How to reduce teen pregnancy

[Toni]

Of course education helps. These are women that either are too young for this (access to college does nothing to stop teen pregnancy) or those who failed to take advantage of the opportunities that exist.

You have to start way before college. If girls grow up envisioning a life for themselves which involves work, recreation, and perhaps a mate and/or child(ren) instead of an assumption that of course their primary purpose is to be sexually available to men and the best way to keep a man is to give him a baby, then they can make real choices for themselves.

It means that they grow up seeing women in charge of their own lives, who are financially successful, happy, have happy relationships and may or may not have children.

That says nothing about whether other things help, also. This isn't about keeping them sexually available--the numbers show they were sexually available before.

Which is why I said 'keep' instead of 'make.'

This is about reducing the harm of the choices they have already made. You seem very willing to sacrifice them to the gods of feminism, though--just as evil as the "pro-life" people sacrificing women to the gods of sex-on-in-marriage.

Do you really believe that raising girls to be strong, independent, competent adults who can make choices about their own lives and who see themselves as having worth beyond what use a man may make of them in the bedroom is somehow sacrificing girls to 'the gods of feminism?'

I didn't think so poorly of you before.

What biology are you referring to in these cases??

Since you are talking about IUDs, maybe you should learn a bit about how modern IUDs actually work. Also, since you have some faint interest in male contraception, perhaps you should learn about spermatogenesis. Sperm are not instantly and perpetually available for ejaculation. Try google. There are multiple avenues for male birth control which are 'close' to being available to the public.

There would be quite a market if something were developed. It's not like people aren't trying.

Name me any major drug company in the US which is working on developing a male contraceptive pill.

The reality is that higher risk levels are accepted in third world countries. I'm not promoting that, I'm saying that's how things really are.

Sure. And educational levels are lower as are wages, and environmental standards. And labor laws are notably lax. Nothing to be at all concerned about here in the USA.

Yeah, I'm gobsmacked about how deep in fantasyland you are.

http://www.prb.org/pdf/IsEducat-Contracept_Eng.pdf

T
T
he World Bank calls women’s education
the “single most influential investment
that can be made in the developing
world.” Many governments now support women’s
education not only to foster economic growth, but
also to promote smaller families, increase modern
contraceptive use, and improve child health.
Educating women is an important end in and of
itself. But is education the best short-term strategy
for advancing women’s reproductive choice in
low-resource settings?
The United Nations, the U.S. National
Academy of Sciences, the Population Council, and
others have examined the linkages between educa-
tion and childbearing to provide a greater under-
standing of these issues. This policy brief highlights
key findings from their investigations. The evidence
suggests that a number of factors influence child-
bearing decisions, and that both short-term and
long-term policy options need to be considered to
improve women’s reproductive health.
Policy Brief
The links between education
and childbearing
Women with more schooling tend to have
smaller, healthier families.
Throughout the
world, more education is associated with smaller
family size. In a number of less developed
countries, women with no education have about
twice the number of children as women with ten
or more years of school.
1
Women with more
education usually make a later, healthier transition
into adulthood: They have their first sexual
experience later, marry later, want smaller families,
and are more likely to use contraception than their
less educated counterparts.

That took me about 5 seconds to find on the internet.

 

[ZiprHead]

Written in paint marker on a condom machine in a bathroom I saw once: "Use of these will solve almost all the world's problems".

I should put that on stickers and take it them with me into gas station bathrooms. It's brilliant.

 

[Derec]

Written in paint marker on a condom machine in a bathroom I saw once: "Use of these will solve almost all the world's problems".

 

[Bronzeage]

Written in paint marker on a condom machine in a bathroom I saw once: "Use of these will solve almost all the world's problems".


[/QUOTE]

Back in the day when birth control devices were illegal in some places, condom machines bore the warning: SOLD ONLY FOR THE PREVENTION OF DISEASE."

