This story on the BBC is typical – Public want ‘sex disease’ action – they claim that “Eight out of 10 people would like measures to change people’s behaviour to cut rates of sexually transmitted infections” but that “more than a third thought their sex lives were their own business”.
I suppose that most car drivers would like more education for the ‘idiots’ on the roads, but as they drive perfectly well, they wouldn’t need it.
Or that most people think more should be done for gypsy travellers, but not on their estate thankyouverymuch.
Getting back to that (stupid) BBC question – exactly HOW would they propose this is done ? Bromide the drinks in nightclubs ? Have govt-appointed chaperones ? It just isn’t going to happen is it ?
Sex is a very basic human need. If you believe Maslow’s Hierarchy then it forms the most basic block upon which we build ourselves, so the drive for sex is fairly high (I’m ignoring monks and nuns) so to counter that, you need to oppose it with something even more important, and that something has to be rapid in response too. STD’s (including AIDS) are ignored because the effect is not only a long way away, it’s also not a certainty. I reckoned that if AIDS killed you within 5 minutes of having sex with an infected person, people would have been more careful. It’s like smoking, or drinking too much. It may well be deemed bad, but as the enjoyment is NOW and the possible effect is not, the behaviour will continue.
If there is no immediate, definite, certain consequence to a behaviour, then we will all ‘chance it’. Here’s another example from today’s news. Criminals targeted with postcards. An excellent idea, but my guess is for some they will commit crime today anyway, others will in a few days, and yet others when their circumstances drive them that way. They know the possible consequence, but they will chance it, they will see their crime as being worth it, they will see themselves as not being caught.
This sort of thing is typical short-term fix crap – in the end, it fixes nothing, it gets one of the (so-called) ‘great and good’ some news headlines but no-one has the answer anyway – not if we want to continue living with our apparent freedoms.