Condoms and the Rule of 3

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.

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.

FILED UNDER: Health, Quick Takes
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is Professor and Department Head of Security Studies at Marine Corps University's Command and Staff College and a nonresident senior fellow at the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security at the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm vet. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.

Comments

  1. superdestroyer says:

    How does the good economist expect people who are impaired by drugs and alcohol to comply with his idea?

  2. Murray says:

    @superdestroyer: You’re completely missing the point. As usual.

  3. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    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.

  4. Franklin says:

    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.

  5. @Jenos Idanian #13:

    Well, then, obviously we need to make it mandatory to use condoms for the first three encounters.

    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.)

  6. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @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.

  7. @Jenos Idanian #13:

    “I’m simply applying the same principles Bloomberg’s applying in NYC to another area.”

    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.

  8. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @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.

  9. deathcar2000 says:

    If this was like the Bloomboob law,

    They would ban all sugary penis’s lager than 16oz.

  10. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @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…

  11. JKB says:

    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?

  12. OzarkHillbilly says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    Well, then, obviously we need to make it mandatory to use condoms for the first three encounters.

    Sigh… If only your parents had.

  13. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @OzarkHillbilly: Sigh… If only your parents had.

    A comment here that is nothing more than a personal attack? Inconceivable!

  14. @Jenos Idanian #13:

    Of course, that sort of thing never happens here.

    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.

  15. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @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.

  16. rodney dill says:

    @deathcar2000:

    They would ban all sugary penis’s lager than 16oz

    The sounds like a beer that will never pass these lips.

  17. Franklin says:

    @rodney dill: Thank you. I’m not the only one who reads what was actually written.

  18. @Jenos Idanian #13:

    why don’t you make a list of those groups whom it is acceptable to mock and insult and denigrate

    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?

  19. deathcar2000 says:

    @rodney dill:

    In the winter time it’s a micro brew.

  20. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @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.

  21. Valentin Holmes says:

    Everything you never knew about condoms http://bit.ly/Za3Vth