SCA Purchases

Lori Jones LJONES at
Mon Jul 21 22:27:30 PDT 1997

I think this whole subject has gotten way off track.
The original argument isn't "should condoms be available or 
not?"  (Obviously, it is better to have them available - for all the 
heretofore argued reasons and a few others, too).  The 
question was, "should the SCA pay to make them available as 
a part of the chirurgeon's supplies?"  

As we can see from the numerous posts, there is no shortage of 
condoms available at events from helpful people.  Doesn't almost 
everyone have a friend (or know someone who knows someone) 
who could loan them one?  

You know, if one fails to plan for possible encounters and no 
"safety device" can be found, abstainance *is* always an option.  
No, I'm not trying to be moralistic here (I'm working very hard to 
keep my opinions on morality out of this), I'm simply saying, self 
control is an option when there is a choice like this to be made. 
Besides, missing out on opportunity would probably lead one to 
be better prepared in the future (kind of like the bathing suit you 
always throw in the suitcase, just in case the hotel has a pool). 

I know, not everyone will elect to abstain if proper protection isn't 
available.  However, responsible people (those who would go to the 
trouble of hunting down a chirurgeon or friend to borrow) usually 
*will* - the benefits aren't worth the risks.  However, people who 
*must* have sex *now* and would rather proceed unprotected than 
abstain, aren't going to put their plans on hold for an hour or so to 
go hunting down a chirurgeon. 

> Sir Lyonel stated:
> if a fighter can't get a helmet, he won't rationalize the need and fight 
> without it.  

I have to disagree and say this is only because the rules will *not* 
allow it.  I've spoken to quite a few people who were more than 
willing to take the risk.  Kind of like deciding to drive after 
having too much to drink - despite helpful friends, free cabs, etc. 
it still happens, and innocent people still die because of it.  These 
choices don't show a sense of responsibility or even a little 
common sense, but people make them all the time.  To them, it's 
worth the risk.  

> Should we, therefore not make spaces and facilities available 
> for sleeping, bathing, and urinating?  Tent space, showers,
> and toilets all cost a good deal of money.

Actually... I've gone to many events where shower facilities weren't 
provided.  They're really nice, but the SCA isn't required to provide 
them.  Also, I figure that I pay for tent space as part of my site 
fee, so it should be provided.  It would never occur to me to go to 
an event, decide on the spur of the moment I wanted to stay 
overnight, and assume the hospitaler would have a tent to loan me, if 
I needed one.  As for privies, most (Okla.) state health regulations 
require groups to provide them (TP and all) for gatherings the size 
of ours.  I'm sure if the state ever requires groups to provide 
condoms for social gatherings where sex might spontaneously occur, 
then the Chirurgeon will undoubtedly be given the mandate to keep a 
supply of condoms on hand.

I guess my feeling on this whole thing is that the SCA doesn't have 
even a minimal responsibility to provide the means for safe sex to 
its participants with its corporate funds.  That is not a primary 
(or even a sideline) purpose of our non-profit, educational 
organization (unlike planned parenthood, and several others that have 
been mentioned here).  To be very specific, even purchasing 
band-aids and aspirin could raise serious liability questions (but, 
unless corporate rules on it, let's please *not* go there - this 
subject has been stimulating enough).  

If socially conscious people wish to provide the means to reduce
the spread of disease, then, by all means bring condoms to events 
and make them available!  If a chirurgeon wants to take on this task 
as a socially concerned person (most of them are, or they wouldn't 
be in that office) then they should be free to do that, as well - 
just not as a warranted representative of our organization.  

> As for the question of distributing condoms to minors... I don't recall
> anyone discussing "minors" in any portion of this string, until now.

You know, I had quite a few thoughts on this subject, but I've nixed 
them all in favor of this one:  Who can really be sure that the 20 
year old kid isn't getting a condom to have sex with the teenage 
girl he just met?  Who answers to the girl's parents when she turns 
up pregnant or sick (nothing is foolproof)?  What about when she says 
they used a condom, which the club provided, and swears she wouldn't 
have done *anything* if they hadn't had one....

If Chirurgeons, as SCA officers, should have condoms to 
distribute on demand to needy individuals, maybe we should make 
people sign a waiver, of sorts, before receiving one, - kind-of like 
the waiver everyone is supposed to have on file or sign before 
entering a site or fighting.  At least it would show they 
didn't intend to hold the SCA liable for that expired date or 
the little hole in the latex.  (Yes, I'm being a little extreme 
here, but these situations *are* all hypothetical.)

Besides, I think there's a lot of people out there who might resent 
having money they helped to raise (working the fund-raising booth 
during 110 degree days, or working the troll booth all night) 
being used to finance someone else's lack of responsibility. 

I know, I'm no fun at all...  Just a few more thoughts on the 
subject (as if we hadn't talked it to death).

Kat (adding another animal to the discussion) MacLochlainn
Barony of Wiesenfeuer

More information about the Ansteorra mailing list