• S E X
    L O V E +
    R E L A T I O N S H I P S


    ❤️ Welcome Guest! ❤️


    Posting Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • SLR Moderators: Senior Staff

Women: how would you feel if a new man pulled out a female condom instead of a male?

P

psood0nym

Bluelighter
Joined
Dec 1, 2005
Messages
4,468
Location
drugpolicy.org/action
I ask because the few women I've brought this idea up to were not very receptive. I didn't really press them for why as it would've been awkward under the circumstances, but I thought it was an extremely hypocritical attitude typical of "feminism only when it's convenient." We all know wearing condoms sucks for men because we can't feel friction, so why shouldn't it also suck for women at least 50 percent of the time? Isn't that simply fair? If so, why aren't female condoms used more? I mean they look funny and they're a pain for women to get in there but they feel far better for men. Is it mostly just because women know they can get away with it if they don't suggest it for the good of their men? If so, isn't this an unprincipled practice if you consider yourselves feminists? I don't even ask for myself so much since my gf and I mostly rely on the pill in combination with having sex outside of the most fertile points in the menstral cycle, but it does bother me for the sake of other men.
 
Last edited:
'Feminism only when it's convenient'...
How about the number of women who spend an extortionate amount of money on the pill each month (I would know, I've been on it for years - it's really expensive), not to mention put their bodies in danger by doing so, to avoid pregnancy?
I'd say we do our fair share frankly. Don't get me wrong, I personally am very happy to be on the pill, but back when I had hook-ups I'd be pissed off if I was expected to use a female condom on top of that when the guy could put one on.
And your girlfriend uses the pill, you should know :|
So yeah, there's your answer.
 
I've offered to split the bill for birth control with her because of some of what you bring up, though that's totally beside the point, as it's hardly the case that all woman are on the pill. Women are born the sex that gets pregnant. That's just the circumstances of life as they stand by default. Of course you're chiefly responsible for taking extra measures if you don't want to be pregnant. It's your body and life. You cannot start assuming what the other sex's responsibilities should be regarding the potential sensational properties of protected sex from something like that, and you sure can't quantify it as your"fair share." You have to compare like with like when talking about reciprocal relationships like sex, and in this instance that means comparing the sacrifice in sexual pleasure that using the most reliable form of safe sex entails. If this is the understanding most women have I can understand why they'd use it as a rationalization to reserve greater pleasure for themselves when it comes to who wears the condom, but as a rationally or ethically defensible reason it doesn't survive much scrutiny at all.
 
Please tell me you're being sarcastic, that post was so sexist it's just...ack :\
I'm sorry, I forget we live in a world where since women are the ones who get pregnant, they should throw themselves at men's feet. How silly of me. Of course I've always used the pill as a way to manipulate men into reserving greater pleasure for me.
 
i dont think condoms give anyone greater pleasure.

female condoms are not in vogue for a reason- they dont function all that well
 
psood0nym said:
I've offered to split the bill for birth control with her because of some of what you bring up, though that's totally beside the point, as it's hardly the case that all woman are on the pill. Women are born the sex that gets pregnant. That's just the circumstances of life as they stand by default. Of course you're chiefly responsible for taking extra measures if you don't want to be pregnant. It's your body and life. You cannot start assuming what the other sex's responsibilities should be regarding the potential sensational properties of protected sex from something like that, and you sure can't quantify it as your"fair share." You have to compare like with like when talking about reciprocal relationships like sex, and in this instance that means comparing the sacrifice in sexual pleasure that using the most reliable form of safe sex entails. If this is the understanding most women have I can understand why they'd use it as a rationalization to reserve greater pleasure for themselves when it comes to who wears the condom, but as a rationally or ethically defensible reason it doesn't survive much scrutiny at all.
Click to expand...

I've read your post three times and I still feel confused yet offended.

How about this be the deal, you guys get to not have to worry about getting pregnant. And you suck it up and pay for the rubbers. It's ok if you don't like it, there's always abstinence.
 
I don’t understand how it’s not sexist of women to say: “You want sex? Ok, but put on this thing that makes it so you can’t enjoy it as much first. Yeah, I could offer to wear one some of the time instead but you’re the man so it’s your duty. If you don’t like try abstinence.” THAT is clearly sexist opportunism, it’s just not the kind people are used to so it’s easy to look over and/or get away with. THAT is feminism only when it’s convenient.

I think it’s totally reasonable for women to demand men split the cost of the pill AND all condom purchases, male and female both. That’s simply sharing the cost of something you’re both equally interested in, just as you’re both equally interested in feeling the most sexual pleasure possible. That makes sense. It does not make sense to think “we take the pill, therefore you always wear the condom.” That’s apples and oranges; it’s not a sensible trade off regardless of whether costs of something like the pill are evenly split because there’s nothing “even” about the proposed exchange. Just because you were born in a way that can be burdensome on some occasions doesn’t confer on you the right to demand tangential compensation for it from those who don’t share it. Just consider what this assumption would mean in other capacities if it was a principle of legal ethics.

This is the consideration I was referring to above. I didn’t mean it to be read: “You’re stuck with the equipment so tough shit toots. You’re on your own.” If that had been all I said I agree it would be sexist, but it wasn’t. To further draw the distinction, it is of course sensible for women to be granted something like maternity leave. Maternity leave is a practice reflective of our social recognition of a hardship that is a natural extension of being a woman, and it’s that direct relationship that makes expectations like it distinct in kind from those the condom issue is a reflection of.

