Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Flip

1 2 3

Original poster

Using contraceptives? Post your online sex tape then!

63 replies

HazleNutt · 02/03/2012 09:06

I can't see a thread discussing the charming Mr Limbaugh - could you point me to the direction if there is one?

According to him, women who want their health insurance to cover contraceptives are

a) sluts who have so much sex they cannot afford to pay for contraception themselves;

b) as they want "other people" to pay for the contraceptives, essentially they want other people to pay for them to have sex - meaning they are prostitutes

c) as other people would be paying for those sluts to have sex, we all want to see it and the sluts should post their sex tapes online.

usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/01/10552338-limbaugh-contraception-advocate-should-post-online-sex-videos

OP posts:

Lulumama · 03/03/2012 20:17

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

blackcurrants · 03/03/2012 20:18

pinky Who was that to?

pinkyredrose · 03/03/2012 20:27

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.

CailinDana · 03/03/2012 22:51

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.

solidgoldbrass · 03/03/2012 23:01

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.

nooka · 03/03/2012 23:04

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.

CailinDana · 03/03/2012 23:10

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.

pinkyredrose · 03/03/2012 23:10

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?

CailinDana · 03/03/2012 23:12

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 · 03/03/2012 23:14

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

pinkyredrose · 03/03/2012 23:18

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.

Tortington · 03/03/2012 23:19

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

CailinDana · 03/03/2012 23:20

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

MmeLindor. · 03/03/2012 23:20

Cailin
No one is expecting the state to pay for them to have sex. You are looking at this from the wrong side of the coin.

The provision of free contraceptives saves the country more than it costs as it means less unwanted pregnancies.

Sex as a recreational activity - So of you want sex then you should pay for it. What about those who simply cannot afford contraception? Do they go without or hope that they don't get caught?

What about prevention of STDs? Any idea how much drugs to treat HIV cost? Or the cost of chlamydia for women - who risk infertility.

pinkyredrose · 03/03/2012 23:24

Cailindana i've just read the thread again, no you didn't actually say that, i apologise.

However i do think that free contraceptives should be the norm and I think that its not right to have to pay.

CailinDana · 03/03/2012 23:24

I already answered your questions MmeLindor. I said I would be in favour of free condoms and cheap/free MAP.

CailinDana · 03/03/2012 23:25

Out of interest pinkyredrose, if free contraception was a benefit that you had to claim, would you claim it?

MmeLindor. · 03/03/2012 23:25

I lived in Germany for many years and had to pay for contraception. We were on low wages and struggled a bit financially but it was something that we had to find the money for. Some simply cannot afford to go on the pill or use condoms.

CailinDana · 03/03/2012 23:26

I can totally see the argument for free condoms - they're very cheap anyway and so wouldn't cost the government much, they're the responsibility of the man so they prevent the woman having to take hormones, and they prevent STIs which hormonal contraception does not.

pinkyredrose · 03/03/2012 23:28

yes I would .

MmeLindor. · 03/03/2012 23:28

Sorry, lots of xposts.

But if you would fund condoms and map, then why not pay for the pill and other hormonal forms of contraception that are more effective?

Why should women be put in a situation that they have to make the decision on which method to use, based on which is free.

CailinDana · 03/03/2012 23:33

Because the pill isn't any more effective than condoms, but is a lot more expensive. The pill also doesn't prevent STIs. I'm personally not a fan of the pill as I honestly can't see how changing your hormonal balance can be healthy, but that's neither here nor there.

I suppose my view on it is sex isn't an absolute right that should be upheld by the state. It makes sense for the state to provide free access to a cheap form of contraception as the benefits outweigh the costs. IMO if a person wants another, more expensive form of contraception then it's up to them to fund it themselves.

SardineQueen · 03/03/2012 23:48

Free and easily available access to decent contraception is a basic fundamental of a developed and decent society, I thought?

Isn't it in some human rights type stuff? European stuff?

I cant believe people are even debating this

SardineQueen · 03/03/2012 23:50

Pill is way cheap isn't it? Why do you think it is more expensive?

Also for women in some situations they are not able to use condoms (that takes the co-operation of the man).

Surely choice is essential, and giving people the power to prevent unwanted pregnancy is the civilised thing to do.

Himalaya · 04/03/2012 00:00

Cailindana - on average 2% of couples who use condoms perfectly everytime will get pregnant in a year. For more typical condom users, who drink, get carried away sometimes, take chances etc.. the pregnancy rate can be more like 15%.

I imagine avoiding the cost of miscarriage care, abortions and childbirth for these extra pregnancies (not to mention the emotional impacts) has got to outweigh the £100 or so a year it costs for a mirena or pills, or the one off cost of vasectomy. It would be a false economy to force couples into using the cheapest form of contraception. What would be the point?

Flip

1 2 3