It only took a day for someone to edit it to read, "SOLD ONLY FOR THE PREVENTION OF [COLOR="#FFFFE0"]DIS[/COLOR]EASE

 

[Jokodo]

I am always thrilled whenever men try to solve the issue of young girls and women and unwanted pregnancy by suggesting something girls and women need to do to reduce the inconvenience of unintended early pregnancies which has the added benefit of requiring zero effort or thought or inconvenience for men and leaves the girls and women available for sex with men. Especially when the same men also argue against free birth control for women.


Two things that also work or have the potential to work:

1. Help girls envision a future fore themselves that includes education and economic security.
2. Develope long acting birth control for males, and make it readily available.

Birth control for either or both genders does not eliminate the risk of STDs nor does it mitigate the negative consequences of early sexual involvement.

Parts of your post only makes sense if we assume that 15-18 year old girls don't have a sex drive and only ever give in in order to please a man. This assumption is wrong, or at least not universally true (assuming that it was true in your case). While I'm not a 15-18 year old girl and have never been one, and while I don't talk to 15-18 year old girls about sex (seeing that I'm twice their age, that would be too creepy), I have talked to individuals who remember being 15-18 year old girls and the sexual desires and fantasies at the time, and some of them where quite explicit about wanting the sex more than the men/boys with whom they had it. And it's not just a matter of lacking education - some of those women had PhDs by the time we had those conversations. Indeed, 100% of women who I know had an abortion as a teenager now have a PhD or are on track to get one.

Denying that adolescent females have a sex drive is not feminist, it's puritanical.

Anything that helps prevent unintended pregnancies helps both men and women, girls and boys. It's also insufficient for preventing STDs, but that's again a downside for both sides - it's not like STDs are only transmitted from the male to the female.

 

[Toni]

I am always thrilled whenever men try to solve the issue of young girls and women and unwanted pregnancy by suggesting something girls and women need to do to reduce the inconvenience of unintended early pregnancies which has the added benefit of requiring zero effort or thought or inconvenience for men and leaves the girls and women available for sex with men. Especially when the same men also argue against free birth control for women.


Two things that also work or have the potential to work:

1. Help girls envision a future fore themselves that includes education and economic security.
2. Develope long acting birth control for males, and make it readily available.

Birth control for either or both genders does not eliminate the risk of STDs nor does it mitigate the negative consequences of early sexual involvement.

Parts of your post only makes sense if we assume that 15-18 year old girls don't have a sex drive and only ever give in in order to please a man. This assumption is wrong, or at least not universally true (assuming that it was true in your case). While I'm not a 15-18 year old girl and have never been one, and while I don't talk to 15-18 year old girls about sex (seeing that I'm twice their age, that would be too creepy), I have talked to individuals who remember being 15-18 year old girls and the sexual desires and fantasies at the time, and some of them where quite explicit about wanting the sex more than the men/boys with whom they had it. And it's not just a matter of lacking education - some of those women had PhDs by the time we had those conversations. Indeed, 100% of women who I know had an abortion as a teenager now have a PhD or are on track to get one.

Denying that adolescent females have a sex drive is not feminist, it's puritanical.

Anything that helps prevent unintended pregnancies helps both men and women, girls and boys. It's also insufficient for preventing STDs, but that's again a downside for both sides - it's not like STDs are only transmitted from the male to the female.

Did you not see the part about CHOICE?

I believe that humans can make rational decisions about their future when they can see real options, not simply having babies early, with or without marriage to a guy or guys who may or may not stick around, with the option for having a job and even an actual career that will allow them to continue to have say over their own lives and the lives of any children they CHOOSE to bear.

Yes, girls are sexual beings. But girls are also rational beings who have the capacity to delay parenthood if they see better options for themselves. Who delay early sexual involvement while they are getting the education they will need to make meaningful choices in their lives.

I believe the same about boys. It's a pity that the world doesn't seem to agree with me and seems to see no value in boys delaying sex and early parenthood while they obtain their education. For fuck's sake: too many people think that teenaged boys who have sex with their teachers are lucky, not abuse victims. Unless the teacher is male. Somehow, early sexual involvement is ok as long as it is heterosexual involvement.

