Adam Carolla used to do a bit called “what can’t Adam complain about” that was essentially this—deliberately making the topic (typically suggested by a fan) something people/he is known to like (e.g. free parking) was the best, imo.
ObjectivityIncarnate
- 0 Posts
- 440 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
Cake day: March 22nd, 2024
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
It’s one of those things that’s beneficial but not profitable (like the postal service), and therefore a ‘service’ that the government should be providing with tax revenue, imo.
You’re missing my point, which I thought was clear, but add “when the condom is not preventing anything” to the end of the bit you quoted to clarify it.
My point is that, unless you have a good reason to do it (the source of the “sense of safety” and the prevention of the “paranoia”, described above), you’re obviously not going to do it.
If your partner is infertile, and you know that both of you have no STIs, neither of you are going to want to use a condom. Condoms are used because they’re needed, not because they’re wanted.
You obviously have very strong opinions about this.
It’s not an opinion, that is the only responsible and ethical way to go about it.
Medical standards, such as those from the American Urological Association (AUA), explicitly state that a vasectomy should be counseled as a permanent procedure. Using its potential reversibility as an incentive to persuade a hesitant patient is generally considered a breach of the standard of care.
Also something that’s rarely considered: while vasectomies are often covered by insurance, vasectomy reversal very rarely is, and can cost over $10,000 out of pocket, in the US at least.
‘I can always reverse it’ should not be influencing one’s decision to get a vasectomy, nor would any ethical doctor say anything along those lines.
Make one simple change to capitalism: put in. A constitutional hard cap on personal wealth. Anything income or gift or whatever over 1 million goes 100% to taxes
You don’t understand where the vast majority of the wealthiest’s wealth comes from. There’s no “income” or “gift” at that level, it’s just the fact that they own things that are becoming more valuable over time. The vast majority of the increase in these people’s wealth over time is newly-created; it’s value that literally didn’t exist before, not an amount of cash money taken away from anyone else.
Speaking of value: net worth is just a valuation, a price tag. It’s the market saying “I would pay you $X for a share of this if you sold it”. If I buy a rookie baseball card for $5 and the player becomes famous for whatever reason and my card is now worth $100 because the demand significantly increased, my net worth increased by $95, but no one was deprived of $95 to make that so.
A hard cap on wealth is effectively legislating that if something you already own becomes too valuable, you’re not allowed to continue owning it anymore. And any sensible person should understand why that makes zero sense.
Corrected to nearly 46%, with source. 🫠
Those are similar to if not precisely the circumstances under which the majority of unplanned pregnancies happen, and nearly 46% of all pregnancies are unplanned.
Lots and lots of people are just horny idiots who are really bad at considering the potential long-term consequences of their short-term actions.
I can’t speak for everyone in my gender, but I’ve rarely found an issue with them.
Not what I said, though. Do you prefer sex with a condom to sex without? If not, you align with what I said.
Especially early in a relationship, they were always bog standard for me.
That’s obviously in the “good reason” category. Also agrees with the other part of my sentence, as tons of short-sighted people forgo them altogether, including one-night stands with strangers.
An object you have to physically carry around with you and have on your person in the moment every single time you have sex, versus things like:
- a pill that, while needing to take it daily, leaves you protected at all times, you don’t need it on hand at the time of the sexual encounter. And most pills aren’t even that strict about what time you take it each day, as long as it’s around the same time every day
- a vaginal ring that only needs to be swapped out once a month (and can safely be removed for a few hours during sex itself without losing efficacy, if desired)
- an injection that lasts 3 months
- an arm implant that can last 5 years once inserted, depending on type
- an IUD that can last for over a decade once inserted, depending on type
Condoms are far less convenient than any of these.
You can have it reversed within ~6 years and regain a high percentage of fertility.
No responsible doctor will recommend you get a vasectomy under the assumption that you’ll be able to reverse it if you change your mind.
It is not meant to be reversed. You should only do it with the expectation that it’s permanent; it’s supposed to be permanent.
a life long STD that could fucking kill me than an unplanned pregnancy?
