Among other things:
Society is generally okay with men having sex outside of marriage. It is much less okay with women doing the same. Men are generally not subjected to criticism for being working fathers. Quite the contrary: they are criticized if they are unemployed and have children. Women are routinely expected to choose between career and family.
I have in the past commented on the fact that insurance typically did not cover female birth control, but often did cover Viagra. The subtext there: Fertile young women aren't entitled to sex, but men are, even if they are so old they need help performing. Such observations were typically met with open hostility and dismissal, not like the observation held any water.
The ACA changed that some. From what I gather, most policies are required to cover some sort of female birth control, unless it falls under religious exception iirc. So this is mostly no longer true, but was at one time.
My understanding is the current administration is trying to repeal this and stop covering female birth control, so such gains cannot be assumed to be permanent. It's all too easy to reverse them and reinstate historical "barefoot and pregnant" style gender norms for women.
Edit: For context, I'm American and 53 years old. So I'm talking about (historical, before the ACA) American insurance practices here.
Not trying to disagree with you but I think this isn't a fair comparison.
Erectile dysfunction is a medical issue in the sense that you're actually broken. Birth control is different in that you can (mostly) live your life without birth control.
I say mostly because there are women that need to be on birth control for actual medical reasons in that they have complications with PMS and this mitigates things.
A more fair comparison would be male vs female sterilization or condoms.
If condoms were free for men but not for women then that would be a great point.
Again. Not saying I disagree with you just that this isn't an apples to oranges comparison.
I do want to suggest, however, that a change of language is warranted around this issue.
You write: "there are women that need to be on birth control for actual medical reasons in that they have complications with PMS and this mitigates things."
These women do not need to be on birth control. They need to receive hormone therapy, which happens to be, in a lot of cases, the same medication used for birth control.
I know it sounds like a distinction without a difference, but it's actually quite a meaningful distinction.
I would not say that a newborn girl with chronic pulmonary hypertension needs to be on erectile dysfunction medication. Rather, I would say that she can be treated with sildenafil, which happens to also be the active ingredient in Viagra.
Similarly, a woman might use hormone therapy to avoid menorrhagia, and a side effect might be that it decreases her ability to become pregnant, and she may or may not be happy with that side effect.
When you make this language shift -- "birth control" applies to contraception, which disrupts the body's natural fertility, and "hormone therapy" applies to treatment of medical conditions and dysfunctions -- it helps resolve some hot-button issues.
For instance, if a woman works for a religious employer that does not cover contraception, I would imagine that employer would have no issue with her receiving appropriate hormone therapy for a medical condition such as menorrhagia, even if a decrease in fertility is a known side effect.
If a woman makes 2/3 what a man makes, he makes 1 1/2 times what she makes. If it takes 90% of what she earns to just scrape by and only 10% of her income is discretionary funds, he has many times as much discretionary money as her. If she has a child out of wedlock and has to raise it alone, childcare will be far more than her current "fun money." So having a child out of wedlock can ruin a woman's life, even before we get into potential medical complications, what if the child has special needs? etc.
If you have a one night stand with a stranger and a pregnancy results, he may never know he fathered a child. She may find herself pregnant out of wedlock with no means to contact the father, thus no hope of even asking for child support.
Women generally worry quite a lot about unintended pregnancy because it can so completely derail their lives in an unrecoverable fashion. (IIRC) Getting pregnant unexpectedly is one of the three biggest risk factors for plunging a woman into poverty, even if she's always been middle class, is well educated, etc. The other two are divorce and widowhood.
"Okay" is a curious word to choose. There is a good reason why almost every culture on Earth has shamed female promiscuity: women get pregnant and men do not, making premarital sex far more risky for women than for men. Culture hasn't caught up with the invention of the birth control pill, but that does not mean that it's all part of a patriarchal scheme (as people imply).
Men are also shamed to a lesser degree depending on the culture for rampant premarital sex but also get respect for it too, which makes sense. A male's sexual success is very closely tied to his status, wealth, and position in a social hierarchy (this is observed across diverse cultures). You can take it as an indicator of a male's success in his society.
>Did not cover female birth control
Erectile dysfunction is a medical dysfunction. Not wanting to have children is not a medical dysfunction. It's more complicated than the stories people are told.
Never in my life has this been acceptable to anyone I know.
Maybe if you met more people like me, you would not be so incredulous. The catholic church has several groups and iniatives dedicated to young mens chastity
In private society, we encourage our own particular vices and virtues as long as they don't lead to a critical point of instability and dissolution.
Total opposite in Canada across public and private plans.
Never saw a private or public plan refuse to cover BC. Many would pay several hundred for an IUD as well. Rarely saw a plan cover ED drugs outside of self-insured or executive plans.
I only doubt the birth control assertion for the most American of all reasons; Corporate Profits. Insurers would(do?) save BILLIONS in coverage for pregnant women by giving out the pill. It's against their own self interest.
No, sildenafil was discovered _while_ trying to find a cardiac medicine.
The primary indication for Viagra is sexual dysfunction, per the manufacturer. So much so that they market the pulmonary anti-hypertensive focused variant as Revatio.
