Why is the Government giving free Contraception when sex is on the decline?

Commoner · 15-09-2022 10:33am #1

Yesterday, Government Politicians began the official rollout of free contraception to women aged 17-25. Unfortunately, it seems the Government is ignoring the reality:

Fewer people are having sex than they did in previous decades - especially in the share of younger adults. We are seeing a decline of sex among young adults. Both young people and adults are having less sex than ever before. In the space of a generation, sex has gone from something most students have experienced to something most haven’t. This trend is also happening across the western world. The Government seems to have done a copycat of the French proposal for free contraception except our Government has sought to create an age distinction by categorizing the age of eligibility for free contraception. Having to give a PPS number also poses an obvious challenge.

How does the Government reconcile a population in decline and the hike to the pension age? Shouldn't we be encouraging more people to have children?

Cookie_Monster · 15-09-2022 10:42am

why has 25 been chosen arbitrarily, do you suddenly get richer at that age?

osarusan · 15-09-2022 10:44am

I don't see any connection between contracepton being free or not and people having less sex and/or a declining birthrate.

Ray Palmer · 15-09-2022 10:49am

Where is the information that people are having less sex. Is this related to the time where people weren’t able to meet up and colleges were remote?

15-09-2022 10:51am

why not offer free contraception?

accidental kids arent the answer to very many of your questions

Pissy Missy · 15-09-2022 10:51am

Seeing as we're over populated as it is, it's probably for the best

Montage of Feck · 15-09-2022 10:57am

If we now have abortion and free contraception, isn't it about time we abolished child benefit?

EmmetSpiceland · 15-09-2022 11:04am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119620945#Comment_119620945

Does seem a bit odd. Maybe they expect the majority of people to be working or, at least, able to pay their own way at that age. But it hasn’t been explained.

timmyntc · 15-09-2022 11:07am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119621056#Comment_119621056

Because it's about being seen to be doing something, rather than doing it properly.

The government in next election manifesto can say:

"In our previous term we made female contraception free*"

RobbieTheRobber · 15-09-2022 11:13am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058263463/why-is-the-government-giving-free-contraception-when-sex-is-on-the-decline

Who gave Enoch access to the internet again?

Loafing Oaf · 15-09-2022 11:17am

news for you OP

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5RJbBIfUxk

The Continental Op · 15-09-2022 11:28am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119620987#Comment_119620987

Think this must be the OP's personal experience ;-)

dontmindme · 15-09-2022 11:31am

niice...women still responsible for bringing the jonnies

Commoner · 15-09-2022 12:20pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119621175#Comment_119621175

Nope 😂

From the Munster Express (14th Nov 2018):

"People Are Having Less and Less Sex"

"Birth rates in Western countries have been falling for some years now for a variety of reasons and part of the reason is that people are engaging in sex less often than their parents and grandparents....

In The Times survey, a total of 7 per cent said they had not had sex in the past year. People who had sex less than once a week amounted to 27 per cent; less than once a month, 22 per cent; once to twice a week, 30 per cent and three times or more a week, 14 per cent. These figures strongly suggest less people are having sex than in previous times"

rob316 · 15-09-2022 12:31pm

Are people having less sex? What gives you that idea.

Allinall · 15-09-2022 12:35pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119621025#Comment_119621025

What difference would that make?

Geuze · 15-09-2022 12:37pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119621414#Comment_119621414

https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2018/11/the-sex-recession.html

https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2017/03/american-sexual-frequency-estimates-day.html

American adults had sex about nine fewer times per year in the early 2010s compared to the late 1990s in data from the nationally representative General Social Survey, N = 26,620, 1989–2014. This was partially due to the higher percentage of unpartnered individuals, who have sex less frequently on average. Sexual frequency declined among the partnered (married or living together) but stayed steady among the unpartnered, reducing the marital/partnered advantage for sexual frequency. Declines in sexual frequency were similar across gender, race, region, educational level, and work status and were largest among those in their 50s, those with school-age children, and those who did not watch pornography. In analyses separating the effects of age, time period, and cohort, the decline was primarily due to birth cohort (year of birth, also known as generation). With age and time period controlled, those born in the 1930s (Silent generation) had sex the most often, whereas those born in the 1990s (Millennials and iGen) had sex the least often. The decline was not linked to longer working hours or increased pornography use. Age had a strong effect on sexual frequency: Americans in their 20s had sex an average of about 80 times per year, compared to about 20 times per year for those in their 60s. The results suggest that Americans are having sex less frequently due to two primary factors: An increasing number of individuals without a steady or marital partner and a decline in sexual frequency among those with partners.

Here is the article, by Twenge, Sherman, and Wells, via the excellent Kevin Lewis.

Geuze · 15-09-2022 12:39pm

Condoms are widely available for 1 euro each.

Why does the Govt need to intervene in the market?

Is there some sort of market failure?

Jequ0n · 15-09-2022 12:39pm

Why would it not be free for teenagers younger than 17? That makes no sense at all.

