51–60 of 331 posts
I wonder how this would effect STD rates in areas with bad sex ed? I could see a lot of people thinking 'don't need a condom because I can't make someone pregnant now'. Not that this product is a bad thing, very useful for people in monogamous relationships.
I can imagine the early adopters: male actors, athletes and other men of high social value as a way to enjoy sex without the chance of unwanted offspring.
Promiscuous people should be using condoms at all times, first of all.
http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/page/presents18969358/tinder...
"Indeed, various apps have done for sex in the NBA what Amazon has done for books. One no longer needs to leave home to find a party. The party now comes to you. And lifestyle judgments aside, the NBA road life is simply more efficient -- and less taxing -- when there aren't open hours spent trolling clubs.
"It's absolutely true that you get at least two hours more sleep getting laid on the road today versus 15 years ago," says one former All-Star, who adds that players actually prefer Instagram to Tinder when away from home. "No schmoozing. No going out to the club. No having to get something to eat after the club but before the hotel."
https://theringer.com/the-inside-story-of-the-nbas-newest-ga...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't see how it would have a positive effect. HIV infection rates in the gay community have shot up in recent years unfortunately as people have become complacent with condoms. Without the risk of pregnancy one can only assume the same thing will happen in the straight community.
To be fair, the straight and gay communities are really just opposite sides of the same fish tank, not two fish tanks, as a metaphor for compartmentalizing the sharing of diseases.
I remember reading about this maybe 6 years ago. What was memorable was that the gel was even cheaper than the syringe. It's sad how slow these things move and that we're not going to have that in North-America for a good time.
Unfortunately, finding this initial stuff out takes time.
I wonder how this would effect STD rates in areas with bad sex ed? I could see a lot of people thinking 'don't need a condom because I can't make someone pregnant now'. Not that this product is a bad thing, very useful for people in monogamous relationships.
This seems quite perfect in theory. Not invasive, lasts for a long time, just one shot and then you're done... I hope the clinical tests will bring good news for that project, because this is something I would do if it comes on the market one day.
Obviously, for many patients, the benefits will massively outweigh the risks (assuming the clinical testing bears out the initial results).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This isn't a vasectomy...it's a gel injected into the vas deferens which does not block the flow of sperm, but reacts with the negative charge of the sperm to render them infertile. The gel may also removed with another quick injection to flush.
but you might forget about it for 10years and it might flush itself.
Downside is that in the US, testosterone is, hilariously, Schedule III. But 5 minutes with Google should have you sorted. Can get OTC in other places.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder if fewer unwanted children can lead to a reduction in STDs via economic effects, e.g. reduced poverty.
Could you explain this further? I don't quite understand.
Unwanted children are typically not good for getting out of poverty.