If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   Free birth control does not promote risky sexual behavior. That's still best accomplished with free alcoholic drinks   (foxnews.com) divider line 32
    More: Interesting, birth control, promiscuities, alcoholic drink  
•       •       •

641 clicks; posted to Geek » on 10 Mar 2014 at 8:15 AM (24 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



32 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-03-10 08:18:52 AM
"Contraception gives women a false sense of safety," Arina Grossu, director of the Family Research Council's Center for Human Dignity told USA Today. "Women think they are completely protected, and they are not."

So lets assume that the FRC isn't a conservative slut shaming organization for one second and take this statement at face value.

If that's true then the solution isn't to take away birth control, the solution is to educate them.
 
2014-03-10 08:39:59 AM

Egoy3k: If that's true then the solution isn't to take away birth control, the solution is to educate them.


NO! It's not perfect!  Strip it from store shelves!
Those dumb sluts can't be trusted!
 
2014-03-10 08:43:02 AM

Egoy3k: "Contraception gives women a false sense of safety," Arina Grossu, director of the Family Research Council's Center for Human Dignity told USA Today. "Women think they are completely protected, and they are not."

So lets assume that the FRC isn't a conservative slut shaming organization for one second and take this statement at face value.

If that's true then the solution isn't to take away birth control, the solution is to educate them.


Education makes people libby-libs and elitists. Conservatives don't want to educate, they want to take away the colored chalk from the classrooms.
 
2014-03-10 08:44:09 AM
I'd assume these were all women who weren't on birth control at the beginning of the study.  Maybe the promiscuous girls already were.  Or maybe those seeking out birth control are demonstrating responsibility, maturity, and concern for their wellbeing that would also make them less likely to be promiscuous.  I'm sure that when they went to the doctor or clinic to be started on birth control they received STD education.  I'm not at all saying the study is wrong, but there's zero reason to think that the act of putting someone on birth control makes them less promiscuous.  I just hate when they turn a several page paper into a blurb and catchphrase for popular media without giving any of the details  I'm not sure if it's because the reporter is too stupid to explain it or they think we're too stupid to understand it.
 
2014-03-10 09:25:05 AM
I see, Fox news... Those quacks at "the journal of obstetrics and gynecology" believe this is true... But let's close the article with a contradictory quote from some random churchy. Fu.king Pulitzer material, that.
 
2014-03-10 09:59:38 AM

Splish: I'd assume these were all women who weren't on birth control at the beginning of the study.  Maybe the promiscuous girls already were.  Or maybe those seeking out birth control are demonstrating responsibility, maturity, and concern for their wellbeing that would also make them less likely to be promiscuous.  I'm sure that when they went to the doctor or clinic to be started on birth control they received STD education.  I'm not at all saying the study is wrong, but there's zero reason to think that the act of putting someone on birth control makes them less promiscuous.  I just hate when they turn a several page paper into a blurb and catchphrase for popular media without giving any of the details  I'm not sure if it's because the reporter is too stupid to explain it or they think we're too stupid to understand it.


Um, I don't know anyone that's arguing going on birth control will make a woman less promiscuous. Conservatives in America are the ones fiercely fighting birth control under the assumption that it turns women into a bunch of Slutty Slut McSluttersons. That was what Rush Limbaugh told everybody for three straight days on his radio show back in 2012.
 
2014-03-10 10:01:42 AM

Splish: I'd assume these were all women who weren't on birth control at the beginning of the study.  Maybe the promiscuous girls already were.  Or maybe those seeking out birth control are demonstrating responsibility, maturity, and concern for their wellbeing that would also make them less likely to be promiscuous.  I'm sure that when they went to the doctor or clinic to be started on birth control they received STD education.  I'm not at all saying the study is wrong, but there's zero reason to think that the act of putting someone on birth control makes them less promiscuous.  I just hate when they turn a several page paper into a blurb and catchphrase for popular media without giving any of the details  I'm not sure if it's because the reporter is too stupid to explain it or they think we're too stupid to understand it.


The results of this study are pretty much in line with previous studies (including several by the CDC) going back for decades. Contraception seems to have no effect on how much sex people have, or at what age they start having it. So if someone opposes birth control or sex education because it will encourage people to have sex, they're either ill-informed or lying to you.
 
