> And if we don't have "sexual freedom" it's probably because there are really good reasons for it. We shouldn't dismiss taboos without considering that some of them is why we've survived for so long.

If that's the way you want to live your life, it is fine. But don't try to impose your ideas to other people.

> You always have the risk of undesired pregnancy and the best cure for that is the condom, since birth control pills are basically hormone bombs, not very healthy for women in the long run, or you could undergo surgery, which is invasive and not without peril. So just use the condom already, those minty ones are actually cool.

Lots of women, including my wife, are perfectly happy with hormonal birth control. For others, there are lots of other options, and even more in development. It’s a very personal decision, but condoms are by far among the least effective techniques.

> And if we don't have "sexual freedom" it's probably because there are really good reasons for it. We shouldn't dismiss taboos without considering that some of them is why we've survived for so long.

The entire parable of Chesterson’s fence suggests that we shouldn’t get rid of something in society without knowing what function it was serving. It doesn’t suggest never reforming society at all.

The taboo against fornication is obviously there to prevent the spread of disease and unwanted pregnancy. If we have other ways to prevent these side-effects, there is no longer any reason for the taboo; much as the religious taboo of not eating pork or shellfish no longer serve the same useful purpose they did in the ancient Middle East.

I'm pretty sure birth control is safer than being pregnant every 10 months. From what I understand, this pregnancy thing is the real reason for the taboo against being sexually active more - that and society's penchant for knowing who to pass on their stuff to after they died. Granted, many of these sorts of taboos have traditionally been only for women and not men, and have not always been consistent over time. Additionally, old-time methods for birth control were bad, and abortion options (they have had them for centuries) were even worse. Pregnant women needed a lot of support as well, so this could lead to some of the taboo.

A condom is not the best option for birth control, merely one of the options. The best would be voluntary sterilization for both the man and the woman. There are other non-hormonal birth control methods, such as a copper IUD and other barrier methods that work, some better than a condom and some worse.

The main benefit from a condom is STD protection, but for that to be effective they need to be readily available to everyone and cheap enough to afford.

> birth control pills are basically hormone bombs, not very healthy for women in the long run

I've heard this a few times but I'm curious for sources on the fact that they're not healthy. They're certainly not natural, but, like, living until you're 80 years old isn't particularly natural either. Do you mind expanding on this?