Good questions. I'm retconning - I created that system because I thought it raised some interesting questions about how we view sexuality, intimacy, and gender relations - but lemme think about how it would work in practical application.
I was discussing this with CP the other night, and pointed out that a fertile couple has three options: 1, mess around (short of having actual sex), 2, abstain, 3, take same-sex partners to blow off sexual tension as needed. I don't know how many in the population would take the third option, or even the second. (His comment: more people might take the 3rd option than currently indicated; if the Kiernsey scale of bisexuality is accurate, there might be folks who'd explore that side once the religio-social stigma is removed.)
And I'd expect that a number would go for the first option, as they do now when messing around prior to actually wanting to produce a child. (By this same token, it makes sense there would be three genders: male, female, neutral, and two infertile people who marry - regardless of original gender - would simply be an infertile couple, end of story.)
But when resources are really low in a society, and it can't produce the food/goods it needs for its population, I guess the question is what gets shafted. If the govt sees its programs as 'good enough,' would it push pharmaceutical companies to develop preventive medicine (like cheaper, higher quality contraceptives) or corrective medicine (a post-sex pill). Or would the focus be on dealing with viruses and illnesses sweeping through the population as a result of crowding?
I suppose it depends on whether the govt is proactive or reactive; the latter might mean it's too busy scrambling to deal with the latest cases of meningitis to bother with encouraging companies to make more condoms. Companies will go where the money is, after all; condoms sales might be a steady sale but if the actual fertile population is a small percentage of the overall population, the companies making birth control might see it as better to keep it regulated - just like they did for years with the damn yeast infection medications. They made more money requiring doctors to write prescriptions than they did selling it over the counter, open to competition, and I was out of college before you could get the meds without having to see a doctor, get a pap smear, blah blah blah. Given that companies, first and foremost, want to make money, I'd think they'd prefer such shots and whatnot to be regulated. That would mean the fertile couple would have to have solid health insurance, money to pay for the visit/meds...and those couples on a lower income would have to pick option two or option three.
no subject
Date: 22 Nov 2004 04:23 pm (UTC)I was discussing this with CP the other night, and pointed out that a fertile couple has three options: 1, mess around (short of having actual sex), 2, abstain, 3, take same-sex partners to blow off sexual tension as needed. I don't know how many in the population would take the third option, or even the second. (His comment: more people might take the 3rd option than currently indicated; if the Kiernsey scale of bisexuality is accurate, there might be folks who'd explore that side once the religio-social stigma is removed.)
And I'd expect that a number would go for the first option, as they do now when messing around prior to actually wanting to produce a child. (By this same token, it makes sense there would be three genders: male, female, neutral, and two infertile people who marry - regardless of original gender - would simply be an infertile couple, end of story.)
But when resources are really low in a society, and it can't produce the food/goods it needs for its population, I guess the question is what gets shafted. If the govt sees its programs as 'good enough,' would it push pharmaceutical companies to develop preventive medicine (like cheaper, higher quality contraceptives) or corrective medicine (a post-sex pill). Or would the focus be on dealing with viruses and illnesses sweeping through the population as a result of crowding?
I suppose it depends on whether the govt is proactive or reactive; the latter might mean it's too busy scrambling to deal with the latest cases of meningitis to bother with encouraging companies to make more condoms. Companies will go where the money is, after all; condoms sales might be a steady sale but if the actual fertile population is a small percentage of the overall population, the companies making birth control might see it as better to keep it regulated - just like they did for years with the damn yeast infection medications. They made more money requiring doctors to write prescriptions than they did selling it over the counter, open to competition, and I was out of college before you could get the meds without having to see a doctor, get a pap smear, blah blah blah. Given that companies, first and foremost, want to make money, I'd think they'd prefer such shots and whatnot to be regulated. That would mean the fertile couple would have to have solid health insurance, money to pay for the visit/meds...and those couples on a lower income would have to pick option two or option three.