2014-03-10 10:23:36 AM

Serious Black: Splish: I'd assume these were all women who weren't on birth control at the beginning of the study.  Maybe the promiscuous girls already were.  Or maybe those seeking out birth control are demonstrating responsibility, maturity, and concern for their wellbeing that would also make them less likely to be promiscuous.  I'm sure that when they went to the doctor or clinic to be started on birth control they received STD education.  I'm not at all saying the study is wrong, but there's zero reason to think that the act of putting someone on birth control makes them less promiscuous.  I just hate when they turn a several page paper into a blurb and catchphrase for popular media without giving any of the details  I'm not sure if it's because the reporter is too stupid to explain it or they think we're too stupid to understand it.

Um, I don't know anyone that's arguing going on birth control will make a woman less promiscuous. Conservatives in America are the ones fiercely fighting birth control under the assumption that it turns women into a bunch of Slutty Slut McSluttersons. That was what Rush Limbaugh told everybody for three straight days on his radio show back in 2012.


The article itself actually says that the women started on birth control were less likely to have sex with more than one partner. If that's what they found, the study wasn't performed very well or, more likely, the summary doesn't represent it very well.
 
2014-03-10 10:29:42 AM
Saying that birth control education encourages sex is like saying that confession promotes sinning.
 
2014-03-10 10:33:27 AM

Egoy3k: "Contraception gives women a false sense of safety," Arina Grossu, director of the Family Research Council's Center for Human Dignity told USA Today. "Women think they are completely protected, and they are not."

So lets assume that the FRC isn't a conservative slut shaming organization for one second and take this statement at face value.

If that's true then the solution isn't to take away birth control, the solution is to educate them.


Why is it every organization with the word "Family" in its name is almost guaranteed to be regressive and derptastic?
 
2014-03-10 10:49:47 AM

van1ty: Saying that birth control education encourages sex is like saying that confession promotes sinning.



54% of virgins started having sex after the study started and 16% of participants increased the amount of partners.

/Also known as: roughly half the virgins are still not having sex and most increases are from none to one partner.
 
2014-03-10 11:01:47 AM

Splish: I'd assume these were all women who weren't on birth control at the beginning of the study.  Maybe the promiscuous girls already were.  Or maybe those seeking out birth control are demonstrating responsibility, maturity, and concern for their wellbeing that would also make them less likely to be promiscuous.  I'm sure that when they went to the doctor or clinic to be started on birth control they received STD education.  I'm not at all saying the study is wrong, but there's zero reason to think that the act of putting someone on birth control makes them less promiscuous.  I just hate when they turn a several page paper into a blurb and catchphrase for popular media without giving any of the details  I'm not sure if it's because the reporter is too stupid to explain it or they think we're too stupid to understand it.


The really funny thing about the whole conservative position is that they pretend that increasing the number of 'promiscuous' women who are unlikely to get knocked up would be a bad thing.  I'm going to be honest, if birth control worked the way that the conservatives think it does I would personally make it my goal in life to make birth control free if not mandatory for all women between 18 years old and menopause.
 
2014-03-10 11:04:08 AM
It's got to be a very small sliver of the female population that is saying, "give me birth control so I can go and fark more men." It's more like, "sex is happening/going to happen and I need to be smart." Birth control doesn't influence whether they will be having risky sex. It's the other way around--having risky sex determines whether they will use the birth control or not.
 
2014-03-10 11:24:35 AM

angva: Why is it every organization with the word "Family" in its name is almost guaranteed to be regressive and derptastic?


I happen to have a traditional, 'nuclear' family unit and I wish these family places would just shut up. Promoting "traditional family values" is extremely insulting. All families are not equal and you can't choose what family you are born into. Sometimes it would be completely justified to turn one's back on family. You can't just take a stance that "families are good." Traditional families are probably among the most blind and biased when it comes to fairness and equity. A lot of lazy people coast by on "blood is thicker than water." A lot of atrocities get covered up by family members.

If you're all gung ho about the idea of "family" then go and celebrate/enjoy your family. Promoting/expecting that family structure to be the foundation of all society (it pretty much naturally is everywhere anyway) is only going to make things worse off for those who do things differently. I guess that's the point with these dickbags.
 
2014-03-10 01:51:32 PM
When I hear these far right twits railing against birth control and sex ed, what I hear is either "God damn it, sex is no fun for me, how dare you let it be fun for anyone else", or "I would totally be doing every guy who smiled at me, if it weren't for the guilt trips laid on me by my church, my uptight bible-thumping family, and that flat pee-pee husband I am stuck with; please don't make temptation worse by making sex safer".

Or both.

/Oh yes, uptight religious "good girls" can make for some wild, freaky sex that Penthouse Forum would not believe.
 
