This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I'd be ok with everyone receiving the program I got in High School. It was a lot like the described:
First it went into the social aspect of sex. I remember they had a gotcha icebreaker task where they asked everyone what the first step to having consensual sex was out of a list. The answer was "eye contact." They talked about how intercourse took place after a sequence of events, (eye contact, conversation, seclusion, etc) which a person could get out of at any time by being vocal and making a choice to get out of the sequence.
A lot of "if you are pressured into having sex, here are some trusted adults you can go to."
Then went into the most common contraception methods available to teenagers, but actually read the warning labels on every box. Explained that none of them were fully effective at preventing STDs, not even condoms. None of them were 100% effective at preventing pregnancy.
Described economic and social status outcomes of pregnant teenage mothers. That pregnancy and childbirth changes you hormonally and "you don't really want to be like your mom yet, do you?"
We had to make posters describing STDs, symptoms and treatments. Presented them to the class.
I would call it abstinence-first education. It explained contraception thoroughly. The problem is, once you explain contraception thoroughly, it doesn't deliver on all the goods that abstinence can. Over a population, it is effective. As individuals, a 5/100 risk of pregnancy each year is still a lot of sexually active pregnant teens.
Property used contraception does work. The 5/100 is from people fucking it up. Also abstinence only education doesn't work you can look anywhere on earth and find that stats to back that up. Teens and young adults are going to fuck before getting married.
To your experience. It is surprisingly hard to find any info on abstinence-first education and perhaps the term is just not well defined enough to show up in the sea of competing abstinence only and full blown sex ed debates. I don't have a problem with that approach, except again, young attractive people are going to have sex with one another, unless you live in Korea, so you may as well teach them how to do it safely.
"Perfect use" condom is 2%, "Perfect use" Pill is .3%. Even "properly used" contraception means that there are thousands of women winding up pregnant from "perfect use." But how many people in a high school class are going to use it perfectly? "Typical use" is 14% and 7% respectively.
Things that are 100% like sterilization are unlikely options for teenagers. I suppose now IUDs might be more available.
I guess the idea is that, with education, "typical use' rates will go down? If so, my sex ed class covered explicitly how to put on a condom, the importance of taking a pill every day and that a single missed day means that the woman is more likely to get pregnant for the next month. Etc. They went very deep into the failure modes of each.
The biggest problem is that "Sex Ed" was one week. How many of your classmates on the internet are claiming that they never learned about the Vietnam war in school, or segregation, or whatever, when you remember very clearly that these topics were covered? I would prefer for Sex Ed to be a weekly thing all throughout Middle and High school.
I didn't. My parent's didn't. My grandparents didn't.
That being said, in hindsight I think my Sex Ed was trying to encourage oral. They went deep into dental dams and things.
Sure, sure they didn't... I bet if you sat down your grandad he would tell you about about being a poon hound and it would scar you for life.
More options
Context Copy link
I can't imagine something less encouraging for oral sex (barring explicit discouragement) than telling kids you need dental dams for it. I have never even heard of such a device before I was 20.
Smh, kids these days are so vulgar. When I was a kid we called them “dental darns”!
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
There’s got to be a historical reason for emphasizing dental dams. Either a specific STD panic or some sort of lobby. Maybe they just really wanted to beat the allegations of sex-ed pandering to men?
There’s a growing body of evidence that oral HPV is one of the main causes of throat and mouth cancer.
More options
Context Copy link
My impression's that they wanted to have something relevant for the (cis) lesbians, and that's pretty much all that comes up -- it's still hella low risk rates for the really dangerous STDs, but at least relevant for things like cold sores.
((Ironically, dams are still more useful for guys, even separate from STD risks, but I'll admit I have a lot of sympathy for sex ed teachers not wanting to get into rimming.))
More options
Context Copy link
Puritanism. If you gave honest fact based stats, it's practically an advertisement for Sapphism.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
How could a perfect use condom be 2%? It is a physical barrier. A perfect use condom can't be anything but 100% effective. Pill wise. I know zero people that have gotten pregnant on it unless "oops" I missed a few. Don't try to fuck with an already low fail percentage to justify abstinence stuff dude.
