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?
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.
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.
Because the way I see it, this is more than the health of the individual at risk, being about the health of the group.
What is this if not trying to make other people live their lives following your way of thinking?
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.
Free speech does not mean freedom from criticism.
bad_user and myself are both influencing others. We're not imposing anything at all. He's fine to criticize if he wants, that wasn't the issue at all. He didn't understand the difference between social pressure (which I'm advocating along with bad_user) and imposing. They aren't the same thing.
He's trying to split hairs with everyone on HN and not be intellectually honest so it's not worth discussing. Very easy to see what bad_user and myself meant. But the downvotes on noncoml's post speak for itself, most people are getting it.
Now you're repeating the complaints, and on top of that splitting hairs while complaining about others splitting hairs while doing so.
To me your responses just makes this whole exchange look sillier.
Just because someone disagrees with you, it doesn’t mean you have the intellectual honestly and he doesn’t.
Also, if it’s not worth discussing, just stop discussing. What’s with this passive aggressive statement?
Btw, since downvotes seem to be important to you: every single reply of yours in this thread is negative.
You mentioned my name. What did you expect?
Furthermore I never said I stopped discussing, unlike you.
Finally, you are the one who is trying to split a hair: “Imposing your opinion” might be a bit strong, but it’s closer to “social pressure” than “influencing” is.
Discussing with you can be considered influencing.
“Social pressure” can be a whole town marginalizing you and your family because you are gay.
I don’t think I am trying to split hair. They are very different things.
"> 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?"
Yes, I really don't get it how is this preventing you to voice your opinion.
I honestly don't care what you think or support, but when you are suggesting "social pressure" in order for people follow your opinion then you will find me calling you out.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
So no, unprotected sexual freedom isn't a practical goal for medical science. Better to use condoms instead.
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.
For whom? Not for me.
What do you mean?
That I do not believe that sexual freedom is a goal.