Using contraceptives? Post your online sex tape then!

No I don't regard anyone who gets free contraception as being paid to have sex.

i think that the usa should consider a tax only on MEN to pay for free women's contraception.

If you declare yourself gay - you get a tax cut.

shifting of reponsability - its all in taxes USA

I see contraceptives as essential. I think we should all be able to get them for free as sex is a part of a loving adult relationship.

If we didn't have contraceptives we'd either not have sex unless we wanted a baby or just continue to have sex and endless babies.

However you didn't answer my question.

I never said anyone was being "paid to have sex" pinkyredrose.

I come from a country where you have to pay at least 50 euros to just to see the GP, so the concept of getting free non-essential medication is really foreign to me.

Cailindana do you regard all women who aren't having sex to procreate and have free contraceptives as being 'paid to have sex'?

Do you regard them as prostitutes then?

Condoms are very cheap and they're the most effective way to combat STIs so I don't think there's much to be argued on that front. If a person can't afford a pound for a condom then they have bigger problems than not being able to have sex. I agree that funding contraception is cheaper than funding maternity care, so on that front I can see an argument for providing free condoms. That way, the onus is on the man to get the contraception. I also think the MAP should be available free or very cheaply to back up any accidents. If a woman is with a man who refuses to use condoms then she's a bit of a fool to carry on having sex with him.

Like I said above, if a woman needs contraceptive medication for a medical condition then I think that should be provided on the NHS, but beyond that using hormonal contraception is a choice that should not be funded by the state.

I was on the pill for eight years. I don't regard that as someone else paying for me to enjoy sex. What a very very odd perspective. Besides which as a taxpayer I am (well was as I don't live in the UK any more) as much a contributor as a recipient. In the States the woman who Limbaugh was verbally abusing was paying for health insurance, so not getting anything for free either.

In a publicly funded health system there will be lots of things I'm paying for other people to receive that could be said to be about their personal choices. For example smoking cessation products, fertility treatment, products to treat impotence, patching up people who have accidents doing risky things, and of course treatment for all manner of illnesses where lifestyle is a contributing factor. Personally I am glad to do so.

Well it would be a good thing if people stopped being so obsessed with PIV sex. That's one way of not needing contraception: having sex without PIV,particularly as non-PIV is often a lot more fun anyway. Mind you, right-wing superstitious bucketheads don't approve of that as a suggestion, either.
CailinDana: Contraception is still cheaper for the state to fund than maternity care. Or STI treatment, for that matter. And enjoyable recreational sex is also good for mental health.

I'm 29, so not particularly young. I just don't see contraception as a medical necessity that the state or insurance should be paying for. In the 11 or so years that I've been sexually active I've only ever used condoms and my DH and I have paid for them ourselves. I find it extremely odd that plenty of people on MN would bash people for claiming benefits that help to feed and clothe their families but at the same time they expect them to get free contraception. Having sex is a personal choice that you should take full responsibility for. Expecting someone else to pay for it is weird in my view.

Sorry it was to CailinDana, the other posts came through before I realised, I meant that to be sent right after my previous post. My 'phone didn't update in time.

pinky Who was that to?

it is being penalised if you live in a country where it will cost £££ to get birth control

and what if that birth control fails? will that women be less deserving of sympathy or support because she was having sex for fun , rather than meaning to get pregnant

reducing sex to a baby making function is such a backward step

Well I'm saddened by your views anyway, you should really try to open your eyes and your views.

Well the argument over whether a woman should pay may a 'red herring' in some ways, gallic, but it's not in others. Doesn't matter how 'available' something is if people can't afford it, because if they can't afford it then it's not available to them.

Being female and sexually active costs you money, in a society where you have to pay for each pill, each PAP smear, each checkup. When my pill co-pay was $80 a month, I was getting a checkup then buying a 6 month prescription. That meant I had to find $480 up front - at the time that was half my rent! Oh, sure I could have gone back to my doctor EVERY month to get a pack, thereby spreading the payments out, but oh by the way it's a $30 co-pay just to walk in the doctor's door. So now my pill costs $110 a month. That's $1,320 just so I don't get pregnant. Not counting anything like the costs of a cervical smear or other annual gynae checkups. My partner at the time wasn't paying anyone ANYTHING to have sex without fear of becoming a father.
Of course, as we became more serious it became a joint expense. A lot of my friends were horrified at the idea, btw, of it being a 'couple' expense. But frankly, why not?