Strumms · 15-09-2022 12:53pm

Condoms retail for next to nothing these days.

so not affording them is not a legitimate excuse. It’s bullshït.

anyone not using who should it’s not because of availability or affordability, it’s because they don’t want to.

Strumms · 15-09-2022 12:55pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119621447#Comment_119621447

Legal age of consent is 17… I get your point but legally it would not be clever.

15-09-2022 1:02pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119621447#Comment_119621447

One of the more nonsense arguments I have heard from people who are against contraception and sexual education in children - is to suggest that giving children either will incentivize them to be more likely to actually try / have sex. I would suspect therefore that the decision not to afford contraception to under 17s is in part influenced by that kind of nonsense thinking.

Other than this I suspect they are probably (and unfortunately) motivated to keep this law in line with the legal age of sexual consent.

One would of course hope and prefer that the age range they selected was influenced by things like A) When people are deemed more and less likely to be able to afford long term contraception and B) At what ages the majority of unwanted or crisis pregnancies actually occur. This is data I personally do not have. But let's hope that the age bracket they have selected does impact such data in the best way possible.

EDIT: Actually the article in the Examiner does claim "The Department of Health said targeting females aged 17-25 was based on research finding this age group is the most likely to experience crisis pregnancy, and is also the group of females least likely to be financially independent.". So looks like what I wrote just above fits what they claim they are doing. So that's heartening at least.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119621182#Comment_119621182

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119621445#Comment_119621445

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119621497#Comment_119621497

Not sure the scheme has anything to do with condoms? Isn't it related to female contraception? From the RTE: "The deal covers the pill and long-lasting contraception, including coil insertions and women will need to show their PPS number as eligibility will be checked.".

However I wonder how much privilege is attached to the "they retail for next to nothing" or "Sure each one is only a euro" kind of thinking. A few euro here and there might be nothing to you or me. But let's not assume that is true of everyone. There are people stuggling to survive on the few Euros they do have without adding 5, 10, 20 or who knows how much to their weekly or monthly budget. Is someone trying to ratio out milk to their kids for their cereal really going around thinking "ah sure a few condoms at a euro each, no issue there!"?

But as this scheme has nothing to do with condoms, that is a moot point really. This is targetted at a different form of contraception and as the Examiner reports:

"the cost of accessing contraception — particularly for those financially dependent on parents or guardians, or those who may be just above the means-tested thresholds for medical cards and GP visit cards — may impose a significant barrier to access.

Costs for the pill and similar repeat prescription contraceptives can be estimated at €65 to €100 every six months, and the initial costs of long-acting reversible contraception, including consultation, purchase of the device, and fitting, typically range from €250-€320. If removal costs are included, this can rise to €340-€470"

Donald Trump · 15-09-2022 1:17pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119620945#Comment_119620945

They want to encourage young ladies to partake in sexytime.

25+ ..... well not so much. Past their sell-by date at that stage

Although some in government have expressed concern at the recent hiring of Leonardo Di Caprio as a secret advisor to the Taoiseach, I would argue that his heart is in the right place.

Pherekydes · 15-09-2022 1:23pm

Sounds like a good idea.

But...

...why 17 and 25? Have any 15 or 16 year olds ever conceived a child? What about those older than 25? Did the government consult with Leonardo about this?

And condoms versus female contraception? You really haven't worked out why they haven't gone with free condoms for all?

Commoner · 15-09-2022 1:24pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119621540#Comment_119621540

But the Government previously cut core social welfare rates for under-25's and restoring the pre-2010 weekly rates for under-25's would be a far better way to address the cost burden.

AMKC · 15-09-2022 1:26pm

Sure the NHS in the UK have been doing this since the 70s so it's about time we caught up. I was doing the sums last night and if they add 7 years extra every year for the next 3 to 4 years lol then I will eventually be able to avail of it too not that I need to to or want to at the moment.

As for the-age thing well they have to start somewhere and sure maybe they are hoping that more people will have sex now with less fear of becoming pregnant or getting the Woman pregnant so maybe they will fall in love with someone eventually and then more babies will be had with couples who are happy together.

15-09-2022 1:28pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119621606#Comment_119621606

My post was discussing the scheme in and of itself. That there might be better or worse methods to attain the same thing is of course possible and is above my pay grade :) A good idea remains a good idea - even if a better idea exists though. If there is a better way to attain the same benefits by all means campaign for it!

Especially if you can explain how and why your idea is "better" more clearly than merely declaring it to be so.

And that your idea will attain in practice what you declare it will in theory.

For example merely giving people more money does not ensure they will use that money in the way we might prefer. So for example giving someone free access to 470 euro of contraception is not exactly the same thing as simply handing them 470 euro. The latter is also going to cost significantly more too.

Also which Social Welfare payments specifically? What about the women not in receipt of any such payments? Why would your approach be better for them than merely making the contraceptives in question free of charge?