> They don't understand that sex without contraceptives is risky sex (it risks pregnancy). Please, if you're referring to me, I prefer not to be misgendered. P

> They don't understand that sex without contraceptives is risky sex (it risks pregnancy). Please, if you're referring to me, I prefer not to be misgendered. Pronouns in profile. I don't consider pregnancy a "risk" of sex but rather its natural consequence. SOME people may consider it a risk, if they are fornicating without any means of supporting a child, if they are committing adultery, if they are pimps with prostitutes who need to be out on the streets turning tricks; to them, pregnancy is a real risk (and the unborn child may be material evidence of a crime.) Sex without contraceptives certainly carries the risk of STIs. And it is undeniably a scientific fact that barriers can reduce that risk. It is also undeniably scientific that abstinence and faithful monogamy reduce the risk too. But let's get back to the psychology: it trains the users to have sex more often and in situations that they normally may not. Since the users of contraceptives become conditioned to enjoy this pleasure without "risk" of consequences, they do it more and more, and then guess what, they don't really care about failure rates or lack of devices on-hand. I can tell you from first-hand experience, repeatedly over my life, that people who use contraceptives often couldn't care less if they aren't used once in a while, and guess that "risk" that carries? It's sort of like if your local Post Office handed out free parachutes, and rather than landing, your airline would just make a close approach and everybody jumps. You're totally used to grabbing that parachute; you don't care who packs it; one day you forgot the parachute or it looks janky; you just jump anyway. What the heck? Everyone else is doing it.