To be fair, a pregnancy can kill you, too.
On the other hand female condoms and diaphragms exist yet I rarely hear about them being used.
That’s because they suck, even compared to the male version of the same. More awkward/unpleasant to use than male condoms, and less effective to boot.
I saw one in an efficacy chart for different contraceptives that IUDs were slightly better than tubal ligation (literal sterilization)! Given the side effects etc. of the latter, it seems like ‘getting your tubes tied’ has become completely obsoleted by modern IUDs.
Why are there dozens of different birth control options for women, and men have exactly condoms, permanent sterilization and nothing else?
Because only the female body has a built-in ‘fertility off’ mode (pregnancy) that pharmacopoeia can manipulate. The most effective contraceptive methods we have all depend on tricking the female body into thinking it’s pregnant when it isn’t. The reason women have so many options is simply because there are a lot of different ways to accomplish that ‘trickery’, pharmaceutically. Women also only have one real barrier method, the diaphragm. It’s even shittier than condoms, re efficacy.
Those are just the biological facts of the matter. It’s not some sinister scheme to pass the buck from men to women. The above is exacerbated by the simple fact that it’s about stopping one egg a month versus stopping millions of constantly-created sperm.
saying “not all men” every time a problem is addressed
saying “not all men” every time all men are held accountable for what a tiny minority of men do*
Fixed.
The only thing it “undermines” is the sexist generalization.
“Hard disagree” with an opinion? He’s not asserting anything, just saying how he feels, lol.
there’s something super sexy about getting all hot and heavy, teasing and playing then grabbing the condom and unwrapping it
I think you just have a condom kink, lol. As a furry who’s been exposed to a LOT of kink, this sounds exactly like how artists who draw condom-centric furry porn describe condom usage.
For the vast majority of people of both sexes, condoms are a necessary nuisance, at best, and they’d much rather get to it without having to deal with one.
No matter how good, convenient or easily usable birth control for men becomes
This is a strange thing to say, considering that contraception has never been more effective, more convenient, or more easily usable for men, than for women.
Neither sex prefers condoms to no condoms. No pair of sexual partners ever utilize them unless they have a good reason to (and even with a good reason, many people don’t, lol).
That’s my point, actually. It doesn’t work in practice. Given that ultimately, it’s third parties that determine the value of things you own that are on the open market, placing hard limits like that would open the door to massive gaming of those systems. It’d also be practically impossible to enforce in any real way, as that would require an actual full audit (net worth figures you see in the media are educated guesses, not enough certainty for the application of law), during which the valuation of the assets in question can be manipulated downward in myriad ways.
The poor aren’t poor because the wealthy are wealthy. Like I said, the vast majority of the wealthiest people’s wealth is not cash money, it’s a theoretical price tag going up over time. Over the past hundred years, the number of billionaires per capita has increased 7x, but a hundred years ago, poverty was MUCH more prevalent than it is today.
The two simply aren’t connected the way you assume they are, because wealth isn’t the zero-sum game you assume it is.
Really take a moment to think about this concept. You own a thing that’s valuable to others. If it becomes too valuable (a threshold defined completely arbitrarily, by the way) to others, “society” no longer “permits” you to continue owning it?
In other words, the government will literally steal your stuff if the public decides it’s more valuable than the amount the government arbitrarily decided is too much?
Extremely wishful thinking. You’re actually more likely to net a loss of tax revenue overall attempting this, as people nearing the cap will rearrange their assets to avoid going over the cap, so no new revenue will be coming in, meanwhile the logistic cost of even determining whether someone is over the cap is certainly going to cost much more taxpayer money than what is brought in (which, again, is most likely to be literally zero or very close to it).
There is a reason that every country that’s previously attempted a policy like this aimed at the wealthiest has either since repealed it, or changed it such that it no longer targets the wealthiest (i.e. a ‘wealth tax’ that the middle class is made to pay as well). I’m interested in learning from their mistakes, not repeating them.
That’s for sure.