You're viewing a single thread.
-
Doesn't not having sex do that a little better tho? Like i totally get the point, but also, having sex gives chance of baby right? So, don't do it unless you ready? Maybe I'm wrong.
-
Sex is a basic human need. Having a child isn't. You need to know you are compatible with your partner sexually or it will lead to tons of strife in a relationship. So not having sex unless you are asexual or a version of it isn't an option.
-
Sex is a basic human need.
Humans do not die if they don't have sex.
-
Humans also do not die when they are shackled and locked in a dark room for years or decades, as long as you feed them. How is you argument sounding now?
-
Still better than ignoring the millions of people throughout history who haven’t had sex and lived long happy lives.
-
Almost sounds like it's fine when people choose, but is a problem when people are forced. Odd
-
There are people who don’t choose but still are still fine.
If what you’re saying is true Tom Hanks would have died of lack of sex on that island.
Or I’d have died in the six years between going through puberty and having sex. Or the five years later on when I didn’t have sex but wanted to.
“People need sex” is borderline incel shit.
-
I can tell you're just going to need some months or years to think it over.
-
And I can tell you need a few years or decades for your testosterone levels to moderate.
-
Why are you assuming my gender?
-
Testosterone is present in everyone
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No, you're not "maybe wrong". You're absolutely and completely wrong seen as abstinence only programs have been shown over and over again to be ineffective. It's a sad attempt at policing people's desire for sex
-
People fuck for various reasons. Taking away people's access to contraception doesn't stop that, it merely makes it more likely they'll have kids.
Abstinence only programs have shown themselves again and again to just produce teen pregnancies and STDs. Contraception, generally, is the best way to keep yourself from producing a child and the people who are against it tend to be the type of people who want the state to get into your bedroom.
-
Logically, yes. But humans aren't purely logical. They're gonna have sex without access to birth control, even if they don't want a kid. Not all of them, but a lot of them. So why not just let them have both control?
-
I've been told by multiple people that if men do not have sex they become fascists.
So, no, not having sex is apparently not an option.
-
You have the same worldview and understanding of human sexuality of an 8 year old.
Either your ridiculously naive or just straight up an idiot. Possibly both.
Jesus fucking Christ. I've never read anything so dumb on the internet. And I saw Trump get elected. Twice.
-
There are only two reasons any post-pubescent human isn't having sex:
-
They can't find anyone to fuck them.
-
They're legitimately asexual. (A rare thing. And no lemmy, just because you're not getting laid doesn't make you "asexual".)
-
-
Your suggestion has at least two severe issues:
- It doesn't scale. The people that can and want to "wait until they're ready" probably are doing that already. Meanwhile, the large, unwashed majority does whatever they feel like, and why would they want that to change?
- It takes away personal liberty and punishes people who "cannot control themselves," giving way to social authoritarianism. To me, that's the exact opposite of what any elected government should do: to make people's lives better.
-
Isn't the pill stated to be like 99% effective? Why discourage people from using it that want to plan their futures?
-