The Patriot

The fact that moral objections come into play at all in this argument is ridiculous.

It is proven in study after study that the availaility of condoms does not promote more sex; it promotes safe sex.

It's fine if certain people choose to abstain until marriage. That's a decision they have the right to make. However, it is not alright if they try to impose that practice onto others. One person's morals are NOT necessarily applicable to all.

If even a few intoxicated Thurstonians avoid pregnancy because of Thorpe's program, the benefits of it certainly outweigh the costs- both financial and moral.

Which studies?

http://www.vpul.upenn.edu/ohe/library/Sexhealth/news/condom-teensex.htm

It was actually conducted by the GW SPHHS.

In the interest of balance, this study was of Massachusetts high school students, rather than college students.

Sorry, I should cite my sources.

From the Centers for Disease Control 2002 Report on free condom distribution in high schools:

"Promoting condom usage does not promote promiscuity. Promoting condom usage promotes safe sex. For those individuals who choose to engage in sexual behavior and are not in a committed monogamous relationship, the use of condoms is essential. Many of these persons will have sex... with or without a condom and according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Latex condoms, when used consistently and correctly, are highly effective in preventing transmission of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. In addition, correct and consistent use of latex condoms can reduce the risk of other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including discharge and genital ulcer diseases."

Also, see
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9B00E7DA153FF935A25753C1A961958260

Correct me if I'm wrong, but less unwanted pregnancies reduce the number of abortions, right?

Thanks for the post; I'll have to look at the internals of the study sometime this later this week though.

Josh,

I think you are a little confused. You make two points, namely that condom usage lowers the chance of pregnancy and condom availability does not encourage promiscuity. I am not about to challenge those two points in the context of the study you cite, but the situation you are citing is immensely different than the one I wrote about.

For instance, condoms were already available to students at GW prior to the program, either through student health services or available to purchase all over the city. I believe I cited a specific example where having a bucket of condoms in the lobby of a dorm frequented by drunk freshman could encourage sexual behavior that was not planned by the participants. It does not encourage promiscuity among students choosing to have sex, you argue, and that could be true. But you still are not addressing the point I made. Condoms were already available for responsible students to access, so which students are going to use the free ones that had previously not planned on getting them ahead of time? I would argue the immature students that now find themselves with an excuse to behave in such a manner.

At the same time you have completely ignored the pragmatic reasoning I used in opposing the program. Do you believe students abstaining should be responsible for those who look to have a crazy friday night at the student's expense? Do you argue that the condoms are indeed free? I wrote that there is no such thing as a free condom. And do you truly believe it is a neutral position for the SA to take? Try addressing the pragmatic arguments as well as the moral ones, thats why it is a multifaceted argument for the programs dismantlement.

Best,
Patrick Ford
Senior Editor, The GW Patriot

Patrick,

I believe that you are incorrect on a few points.

I will contend that those who do not plan ahead and buy condoms in advance (or get them through SHS) may be immature. However, by you claiming that free condoms are "an excuse to behave in such a[n] [immature] manner," you are again arguing that because condoms are available, people are more likely to have sex (and would therefore abstain if they weren't there).

This is a fallacious argument that was addressed in the CDC study. The availability of condoms only makes those who are going to have sex ANYWAY, have safe sex. There is no evidence that the availability of free condoms increases one's propensity to have sex. Contrary to what you said in your last post, you actually did not mention a "specific example where having a bucket of condoms in the lobby of a dorm frequented by drunk freshman could encourage sexual behavior that was not planned by the participants." And that is because there isn't any. So if people are going to have sex anyway, why not be safe about it?

Additionally, although the students who use SA provided condoms may be "immature," does that mean that we should not try to mitigate the risks they face? Do they deserve to be "punished" by potentially becoming pregnant or getting an STD simply because they did not have the foresight to plan ahead for sexual activity?

Next, I would like to address your point about there being "no such thing as a free condom." Yes, the SA does pay for the condoms to the tune of about $100 a month as you said. However, I believe there are two justifications for this.