2014-03-10 02:03:14 PM
Most women I know who use birth control are on it for chronic pain management or something similar. My sister went on BC after her third period because she was incapacitated by her periods. My ex-wife was on it because of fibro. My current wife would be on it for pain management, her back pain and migraines spike during her period but she can't tolerate any hormonal treatments.

This isn't about sex. It is about how pain intensifies during menses. Most women I know wouldn't trust just BC alone for pregnancy prevention. They also require condom use because nothing is foolproof. My wife has four children and three of them came after doctors told her she was physically incapable of carrying a child to term. She ended up with her tubes cut, tied and burned and still doesn't trust it.

FRC as usual deliberately misses the point of BC. It is a normal part of women's health for entirely non-recreational reasons.
 
2014-03-10 02:54:34 PM

Splish: I'd assume these were all women who weren't on birth control at the beginning of the study.  Maybe the promiscuous girls already were.  Or maybe those seeking out birth control are demonstrating responsibility, maturity, and concern for their wellbeing that would also make them less likely to be promiscuous.  I'm sure that when they went to the doctor or clinic to be started on birth control they received STD education.  I'm not at all saying the study is wrong, but there's zero reason to think that the act of putting someone on birth control makes them less promiscuous.  I just hate when they turn a several page paper into a blurb and catchphrase for popular media without giving any of the details  I'm not sure if it's because the reporter is too stupid to explain it or they think we're too stupid to understand it.


Probably both, of course.

What the study says: frequency of intercourse went up, from median=4 to median=6 (I forget the period over which this was). Number of partners stayed the same in most of them, decreased in about 15%, and increased in about 15%. (Going from memory here). In 80-odd% of the 15% that increased the number of partners, the number of partners increased from zero to one.

What those numbers say to me is that the total promiscuity of the group did not noticeably increase or decrease, but they did more bonking of the partners they did have. This makes intuitive sense, as does the large number of 0->1 changes (I'll bet in many of those cases the woman had a boyfriend whose penis used to avoid her vagina, as a means of pregnancy prevention).
 
2014-03-10 03:01:15 PM

Egoy3k: The really funny thing about the whole conservative position is that they pretend that increasing the number of 'promiscuous' women who are unlikely to get knocked up would be a bad thing.


It makes sense if you assume the only reason men ever stuck around to raise their kids is because it used to be (very theoretically) impossible to get laid out of wedlock. Such an assumption also makes it make sense to oppose homosexuality (if you also assume many/most/all men are gay or bi).

Egoy3k: I'm going to be honest, if birth control worked the way that the conservatives think it does I would personally make it my goal in life to make birth control free if not mandatory for all women between 18 years old and menopause.


Any consistent pro-lifer (I'm not saying you're one, I dunno your views on abortion) should be in favor of this as well. Fewer "murders" = win.
 
2014-03-10 03:48:22 PM
Psh, next thing I know subby, you'll be telling me that wearing seat belts doesn't promote reckless driving.
 
2014-03-10 04:47:04 PM

angva: Egoy3k: "Contraception gives women a false sense of safety," Arina Grossu, director of the Family Research Council's Center for Human Dignity told USA Today. "Women think they are completely protected, and they are not."

So lets assume that the FRC isn't a conservative slut shaming organization for one second and take this statement at face value.

If that's true then the solution isn't to take away birth control, the solution is to educate them.

Why is it every organization with the word "Family" in its name is almost guaranteed to be regressive and derptastic?


Family Planning aka Planned Parenthood?
 
2014-03-10 04:54:09 PM

Gaseous Anomaly: Egoy3k: The really funny thing about the whole conservative position is that they pretend that increasing the number of 'promiscuous' women who are unlikely to get knocked up would be a bad thing.

It makes sense if you assume the only reason men ever stuck around to raise their kids is because it used to be (very theoretically) impossible to get laid out of wedlock. Such an assumption also makes it make sense to oppose homosexuality (if you also assume many/most/all men are gay or bi).

Egoy3k: I'm going to be honest, if birth control worked the way that the conservatives think it does I would personally make it my goal in life to make birth control free if not mandatory for all women between 18 years old and menopause.

Any consistent pro-lifer (I'm not saying you're one, I dunno your views on abortion) should be in favor of this as well. Fewer "murders" = win.


Problem: Derptastic preachers who say that all hormonal BC are abortificants, as they end up reducing the amount of uterine lining during cycle, so that if a fertilized egg were to come down the Fallopian tubes, it is less likely to implant and cause pregnancy.