I was lucky: I very badly wanted an education for its own sake, frankly, and not because it would net me money. I saw a life of travel and books and art and a little later, science and not dollar signs. I saw plenty of girls my age who had less direction and who were early on the object of a great deal of sexual attention from males of all ages. I remember how uncomfortable they often looked as boys jeered at them and pursued them. And then, "took care" of them, sometimes better care than their cars. Usually married them if the girl got knocked up. The rule of thumb in my high school was that nice girls got pregnant. Not so nice girls had abortions, albeit illegal abortions obtained in some big city an airplane ride away. Lord knows how that money was scraped up as none of us had much.

Myself? I was lucky: I was skinny and mostly flat chested and wore bulky tops to cover any hint of bra strap or what lay beneath. That was easy as my parents were strict but I willingly embraced their edicts about clothing not because I didn't also have sexual feelings but because I had other aspirations and I knew that early involvement with guys, and especially an early pregnancy, would squelch those right down. I saw enough of that all around me.

Early sexual involvement, even without pregnancy (intended or not) or disease, can inhibit the development of the individual's long term aspirations and career goals. It can become too much the focus of a relationship so that one exerts a lot of control over the other.

And for the record, I also advocate the use of birth control + condoms. I am not a big fan of IUDs as I remember very well the sometimes serious health risks that came with them, including PID and compromised fertility. I simply do not trust that they are without risk. Hormonal birth control also comes with risk. Pregnancy comes with risk. Termination also has risk. Right now, all of the risks and almost all of the limitations are born by females. Some say that is 'biology.' I say that is bullshit. It's a choice or rather a series of choices that as society--as societies across the world--have made.

 

[fromderinside]

Finally, a pithy one. let me take this moment to write Derec, Derec, Derec, Derec, Derec, Derec, Derec, Derec, Derec, Derec, Derec, Derec, Derec, Derec, Derec, Derec, Derec, Derec, Derec, ...... a few times. Just can't hit paste enough to express just how you are not pithy, Hmmmnnn pity . Yeah that's it.

You forgot to add "jobbery pokery" and "apple sauce".

There see. Even when I'm very explicit you don't understand.

 

[Jokodo]

Parts of your post only makes sense if we assume that 15-18 year old girls don't have a sex drive and only ever give in in order to please a man. This assumption is wrong, or at least not universally true (assuming that it was true in your case). While I'm not a 15-18 year old girl and have never been one, and while I don't talk to 15-18 year old girls about sex (seeing that I'm twice their age, that would be too creepy), I have talked to individuals who remember being 15-18 year old girls and the sexual desires and fantasies at the time, and some of them where quite explicit about wanting the sex more than the men/boys with whom they had it. And it's not just a matter of lacking education - some of those women had PhDs by the time we had those conversations. Indeed, 100% of women who I know had an abortion as a teenager now have a PhD or are on track to get one.

Denying that adolescent females have a sex drive is not feminist, it's puritanical.

Anything that helps prevent unintended pregnancies helps both men and women, girls and boys. It's also insufficient for preventing STDs, but that's again a downside for both sides - it's not like STDs are only transmitted from the male to the female.

Did you not see the part about CHOICE?

I believe that humans can make rational decisions about their future when they can see real options, not simply having babies early, with or without marriage to a guy or guys who may or may not stick around, with the option for having a job and even an actual career that will allow them to continue to have say over their own lives and the lives of any children they CHOOSE to bear.

Yes. And cheap - or free - birth control helps them make that choice. Yet you started a rant in a thread about just that.

Yes, girls are sexual beings. But girls are also rational beings who have the capacity to delay parenthood if they see better options for themselves.

And cheap - or free - birth control helps them do so.

Who delay early sexual involvement while they are getting the education they will need to make meaningful choices in their lives.

People who don't have a college degree - whether they're too young to even theoretically have one, or whether they started to work early, can be perfectly capable of meaningfully deciding that they want sex. Telling them that there choice is meaningless because they "don't have the education" is patronising. Telling women that their choices are meaningless is the antithesis of feminism as I understand it.

I believe the same about boys. It's a pity that the world doesn't seem to agree with me and seems to see no value in boys delaying sex and early parenthood while they obtain their education.

