No Name

[Extensa5420]

*REMOVED*

[Robodl95]

1. HOMOSEXUAL SEX DOESN'T PROTECT YOU FROM STDS! (I really needed to shout that out) in fact homosexuals are some of the people most infected with HIV/AIDS.....
2. Obviously the best way to protect yourself from pregnancy/STD is to not have sex period.
3. If you are straight then you can not "experiment with homosexuality" it just doesn't work like that.
4. Option 4.... that would still be birth control.

[Daisie]

Maybe the best course of action is to find safe ways to dispose of birth control pills. Or use non-hormonal forms of birth control?

[whiterider]

There's a key term there - experiment. To experiment with sexuality, you naturally have to try both sides of the coin, so to speak, whether you end up actually fucking someone or being a little more cautious; so pregnancy is still a possibility. Obviously, which gender's genitals you're lickin' doesn't have much impact on STD risk, so monogamous homosexual relationships are just as much of a risk factor there, particularly for men given the increased frequency of tissue trauma. Furthermore, the result of experimentation is a conclusion as to which gender(s), if any, you prefer - so experimentation isn't going to "turn" anyone gay in the long term who isn't already that way inclined: and it's certainly not going to make straight people want to marry people of their own gender.

I'm not convinced about hermaphroditic fish any more than I am about gay, male Londoners being "caused" by the same phenomenon, which was the urban myth a la mode a few years ago. However, if birth control pills are having adverse affects, there are plenty of options. Condoms, for example, are the strikingly obvious one - especially as you say you're concerned about STDs as well as unwanted pregnancy, and no pill can stop you getting STDs. Progesterone implants are an option for women, and a damn good one in my experience. For those not at risk of STDs, mechanical contraceptives, such as vasectomy or IUDs are available. There are, in fact, a lot of options - made necessary by the fact that some women simply can't take hormonal contraceptives, as the hormonal changes can have very severe emotional effects.

Honestly, I think the best way of reducing unwanted pregnancies and STDs is through more complete education. Educate about all the options, and about the biology associated with them. One significant reason why condoms are often neglected is that they're time-consuming (ish...) to put on, and may not be at hand - a problem which is solved (from a pregnancy angle) by contraceptives which only need to be administered periodically, such as implants or injections, as long as the people involved know that those exist, what they are, how they work and where they can be acquired. Perhaps I'm an exception, but my school's STD education was comprehensive and gruesome enough that I never have, and never will, put myself at risk of catching anything - so education is clearly able to be effective if done right.

And, at the end of the day, if people are receiving a full and comprehensive education and are still choosing to take the risk - they're adults. It's their risk to take.

[Robodl95]

Well, yes. It is a form of birth control. But at least it doesn't ruin the environment by dumping estrogen into the rivers.
Not all birth control methods are hormonal, granted that the hormonal methods tend to be pretty effective but what about a condom or any of the other barrier methods?

[wickedblue]

Well, like it's been said, homosexual sex does not prevent STDs. That's a pretty absurd statement to make.

I can't even wrap my mind around the idea that you would want to teach young people to experiment with homosexuality to prevent unwanted pregnancy. To me, that's right in the same vein as trying to make homosexual youths try heterosexual sex because the Moral Authority says homosexuality is wrong.

Yes, sexuality is fluid and there are people that have sexual experiences with the same sex but identify as straight and may even eventually end up in a heterosexual relationship. That's not uncommon and it's not unacceptable but to promote that as if it were something they should do just to prevent pregnancy is in my opinion quite irresponsible.

There are non-hormonal birth control options available if you are worried about the environment though to tell you the truth I am wearing my skeptical face with regards to the science here. I'm not saying it's absolutely not legit just that it seems fishy (oh heh pun).

[kiwi_tea]

Hermaphroditic fish are reasonably common in nature without such contributing factors. I'd be careful to check out these perch aren't just, to quote a damned song I've had stuck in my head lately, Born This Way.

(I've been changing the lyrics privately: "I caught a bus to the bay to see the fish of the day, I'm on the flight back, baby, from a prawn display! ‎Ooo there ain't no other way. Baby it's a prawn display. Baby I've got prawn dismay!")