I think feminism is rational and principled only when it means sharing both the benefits and the burdens of social and sexual roles. Such an expectation is the opposite of sexist, since it means respecting women in a way that assumes they’re principled and disciplined enough to recognize and fulfill it independently. How is that not a show of respect, exactly?

Ziggy Stardust said:
Or jerking off...I'm betting the OP is used to that.
Click to expand...
This is the sort of ad hominem attack that translates to "I don't like what your saying means and I'm too thick or immature to formulate a counter argument or concede a point so I'm going to try to hurt you back."
 
Last edited:
psood0nym, have you ever tried lambskin condoms? while i don't disagree with your thoughts here, i have found that they provide a lot better feeling, almost natural, from memory, than latex.
 
Last edited:
What 23 said:
psood0nym, have you ever tried lambskin condoms? while i don't disagree with your thoughts here, i have found that they provide a lot better feeling, almost natural, from memory, than latex.
Click to expand...
I'm not arguing these points for myself since I'm in a long term relationship and only wear condoms on occasion. I'm arguing it for the sake of men who ought to be able to experience sexual friction as often as women, and I'm arguing it as a reminder for women who want their feminist principles respected that principles aren't principles without making sacrifices in their name, they're just lip service. In no way am I saying if women don't make the proposed offer that feminist principles aren't entirely defensible or worthy of respect, just that I don't see how refusing to make the offer in light of these points is not a violation of those principles.
 
Alright, I can see you're trying to make a serious argument, so I'll treat it as one.

First point, I think you're biasing peoples answered by including the point that it's "a new man" who "pulled out a female condom instead". That instantly provokes a negative reaction for a couple reasons.
Obviously in a serious, longer term relationship, people should talk about what they want, negotiate, and in principle try to remain fair to each other. Like paying equally for contraception, considering different contraception.

In that instance I would largely agree that a couple should discuss it until they find a solution they're both happy with.

But the hypothetical picture you painted is of a brand new relationship, and of the guy just springing the female condom on the girl in the moment. Apart from being really presumptuous, and giving off an attitude of "See, I'm prepaired.... for what I want anyhow", the very fact that it is still a far more unstable and uncertain relationship in itself changes things. Not knowing the guy as well, the girl is taking the largest risk that if she gets pregnant, who knows what will happen, even if she has an abortion, it's still her body that has to go through it all. It's not the same for the guy, the guy literally need not do anything at all. That's why I think at the beginning of a relationship, when the relationship is at its least stable, it's up to the girl to set the rules of protection. She's taking the greater risk.

And if we're being realistic here... the truth is either partner can set unreasonable expectations and simply refuse to have sex if they don't like it... both have veto rights.

All of this is a lot to discuss about the FIRST time you have sex with someone, I'd be lying if I said this much serious thought has gone through my head anytime I had sex with someone new.

When you get right down to it though... it's the woman who risks getting pregnant, who gives birth, or has an abortion, all of which are serious things to go through. And all the guy ultimately truly risks is child support, which again being realistic, a lot don't really pay properly anyway. I'm not saying that's not a risk, but it's not nearly the same as what the girl faces. So I see nothing wrong in insisting the guy wear a condom. Later in the relationship you can talk about something else, but in the beginning, use a condom. Also being realistic, female condoms have a poor effectiveness compared with condoms or the pill.

So there, that's my serious answer as to why you should suck it up and carry rubbers, and ultimately, what's fair or not, me being right or not, really doesn't matter much at all. Like I said, either partner has veto rights, so when you get right down to it, either partner has an equal opportunity to be unreasonable. Seems fair enough to me.
 
I'd like to point out that the post directly above me is amazing lol!

Also, my argument with the OP's viewpoint is that he's thinking women should have to lose out on "sexual friction" sometimes. Women mainly derive sexual pleasure from clitoral stimulation, not penetration.
 
Wow the OP completely does NOT understand this topic.

First, I agree with Tude, many women only get sexual pleasure from clitoral stimulation and not actual sex. So "splitting it 50/50" so that you can each feel equal pleasure doesn't work in many situation as many women do not feel that much pleasure from it anyway.
Second, have you forgotten about the pill? And it isn't just the cost, even though that sucks. It messes up your hormones. It can make you moody. Some women have to try multiple types of pills to finally get one that finally doesn't make them crazy. I had ridiculous mood swings for like a year and a half because I was one a pill with a ton of hormones.

So it seems completely "fair" to have the woman pay for the pill, get her hormones messed up from the pill, and use a female condom half the time when she's not even enjoying it that much..... yeah sure.....

Oh yeah, and male condoms work better (have you looked at the percentages?).
 
I was thnking about being serious (seriously) but then I read the thread. Holy fuck.
 
Why must everything be an attack on feminism. Why can't "feminists" treat words as equal. It sometimes feels like feminists, or some feminists want preferential treatment for women, isn't that exactly what you're opposed to (but you wouldn't complain if you got more?)

I really am confused, but a legitimate conversation seems to be impossible to have because, well, you're female. You have babies, so, you are better? I really am confused. Please, enlighten me if you disagree.
 
I should add, one specific thing that come up in this thread is: taking a female condom to a date is presumptuous, but taking a male condom is just forward thinking? Now, what is the logic in that?
 
If I could edit my post, I would say, Sorry Sir. I'll reference your username and uh, What?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top