A lot of people see value in delaying early parenthood. That's why they advocate for free birth control - to which you respond with a rant.

For fuck's sake: too many people think that teenaged boys who have sex with their teachers are lucky, not abuse victims. Unless the teacher is male. Somehow, early sexual involvement is ok as long as it is heterosexual involvement.

Anyone in this thread? If not - strawman.

<snip>

Early sexual involvement, even without pregnancy (intended or not) or disease, can inhibit the development of the individual's long term aspirations and career goals.

Any evidence of that? 100% of the women I know had abortions while teenagers now have a PhD or are on track to get one in a couple of years. That's of course a small and biased sample, but still better than no data at all.

<snip>Right now, all of the risks and almost all of the limitations are born by females. Some say that is 'biology.' I say that is bullshit. It's a choice or rather a series of choices that as society--as societies across the world--have made.

Yes. And how does that make offering free birth control (using the most effective and least invasive means currently available, which happens to be UIDs) a bad thing worthy a rant?

 

[Draconis]

It seems a good time to reflect on how, not very long ago, the average lifespan was something like 45 years. Therefore, if you wanted to see your children grow up under those circumstances, it seems to me that waiting till you're 30 isn't a good option. Thus it makes sense that there were a lot more teenage pregnancies back then compared with now, without anyone really expending that much time or effort trying to reduce them. Although, probably, they were rather more likely to be in marriages than now: but that is of little import; they are still teenage pregnancies. If there wasn't such a problem with them back in the "good old days", why is it now? When did it become a problem? It can't be simply because people are living longer.

Maybe it's something to do with people not wanting to pay for other people who pop out children without any regard to the consequences? I have some sympathy with that point of view, but dressing that up as something to do with Christian Morality is a bit of a smokescreen for the gullible. And it's silly.

 

[Jokodo]

Parts of your post only makes sense if we assume that 15-18 year old girls don't have a sex drive and only ever give in in order to please a man. This assumption is wrong, or at least not universally true (assuming that it was true in your case). While I'm not a 15-18 year old girl and have never been one, and while I don't talk to 15-18 year old girls about sex (seeing that I'm twice their age, that would be too creepy), I have talked to individuals who remember being 15-18 year old girls and the sexual desires and fantasies at the time, and some of them where quite explicit about wanting the sex more than the men/boys with whom they had it. And it's not just a matter of lacking education - some of those women had PhDs by the time we had those conversations. Indeed, 100% of women who I know had an abortion as a teenager now have a PhD or are on track to get one.

Denying that adolescent females have a sex drive is not feminist, it's puritanical.

Anything that helps prevent unintended pregnancies helps both men and women, girls and boys. It's also insufficient for preventing STDs, but that's again a downside for both sides - it's not like STDs are only transmitted from the male to the female.

Did you not see the part about CHOICE?

I believe that humans can make rational decisions about their future when they can see real options, <snip>

For example, the rational decision to get a free UID because they don't want to have babies for a few years but do want to have sex? I really don't see how you can posit a conflict between CHOICE and offering free long-lasting birth control.

 

[Toni]

Did you not see the part about CHOICE?

I believe that humans can make rational decisions about their future when they can see real options, <snip>

For example, the rational decision to get a free UID because they don't want to have babies for a few years but do want to have sex? I really don't see how you can posit a conflict between CHOICE and offering free long-lasting birth control.

Where did I?

In another life, I actually did some counseling, a large part about birth control options. Only women cared. Men assumed women would take care of it. I am pretty well versed in the costs/benefits/side effects of all forms of birth control.

When there is a free, effective, long lasting entirely reversible form of birth control that does not have any--ANY--long term negative side effects, and I will be that form of birth control's biggest fan.

I will still be a big fan of waiting for sex.

I was young once and had a lot of friends and saw a lot of break ups and their effects--long term, and short term. The break ups were much worse if the relationship had involved sexual intercourse. By 'worse' I mean: longer periods of depression, some negative physical health consequences, drop in school achievement, once or twice, abuse of alcohol and/or drugs post break up and an increased risk of physical abuse, as well as emotional abuse--from the ex.

