chabot@miles.DEC (L. S. Chabot) (02/25/85)
I've changed the title from that of Isaac Dimitrovsky's article ("Yet Another
New Topic"), and I think it is something worth discussing. Discussion of
responsibility of birth control is a lot like discussion of alcohol: in the
movies and tv you see people drink a lot and act sophisticated, but you much
less often see anything depicting the problems with alcohol. For instance,
people drink, but then must convey themselves home somehow, presumably by
their own car. Yes, on tv there is or was some funny law about how you really
can't see people pour the stuff down their gullet, but in parallel, you don't
see intercourse either.
Of course, some religions are opposed to birth control, so to discuss it on tv
would alienate those religions' adherents, or at least anger those religions'
leaders and prominent public figures.
But not mentioning birth control, which actually must be something used in
those scenes depicted (either that or we see a lot of tv about sterile people or
couples), is adding to the problems faced by adolescents with sex: you see it
on the screen, and it's obviously adult and exciting...and then there are all
those letters to Beth and Ann and Abby in the paper about "gee, we only did it
once and we know you can't get pregnant from just once" or unless you decide
it's okay or if you're married...
L S Chabot
UUCP: ...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-amber!chabot
ARPA: ...chabot%amber.DEC@decwrl.ARPA
USFail: DEC, LMO4/H4, 150 Locke Drive, Marlborough, MA 01752nemo@rochester.UUCP (Wolfe) (02/26/85)
(Isaac Dimitrovsky asked for examples of b. c. use in tv/movies) My favorite is in Garp, where the promiscuous girl next door flatly states, "No glove, no love". (L. S. Chabot adds reference to ....) > those letters to Beth and Ann and Abby in the paper about "gee, we only did it > once and we know you can't get pregnant from just once" or unless you decide > it's okay or if you're married... Education and availability are the major problems. In many cities, there are place (eg: Planned Parenthood) where both are given in a discrete manner and at nominal cost, if any. As a project in high school (many solstices ago) I presented a discussion of the various b. c. methods, their effectiveness, their side effects and where to go for more info. Afterwards I was asked by several people if I could get them some of one kind or other. They were refered to their doctor, or P. P., or the local drug store. It amazed me how many were not aware in the least of the possible consequences of having sex even at high school age! Nemo
dimitrov@csd2.UUCP (Isaac Dimitrovsky) (02/27/85)
[] L S Chabot writes: >Of course, some religions are opposed to birth control, so to discuss it on tv >would alienate those religions' adherents, or at least anger those religions' >leaders and prominent public figures. Well, I'm no great fan of religion, but I don't think you can attribute this to religious influence. (Personally, I guess I'm an agnostic. Like the story goes, "What religion are you ?" "I'm an agnostic." "Well, I've never heard of that one, but I guess we all worship the same god.") Anyway, I think most religions which are opposed to birth control are just as opposed to things like adultery, casual sex and violence, etc, which we certainly get to see often enough on TV. And while religious blocs might have some influence on network TV, I don't think they have much on movies which are not targeted for a religious audience. So what can you attribute it to? I'm not sure. The simplest answer would be that the bottom line is ratings and receipts, and for some reason network TV and movie makers feel that mentioning birth control in a sexual situation would be bad for r&r. What do the inhabitants of netland think about this? Isaac Dimitrovsky
dmmartindale@watcgl.UUCP (Dave Martindale) (02/27/85)
A while ago, I was reading a "Harlequin American Romance" (as a diversion, I don't do this regularly) and was rather surprised to see that the protagonist, while getting ready for an evening with a particular man, "took precautions against pregnancy". Interesting to see a bit of realism injected into these stories. But then it started me wondering. What birth control method is there that is used by the woman, requires her to do something in preparation for intercourse, and yet the preparation can be done many hours in advance? Cervical cap? But that isn't used very widely, is it?
chabot@miles.DEC (L. S. Chabot) (03/01/85)
I am by no means blaming silence about birth control on religion, but I do list it as an influence. Religions may be opposed to adultery, casual sex, violence, &tc, which we see on tv, but violence gets punished, and the criminals usually confess on the witness stand or before. Or, at least, violence by the bad guys anyway. Adultery and casual sex...well, it seems more like if you get caught you get punished: if you're caught in bed, or a baby results, at least your life gets messed up internally if not externally. And you're right, this isn't necessarily the message religions would want to give about sex--they'd be more on the side of you always get caught and you always get punished for sins. Mentioning birth control in a sex situation takes the recreation out of it. If you have to think, gee, it can't be fun? Fun means no responsibilities? I think even more importantly, there is a pervading belief that sex is only for procreation not recreation, and if we acknowledge its procreative possibilities by taking actions to prevent them, then we are being bad, sinning, using sex for fun instead of for what some deity created it. Even those raised with little no church training are not necessarily immune to this pervading opinion. And it's a really idiotic attitude. I'm pretty sure from the comments made by teenagers and other naive people, that taking precautions equals you know what you're doing and you're therefore guilty. It would be much better to take the healthier attitude of understanding human sexual behavior and being educated and responsible about it. This is something in which parents can be of great help, by talking honestly rather than refusing to talk about such dirty and embarassing subjects. L S Chabot UUCP: ...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-amber!chabot ARPA: ...chabot%amber.DEC@decwrl.ARPA USFail: DEC, LMO4/H4, 150 Locke Drive, Marlborough, MA 01752
mag@whuxlm.UUCP (Gray Michael A) (03/02/85)
> A while ago, I was reading a "Harlequin American Romance" (as a diversion, > I don't do this regularly) and was rather surprised to see that the > protagonist, while getting ready for an evening with a particular man, > "took precautions against pregnancy". Interesting to see a bit of realism > injected into these stories. > > But then it started me wondering. What birth control method is there > that is used by the woman, requires her to do something in preparation > for intercourse, and yet the preparation can be done many hours in advance? > Cervical cap? But that isn't used very widely, is it? Three guesses (the third is most likely): 1.Went to the doctor and got an IUD. 2. Took a birth control pill. 3. Put her diaphragm into her purse. Mike Gray, BTL, WH
chris@pyuxc.UUCP (R. Hollenbeck) (03/05/85)
I once slept with a woman who was offended that I had had the forethought to bring condoms with me. She felt that being prepared indicated that I presumed we would have sex, i.e., that I thought she would be "easy." The lesson from this, I guess, is that being prepared for sex requires both men and women to admit that they are, or plan/hope to be, sexually active. In a society that still frowns on sex, this is a hard leap to make. Many take what they think is the easy way out, to be unprepared, rather than to go against social conventions that might label them promiscuous.
