Alright, I'll bite.
Surely the rate of spread of STDs is governed chiefly by how many sex partners infected people have in a given period? If you enlarge the pool of available partners, you increase the rate of spread, no? If the number of people in the pool is low, the chance of an infected person having sex with another infected person, or missing out altogether, is increased.
You also have to consider extent as well as speed. Monogamous, faithful people generally don't get STDs at all, but if they all start having multiple partners, even on a smallish scale, the whole population becomes open to infection.
My modest proposal is the Millenium Elimination Hurdle. No-one born on or before 2000 is allowed to have sex with anyone born afterwards. Difficult to enforce, I know, but it doesn't constrain most people's sex lives all that much, and in one generation all STDs are eradicated.
This reminds me of a probably apocryphal story from the late 1980s concerning the popularity of blood donor pins as an accessory at nightclubs and bars.
Some abstracts from Michael Kremer's papers on this subject: here and here.
The public policy implication is the important part, IMO.
No-one born on or before 2000 is allowed to have sex with anyone born afterwards. Difficult to enforce, I know, but it doesn't constrain most people's sex lives all that much, and in one generation all STDs are eradicated.
Except some bugs are transmissible from mother to child. HIV, for one. Also, some good high number of people in the US are HSV carriers and it is nigh impossible to avoid spreading it.
Surely the rate of spread of STDs is governed chiefly by how many sex partners infected people have in a given period? If you enlarge the pool of available partners, you increase the rate of spread, no?
No.
At least, not according to the theory presented. This question is actually addressed early on. The proposal is no that EVERYONE have more sex partners, only those who have avoided infection by limiting the number of partners.
Here's my problem with this: His example assumes that if Joan doesn't get sex with Martin that night, she's just going to go on and sleep with Maxwell.
Surely that's a big leap. What if Joan is not promiscuous, and only wants sex with Martin, not just sex with any old person.
His whole model depends on the premise that people will have sex, and they don't care with whom. If one safe partner isn't available, they just shout "next" and take the unsafe one.
Well, yes, as a model of human behavior it makes a few assumptions that seem unlikely. One that bothered me is the assumption that people who are not sexually promiscuous are able to get sex at all. Maybe Martin is a pimply-faced socially inept geek and the only reason Joan would sleep with him is pity. Of course, if Martin is such a person, he might not be moved to sexual abstention so easily, so maybe the model balances out. I suppose we must assume that all participants are potentially in the gene pool for the model to even make sense; thus, if Martin stiffs Joan, it shouldn't mean that Joan shall end up taking orders.
It also depends on being able to find civil servant willing to handle (or even observe) used condoms for a living. I sense that those jobs would have to be either highly paid or outsourced.
I find the first half of this article extremely thought-provoking and interesting. And then he entirely lost me in the second half.
Maybe it's my Christian upbringing and my current status as a strictly monogamous person, but-- subsidizing condoms? Srsly? I don't really see that as too terribly much of an incentive. As he says himself, they're not that expensive - bringing down the $1 hurdle to safe sex to a $0 hurdle to safe sex doesn't sound to me like it's going to bring in that many more people having that much more safe sex. It seems to me like the people that aren't going to buy condoms aren't going to take the free ones, either; it's not because of the price that they don't use them.
Secondly, I dunno, but the idea of someone's sexual history being available through the methods he seems to describe doesn't sound, well, sexy. :P Again, though, the people who are already dangerously sexually promiscuous aren't going to care about other people's sexual history; and those that do care and are just now having more sex are more than likely cautious enough by nature to ask anyway.
(Addendum; yup, I'm a virgin, and probably have no idea what I'm talking about. Feel free to tell me why I'm wrong, these things just stuck in my head as odd when I was reading the article.)
If one safe partner isn't available, they just shout "next" and take the unsafe one.
Yeah, that's more of a dude thing than a chick thing, except for in certain rarified situations, primarily on Cinemax.
It's not "Next;" it's "Au Suivant!" (Youtube, English subtitles)
So that's Jacques Brel? Reminds me a bit of David Byrne except in French and a little more angry.
Monkeyfilter: David Byrne except in French and a little more angry
*releases inner fangirl*
Check out some other videos - they're not all that angry. Some are just bitter, sad, or melancholy. ;-)
It rubs me the wrong way. It makes people, the fabled masses seem to be a mindless bunch driven just by onbe basic urge...
...well, maybe they're not that off.
A simpler way to ensure publci health would be to just shot Maxwell. Not because he's infected, but just because he's makin it so difficult for all the rest.
MonkeyFilter: I'm a virgin, and probably have no idea what I'm talking about.
Sorry, but I just had to.
I think you're partially right, notnamed. For most adults, price isn't an issue when it comes to condoms. And it's probably not really for kids either -- they're more likely to just be too embarrassed to stand in line at Walgreens with a box of Ribbed for Her Pleasure (hell, I'm married and 35 and I still hide them in the bottom of the basket, and it was all I could do to keep a straight face a couple days ago when I got in line behind a guy whose sole purchases were a 12-pack of beer and a 12-pack of Trojans -- aw, yeah). So I'd think that making condoms available to high school/college kids in a free, anonymous way would actually make a difference.
It seems to me like the people that aren't going to buy condoms aren't going to take the free ones, either; it's not because of the price that they don't use them.
Yeah, too bad those people can't be Darwined before they reproduce.
in one generation all STDs are eradicated.
If all those ungodly sinners would practice the abstenance that the RightousRepublicans God meant them to, they He wouldn't have to inflict this punishment.
Damn GoatF**kers!
I dunno. At some events at the college where I work, they have baskets of free condoms and a lot of kids take them, laughing and pretending they're doing it as a joke. I have a hard time imagining them doing that at the drugstore.
Damn GoatF**kers!
Oh! So now I know how you really feel, GramMa. Did you think this wouldn't get back to me? What with all the aides I have!?
I think the bits about subsidized condoms and scumbag bounties were tongue-in-cheek. I do believe that the problem of how to incentivize sexually conservative people to get it on more without simultaneously aiding the degenerate cases is an intriguing problem, and I really haven't been able to come up with any solution.
I just enjoy any article that contains the phrase "England could plausibly be retarded".
Holy moly, TUM. Pretty amazing video there of Brel... those French sure do have some show-stoppin' tunes, n'est-ce pas? I can also see the Gallic Byrne thing, just needs a big suit and some Brazilian percussionists.
Now that article, on the other hand, left me a bit fogbound, as I sensed there were some holes in the logic, but I knew that somewhere there were people more than willing to fill them.
the RightousRepublicansGod meant them to,theyHe wouldn't have to inflict this punishment. Damn GoatF**kers!