The young women I am thinking of were beautiful, very intelligent, very stable young women with firm goals and plans and talent and drive to achieve their goals, as well as loving, supportive families. Eventually, they got themselves back on track, but one took some very scary detours along the way and others experienced significant delays in achieving their educational and career goals. Not because they were shamed or ashamed. But because of the pain and intensity of the break ups.

It's way worse for girls who lack a stable, loving family structure to shore them up when they are struggling.

 

[Toni]

Did you not see the part about CHOICE?

I believe that humans can make rational decisions about their future when they can see real options, not simply having babies early, with or without marriage to a guy or guys who may or may not stick around, with the option for having a job and even an actual career that will allow them to continue to have say over their own lives and the lives of any children they CHOOSE to bear.

Yes. And cheap - or free - birth control helps them make that choice. Yet you started a rant in a thread about just that.

Yes, girls are sexual beings. But girls are also rational beings who have the capacity to delay parenthood if they see better options for themselves.

And cheap - or free - birth control helps them do so.

Who delay early sexual involvement while they are getting the education they will need to make meaningful choices in their lives.

People who don't have a college degree - whether they're too young to even theoretically have one, or whether they started to work early, can be perfectly capable of meaningfully deciding that they want sex. Telling them that there choice is meaningless because they "don't have the education" is patronising. Telling women that their choices are meaningless is the antithesis of feminism as I understand it.

I believe the same about boys. It's a pity that the world doesn't seem to agree with me and seems to see no value in boys delaying sex and early parenthood while they obtain their education.

A lot of people see value in delaying early parenthood. That's why they advocate for free birth control - to which you respond with a rant.

For fuck's sake: too many people think that teenaged boys who have sex with their teachers are lucky, not abuse victims. Unless the teacher is male. Somehow, early sexual involvement is ok as long as it is heterosexual involvement.

Anyone in this thread? If not - strawman.

<snip>

Early sexual involvement, even without pregnancy (intended or not) or disease, can inhibit the development of the individual's long term aspirations and career goals.

Any evidence of that? 100% of the women I know had abortions while teenagers now have a PhD or are on track to get one in a couple of years. That's of course a small and biased sample, but still better than no data at all.

<snip>Right now, all of the risks and almost all of the limitations are born by females. Some say that is 'biology.' I say that is bullshit. It's a choice or rather a series of choices that as society--as societies across the world--have made.

Yes. And how does that make offering free birth control (using the most effective and least invasive means currently available, which happens to be UIDs) a bad thing worthy a rant?

I think you and I have vastly different ideas of what a 'rant' is. My definition does not include any clauses about whether or not you agree with me.

Nor have I posted anything against offering birth control to young women and young men. I believe in using birth control! Any and all of my children would certainly attest to my support of free and open access to birth control.

They'd also say that I made a powerful case for waiting for sex. And that none of it was related to religion.

What I have said--and posted a document supporting my position (see my 'rant' which is certainly mild compared to the document I linked), is that early sexual involvement can have serious negative consequences for young girls and women. Because it can. Whether or not a pregnancy or disease occurs. I also believe that it does for boys as well. There is less documentation for boys because the world seems to believe that boys should be able to have sex free of any consequences at all and believes that this is actually reality.

 

[laughing dog]

For example, the rational decision to get a free UID because they don't want to have babies for a few years but do want to have sex? I really don't see how you can posit a conflict between CHOICE and offering free long-lasting birth control.

I don't think it is hard to see. If one of the options entails undesirable consequence from an option that some people will end up choosing, then offering that choice can pose a conflict over whether to offer it or not.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You have to start way before college. If girls grow up envisioning a life for themselves which involves work, recreation, and perhaps a mate and/or child(ren) instead of an assumption that of course their primary purpose is to be sexually available to men and the best way to keep a man is to give him a baby, then they can make real choices for themselves.

It means that they grow up seeing women in charge of their own lives, who are financially successful, happy, have happy relationships and may or may not have children.

That says nothing about whether other things help, also. This isn't about keeping them sexually available--the numbers show they were sexually available before.

Which is why I said 'keep' instead of 'make.'

