palabravampiress
Bidet of Evil
I agree that the whole age of sexual debut thing is not at all related to: a.) the availability of BC or b.) who should pay for BC.
Because I am someone who needs BC as medication, I get very upset when certain political groups try to argue that BC should be harder to get or more expensive because it might encourage kids to have sex. The availability of insulin does not encourage kids to eat themselves into diabetes. The availability of casts and physical therapy does not encourage kids to go break their limbs. BC should be available to those who choose or need to use it. Those who have moral or religious qualms are free to refuse to partake of BC pills or to prohibit their children from using BC pills. I really don't understand why others' fears about their children's sex lives should make my medicine any harder to obtain or more expensive.
In terms of paying, well, I agree with La Luna Unita. If sex is for two people, then why should the responsibility fall on just one? I think a couple should decide what works best for them in terms of BC. For some couples, the man paying for the condoms while the woman pays for the pills might work. For others, splitting the costs down the middle or pulling from the same pot might work. For couples in which one person is significantly wealthier than another, then it might make sense for the wealthier person to pay. For single people, it probably makes sense to make your own decisions and payments. There is no one right or wrong way to decide how to pay for the privilege of safe sex.
If one partner is dissatisfied with the situation and feels that the current payment method presents an unreasonable or uneven financial burden, I see no reason why that partner should not discuss that and come to a compromise. I really don't know why the advice columnist advised this woman that there is only one way to handle the costs. If the woman in question is having sex with the man in question, why should the financial burden of their arrangement be concealed from the man in the name of privacy while the woman's body is not? If you're having sex, then you have to deal with the nitty-gritty, less-than-sexy side issues (like paying for bc), too. The risk and prevention of pregnancy and STDs is part and parcel with that.
Because I am someone who needs BC as medication, I get very upset when certain political groups try to argue that BC should be harder to get or more expensive because it might encourage kids to have sex. The availability of insulin does not encourage kids to eat themselves into diabetes. The availability of casts and physical therapy does not encourage kids to go break their limbs. BC should be available to those who choose or need to use it. Those who have moral or religious qualms are free to refuse to partake of BC pills or to prohibit their children from using BC pills. I really don't understand why others' fears about their children's sex lives should make my medicine any harder to obtain or more expensive.
In terms of paying, well, I agree with La Luna Unita. If sex is for two people, then why should the responsibility fall on just one? I think a couple should decide what works best for them in terms of BC. For some couples, the man paying for the condoms while the woman pays for the pills might work. For others, splitting the costs down the middle or pulling from the same pot might work. For couples in which one person is significantly wealthier than another, then it might make sense for the wealthier person to pay. For single people, it probably makes sense to make your own decisions and payments. There is no one right or wrong way to decide how to pay for the privilege of safe sex.
If one partner is dissatisfied with the situation and feels that the current payment method presents an unreasonable or uneven financial burden, I see no reason why that partner should not discuss that and come to a compromise. I really don't know why the advice columnist advised this woman that there is only one way to handle the costs. If the woman in question is having sex with the man in question, why should the financial burden of their arrangement be concealed from the man in the name of privacy while the woman's body is not? If you're having sex, then you have to deal with the nitty-gritty, less-than-sexy side issues (like paying for bc), too. The risk and prevention of pregnancy and STDs is part and parcel with that.
Airam
Yeah really! I'm starting to think we should mail "Dear Abby" all our advice as IMO she seems inept to dispense any.
E
Edmund Blackadder
IF I was in the States I would be a Republican HOWEVER I do believe that sex is something that everyone will experiment with so BC should be readily available to all as long as from a young age, people are told - and it should be free
L
La Luna Unita
Also well said! High fives all round.