LETTER : Risky sex
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Your article about contraception ("It's back to nature for the post-Pill generation", Real Life, 14 April) was interesting but for the most glaring of omissions.
So-called natural contraception is not to be recommended, mainly because it provides absolutely no protection against sexually transmitted diseases such as Aids, and one must not over-estimate the resistance to treatment of "old-fashioned" dis- eases like syphilis.
Your article displays a disregard for human social behaviour, in that it seems to assume that we are all in permanent, faithful relationships. Obviously, at least to have children, unprotected sex is necessary, but the decision to do without barrier contraception should always be understood as a risk.
To advocate natural contraception as a sensible and valid alternative to all but the most committed monogamous of couples is irresponsible.
Michael J Fagg
Newcastle upon Tyne
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments