Most women who are sexually active or in a monogomous relationship and who do not want children will be on "the pill" already so this is more a safe guard if one forgets to take the pill or in cases of rape etc.

I had acknowledged that. However there are some girls who can not take a pill or shot for side effects. there are some women who can not afford the pill or afford to goto the doctor to get a prescription for the pill or shot. Some women who have one night stands and do not get laid very often that might make a mistake(why take the pill if you have no reason to take it?). It is these concerns that come to mind. I am not against RU-486 in fact I think it is great it finally got OK'd. I am just concerned about a small bumb in unsafe sex.(from a disease point of view)

I know. Damn do we get the bum deal on that statistic. Yet another reason why "open" relationships (the other thread) tend to be male centric. Any woman worth her brain is going to be paranoid at this point.

I do, however, disagree with your arguements. The use of condoms and morning-after pills isn't inversely proportionate, and I'd venture to say at this point most women use condoms are just as aware of s.t.d.s as they are of preganancy. If not more. At this point it is still possible for most women to get prescription meds, and in no way has that access caused a drop in out-of-monogamous relationship condom use.

That's a round-about way of rehashing the silly arguement that women use morning after pills as their primary source of protection. They...just...don't. This is for breakage in condoms, accidents along that nature. I've taken morning after pills and they are no walk in the park. no one who is using condoms is just gonna drop them and pop morning after pills every time they have sex instead. Its an arguement based on paranoid people who thought having accessible morning after pills would somehow revolutionize sex in this country.

People who never used condoms still aren't going to unless we get a grip and start treating sex as non-taboo in education and social systems, and people who did use condoms are still going to use them (for the s.t.d reason you mentioned, and because morning after pills are just not a viable primary protection). These pills only make a difference in cases of accident (which you mentioned many good ones) and because on an ethical and legal level its retarded how every move a woman makes concerning her own body has to be documented, filtered, "advised," and controlled by someone else (in this case a doctor, an insurance plan, the significant other, or parents).

Also, there has always been an issue with how quick these pills have to be taken. Every hour and their effectiveness drops. By the 72 its only around 50% (for ones now) while in the first few hours its higher at 90%. The time demands of the current process screwed alot of people over. Especially if their prescription couldn't be filled immediately due to pharmacy and physician hours.

The one abuse I see in this is on the male part, actually. Guys thinking they don't need to put on a condom anymore because "What's the big deal? Just take the pill tomorrow." Psychological b.s. I've known people that would rather a woman alter her entire composition (monthly pills, patches, etc) even when she didn't want to, because of dumb arguements about condoms and hard-ons.

The funny thing (kinda sad, actually) is that if people were more educated about birth control, there really wouldn't be a need for EC. Taking four regular BC pills in a 24 hour period is equivalent to (and does the same job as) EC, and it's just as safe. The only reason EC exists is because of the very people that don't want it to.

Very true. I think Holland has the lowest rate of teen pregnancies in Europe because sex ed starts at a very young age.

I volunteer at a clinic in SF. It is still a chore to get women coming in to get tested even now. HIV still has a stigma as being a gay/druggie disease in the US. Most educated women know better now but surprisingly it is much easier to get women to get tested who live in the more impoverished areas of the city solely because they know more people who admit to having it.

That said I agree with the male part but the problem is also two sided with the women accepting the male "argument" combined with the still lower image/presence of HIV among those who identify as "straight". There are also other things such as hepatitus, herpes, and HPV which get pushed under the radar because of the press on HIV. Do you have a Hep A/B vaccination? If you are sexually active at all you really should get it.

I am actually for it even if I sound against it because of a concern, accidents do happen ot people who are not ready for it and I think this will do well with this regard. Of course the chance of pregnancy is not as high as people think either but just like the others it is high enough.

As for condoms they are the best way at preventing disease, the female condom doesn't get pushed enough it is out there and is also effect(though not as much).

AS for HIV there is a preventive treatment for that as well...but you have to take the medication everyday for 30 days and it is only effective(if at all) within hours of primary infection.

Also Dolce,

I am not concerned about the Primary or Emergency contraceptive argument. It doesn't mattr to me. I am concerned about people who may use it irresponsily just once(that is all it takes).

Exactly, it's like how some studies have shown people drive more dangerously the safer the car they are in. I could even see this being used eventually as a 1-2 combo with the date rape drugs.

I see your point, and I agree.

Also, this is not RU-486 (the "abortion" pill") but rather Mifepristone.

You sound like the fine folks that think gay marriage will lead to interspecies marriage.

Get a grip. You can't ban something because a couple of sick fucks will use it for disgusting reasons.

Wow man, calm down. You're way overly worked up in your little world.

I'm simply saying that all change has unintended consequences and am proposing this might end up benefiting men more than women. It's a reasonable idea to float for discussion. With adults, which apparently doesn't include you.

They are the same thing. Just a name change.

Anyways Archie criminal intent is criminal intent. Date Rape 1-2 punch is criminal no matter which you look at it. Banning something so that is illegal will not stop someone who already has a criminal intent anyways. To thin such way is destructive.

Anticipating issues that may arise from the introduction of new policy or product and trying to prepare for those issues is another story, but you have to understand that everyone is going to live their life the way they see fit adn hte best you could is advise if oyu feel it is necassary.

I'm not "cranked up" at all. Sorry if that came off as harsh. I have a terrible potty mouth.

Thing is, I'm just not sure if it is a "resonable" idea. You're giving an extreme example of a slippery slope and trying to pass it off as a probable pratfall. I think that the majority of the men that would be the type to force this kind of thing on their girlfriend won't be educated enough about it to do so in the first place.

