It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The pill is widely considered to be a liberating development in the women's rights movement. Let me get this straight; your argument is how it's presented as a "cure" for a natural function. While condoms are somewhat of a "utility" that not only protects you from disease on top of pregnancy but also enhances your experience? Condoms are associated with pleasure, sex and safety; BC is associated with preventing pregnancy.
Originally posted by clearlight808
Greetings,
first post here......
I have to agree with a hostile me that this is just the company covering their butts.
Its their way of saying :"Do NOT confuse this with a condom"
as some people might actually be naive enough to confuse birth "protection" for STD "protection.
Thas said, i think theres is a definite agenda going on against sex outside of marriage by the christian right "kooks".
For instance , while there is a vaccine against HPV, i hear a lot of evangelicals that are against it , even for their own daughters. Thats essentially saying :"If she has sex outside of marriage, she gets what she gets (HPV/CANCER?STD PREGNANCY ETC..."
They WANT there to be consequences to sex , be it death or pregnancy.
Just my two cents. Hope i stepped on no toes as this is my first post on this forum.
[edit on 28-9-2008 by clearlight808]
Originally posted by gammahelixx
Being in a stable, mutually monogamous relationship doesn't necessarily mean marriage, so I don't see how the commercial is advocating marriage.
Originally posted by chickenshoes
That being said, last December, I went to my doctor to get an IUD after my son was born. I asked him about Mirena, and he totally brushed me off and claimed that some of his patients objected to Mirena because it can cause a fertilized egg not to implant, and they felt this would be like having an abortion. He then recommended I get Paraguard. Fine, no problem, I wasn't sure I wanted the hormones anyway, and it stays in place for 10 years instead of 5.
I just always wondered why he seemed to be discouraging me from using Mirena on the basis of pro-life vs. pro choice. Is he pro life and imposing his decision on me? Or, does he just not make a practice of recommending Mirena because many of his patients feel that way? Kinda peeved me after the fact, you know?
Originally posted by asmeone2
If there is some legit medical reason that would cause multiple partners to lessen the device's effect, they need to be up front about exactly *why*.
Originally posted by asmeone2
It would be much easier--and much safer, I would think, from a legal position--for them to just come out and say "Use with a condom for maximum disease protection" if the fear of litigation is why they are adding in that phrase.
Originally posted by logician magician
Originally posted by asmeone2
It would be much easier--and much safer, I would think, from a legal position--for them to just come out and say "Use with a condom for maximum disease protection" if the fear of litigation is why they are adding in that phrase.
That's as silly as a condom company saying to use 2 condoms at once because one is only 99.9% effective.
They use the terms "married" and "monogamous" because it sounds better than "sleeping around" or "slut" basically. You're reading too much into this.
Maybe they should teach sex education to kids after all, because it appears that some adults are still in the dark.