have prevented. Unless you're willing to argue that treatment for HIV infections should not be covered, your argument against PrEP is pretty weak here.
    - wtdata 7y ago
      You know what costs even less, has zero side effects and protects you for a range of STDs instead of just for HIV? Condoms. People on this thread are going around in circles arguing that: 1 - they are entitled to my taxes/insurance paying their expenses with PrEP, because they don't feel like using condoms. 2 - thinking it's reasonable, going around spreading all pretty kinds of STDs (that PrEP doesn't protect from) yet again, because they don't feel like wearing condoms.
      - paviva 7y ago
        So what, you'll end up paying less for their PrEP than for their HIV infection.
- Nuzzerino 7y ago
  Who the heck is going through $1300 worth of condoms in one month?

by wtdata 7y ago

nerdjon 7y ago

Why not, in most not ass backwards places you can get free condoms. Maybe it should not cost $1300 a month for no good reason in the US.

wtdata 7y ago
The good reason is that PrEP has negative side effects, it's expensive, and you don't need it if you show some personal responsibility and use a condom. Nobody should be expected to be financing your personal preferences when it comes to the way you prefer to have sexual intercourse.
- nerdjon 7y ago
  Seriously, people need to stop with this negative side effects bullshit. Yes there are side effects, there are fucking side effects to almost anything medical. The side effects are minimal at worst considering you have to go into the doctor every 3 months for testing (both for the side effects and a full STD panel). If they notice an issue they take you off of it. Condoms are not 100% though, neither is prep. Its just another option and if the US was not being gouged in the price of prep, the cost would not be much different than the cost of condoms depending on how frequently you are having sex. I am showing personal responsibility by both myself and my husband using Prep and getting tested regularly.
  - wtdata 7y ago
    > I am showing personal responsibility by both myself and my husband using Prep and getting tested regularly. Can't understand why you need PrEP unless you or your husband have unprotected sex outside marriage. That's the personal responsibility needed for both you and your husband: not having unprotected sex with other partners. Again, can't see why the state or the other people paying their health insurances should have to pay for your preferences when it comes to use a condom. Nobody likes to use condoms... yet, responsible people, do.
    - nerdjon 7y ago
      We are both on prep because we are in an open relationship, and yes sometimes that involves "unprotected" sex. Again though, if it was not for the fact that the US continues to charge significantly more than any other country I would happily pay for it myself. I already pay for the copay. I am not personally asking for the government or anyone else to pay for my Prep. But, as it is we offer condoms for free if you know where to look. (Ignoring the fact that this is under attack for a moment...) we offer reproductive services to woman that need it. So why the fuck is prep so different. God forbid as a society we focus on the society as a whole instead of demonizing the choices that people make.
      - growlist 7y ago
        It's so simple to get condoms and wear them - or to just partake in a lower risk sexual activity. No one is forcing anyone to have risky sex: it's a choice, and just as we don't accept arguments that men's desires are so uncontrollable that they cannot be held accountable for rape, so we should be sceptical of arguments that a person cannot help themselves but participate in risky sex. And Prep won't protect you against the myriad other horrible STDs apart from HIV/AIDs now will it?
      - fromthestart 7y ago
        >God forbid as a society we focus on the society as a whole instead of demonizing the choices that people make. Well, if we're focusing on society as a whole, then it could be argued that your doctor is right for discouraging promiscuity, since STDs tend to affect society at large as they spread. >So why the fuck is prep so different. Because it's an expensive medication, it's the only effective "treatment" for HIV, and just like overprescription of antibiotics, excessive use of prep is leading to resistance. So, arguably, these personal choices have serious consequences for society. And I think it's disingenuous to frame this as anti-LGBT and/or sex shaming. Yes, barring access to prep disproportionately affects gay men, but that's because gay men are the ones who predominantly need it, and their individual, ostensibly private sexual choices are impacting the rest of us.
- i80and 7y ago
  The FDA hasn't approved condoms for anal sex, and the failure rate for latex condoms is high in that usage. And lambskin condoms, while stronger, are explicitly labeled as not being suitable for disease prevention.
  - gothack 7y ago
    One company has had one approved, the FC2 Internal Condom (previously called the FC2 Female Condom). You can buy a three pack on Amazon for $28.99. Insane pricing.
- gothack 7y ago
  So for the same reasons: - No one should fund your child birth because of your personal preferences. - No one should fund your ER visit because of your own personal preferences. - No one should fund your mental health care because of your own personal preferences. Where do you stop with the personal preferences? Sexuality? Being transgender? Choosing to skydive? Ending up in poverty? Having sex? Abuse victims living with depression and anxiety? Paying through the nose for the same private insurance as you? I am not suggesting the above are personal preference, but some people use arguments that they are, and that people should be denied healthcare treatment because of it. Your insurance is covering a lot more than you spend on healthcare, that's how insurance works (and makes a tonne of profit doing so). A lot of people take pharmaceutical drugs to keep themselves healthy, PrEP is one of the many. I'm fully aware of the side effects, I'm one of the few who had a severe allergic reaction to it, that was a hellish few days I do not wish to repeat; but I'm still for people who can take it being prescribed it if it helps reduce risk. As for cost, maybe the patent system needs an overhaul, or maybe drug companies should have the same price for all customers, or perhaps healthcare should be centralized and and the current dictatorship of insurance and drug companies reduced to mere socialism instead, but that's a whole other discussion.
- paviva 7y ago
  PrEP is very likely cost-saving, i.e. it costs less than the life-long treatment of new HIV infections it will have prevented. Unless you're willing to argue that treatment for HIV infections should not be covered, your argument against PrEP is pretty weak here.
  - wtdata 7y ago
    You know what costs even less, has zero side effects and protects you for a range of STDs instead of just for HIV? Condoms. People on this thread are going around in circles arguing that: 1 - they are entitled to my taxes/insurance paying their expenses with PrEP, because they don't feel like using condoms. 2 - thinking it's reasonable, going around spreading all pretty kinds of STDs (that PrEP doesn't protect from) yet again, because they don't feel like wearing condoms.
    - paviva 7y ago
      So what, you'll end up paying less for their PrEP than for their HIV infection.
Nuzzerino 7y ago
Who the heck is going through $1300 worth of condoms in one month?