LogFAQs > #901705791

Revelation34 posted...

adjl posted...

Delicinq4 posted...

I dont really care. I can see how it may be annoying for men that women are getting all sorts of things subsidized now (tampons, birth control, etc) and they arent getting anything,

Whoa there. Birth control is also for men. It may be women that end up physically receiving it, but those women's partners get to reap all the same benefits that the women do (at least as far as using it as birth control goes, and ignoring the therapeutic applications of BC pills and hormonal IUD's). Painting subsidized birth control as "women getting something that men don't" is ignoring the fundamental purpose of birth control (that is, to let men and women have sex with each other without making a baby, which both parties enjoy unless one of them is really bad at it).

Men's birth control is just a condom though.

Which are already available for free in many places, and also aren't really adequate for long-term birth control (85% effectiveness with normal use), nor cost-effective (presuming a reasonable level of sexual activity). It'd be great to see more viable long-term options that are administered to men (the only male-centric alternative to condoms is a vasectomy, and that's not a temporary solution), in which case any subsidy programs should obviously apply to them as well, but for now, female-centric options are naturally going to be the primary targets for subsidies.

And, in the event that something like Vasalgel makes it to market and becomes a target for birth control subsidy programs, looking at that as "men getting something that women don't" will similarly be missing the fundamental point of birth control. Subsidized birth control really should not be viewed as a gendered issue, no matter who's receiving the treatments in question.