So many pro lifers who are against BC are so because they think BC = more murders than abortion.
 
2014-03-10 05:03:22 PM

tlars699: angva: Egoy3k: "Contraception gives women a false sense of safety," Arina Grossu, director of the Family Research Council's Center for Human Dignity told USA Today. "Women think they are completely protected, and they are not."

So lets assume that the FRC isn't a conservative slut shaming organization for one second and take this statement at face value.

If that's true then the solution isn't to take away birth control, the solution is to educate them.

Why is it every organization with the word "Family" in its name is almost guaranteed to be regressive and derptastic?

Family Planning aka Planned Parenthood?


Family planning is what they do, their name was originally American Birth Control League and then changed to Planned Parenthood Federation of America in the '60s.  Never had "family" in their name.
 
2014-03-10 05:08:19 PM

Teufelaffe: tlars699: angva: Egoy3k: "Contraception gives women a false sense of safety," Arina Grossu, director of the Family Research Council's Center for Human Dignity told USA Today. "Women think they are completely protected, and they are not."

So lets assume that the FRC isn't a conservative slut shaming organization for one second and take this statement at face value.

If that's true then the solution isn't to take away birth control, the solution is to educate them.

Why is it every organization with the word "Family" in its name is almost guaranteed to be regressive and derptastic?

Family Planning aka Planned Parenthood?

Family planning is what they do, their name was originally American Birth Control League and then changed to Planned Parenthood Federation of America in the '60s.  Never had "family" in their name.


If your brain can handle the derpnado, some guy is writing a book about how Planned Parenthood is part of the Nazi's eugenics program.
 
2014-03-10 05:27:23 PM

I created this alt just for this thread: Teufelaffe: tlars699: angva: Egoy3k: "Contraception gives women a false sense of safety," Arina Grossu, director of the Family Research Council's Center for Human Dignity told USA Today. "Women think they are completely protected, and they are not."

So lets assume that the FRC isn't a conservative slut shaming organization for one second and take this statement at face value.

If that's true then the solution isn't to take away birth control, the solution is to educate them.

Why is it every organization with the word "Family" in its name is almost guaranteed to be regressive and derptastic?

Family Planning aka Planned Parenthood?

Family planning is what they do, their name was originally American Birth Control League and then changed to Planned Parenthood Federation of America in the '60s.  Never had "family" in their name.

If your brain can handle the derpnado, some guy is writing a book about how Planned Parenthood is part of the Nazi's eugenics program.



Let's assume that most of the stuff in the derpnado is true.
After all, Sanger was a very well known believer in Eugenics. Even the wiki says so.

According to the derpnado itself, it wasn't the Nazi's eugenics program.
It was the wealthy peoples' eugenics program.
That they shared preferences of races with the Nazis is coincidental, and they didn't go out and slaughter millions of people. They used promotional propaganda to influence the poor to make the BC choice for themselves.

(Also, aside from condoms and abortions, what "Birth control" were they promoting in the 30's?!
The hormonal ones didn't come about until the 50's. :( Shenanigans, Derpnado. Shenanigans.)

Why the wealthy may have changed their tune in regards to BC/abortions?

Because the poor started to be able to control this aspect of their lives, and take better stock of their resources, and eventually through several generations climb through the class system. This threatens the wealthy population as it is taking away from their share of the pile.

But the article doesn't go into that: their main argument is that BC is eeebil because  BC= eugenics!!!!!1!

Doesn't effing touch the main creepy part about their thesis: The wealthy tried this method in an attempt to control the population of the poor, as they didn't want to have a revolution, or have their "race" eventually die off, and lose their "hard earned" fortunes to those less desirable.

The wealthy have now reverted their position, as BC was an effective management tool, and ended up helping those it was intended to harm.
 
2014-03-10 06:01:51 PM
It's not contraception or even easily available alcohol.

It's about easily available poon and rampaging hormones.

/which is a great thing, BTW
 
2014-03-10 06:41:57 PM
I wonder how the study participants were consented for this study.  Clinical trial ethics are a tricky thing.  I don't know anything about this kind of study but generally you need to provide subjects with the best standard of care possible.   Even if they are in the placebo/control group.  So, for example, you can't just run a HIV drug trial in Africa and watch the placebo group progress to AIDS because they wouldn't have access to treatment outside of the trial.  You have to give them anti-retroviral drugs.  In this case, the sponsor of the study might be required council subjects on sex, birth control, STD's etc..  Otherwise they may have ethics violations.  The act of consenting to this study may in itself change behavior.  I am not trying to crap on this study or anything like that.  Just curious.