This is about reducing the harm of the choices they have already made. You seem very willing to sacrifice them to the gods of feminism, though--just as evil as the "pro-life" people sacrificing women to the gods of sex-on-in-marriage.

Do you really believe that raising girls to be strong, independent, competent adults who can make choices about their own lives and who see themselves as having worth beyond what use a man may make of them in the bedroom is somehow sacrificing girls to 'the gods of feminism?'

I didn't think so poorly of you before.

Providing long term contraception in no way interferes with what you are after unless you're after playing the Christian game of promoting abstinence by making sex dangerous.

What biology are you referring to in these cases??

Since you are talking about IUDs, maybe you should learn a bit about how modern IUDs actually work.

While some also have other methods of action the basic one is telling the uterus that it's pregnant, we don't want another.

Also, since you have some faint interest in male contraception, perhaps you should learn about spermatogenesis. Sperm are not instantly and perpetually available for ejaculation. Try google. There are multiple avenues for male birth control which are 'close' to being available to the public.

Nothing that isn't years from market.

There would be quite a market if something were developed. It's not like people aren't trying.

Name me any major drug company in the US which is working on developing a male contraceptive pill.

You realize a lot of drug research is done by startups? They take a promising idea, get a bunch of funding. If it pans out they sell out to one of the biggies that can actually mass produce it and the investors make a mint. If it doesn't pan out the investors lose their stake.

The reality is that higher risk levels are accepted in third world countries. I'm not promoting that, I'm saying that's how things really are.

Sure. And educational levels are lower as are wages, and environmental standards. And labor laws are notably lax. Nothing to be at all concerned about here in the USA.

The point is that just because something is being done on humans in a third world nation doesn't mean it's up to our standards.

Yeah, I'm gobsmacked about how deep in fantasyland you are.

http://www.prb.org/pdf/IsEducat-Contracept_Eng.pdf

You're shooting yourself in the foot here. You point out the value of contraceptive education--yet you are taking an anti-contraceptive position here!

- - - Updated - - -

Written in paint marker on a condom machine in a bathroom I saw once: "Use of these will solve almost all the world's problems".

A very apt sign.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

For example, the rational decision to get a free UID because they don't want to have babies for a few years but do want to have sex? I really don't see how you can posit a conflict between CHOICE and offering free long-lasting birth control.

Where did I?

In another life, I actually did some counseling, a large part about birth control options. Only women cared. Men assumed women would take care of it. I am pretty well versed in the costs/benefits/side effects of all forms of birth control.

When there is a free, effective, long lasting entirely reversible form of birth control that does not have any--ANY--long term negative side effects, and I will be that form of birth control's biggest fan.

I will still be a big fan of waiting for sex.

I was young once and had a lot of friends and saw a lot of break ups and their effects--long term, and short term. The break ups were much worse if the relationship had involved sexual intercourse. By 'worse' I mean: longer periods of depression, some negative physical health consequences, drop in school achievement, once or twice, abuse of alcohol and/or drugs post break up and an increased risk of physical abuse, as well as emotional abuse--from the ex.

The young women I am thinking of were beautiful, very intelligent, very stable young women with firm goals and plans and talent and drive to achieve their goals, as well as loving, supportive families. Eventually, they got themselves back on track, but one took some very scary detours along the way and others experienced significant delays in achieving their educational and career goals. Not because they were shamed or ashamed. But because of the pain and intensity of the break ups.

It's way worse for girls who lack a stable, loving family structure to shore them up when they are struggling.

I haven't seen a specific comparison of the risks for the long term birth control options.

However, there is a very relevant factoid about the pill: For a young, non-smoking woman the pill is safer than the condom. I would be quite surprised if the progesterone-implant contraceptives don't do even better in this regard.

 

[bilby]

The whole premise of the thread title is misguided.

If you want to get the GOP on board, don't say you are trying to reduce teen pregnancy. Say you are trying to reduce the abortion rate.

Politics is all about the spin.

 

[laughing dog]

Providing long term contraception in no way interferes with what you are after unless you're after playing the Christian game of promoting abstinence by making sex dangerous.

