SCA Purchases

[J'lynn Yeates]

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 
responsibility

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 
such kits.

> 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 ...

'wolf