[jMyles]

> People won't become totally sexually irresponsible after the preventive shot, because there are many other hard to cure STDs now, especially as antibiotics are not as potent as they use to be, so i think there is no threat of 1960s style of unprotected sex wave.

The way you've phrased this, it sounds like you are casting "other hard to cure STDs" as a protective measure against the "threat of 1960s style of unprotected sex wave."

Isn't sexual freedom a goal?

[bad_user]

> Isn't sexual freedom a goal?

You always have the risk of undesired pregnancy and the best cure for that is the condom, since birth control pills are basically hormone bombs, not very healthy for women in the long run, or you could undergo surgery, which is invasive and not without peril. So just use the condom already, those minty ones are actually cool.

And if we don't have "sexual freedom" it's probably because there are really good reasons for it. We shouldn't dismiss taboos without considering that some of them is why we've survived for so long.

[noncoml]

> And if we don't have "sexual freedom" it's probably because there are really good reasons for it. We shouldn't dismiss taboos without considering that some of them is why we've survived for so long.

If that's the way you want to live your life, it is fine. But don't try to impose your ideas to other people.

[bad_user]

Do you feel like that about vaccines and people refusing them as well? Or what about smoking in public places?

Because the way I see it, this is more than the health of the individual at risk, being about the health of the group.

[BuckRogers]

I didn't see you "imposing" your views on anyone. People can adopt what they will. I don't advocate for laws against free choice, but I am for social pressures against unprotected sex. It's a good thing, saves a lot of pain and lives and there's absolutely no need to apologize if someone wants to take that out of context. As if you're advocating for the police to round up sexually active teens.

[noncoml]

> I am for social pressures against unprotected sex

What is this if not trying to make other people live their lives following your way of thinking?

[BuckRogers]

I'm more than willing to bet you are happy to voice your opinion on any given subject, including this one as you try to snuff my viewpoint out with claims about my attempt at oppression. Why can't I add my own opinion and voice? Just because you don't like what I think.

This is the same misguided logic you tried to use on bad_user. You really don't get it and honestly I don't care if you ever do or not.

[noncoml]

Yes, I do feel the same about vaccines. If nothing else a person should be a complete master of their body. But this is another conversation.

If you don't see the difference about public smoking and unprotected sex, then I don't think there is any point discussing this.

However your original comment sounded more concerned about morals than public health.

If it was the later and I misunderstood it, then please forgive me.

[philwelch]

> You always have the risk of undesired pregnancy and the best cure for that is the condom, since birth control pills are basically hormone bombs, not very healthy for women in the long run, or you could undergo surgery, which is invasive and not without peril. So just use the condom already, those minty ones are actually cool.

Lots of women, including my wife, are perfectly happy with hormonal birth control. For others, there are lots of other options, and even more in development. It’s a very personal decision, but condoms are by far among the least effective techniques.

> And if we don't have "sexual freedom" it's probably because there are really good reasons for it. We shouldn't dismiss taboos without considering that some of them is why we've survived for so long.

The entire parable of Chesterson’s fence suggests that we shouldn’t get rid of something in society without knowing what function it was serving. It doesn’t suggest never reforming society at all.

The taboo against fornication is obviously there to prevent the spread of disease and unwanted pregnancy. If we have other ways to prevent these side-effects, there is no longer any reason for the taboo; much as the religious taboo of not eating pork or shellfish no longer serve the same useful purpose they did in the ancient Middle East.

[Broken_Hippo]

I'm pretty sure birth control is safer than being pregnant every 10 months. From what I understand, this pregnancy thing is the real reason for the taboo against being sexually active more - that and society's penchant for knowing who to pass on their stuff to after they died. Granted, many of these sorts of taboos have traditionally been only for women and not men, and have not always been consistent over time. Additionally, old-time methods for birth control were bad, and abortion options (they have had them for centuries) were even worse. Pregnant women needed a lot of support as well, so this could lead to some of the taboo.

A condom is not the best option for birth control, merely one of the options. The best would be voluntary sterilization for both the man and the woman. There are other non-hormonal birth control methods, such as a copper IUD and other barrier methods that work, some better than a condom and some worse.

The main benefit from a condom is STD protection, but for that to be effective they need to be readily available to everyone and cheap enough to afford.

[geofft]

> birth control pills are basically hormone bombs, not very healthy for women in the long run

I've heard this a few times but I'm curious for sources on the fact that they're not healthy. They're certainly not natural, but, like, living until you're 80 years old isn't particularly natural either. Do you mind expanding on this?

[OneTimePaddy]

Birth controll pills basically emulate a serial pregnancy- so im curious where this is suddenly unnatural.

[LordKano]

The way you've phrased this, it sounds like you are casting "other hard to cure STDs" as a protective measure against the "threat of 1960s style of unprotected sex wave."

I read it as him casting the threat of those 'hard to cure STDs' as an incentive for people to not take the 1% risk of HIV infection.

[zghst]

I hope so. Although other communicable diseases will still be a significant issue, as time progresses it should be easy to love a person, even if only for one instance.

[anovikov]

I just meant that a huge wave of unprotected sex could mean that remaining 1% to explode into a large threat. But it is unlikely as there are other factors deterring it, so if the article is true, that might really be the end for the virus.

[namelost]

Even if there were a perfect HIV cure, and antibiotics were 100% effective, there is a risk of infertility from chlamydia, etc.

So no, unprotected sexual freedom isn't a practical goal for medical science. Better to use condoms instead.

[alreadyhere]

Unprotected sexual freedom is completely a practical goal; condoms work well but many choose not to use them, for better or worse. Prevention doesn't even need to center around eradication of the disease; it could come in the form of home detection kits. For better or worse people will always have unprotected sex with strangers. It's a thing.

I'm a little tired of the disconnect between medical advice and reality when it comes to sexual practices. Dental dams, anyone? Sure they're smart; I don't think I've seen one outside of health class. Doctors could easily provide more helpful advice.

[SirZimzim]

Maybe in the age of nanobots will we have practical ways to allow for unprotected random sex.

[snakeanus]

> Isn't sexual freedom a goal?

For whom? Not for me.

[jMyles]

I get the sense that you're hoping that someone will ask you to explain what you mean. So I'll do that.

What do you mean?

[snakeanus]

> What do you mean?

That I do not believe that sexual freedom is a goal.

[FabHK]

Well, it is for others. Let's all agree then on freedom, because then those who want to pursue it can, and those who don't, needn't, and everyone is happy (except those, to appropriate H. L. Mencken's famous phrase, with the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be having sexual freedom).