There are a lot of women now who are looking at their budgets and thinking "ok, I need that $110/80/50 to buy other things more: we'll use condoms. But then the condom splits and so she tries to get the morning after pill - but if she's under 18 she can't get it at a chemists' and if the chemist isn't open on sundays/the pharmacist on duty "don't agree with that sort of thing" then she can easily end up having to travel miles and miles to another town to get the (over the counter! legal!) drug she needs. And if she doesn't get it on time, she might end up pregnant. And even with help from Planned Parenthood, abortions cost around $500. Making women pay for their pills is going to make them a LOT more expensive than the $80 I was paying - my insurance was paying more than half of that cost for me.

And without access to contraception then women's place in society (as you noted) is in serious danger. The ability to control her own fertility is a cornerstone of any women's liberation.

CailinDana I hope that you're quite young. If you're in your 50s and hold those views then I'm quite saddened by your lack of insight.

Access to contraception was one of the biggest steps forward in the progress of women's rights and a move towards equality in the home and workplace.

I can't believe there are people who disrespect women so much that they would take those rights away.

The argument over whether women should pay is a red herring - I really feel this is all about the place of women in society.

So, basically, women are just incubators, right?

Recreational sex is a privilege for those who can afford it. The rest of us should refrain to having sex only when we plan to reproduce? Is that what you're saying?

Yes really Lulumama. "Penalised financially" is far too strong a term IMO - I'm not saying people should be fined for having sex, I'm saying if they want to have recreational sex then they should pay for the means to make it safe.

Access to contraception is generally considered as a part of basic primary healthcare because of the impact of pregnancy etc. The UK system fundamentally takes a pubic health perspective so it's not surprising that contraception is considered important. Better for the state to make sure that contraception is available with as few barriers as possible than to fund all of the costs of increased abortions, and additional pregnancy and maternity costs. Plus the likely impact of charging for contraception is that poorer people will be tempted to skimp, have unwanted pregnancies and the resulting children are much likelier to require financial support. It's not likely that anyone will have less sex (and it always seems to be missed that all those loose women are having sex with men!)

The US insurance based approach is terrible for preventative care (one of the reasons it's much more expensive).

Rush Limbaugh is a revolting specimen of humanity, but then so are all his sponsors and supporters. I know that there is a campaigning in the states to target the sponsors in the hope of getting him off the air, but given the lack of reaction to his frequent racist and disablist rants I'm not sure it will be successful.

" know this won't be a popular opinion but I do think that if you're having sex without intending to have a baby then it is a recreational activity and you should fund it yourself. That said, if someone needs hormone medication for a medical problem then there is no good reason to deny them that."

really?? really?? You honestly think that women who want to have sex just because it is fun or part of a loving relationship should be penalised financially??

the land of the free - if you are a heterosexual white male with a job .

OK, so you have a seventeen year old, who can't afford the pill. Uses a condom. It splits. Then what? Abortion's illegal in Ireland, correct? That's potentially another unwanted child, born into poverty, potentially ruining the mothers chance at a better future in the process.

Surely it's better to have safety net, so we don't end up with these unwanted pregnancies? And surely it's better that this safety net can be extended to catch everyone, not just those who can afford it every time.

You might be interested to know that contraception isn't free in Ireland, and in fact when I was student there was a sign up at the student health centre saying that if you wanted a GP appointment for a pill prescription you had to pay (all other visits were free). As far as I know health insurance doesn't cover contraception.

I know this won't be a popular opinion but I do think that if you're having sex without intending to have a baby then it is a recreational activity and you should fund it yourself. That said, if someone needs hormone medication for a medical problem then there is no good reason to deny them that.