Also; no one in the history of sex has ever used a dental dam. This is detached from reality.
I can personally vouch that "99.9% effective when taken as directed" is not, in fact, 100%. If you take the word of an anonymous Internet stranger.
Was this you, or your wife?
My wife, but I believe her when she says she was taking them as directed, even at the same time daily. She wasn't very excited by the unexpected news (although we are both, in hindsight, glad to have the little one), and I was there when she was taking them pretty often.
Ah...Well. I'll take you at your word. But it doesn't take much - one miss on vacation, or a few forgotten, or another medication etc..My wife takes them on time every time and if she forgets we take a few days off. Again, I don't know of anyone having a kid on accident in our circle, and if odds were really 1% with perfect use and 10% real world there would be a few.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
About 5% of women make an enzyme that breaks down the hormones in birth control faster. This might explain a perfect use failure. https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/genetics-may-explain-why-birth-control-doesnt-always-work-for-some-women
Condom failure rate was described by gattsuru better than I can.
These effectiveness numbers are so well known in my circle I hadn't even thought to cite them, but I assure you the Guttmacher Institute is not Christian propaganda. https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/contraceptive-effectiveness-united-states
Women dissolve condoms with their enzymes? That is truly amazing! ( I joke, obviously) but like what are you on about? If you don't want a baby you're not going to have one.
It's like I've attacked a religious belief of yours by citing very well-accepted stats.
I don't know any people that had an "ooopsie" baby that are PMC, it is only lower class people that can't follow instructions or chose not to.
Perhaps your acquaintances are just better at quietly getting rid of it. I never announced my pregnancies until the 2nd trimester because I didn't want to miscarry and have it turn into a Thing.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Breakage, probably. Maybe they count spills?
As far as I know, the rates aren’t for individual acts. They counted how many couples had gotten pregnant after a year, conditional on using the method correctly. So I agree there’s room for reporting issues. But I don’t think OP is being disingenuous.
Also, dental dams are used exclusively as slingshots by college students. No idea how they got inserted into every sex ed curriculum.
The post you're responding to is showing as "Filtered" to me.
If the question is about how failure rates pop up, these studies are based on reporting. This goes into a lot of the statistics and processes, including some counterintuitive results (effectiveness of imperfect use is often underestimated, because many studies only ask about imperfect use where pregnancy occurred).
Mechanically, breakages are the most understood 'correct' use failure, with incorrectly applied (unrolled separately and then placed onto penis, air inside) or stored or outdated condoms, vigorous sex, age, and insufficient lubrication being some of the most common risk factors. Incompatible materials (eg oil and a latex condom) are usually lumped here, though there is a fair argument they should be considered imperfect use. About a fifth to a third of people a year using condoms report at least one condom break, although this is not evenly distributed.
Slippage is... about what it sounds like. You'd think it would be more obvious and easier to withdraw and reapply a different condom or move onto other sex acts, compared to a split down the side of a condom, but you still see 10-20% reporting it happen, usually pretty often if it happens at all.
Leaks are the least understood and I think play a bigger role than most people expect. "Correct" condom use is to withdraw immediately after ejaculation while firmly holding the base of the condom tight. Waiting too long (or just deflating fast enough) gives a lot of opportunity for semen to get around, and while it's something only a small percentage of people report having problems with, as a behavior it's one with the clearest immediate mechanisms for semen transfer, and with the least clear distinction between 'right' and 'wrong'.
Semen just getting around, separate from sex itself is another risk. People overestimate the risks of preejaculatory fluid for pregnancy, but the guy finishing and moving to help his partner finish without washing his hands first is both plausible and easy to overlook.
This is all really specific. If you don't want to have a kid all you have to do is not cum inside someone, that is super easy to not do.
More options
Context Copy link
I swear I try to fish his comments out of the filter as fast as I can. @AhhhTheFrench you may find this response useful.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link