[huytersd]

I’m going to be very mad if there is a resurgence in HIV because of the asinine GOP. If people have to be worried again about their next sexual contact (condoms only offer between 70-90% protection against HIV), we will return to a prudish lifestyle again at a time the west can least afford it with falling birth rates.

[powersnail]

Is a prudish lifestyle going to affect birth rate all that much? I can’t imagine the solution for falling birth rate to be that people need to sleep around more. If that were true, it wouldn’t have fallen in the first place.

[malux85]

Exactly, myself, and all of my straight peers are not having children because they are expensive, for all of us it's cost of living (well, and I'm gay, but there's ways around that :P)

[totetsu]

Not just chastity but also poverty. Imagine how much economic damage a global HIV pandemic would do that can be avoided by keeping it suppressed. What it the opposition to continuing this program thinking? The article mentions wrongly associating it with abortions, .. and maybe some support goes to at risk people which includes mentioning transgender… they would tank the global economy and ruin their own lives on this principle? I don’t get it.

[Tanoc]

It's a combination of desperation, fear, and willful ignorance (one might even say self-induced stupidity). You've had forty years of propaganda at this point, and the old management who designed that propaganda for their followers are retiring or dying and being replaced by younger generations who were or are the followers of that propaganda. In essence these newer generations don't know the lies aren't real, and have been in so deep for most of their lives that they refuse to shatter their worldviews. And so when those worldviews keep being shut down or outright disproven they become more reactive, doing anything they can to keep their understanding of the world intact. They believe that their opposition are creating lies and using systems of information and governance to support those lies, and so to destroy their opposition they are willing to destroy the very systems they themselves work in and rely on to dispel the supposed lies.

They believe they are the only sane men and women in a world of shadows and madness because that's the only way they can continue to function. There is no reasoning with someone who's gone that far. The veneer of egalitarianism that politics in the U.S. has prevents anyone from actually doing anything to stop this increasingly volatile group lest the intervening mediators be seen by their peers both within the volatile group and without as aggressive savages who would subvert well established conventions. The potential mediators must let themselves be stabbed and reply with "That is quite impolite" or else they lose all trust from said peers.

[faeriechangling]

>Not chastity but also poverty

I never see poor people collectively failing to have children.

I only ever see wealthy people complain they aren't wealthy enough to have children and once they have more money that's when they'll have children.

It doesn't actually take very much money at all to have a child if you have no standards.

[gottorf]

> Not just chastity but also poverty.

Virtually every cultural subgroup in history had their birthrates plummet once they reached a certain amount of wealth. Evidence indicates that if anything, poverty is good for population growth.

[totetsu]

But how does that work out in places with untreated endemic HIV?

[missedthecue]

Birth rates were higher back when lifestyles were more prudish. Hypergamy seems to have very little positive affect on the production and growth of healthy families and children.

[John23832]

Birthrates have been falling ever since the invention of the pill. Children (often multiple) could no longer be forced upon women. This, along with women becoming their own economic units meant that they no longer have to risk their life and bodies in return for food and shelter from a man.

[dudul]

Slaving away to enrich your already rich boss is so much more fulfilling than working on your family.

[bakugo]

> If people have to be worried again about their next sexual contact (condoms only offer between 70-90% protection against HIV), we will return to a prudish lifestyle again at a time the west can least afford it with falling birth rates.

Are you really trying to imply that a "prudish lifestyle" where people actually have long-term relationships and marry is bad for birthrates, and more casual sex is good?

[amanaplanacanal]

Ok I’ll bite. Yes. Forcing people to marry early and stay in abusive relationships is bad. Having options is good.

[huytersd]

Abusive is too wide of term that covers too many things. Marriages can be hard if it’s a partnership of equals. It needs to move back to the paradigm where the husband is the primary dominant and makes all the decisions. The wife needs to be submissive. Marriages of this variety are easy. We already have domestic violence laws in place so there are safeguards in place against actual abuse.

[amanaplanacanal]

Good god no. That kind is patriarchal bullshit is on its way out, and good riddance. I kind of suspect you are just trolling here.

[huytersd]

I wasn’t trolling. It’s probably my least progressive viewpoint but honestly I don’t see a society that can continue to make technological progress without it. The patriarchy isn’t going anywhere, if anything it is only growing in the US GOP, East Asia, South Asia, Eastern Europe and Russia, the Middle East, Australia, Africa and Latin America.

[bakugo]

> That kind is patriarchal bullshit is on its way out

And so are birthrates, as a result.

[faeriechangling]

PrEP exists and is 99% effective. I've absolutely heard of people who use PrEP and have sex with people with HIV/AIDS bareback.

Not sure if I'd recommend doing that, but people will find a way to screw if they can.

[huytersd]

PrEP takes preplanning and atleast several hours before someone can have sex even if they have the pills on them. That’s not really going to work for casual hookups.