And even in that, it's not shown to be amazingly effective:
"Sildenafil therapy lasting 12 weeks improves multiple clinical and hemodynamic outcomes in patients with PAH, but it appears to have no effect on mortality or serious adverse
events." -- "Respiratory Medicine" journal
That doesn't follow. I mean, many prescription drugs have death as a known potential side effect, and it's generally accepted that people have a right to life, but that doesn't mean that the drugs aren't covered. Being entitled something doesn't justify third party insurers denying you coverage for something which might interfere with that entitlement when you have voluntarily accepted that risk to acheive some other end.
> Last time I checked its not like sex where one could get pregnant was no longer fun
Your idea of fun is, I suspect, not universal.
Your take on the situation also wasnt a direct logical entailment. We both gave our interpretation of the unwillingness to covwr birth control. I gave mine as a counterinterpretation to yours to avoid ideological hegemony.
> Your idea of fun is, I suspect, not universal
But it is substantially more fun!
No, I think you have fallen into the “anyone who responds to me other than in agreement must be the same person I responded to” error.
Your other remarks here suggest you are Catholic and saved yourself for marriage. If you have only ever had one sex partner and have only ever had sex without birth control, then you seem rather unqualified to make a comparative statement of this sort.
Luckily, we have large scale surveys to cover the gap: https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/paeekv/why-conservati...
Since a lot of women don't even want to have sex without birth control, it could be argued that you will have more fun if you use or allow for birth control. As far as I know, the term "conservative" does not mean "people who universally refuse to use birth control." Correct me if I'm wrong.
If you want to argue that sex without birth control is more fun than sex with birth control, you will need to find a study pertinent to that claim, not pertinent to the claim that socially conservative people have more fun in private.
I'm happy to concede that socially conservative people who are picky about who they sleep with and other details that serve as protection against serious regret following sex probably enjoy sex more. But that was not the claim.
In practice, if you are a service working with covered industries, they will insist you be HIPAA compliant so they can't be fined. Individuals tracking their own information don't fall under HIPAA regulation.
US law governing PHI applies to data collected in the course of providing and paying for health care. Privacy and security regulations govern how healthcare professionals, hospitals, health insurers, and other Covered Entities use and protect the data they collect. It is important to understand that the source of the data is as relevant as the data itself when determining if information is PHI under U.S. law.
This is the same reason why HIPAA does not apply to personal fitness trackers.
When consumers are collecting health data for their own use, HIPAA doesn’t come into play.
Instead of an app company using an app, suppose it were a doctor and a notepad? Would that really be so far outside the doctor's wheelhouse as to no longer be "health care."
They're collecting the data in the course of providing a health care service. Which also raises the question of medical licenses.
That means that data may not be covered, depending on who collects it. Worse, data that was protected can legally fall out of protection if it's shared with entities that aren't bound by HIPAA.
(Which, intentionally or otherwise, is something that health care providers often request the right to do as part of those HIPAA consent forms that we all sign without reading.)
From my understanding, it only applies to companies accepting health insurance and Medicare/Medicaid.
If it's private pay/out of pocket only, HIPAA doesn't apply.
Because, under HIPAA, PHI is a subset of individually identifiable health information, and individually identifiable health information is a subset of health information, and health information excludes anything that is not, “created or received by a health care provider, health plan, public health authority, employer, life insurer, school or university, or health care clearinghouse” (and if it's employment records held by an employer in their role as an employer, it's excluded from PHI even if it is individually identifiable health information.)
For example, a baby formula company can identity with reasonable certainty when you're going to deliver a baby based on insurance claim and prescription data.
And the ads sound like they're targeted on relatively tame demographic data, like a person's age, as opposed to the more private data the app collects (e.g. how often a woman has sex or where a woman is in her cycle).
And even if that sensitive data were used for targeting, I would imagine it would be for things like, "Show ads for lubricants if a person is sexually active" or "Show ads for tampons during the week prior to menstruation." Which doesn't really strike me as that privacy-invading, given the nature of the app.
I think the privacy implications get worse if the data is sold to third parties, or if it is used to make decisions that aren't tied to the data being tracked. For instance, imagine if insurance companies determined that there is a difference in risk between people who have sex frequently vs. infrequently and wanted to use this data to inform their underwriting decisions. That's where it gets scary.
> Ovia is pitching a paid version of its app to insurers and large employers who want a heads-up on how many of their members or employees want to conceive.
This is a WTF of epic proportions. How is this the business of either my insurance company or my employer?
Edit: Also consider that supposedly "harmless" targeted advertising becomes actively traumatizing if something goes wrong around the reproductive process: https://medium.com/the-establishment/when-targeted-marketing...
"the privacy implications get worse if the data is sold to third parties"
Aren't these two statements in direct conflict with one another?
But if an app sells this data to a third party and includes PII that allows the third party to make observations such as, "Jane Doe did X on date Y," then that's certainly a privacy concern.
