Online Journal of Politics and Foreign Affairs
Ian Ayres argues that we would virtually eliminate the spread of sexually transmitted disease if men would wear a condom the first three times they had sex with a new partner.
Why? One word: Superspreaders.
James Joyner is the publisher of Outside the Beltway and the managing editor of the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer, Desert Storm vet, and college professor with a PhD in political science from The University of Alabama. Follow James on Twitter.
All Original Content Copyright 2003-2013 by OTB. All Rights Reserved
How does the good economist expect people who are impaired by drugs and alcohol to comply with his idea?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@superdestroyer: You’re completely missing the point. As usual.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Well, then, obviously we need to make it mandatory to use condoms for the first three encounters. The costs inflicted on all of us by these unprotected encounters demand that we put the full force of the law behind this measure.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
As he says in the talk, this wouldn’t prevent *all* sexually transmitted diseases or problems. For example, pubic lice. Of course, there’s another good solution to that particular annoyance: the endangered louse.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Jenos Idanian #13:
Better yet, let’s spend a bunch of money on ineffective “abstinence-only” programs. If that doesn’t work, we’ll just convince people to “save themselves for marriage.”
(Just saying….it might be wise to avoid mocking condom usage if you’re a right-wing tool. We’ve already heard y’all’s ideas. They are unrealistic and they don’t work. And if I remember correctly, they are of the “Let’s pass a law!” variety, too, so I dunno…..Physician, heal thyself.)
Like or Dislike:
11 
1
@James Pearce (Formerly Known as Herb): Who’s mocking condom usage? I’m simply applying the same principles Bloomberg’s applying in NYC to another area.
Like or Dislike:
0 
3
@Jenos Idanian #13:
Oh we get it. Never miss an opportunity to mock “the left.”
But if the opportunity comes up to mock your side for their stupid and useless ideas, well…..I guess you don’t have to take it.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
@James Pearce (Formerly Known as Herb): But if the opportunity comes up to mock your side for their stupid and useless ideas, well…..I guess you don’t have to take it.
Of course, that sort of thing never happens here.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If this was like the Bloomboob law,
They would ban all sugary penis’s lager than 16oz.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
@deathcar2000: If this was like the Bloomboob law,
They would ban all sugary penis’s lager than 16oz.
They can get my large, sugary penis when they pry it from my cold, dead hands.
Um… that didn’t come out right…
Like or Dislike:
7 
0
But wait. in Bloomberg’s Progressive paradise, a girl in a short skirt with condoms is probable cause to arrest for prostitution. Why does NYC hate conscientious slutty girls?
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
@Jenos Idanian #13:
Sigh… If only your parents had.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
@OzarkHillbilly: Sigh… If only your parents had.
A comment here that is nothing more than a personal attack? Inconceivable!
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
@Jenos Idanian #13:
And now you lost me.
It seems quite appropriate to mock creationists when its discovered that the Biblical account of creation is even more wrong.
But why go to Bloomberg here? Seems kinda…. lazy. Might as well be complaining about the liberal media or “kids these days.” I mean, I’m sorry Bloomberg tried to take your Big Gulp…but he was thwarted and you don’t live in NYC anyway.
Permission to care about something important now.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
@James Pearce (Formerly Known as Herb): Tell ya what, Herb: why don’t you make a list of those groups whom it is acceptable to mock and insult and denigrate, and those groups who are sacrosanct and must be protected from having their feelings bruised.
Then fold up that list and shove it up your fundament.
Bloomberg’s nannyism has its share of supporters and apologists here. You don’t like it? Good.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2
@deathcar2000:
The sounds like a beer that will never pass these lips.
Like or Dislike:
5 
0
@rodney dill: Thank you. I’m not the only one who reads what was actually written.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Jenos Idanian #13:
Oh, I get it. You’re the type of guy who doesn’t want the nanny state….until you need it.
Make this list yourself. And if you want to be a comedian, cultivate a sense of timing.
Seriously, what about this post made you think it was the perfect opportunity for a Bloomberg joke?
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
@rodney dill:
In the winter time it’s a micro brew.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
@James Pearce (Formerly Known as Herb): Seriously, what about this post made you think it was the perfect opportunity for a Bloomberg joke?
Do I really need to spell it out for you?
The point of the article was “if people would only do this small thing, it would be a huge boon to public health.”
“A huge boon to public health” was precisely the rationale used by Bloomberg for his soda ban.
It’s traditional among the left to go from “if this happens, it will be good” to “let’s make this mandatory, because it will be good.”
I just got ahead of the curve on this one.
OK, that isn’t quite honest. I don’t see it being proposed by liberals, because of an unwritten rule that I discovered a while ago: “choice is bad in nearly every case, because people can make bad choices. People must be protected from making bad choices, by denying them the right to make most choices. The only exception to this is in matters related to sex, where we must not ever form the slightest judgment about what might be a ‘bad’ choice, and let everyone do their own thing. In every other area, though, we must protect people from making their own choices.”
It’s a BS exception, so naturally I make a point of citing it whenever it seems applicable. And it certainly seemed so here.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Everything you never knew about condoms http://bit.ly/Za3Vth
Like or Dislike:
0 
0