jyeates at bga.com
Fri Jul 18 11:15:18 PDT 1997
On 18 Jul 97 at 17:39, dennis grace wrote:
> Quick point: sex happens. With or without birth control, with or without
> extensive thought given, with or without the means to deal with any
> less-than-desireable outcome, sex happens. The world we live in provides
> more than adequate proof of that; sex is, after, why we're all here in
> existence today.
the issue is not about "sex happens", but about basic personal
true, "sex happens", but especially in the modern world, not taking
basic precautions to guard your health and that of your partners is
the height of irresponsibility. basic common sense dictates that if
you are sexually active, you carry condoms ... been doing so since i
was 18, lets see that was about 22'ish years ago.
> One could just as easily claim that if a fighters want to fight, then they
> should provide their own first aid supplies, as taking care of one's self
> physically in a voluntary activity is, to quote the good wolf, "*clearly* a
> matter of personal responsibility."
hey, i carry my own field kits with me optimised for my primary
activities ... that being to repair abrasion (motorcyclist) and to
deal with my allergies. that is easily carried in my kit-bag.
usually pack more complete general kit in the truck, still it's nice
to know that the people responsible for the other specialized
activities that i enjoy (say heavy fighting) have the foresight to
keep medical kits optimized for those activities to hand ... i have
no problem contributing to allowing funds to be allocated to support
> Unless, of course, you're one of those who believe that sex is evil and that
> those engaging in it deserve any disease or unwanted pregnancy that
> develops; quite frankly that type of folk have always struck me as just not
> very nice or caring folk.
no need to resort to isults or make unwarranted assumptions about my
beliefs, nor attempt to "seed" the conversation accordingly.
> I have a really hard time believing a group actually said "no" to including
> condoms in their kits. I personally would rather subsidize condoms than have
> ultimately higher insurance rates and the results of unwanted pregnancies.
> Providing condoms does not equate to subsidizing sex. Providing condoms
> equates much more appropriately to preventing potential health problems
> related to sex. BIG difference.
like i said, if you can't afford them, weren't responsivble enough
to pack them, need more than you planned for, feel free to track me
down, as i usually carry spares ... and as practice usually donate to
the "condom jar" when i pass it by (take one when you need one, put
one back when you have one ...).
a public donation system (the jar approach) seems to work a lot
better about keeping such matters visible and in mind ... which in
my experience serves to encourage people to take responsibility for
their own actions.
though it would be wonderfully amusing if some king levied a
kingdom-wide "condom tax" for grins ...
More information about the Ansteorra