I see no way this could benefit men more than women. A small percentage of people will use this in negative way, yeah... but the people it will benefit in a positive way will far outweigh that.

On a semi-related note, I think a more vital issue is getting this readily available for teenage girls under 18. Your average late teen/early twenty something girl is normally "together" enough to explore the different options out there for her after a mishap, whereas your average panicky 16 year old that just had a condom break/fall off will have pretty much no option that doesn't involve potential humiliation of some kind.

I do. That still doesn't mean I don't think this is a step in the right direction. I'm not going to invoke the dirty and criminal, but I am going to say their are cultural shifts this *could* initiate that actually further empower men. This is still incredibly body-altering, and while it is a great help to women, it can encourage men to take even less responsibility (i.e. putting on a condom) during the act of sex (and therefore in the entire relationship).

There are several things being addressed in this thread. 1. Redspear speaks about less responsibility in terms of s.t.ds. I agree with him to a point, but I just don't personally see this as dramatically altering the ratio of people that engage in unprotected sex who is afraid of catching something. Anyone with half a brain would worry more about s.t.ds than they would even children. This is the responsibility of educators and society, and no pill is going to change that, whether that pill be introduced or removed from the system. That is about condom use, getting tested, and treating public health more seriously and open-minded than we do today. But it is a valueable point, as some people who fear preganancy have inadvertently protected themselves from other issues by donning condoms.

The second issue is what it mens to take medicie that alters one's chemical composition, imo. IN a roundabout way we've come to not be bothered by how much we change our bodies. And that is fine. I'm preaching to the chorus. However what we don't look at is *who* is changing themselves. We've got every kid from here to Kalamazoo chalked up on prozac, and half the teens on the planet taking regular birth control to try to avoid getting pimples. So its not jarring to some the idea of a woman being on the pill, or taking the morning fter pill, or taking shots after having unprotected sex within a monogamous relationship. S.T.D/s are (theoretically) not an issue.

What is an issue, is that the condom was the one proactive thing a man was doing within the couple, and now the responsibility for after-sex fallout is 100% on the shoulders of the woman. The woman is consistently altering herself to keep the relationship at a status quo, and the man is, well, doing nothing. In short, one person, the woman, is shouldering any consequences due to sexual activity within a couple, and only one person is. That is, above any physical issue (criminal, healthwise, etc) the biggest, and in some ways anti-woman issue that could arise with greater access to morning after pills.

On the surface some people may not think that is wrong, but I think its atrocious. Its a clear subservience of one sex physically reforming itself to pander to the needs and desires of another, and unlike violent crime, it could be culturally taken up as "normal" just like popping the kiddies on prozac. Its a big deal when you think about it, but its not something tht women already on the month-cycle pill don't already need to deal with every day.

Anyways, its still about how society chooses to take up this right (the right to health resources). Its not a problem with the pill itself, which I am very happy went through. It is just something to keep in mind is all.

Oh.

Ain't nothing like daddy's little girl having sex to cause gossip and scandal!

In my opinion, any 14 year old not comfortable enough to tell her parents she's having sex, is most likely not going to ask them to buy her some condoms, or to get her mom to pick up some pills for her. These women need open access more than anyone else, as they clearly don't have guidance and support at home (and this runs the gamut of political, racial, religious, ethnic, and class lines). All ages, in the stacks next to the Tylenol. As long as its behind the counter its about taboo, restriction, and deterence. Put it out on the floor, ask no questions.

Dolce,

Women and men are both sexual beings...Not everyone is fully sexually there are quite a few asexual people out there who feel tremondous social pressure to engage in relationships(but that is a seperate discussion). Both women and men like ot have sex if they didn't this world would be screwed.

That said you seem to be discussing the issue of empowerment and role play. While you may be brushing off assuming that people worth their salt in thought would always use protection this is simply not the case. I am in SF the capital of the US for this sort of thing(not in numbers LV is but in terms of awareness) yet we even get doctors coming in from time to time...I mean who knows better than a doctor. Even if people know they still don't always do the right thing, I am convinced that the brain shuts off.

As for condoms and men did you know there is a female condom that a woman can use on her own? Yet not enough women take advantage of it because they are too worried about pleasing their partner even at the expense of their orgasism, BTW it also happens with men as well except the issues are more visibly noticably. Now you seem like a strong person who would take the necessary precautions but this not always the case and since this is what I deal wiht on the weekends it is the sole issue of my concern.

Another example though graphic Colin Farell's sex tape with a girl and he does not use protection. It is much more common than you may think and it is a problem and I do get concerned when anything that comes along that can relax one of the concerns that is an incentive to use protection...Well at least until they can find a way to cure it or vaccinate it and/or get better sex ed in schools whihc ironicallly is being blocked by a lot of the same people who don't want this pill.

I agree with this. I think the schools need to hand this stuff out if not from a nurse maybe a sex ed class or something, people need to be aware of what is out there and how they are used. many people still missuse condoms go figure.

The fact that people still debate this in this country fuels the notion of me losing my conscience to kill.

I guess my worldview is just too naive about this particular issue. It's hard for me to comprehend someone being disgusting enough to use something like this to excercise their power over another human being.

I think the best karmic punishment for a man would be for him to spend his next life as a woman.

I think the best karmic punishment for a woman would be for her to spend her next life as a man, and then deal with a woman.

WHAT A TWIST!!!

Exactly.

I'm just glad we're making some kind of headway. It's going to be difficult to convince (sometimes intentionally) naive parents that their precious little girls might one day need this, though.