It would be like if I went into H&R Block to get my taxes done. Should I be worried that they have my SSN and earnings? No, because they need that information to do the task that I'm asking of them. If they sell that to other places yes, that's a huge issue.
So a privacy risk is the cost of doing business. Knowing about it upfront and consenting to the data collection doesn't negate that. If H&R block stores all of the data you give them forever, that's a privacy concern because they could be hacked or they could (depending on relevant laws) change their mind and decide to share or sell some of that data in the future.
You're arguing that anyone knowing anything is a privacy concern which is over the top in my eyes. You could never use a bank, file taxes, get a paycheck, hell you couldn't even ever get a job with it being a "risk" because your employer has a ton of info on you.
Being male I'm not familiar with the features offered by period trackers, but is there any valid reason the information has to leave your device at all?
I know around here we like to assume that all data is going to suffer a security breach someday but--
- In practice, everyone has more than two levels of trust.
- Someday isn't today.
That is true, but that doesn't mean that two levels of trust is not a privacy concern merely because everyone does it.
>Someday isn't today
I felt appalled after reading this. If you genuinely hold that belief, I hope your circumstances are merciful towards you.
I feel appalled after reading this. If you genuinely hold that belief, I hope your circumstances are merciful towards you.
If I allow selling, I need to know about the myriad companies that A may deal with, not just B.
I have no problem sharing information for services. I just want to have controls on that.
That wouldn't make me feel better. Remember Cambridge Analytica ?
As hostile as they are to software freedom in general, they know that personal data privacy is part of the value proposition for the Apple ecosystem. The Siri and Apple Maps privacy policies explicitly state that data will only be used to improve Siri and Maps, respectively. Apple CoreML is a big step in making offline machine learning accessible to app developers. Safari ships with an adblocker.
If the article is about privacy, then it should focus on that. The above comment seems tendentious like it betrays a prejudice against NFP as if to spread FUD about it by associating it with loss of privacy. Use a notebook or an offline app if privacy is an issue (I would).
~50% of the adult population menstruates. I don't get what the big deal is.
100% of us poop. Would you care for the world to know about the quantity and quality of your movements? How about urinate? Sneeze? Ejaculate? Just because something is ubiquitous doesn't mean we don't want to keep it private.
The fact of the matter is, this data isn't just comparable to medical history; it is medical history.
Also, some women have health issues involving their reproductive tract, like PCOS, fibroids or even just PMS. Data can help them better understand and manage their symptoms.
You'd just start seeing your performance evaluations come back with "needs improvement". Little mistakes or violations of policies that were previously ignored result in write-ups. Six months later, you're laid off with a couple other folks, with a hole in your income that makes it hard to hire a lawyer on a long-shot legal suit.
People get fired for being pregnant daily. As long as their boss doesn't do something abjectly idiotic like sending an email saying "you're fired because you're trying to get pregnant", there's very little recourse.
Isn’t there anything useful we can do with technology or are we all just bottom feeding parasites and rent seekers trying to build cash machines?
Thus the advertising potential is huge, very actionable data.
NFP was mainly studied by the church and all these apps now are built mainly through research from catholic doctors.
In our nfp group, we have many couples. Most of us started charting on paper, and some havs switched to our nonprofits paid app, but nevertheless, speaking with the other husbands there, most of us know exactly when our wives are ovulating based on our perceived changes in their personality.
Through many years of paper charts we noticed my wife wouldnt sleep the night of ovulation and would be cranky the next day. Other guys noticed their own things with their wives
Its not popular to say, but its true. Women who are actually having real cycles (as opposed to those suppressing it with the pill) do often have personality changes. That does not mean women are overly emotional or not rational it just means they are subject to regular hormonal fluctuations. Men are too of course but as far as i know there are no easily observable metrics to track
Update: Hah. Downvoting me now? Why not contribute to the discussion instead?
Edit: A little less triggering language
I'll conceded that down-voting OP might have been less helpful, but down-voting your comment isn't just standard practice, it's what down-voting was added for.
Downvoting comments you disagree with or simply dislike, without any explanation, is harmful to the community and discussion in general.
Also, I made no appeal to up or down vote any comment. My appeal is simply to promote discussion.
You also had, your term here, "triggering language" and flame-baiting is typically frowned upon as well. Calling people "white (sic) nights" isn't really promoting civil discussion.
I'm tapping out here, since I have nothing else to say on the topic. I have nothing against you, just some friendly advice from one firebrand to another.
I mentioned what the site _is_. Not what it should be. This is a forum to promote discussion and increase awareness. If that is no longer the case, we'll all be better off moving discussion to another forum. As I was left only to guess why my comment was downvoted, I inserted that guess into an _edit_ to my comment. I've since removed it since I came to the same realization that it didn't promote civil discussion.
In honesty, I appreciate your suggestions for how to avoid comments which are "frowned upon". Truly. However, you are presuming that I care if my comments are frowned upon. I don't. My aim is to promote discussion and increase awareness and understanding - even if that means offending a person or two.
Thank you for your feedback, however. It is appreciated.
"You wouldn't tell lies to your own wife. Don't tell them to mine."