/I am sure the study sponsor thought of that.
 
2014-03-10 09:18:57 PM

tlars699: Because the poor started to be able to control this aspect of their lives, and take better stock of their resources, and eventually through several generations climb through the class system. This threatens the wealthy population as it is taking away from their share of the pile.


LOL

You DO know how stupid you sound? Their "share of the pile"?  So there is one pile of money that we all take from and the rich are worried that their part of the pile will get smaller as the poors' get larger?

Not sure you understand how economics work.
 
2014-03-10 11:25:27 PM

Egoy3k: Splish: I'd assume these were all women who weren't on birth control at the beginning of the study.  Maybe the promiscuous girls already were.  Or maybe those seeking out birth control are demonstrating responsibility, maturity, and concern for their wellbeing that would also make them less likely to be promiscuous.  I'm sure that when they went to the doctor or clinic to be started on birth control they received STD education.  I'm not at all saying the study is wrong, but there's zero reason to think that the act of putting someone on birth control makes them less promiscuous.  I just hate when they turn a several page paper into a blurb and catchphrase for popular media without giving any of the details  I'm not sure if it's because the reporter is too stupid to explain it or they think we're too stupid to understand it.

The really funny thing about the whole conservative position is that they pretend that increasing the number of 'promiscuous' women who are unlikely to get knocked up would be a bad thing.  I'm going to be honest, if birth control worked the way that the conservatives think it does I would personally make it my goal in life to make birth control free if not mandatory for all women between 18 years old and menopause.


No kidding. What kind of straight male doesn't want a whole bunch of sexually liberated women around?
 
2014-03-10 11:45:49 PM

BolloxReader: Most women I know who use birth control are on it for chronic pain management or something similar. My sister went on BC after her third period because she was incapacitated by her periods. My ex-wife was on it because of fibro. My current wife would be on it for pain management, her back pain and migraines spike during her period but she can't tolerate any hormonal treatments.

This isn't about sex. It is about how pain intensifies during menses. Most women I know wouldn't trust just BC alone for pregnancy prevention. They also require condom use because nothing is foolproof. My wife has four children and three of them came after doctors told her she was physically incapable of carrying a child to term. She ended up with her tubes cut, tied and burned and still doesn't trust it.

FRC as usual deliberately misses the point of BC. It is a normal part of women's health for entirely non-recreational reasons.


Or uncontrollable acne.  I hate taking an extra pill but OCP are the only thing that touches my hormonal acne.  Not hemorrhaging and feeling like I was kicked by Chuck Norris in the uterus is a bonus as well.  I have a drug interaction that in no way makes me trust it as contraception.  Of all the women I know on OCP more than half use it for reasons other than contraception.
 
2014-03-11 01:09:15 AM

cptjeff: No kidding. What kind of straight male doesn't want a whole bunch of sexually liberated women around?



One who is happily married or otherwise in a relationship with someone might not want that.
 
2014-03-11 07:00:26 AM

NetOwl: cptjeff: No kidding. What kind of straight male doesn't want a whole bunch of sexually liberated women around?


One who is happily married or otherwise in a relationship with someone might not want that.


Why not?  If it doesn't affect you why spoil everyone else's fun?
 
2014-03-11 07:37:01 AM

cptjeff: Egoy3k: Splish: I'd assume these were all women who weren't on birth control at the beginning of the study.  Maybe the promiscuous girls already were.  Or maybe those seeking out birth control are demonstrating responsibility, maturity, and concern for their wellbeing that would also make them less likely to be promiscuous.  I'm sure that when they went to the doctor or clinic to be started on birth control they received STD education.  I'm not at all saying the study is wrong, but there's zero reason to think that the act of putting someone on birth control makes them less promiscuous.  I just hate when they turn a several page paper into a blurb and catchphrase for popular media without giving any of the details  I'm not sure if it's because the reporter is too stupid to explain it or they think we're too stupid to understand it.

The really funny thing about the whole conservative position is that they pretend that increasing the number of 'promiscuous' women who are unlikely to get knocked up would be a bad thing.  I'm going to be honest, if birth control worked the way that the conservatives think it does I would personally make it my goal in life to make birth control free if not mandatory for all women between 18 years old and menopause.

No kidding. What kind of straight male doesn't want a whole bunch of sexually liberated women around?


Santorum, Marcus Bachmann,  Paul Ryan....
 
Displayed 32 of 32 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report