[ProfessorLayton]

No it doesn't. Other than the first few days after getting a prescription where one needs to wait for it to build up in the body, it's 1 pill/day with no further planning.

[huytersd]

Well that’s even worse. You have to be on it continuously? I thought it was just before any planned sexual encounters? They’re basically ARTs and wreak havoc on the body (10x increase in cancers- that’s a 1000%, neurological damage etc.) over time.

[ProfessorLayton]

Nope, prep is well tolerated by the vast majority of individuals, although in rare cases it can reduce kidney function and bone density — However, the prescription requires regular lab testing (Where they also run STI tests as well), and if issues are found, there's two options:

1: Getting off prep, in which case kidney/bones should return to normal.

2: Switching to a newer version of prep called Descovy (in the US), which is has less of the aforementioned side effects, but is more expensive because there is no generic for it yet, and may not be covered by some insurances.

Although technically not sanctioned in the US (IIRC), the 2-1-1 method can also be an option for planned encounters: 2 pills 24hrs before the encounter, and 1/day for 2 days after the encounter.

[jimbob45]

condoms only offer between 70-90% protection against HIV

PrEP offers 100% protection against HIV.

[huytersd]

That’s not true. It’s only ~87% effective against shared needles.

[redserk]

At least in the US, PrEP can be very expensive.

[alwa]

Can be, and certainly is on paper, but in practice most everybody professionally involved with this problem knows that the groups at the most risk also tend to be among the most economically vulnerable. I know a lot of USians on Prep, none of whom pay out of pocket for it.

It’s heavily subsidized through public health channels, manufacturer rebate programs to help with high deductibles for insured people, and grant organizations like the PAN Foundation. Truvada has a generic now. Plus, in 2019 the federal government designated it as a preventative therapy that ~all insurance plans must cover without copay or deductible [0].

Now, it’s true that not everybody is insured (though people who are economically vulnerable tend to qualify for heavily subsidized insurance under the ACA or Medicaid). Still, the costs of Prep specifically in the US, while very high, don’t tend to be borne by the patients directly.

[0] [PDF] https://nastad.org/sites/default/files/2021-12/PDF-PrEP-Cove...

[huytersd]

As an aside, how do you know so many people on prep? Are you gay?

[jasonjei]

If you have healthcare, I believe prep is required coverage.

[Grazester]

If a condom doesn't break then it's 100% effective. When a condom breaks you fails in a manner that you will know it failed and then there is PEP.

[huytersd]

I think there’s a chance of getting it if the condom rolls/bunches up as well.

[Grazester]

This usually the result of poor condom use/knowledge, like condom breakage. If the condom is too big this can happen or you become flaccid(it's a thing to also check to make use that this isn't happening during intercourse), and condoms can break when you don't use lubricant or the incorrect lubricant(e.g. petroleum jelly based lubricant).

[FFP999]

There's no such thing as "100% effective".

[Grazester]

Abstinence is as they like to tell you. But really most of the margin for infection for condoms is the result of poor use.

[Gibbon1]

Yes the quoted effectiveness is based on the average in practice. Anecdotally what I've seen is the failure of condoms is usually got drunk and didn't use one. In particular substance abuse is highly correlated with unsafe sex and HIV infection. I'm pretty sure it's also correlated with birth control failure.

[FFP999]

Ok sure, abstinence, but talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

[monlockandkey]

A prudish lifestyle means marriage instead of promiscuity, abortions will decrease and the birth rate will rise.

[RajT88]

Not really. Most abortions are women who already have children. Once upon a time, this meant that most abortions were carried out by married women (marriage itself is less common now).

The connection between marriage and abortion isn't what you think it is.

[monlockandkey]

https://www.statista.com/statistics/656516/abortion-distribu...

77% of abortions done by people who are not married and 46% done by women who are not married and not even cohabiting.

Abortion is a symptom of a problem which is the lack of marriage and the highly promiscuous lifestyle that is sold to us. Married people when there is a child on the way (planned or unplanned), there is little to no reason to get an abortion. Sleeping around lifestyle, of course the first thing that happens when pregnant, abortion...

[chowells]

Abortion is a symptom of preventing conception being too much hassle. Nothing more, nothing less.

And you realize that people of every age group are having less sex than any time in the last 30 years, right? It's almost like this "promiscuous lifestyle" you're so terrified of doesn't exist.

[RajT88]

Not to mention a host of societal factors leading to more autonomy for women which in turn leads to (you guessed it) sex outside of marriage.

To make more women married, we would have to roll back the clock on all those hard won freedoms. Let's not do that, let's maybe just make birth control more accessible, effective and affordable. Boom! Abortion problem solved.

The person I was responding to initially clearly does not want to solve abortion this way.

[dudul]

I dont think promiscuous lifestyle translates into more babies. Sorry, but this is a plain stupid assertion.