Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

> Why not both

Because plan B takes way more effort than just avoiding the need for one.



sort by: page size:

> Why not?

It's not worth the risk.


> trying creates unintended consequences.

Not trying creates the unintended consequences of a double suicide rate.

Maybe it's worth trading one set of unintended consequences for another.


> Now that the someone else is pulling out they need to think for the first time

They should have thought about that on day zero.

If someone else is picking up the tab then there is ALWAYS the possibility that someone will pull out for whatever reason.


> Sure it's still safer; that's not the point.

That's entirely the point.


> It seems to be a risk many are more than willing to take.

It’s a risk they take because there’s no other choice.


> So you prefer not having a choice over having a choice because choice will lead to discussions to pick the best solution.

I prefer to get things done.


> Why do we even try?

Depends on how hard you want to try or compromise on.


> This is a decision, not a fuck up.

Can't it be both? I feel like when people talk like this, it abstracts away from the concept of a bad decision. Everything's a tradeoff! Sounds great until you hit actual consequences.


> be obstinate

I don't think obstinance only works. Being a curmudgeon doesn't prevent one from having unprotected sex. :)

And I say this as someone who just says no to everything ;)


> Don't want kids? Don't want to take chances? Don't have sex.

If you are done with predetermined quota, one can go under the knife and start shooting blanks at no bodily cost.


>The advice for people will be to abstain.

Which is a well-proven failed strategy.


> Can I just throw a big dose of caution here?

No, this works both ways, the caution also applies to not doing it.

This is pretty much the anti-science 'precautionary principle'

Unless you have an underling reason not to do it, which you might but you should discuss if you do, then this is bad advice.


>I’d like to avoid the latter going forward.

Awesome idea, thanks!


> and will opt for the route of least risk, which generally entails

Choosing something else - at least if you can do it before getting locked in.


> That won't stop people from trying.

Or, what I consider more likely, people not trying but nature, um, finding a way. None of the common prevention methods is 100%.


> > I'm not advocating this approach.

But I do understand the temptation.


> No, I would not, because I now know that there is better way

So if there wasn't a better way you'll do it?


> which leaves me with no other option...

Delusional excuse. You have options to do without or use an alternative.


> Easier said than done though.

Not by much, once you understand the consequences.

next

Legal | privacy