First, these condoms can be considered "common pool resources" meaning they are rivalrous (finite) and non-excludable (everyone can afford them because they are free). They are similar to public roads, which are free, but have a limited capacity for drivers.

Surely, you wouldn't argue that the government should not fund roads because not everybody drives. The same is true for condoms. According to the CDC, "79.5 percent of college students 18 to 24-years-old had had sexual intercourse" (CDC). Should the SA not fund the program because 20% of students choose not to take advantage of it?

Here's another way of looking at it. The SA funds GWCR, which clearly much less than 80% of the student body is a member of. Should it stop funding us as well because our values are not consistent with everyone's on campus?

Obviously, we all agree that the SA shouldn't stop funding us because we promote specific policies that not everyone agrees with. Everyone on campus (I hope) though, agrees with promoting safe sex over unsafe sex. So, if the SA funds the promotion of policies that not everyone supports, why should they not fund the promotion one that we all do?

Secondly, we can look at this with a cost-benefit analysis. There are about 2500 students in the freshman class. We'll assume that 1250 (half) of them are girls. Each takes an average of 30 credits in their freshman year. The SA charges $1 per credit in student fees, so each freshman pays $30. For the approximately 8 months we are in school, the SA spends $800 on the condoms ($100/month). We'll use your statistic that with "typical use," condoms have a 14% failure rate, and are thus 86% effective.

Now, let's use the 79.5% sexually active rate for students (CDC). So, condoms are effective at protecting 86% of the 79.5% of 1250 students from getting pregnant. So, 1250 * 0.795 * 0.86 = 854 students who do not become pregnant (and would presumably have to withdraw from GW). With each of the 854 students paying $30 in SA fees, the SA collects $25,620 from them. Therefore, the SA collects 32 times more revenue than they spend on condoms. I'm no Warren Buffett, but that sounds like a good investment!

Even controlling for the fact that some ("mature?") students provide their own contraception, the effectiveness of the SA's program is clear. This is evidenced by the almost always empty condom bowls in Thurston and Potomac on weekend mornings, and the low pregnancy rate of GW freshman. While you may criticize my statistical analysis as being more correlation than causation, the effects of free condoms on unwanted pregnancy have been proven in numerous studies (Furstenberg).

The bottom line is that when two drunk and horny freshman come back from a club on a Thursday night, there is nothing that is going to prevent them from having sex. If no condoms are available, they will have unsafe sex, which is in neither their interests nor GW's. The availability of condoms for a very insignificant price benefits everyone.

Regards,

Joshua Sacks

CDC: Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance: National College Health Risk Behavior Survey.


Furstenberg FF, Geitz LM, Teitler JO, et al. Does condom availability make a difference? An evaluation of Philadelphia's health resource centers. Fam Plann Perspect 1997; 29:123-127

Wow Pat, you're an idiot. I was enjoying the ride on this unconventional position until you completely screwed the pooch with your moral argument on condoms. The economic argument - original. The moral one - shrill knee-jerk banter. I don't think if you're headed home with a girl and she hasn't decided to have sex with you yet, that a basket full of condoms will prompt her to spread her legs. Furthermore, as an incentive issue, you're arguing that other hygienic devices provided as a public good (i.e. soap in public restrooms, which is required by law) are prompting people to wash their hands so they don't spread fecal choloform bacteria. Is it so bad to try to prevent AIDS, HPV and unwanted pregnancy? God forbid they have to get an abortion...

Adam, I think you miss the point that the economic and moral arguments are connected. The point is that a large number of people object to their money being used to purchase condoms for others because of ethical/moral considerations. Do a large number of people object to the purchase of soap in the bathrooms? Nope, but they would object to purchasing and distributing free needles so people performed "safer" drug use.

In the same vein, would you object if the Student Association placed Bibles in the lobby of Thurston to improve the spiritual health of students? If so, why? If not, why not?