SCA Purchases

[SOC STUDIES]

Lori Jones wrote:
> 
> 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


speaking of bathing suits...are there swimming pools at the hotels down
at coronation this weekend?

Bunny....pure and total