Since no contraception provides 100% protection from conception, it certainly does interfere since sometimes it will fail.

 

[Toni]

Providing long term contraception in no way interferes with what you are after unless you're after playing the Christian game of promoting abstinence by making sex dangerous.

You are mistaken if you think I am opposed to birth control. Also, you don't read very well if that's what you think.

Since you are talking about IUDs, maybe you should learn a bit about how modern IUDs actually work.

While some also have other methods of action the basic one is telling the uterus that it's pregnant, we don't want another.

I have no idea where you get your information but you need to find another, better source. FFS, even WebMD is better:

How Do IUDs Work?

There are two types of IUDs available in the United States. One type releases the hormone progestin, which causes the cervical mucus to become thicker so the sperm cannot reach the egg. The hormone also changes the lining of the uterus, so implantation of a fertilized egg cannot occur. There are two hormone IUDs available: Mirena can be used for up to 5 years and the Skyla can be implanted for up to 3 years.

The other type doesn't use hormones. It contains copper, which is slowly released into the uterine cavity. The copper stops the sperm from making it through the vagina and uterus to reach the egg, thus preventing fertilization. There is one copper IUD available, the ParaGard T380A, which can be kept in place for up to 10 years.

Also, since you have some faint interest in male contraception, perhaps you should learn about spermatogenesis. Sperm are not instantly and perpetually available for ejaculation. Try google. There are multiple avenues for male birth control which are 'close' to being available to the public.

Nothing that isn't years from market.

Which was my point exactly. Why have the markets taken so long to find an effective male contraceptive?

Name me any major drug company in the US which is working on developing a male contraceptive pill.

You realize a lot of drug research is done by startups? They take a promising idea, get a bunch of funding. If it pans out they sell out to one of the biggies that can actually mass produce it and the investors make a mint. If it doesn't pan out the investors lose their stake.

So, you cannot name even one. For a product that one would guess would have an enormous world wide market. If men were willing to use it.

The point is that just because something is being done on humans in a third world nation doesn't mean it's up to our standards.

Exactly. Yet you --and many others--are willing to let people in developing nations bear the brunt of the possible ill effects of new methods of birth control.

You're shooting yourself in the foot here. You point out the value of contraceptive education--yet you are taking an anti-contraceptive position here!

Better watch your own foot. And learn to read more carefully. I am not taking an anti-contraceptive position.

 

[J842P]

Yes. And cheap - or free - birth control helps them make that choice. Yet you started a rant in a thread about just that.

Yes, girls are sexual beings. But girls are also rational beings who have the capacity to delay parenthood if they see better options for themselves.

And cheap - or free - birth control helps them do so.

Who delay early sexual involvement while they are getting the education they will need to make meaningful choices in their lives.

People who don't have a college degree - whether they're too young to even theoretically have one, or whether they started to work early, can be perfectly capable of meaningfully deciding that they want sex. Telling them that there choice is meaningless because they "don't have the education" is patronising. Telling women that their choices are meaningless is the antithesis of feminism as I understand it.

I believe the same about boys. It's a pity that the world doesn't seem to agree with me and seems to see no value in boys delaying sex and early parenthood while they obtain their education.

A lot of people see value in delaying early parenthood. That's why they advocate for free birth control - to which you respond with a rant.

For fuck's sake: too many people think that teenaged boys who have sex with their teachers are lucky, not abuse victims. Unless the teacher is male. Somehow, early sexual involvement is ok as long as it is heterosexual involvement.

Anyone in this thread? If not - strawman.

<snip>

Early sexual involvement, even without pregnancy (intended or not) or disease, can inhibit the development of the individual's long term aspirations and career goals.

Any evidence of that? 100% of the women I know had abortions while teenagers now have a PhD or are on track to get one in a couple of years. That's of course a small and biased sample, but still better than no data at all.

<snip>Right now, all of the risks and almost all of the limitations are born by females. Some say that is 'biology.' I say that is bullshit. It's a choice or rather a series of choices that as society--as societies across the world--have made.

Yes. And how does that make offering free birth control (using the most effective and least invasive means currently available, which happens to be UIDs) a bad thing worthy a rant?

