5 ms·

> I'd be interested to look at HIV and testing in the 80/90s The thing I just can't understand is why they didn't require everyone back then to wear condoms al

> I'd be interested to look at HIV and testing in the 80/90s The thing I just can't understand is why they didn't require everyone back then to wear condoms all the time, regardless of whether they were HIV-positive. Those people were so callous in their regard for human safety!

klyrs 6y ago
The same political division occurred back then. The right fights for abstainance-only sex ed; the left fights for harm-reduction such as prophylactics and teaching to the science. But to address the absolutism in your question. If everybody in possession of a penis wore a condom at all times (a) they'd get nasty and possibly gangrenous, [so i'll assume you mean "when the penis is deployed in/on/around a second party"] and (b) it would reduce the birth rate by about 90%.
- Fjolsvith 6y ago
  > If everybody in possession of a penis wore a condom at all times That would be about as likely as everyone wearing a mask at all times.
  - klyrs 6y ago
    This is a thing you wrote. I agree, very unlikely > The thing I just can't understand is why they didn't require everyone back then to wear condoms all the time
    - Fjolsvith 6y ago
      Fauci saying that masks are not effective protection from coronavirus: https://streamable.com/oml2rf https://streamable.com/oml2rf Its not just me.
somewhereoutth 6y ago
The distinction is consent. You would need to get meaningful consent from everyone present when you walked into a store without a mask. EDIT: Actually not quite. To elaborate a little further - it has become understood that it is just and reasonable for the state to have jurisdiction over interpersonal interactions that involve money (though the converse is not necessarily implied) - this is 'the market'. Thus going to the store operates under a different regime than going to a friend's birthday party in their own home. Your example would equate to the state mandating condom usage with prostitution, assuming that was legal in the first place. What you get up to at the store can be regulated by the state - what you get up to in the bedroom (without financial exchange) should not - assuming meaningful consent

klyrs 6y ago

The same political division occurred back then. The right fights for abstainance-only sex ed; the left fights for harm-reduction such as prophylactics and teaching to the science. But to address the absolutism in your question. If everybody in possession of a penis wore a condom at all times (a) they'd get nasty and possibly gangrenous, [so i'll assume you mean "when the penis is deployed in/on/around a second party"] and (b) it would reduce the birth rate by about 90%.

Fjolsvith 6y ago
> If everybody in possession of a penis wore a condom at all times That would be about as likely as everyone wearing a mask at all times.
- klyrs 6y ago
  This is a thing you wrote. I agree, very unlikely > The thing I just can't understand is why they didn't require everyone back then to wear condoms all the time
  - Fjolsvith 6y ago
    Fauci saying that masks are not effective protection from coronavirus: https://streamable.com/oml2rf https://streamable.com/oml2rf Its not just me.

somewhereoutth 6y ago

The distinction is consent. You would need to get meaningful consent from everyone present when you walked into a store without a mask. EDIT: Actually not quite. To elaborate a little further - it has become understood that it is just and reasonable for the state to have jurisdiction over interpersonal interactions that involve money (though the converse is not necessarily implied) - this is 'the market'. Thus going to the store operates under a different regime than going to a friend's birthday party in their own home. Your example would equate to the state mandating condom usage with prostitution, assuming that was legal in the first place. What you get up to at the store can be regulated by the state - what you get up to in the bedroom (without financial exchange) should not - assuming meaningful consent