annab@azure.UUCP (A Beaver) (03/10/85)
>References: <824@decwrl.UUCP> <623@pyuxc.UUCP> > Many take what they think is the easy way out, to be unprepared, > rather than to go against social conventions that might label > them promiscuous. "It's the media, Ruby. The media has given them the Power." -Rodant-
oleg@ucla-cs.ARPA (Oleg Kiselev) (07/19/86)
>isn't it true that a man who had a vasectomy could still father a >child via artificial insemination? so that a vasectomy's effect >isn't irreversible with respect to function? Ability to use frosen sperm does not make it reversible! A QUESTION: Does the genetic information in sperm change over the time, with the newer sperm having different set of "encodings" than the older make? -- "The more you drive, the less mind you have!" Oleg Kiselev oleg%OACVAX.BITNET c234olg@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU
deb@gt-eedsp.UUCP (Deb Jackson) (07/24/86)
In article <17764@ucla-cs.ARPA> oleg@ucla-cs.UUCP (Oleg "Kill the bastards" Kiselev) writes: >A QUESTION: Does the genetic information in sperm change over the time, >with the newer sperm having different set of "encodings" than the older >make? > The age of the sperm doesn't have an impact on the "encodings". The genetic information is different in each sperm, be the age difference 10 minutes or 10 years. (At least that's what they thought when I studied bio.) -- Deborah J. Jackson Georgia Tech, School of Electrical Engineering, Atlanta, GA 30332 (404)894-3058 uucp: ...!{akgua,allegra,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ulysses}!gatech!gt-eedsp!deb
oleg@electra.cs.ucla.edu (Oleg "Kill the bastards" Kiselev) (07/25/86)
In article <153@gt-eedsp.UUCP> deb@gt-eedsp.UUCP (Deb Jackson) writes: >The age of the sperm doesn't have an impact on the "encodings". The genetic >information is different in each sperm, be the age difference 10 minutes or >10 years. (At least that's what they thought when I studied bio.) So then it is safe to assume that the BASIC encoding is the same (minus radiation exposure damage), frozen sperm is in no way inferior to the freshly produced one? (Just wondering if there are any OTHER reasons not to have visectomy (sp?). Not that I will -- I am too paranoid and I believe in disposable birth control methods) "... having someone special for dinner?" Oleg Kiselev _Cannibal Girls_ oleg%OACVAX.BITNET oleg@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU
rb@cci632.UUCP (Rex Ballard) (07/27/86)
In article <17764@ucla-cs.ARPA> oleg@ucla-cs.UUCP (Oleg "Kill the bastards" Kiselev) writes: >>isn't it true that a man who had a vasectomy could still father a >>child via artificial insemination? so that a vasectomy's effect >>isn't irreversible with respect to function? > >Ability to use frosen sperm does not make it reversible! > I just spent some time talking to our doctor about the various options. When discussing male options, I asked about reversable vasectomy or artificial insemination. It turns out that once the vasectomy is performed, the body starts developing immunities to the sperm which end up in the blood stream. This is the main reason birth control efforts are focused on women. Up to now, we've been using the combination condom/capsule, but are wanting a little more secure method. The cautions in the book that came with "the pill" samples was less than comforting. My wife doesn't smoke, but she's concerned about the cancer risks anyway. She also suffers from PMS, which, according to the booklet, means the pill is contra-indicated. Our doctor has a policy of not giving IUDs at all. Primarily because of the various lawsuits involved. This may sound sexist, but it seems like young men have a stronger desire for sex than young women. Appearantly, this changes with age. The point is, if young men are that "obsessed" with sex, it seems to make sense that more efforts should be focused on improving the options available to men. Is there ANY research into options available for men? I find it rather interesting that doctors are happy to experiment with womens bodies, and subject them to the various risks, but men's reproductive systems are "off limits". Is this perhaps because the doctors might be blamed for "loss of verility", even though this is a natural part of the aging process?