I think you and I have vastly different ideas of what a 'rant' is. My definition does not include any clauses about whether or not you agree with me.

Nor have I posted anything against offering birth control to young women and young men. I believe in using birth control! Any and all of my children would certainly attest to my support of free and open access to birth control.

They'd also say that I made a powerful case for waiting for sex. And that none of it was related to religion.

What I have said--and posted a document supporting my position (see my 'rant' which is certainly mild compared to the document I linked), is that early sexual involvement can have serious negative consequences for young girls and women. Because it can. Whether or not a pregnancy or disease occurs. I also believe that it does for boys as well. There is less documentation for boys because the world seems to believe that boys should be able to have sex free of any consequences at all and believes that this is actually reality.

Yes. Boys are unfeeling robots. Their sole purpose is to inseminate. This has nothing to do with their socialization, of course, because they are not told that their feeling don't matter and that their self-worth is entirely derived from being able to convince a member of of the opposite sex to sleep with them - that or sacrificing theirselves for the collective. Girls have it harder. They have feelings and shit.

 

[Jokodo]

Yes. And cheap - or free - birth control helps them make that choice. Yet you started a rant in a thread about just that.

Yes, girls are sexual beings. But girls are also rational beings who have the capacity to delay parenthood if they see better options for themselves.

And cheap - or free - birth control helps them do so.

Who delay early sexual involvement while they are getting the education they will need to make meaningful choices in their lives.

People who don't have a college degree - whether they're too young to even theoretically have one, or whether they started to work early, can be perfectly capable of meaningfully deciding that they want sex. Telling them that there choice is meaningless because they "don't have the education" is patronising. Telling women that their choices are meaningless is the antithesis of feminism as I understand it.

I believe the same about boys. It's a pity that the world doesn't seem to agree with me and seems to see no value in boys delaying sex and early parenthood while they obtain their education.

A lot of people see value in delaying early parenthood. That's why they advocate for free birth control - to which you respond with a rant.

For fuck's sake: too many people think that teenaged boys who have sex with their teachers are lucky, not abuse victims. Unless the teacher is male. Somehow, early sexual involvement is ok as long as it is heterosexual involvement.

Anyone in this thread? If not - strawman.

<snip>

Early sexual involvement, even without pregnancy (intended or not) or disease, can inhibit the development of the individual's long term aspirations and career goals.

Any evidence of that? 100% of the women I know had abortions while teenagers now have a PhD or are on track to get one in a couple of years. That's of course a small and biased sample, but still better than no data at all.

<snip>Right now, all of the risks and almost all of the limitations are born by females. Some say that is 'biology.' I say that is bullshit. It's a choice or rather a series of choices that as society--as societies across the world--have made.

Yes. And how does that make offering free birth control (using the most effective and least invasive means currently available, which happens to be UIDs) a bad thing worthy a rant?

I think you and I have vastly different ideas of what a 'rant' is. My definition does not include any clauses about whether or not you agree with me.

Nor have I posted anything against offering birth control to young women and young men. I believe in using birth control! Any and all of my children would certainly attest to my support of free and open access to birth control.

Then why make a cynical comment suggesting that this is yet again something that only helps the men while leaving the women vulnerable (to sex - as if that's something women didn't also want) in a thread about free and open access to birth control?

They'd also say that I made a powerful case for waiting for sex. And that none of it was related to religion.

I'm sorry I don't really see the big difference between "good girls wait till they get an education" and "good girls wait for Mr. Right and marriage". They both ostracise the "bad girls" for acting on their sexual desires.

What I have said--and posted a document supporting my position (see my 'rant' which is certainly mild compared to the document I linked), is that early sexual involvement can have serious negative consequences for young girls and women.

Which document are you talking about? I only see a document saying that women with more education tend to have children later (etc.). You are attempting to claim the reverse causality.

Because it can. Whether or not a pregnancy or disease occurs. I also believe that it does for boys as well. There is less documentation for boys because the world seems to believe that boys should be able to have sex free of any consequences at all and believes that this is actually reality.

Whereever you're getting this.