^I like the username. The circles, and "pi" in the center. I just noticed that.
I don't know. I was thinking how any movement, that comes about, will overshoot a little, sometimes, with attitudes (and I don't know what all to say, everything).
The benefit of a male condom vs a female condom:
In the scenario presented by psood0nym, a new male meets a new female, and the male pulls out a female condom. I read this on another site, about why male condoms are just the go to, but it makes sense... New sex will be "heat of the moment"- you know? Now, think about it... Male condom on penis not but 20 seconds or so, or a female condom, which requires... effort, and patience, and slowing down?
A male condom rolls on easily, mostly, and fits just snug enough ideally, to stay on. It's a simple process to put one on.
A female condom, I think, needs to be set/positioned right. Its not as much in the moment, I guess.
That was the argument I read in favor of the male condom, and thought it made sense, especially in this scenario. I'm too lazy to look at the moment, where it was. Google.
^I like the username. The circles, and "pi" in the center. I just noticed that.
I don't know. I was thinking how any movement, that comes about, will overshoot a little, sometimes, with attitudes (and I don't know what all to say, everything).
The benefit of a male condom vs a female condom:
In the scenario presented by psood0nym, a new male meets a new female, and the male pulls out a female condom. I read this on another site, about why male condoms are just the go to, but it makes sense... New sex will be "heat of the moment"- you know? Now, think about it... Male condom on penis not but 20 seconds or so, or a female condom, which requires... effort, and patience, and slowing down?
A male condom rolls on easily, mostly, and fits just snug enough ideally, to stay on. It's a simple process to put one on.
A female condom, I think, needs to be set/positioned right. Its not as much in the moment, I guess.
That was the argument I read in favor of the male condom, and thought it made sense, especially in this scenario. I'm too lazy to look at the moment, where it was. Google.
My point exactly, it's a lot to go through this whole feminist rant and ethics and so on in picture the OP paints.
Additionally the female condom isn't as effective.
And again, there is nothing inherently feminist about this discussion. It's two people who wanna have sex, either can refuse to do so, either can do so for really any reason at all.
Feminism is about equal opportunities for women broadly, and equal status and treatment of women broadly. But it has nothing to do with this condom hypothetical rant. Even if we assume that the hypothetical woman who disapproves of the hypothetical mans hypothetical female condom is a hypothetical feminist :D. It still doesn't really say anything. Because this is not what feminism is about, it's not what sexism is about. Feminism is the belief that women should not be discriminated against or treated inferiority. Opposition to sexism more broadly is about not discriminating against either gender. But in this case, we are not talking about any of that. Either partner can set any unreasonable request they want.
And finally, if I were going to be all liberal feminist about it. I'd say something like this...
It's not like men don't ever make self serving sexual requests/subtledemands to women purely for their own pleasure and nothing to do with risk of pregnancy all the time is it?
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.
The title of the thread is just meant to be provocative enough to get people to read the rest. I didn’t even know if this would be replied to, but now that there’s respondents I’d change the title if I could edit it. What I’m most interested in doesn’t really depend on that “first time” context, though. The question I’m asking, but that I figured was too much of a mouth full for SLR, is:
“If heterosexual partners truly respect sexual equality, and assuming each party is willing to evenly split all monetary birth control costs, shouldn’t women volunteer to wear female condoms half the time?”
Tude said:
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.
My concern certainly isn’t that women lose out. Ideally nobody would lose out. There’s nothing vindictive as you seem to imply when you say “the OP's viewpoint is that he's thinking women should HAVE TO lose out.” It’s just that with the expectation that men wear the condoms all the time men DO lose out on that friction. Though vaginal orgasm is not as common as clitoral orgasm, it certainly does happen for many women. I presume not being able to feel friction as well when a female condom is worn reduces a woman’s pleasure in this respect. In any case, from the beginning my point has been that both parties should get a chance to experience friction in a relationship that uses condoms.
I don’t know why or how you think I’m suggesting the 50/50 split refers to subjective pleasure. How would we possibly quantify or verify sexual pleasure like that? The 50/50 proposal refers to how often each sex wears the condom, so as to give the other sex their turn at feeling sexual friction. If you personally “do not feel as much pleasure as men anyways,” that’s something for you to work on internally as an individual, not something to project onto all other women or to adopt as an expectation for what all men owe all women. Why should a single person’s experience like yours be adopted as a universal norm of sexual ethics?
llama112 said:
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?).
Have I forgotten about the pill? No. Have you forgotten about my last two posts, especially this paragraph where I make my awareness of and attitudes about the pill explicit for the second time?:
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.
I'm sorry if the pill effects you negatively (I've heard some women report much better experiences with nuvaring), but you don't represent all women, and even if you did, the fact that there are unpleasant side effects doesn't translate in any sensible way to "therefore men should always wear the condoms." As regards the percent effectiveness of male and female condoms, when used properly they are 98% and 95% effective, respectfully. That’s a difference but it’s not that much of one, and the issue of protective effectiveness is wrapped up in innumerable other circumstances that aren’t really relevant considerations to the question at hand, which is foremost an ethical one about equal opportunities for pleasure between the sexes.
If we’re going to have a discussion each new reply has to take account of everything that’s been said before it. With the exception of JessFR’s reply, I don’t see many signs that this is happening so far.
As regards the percent effectiveness of male and female condoms, when used properly they are 98% and 95% effective, respectfully. That’s a difference but it’s not that much of one
And again, there is nothing inherently feminist about this discussion. It's two people who wanna have sex, either can refuse to do so, either can do so for really any reason at all.
Feminism is about equal opportunities for women broadly, and equal status and treatment of women broadly. But it has nothing to do with this condom hypothetical rant. Even if we assume that the hypothetical woman who disapproves of the hypothetical mans hypothetical female condom is a hypothetical feminist . It still doesn't really say anything. Because this is not what feminism is about, it's not what sexism is about. Feminism is the belief that women should not be discriminated against or treated inferiority. Opposition to sexism more broadly is about not discriminating against either gender. But in this case, we are not talking about any of that. Either partner can set any unreasonable request they want.
According to Tilburg University women's studies chair Tineke M. Willemsen, "t is hardly even possible to give a definition of feminism that every feminist will agree with."[8] Bronwyn Winter has criticized resistance to defining feminism for specialists and nonspecialists, a resistance "so widespread as to appear to be the dominant feminist theoretical position: a sort of 'non-position'."[9] However, definitions have been offered in feminist literature and practice.
Despite these ambiguities, I think we can agree feminism has to do with equality between the sexes. So how exactly ISN'T this a feminist issue? We're talking about a literally equal split of a sexual role between men and women! There are few gender issues where sexual equality is so blatantly in question, and there are plenty of men who would be much happier with safe sex if they could feel friction. So if, as you say, "Opposition to sexism more broadly is about not discriminating against either gender" how is it not discriminating against men to deny them an equal chance and feeling sexual friction? You say "we're not talking about any of that," but that's exactly what I'm talking about. I'm asking: "Why SHOULDN'T women make the offer?" That's a normative question, an ethical question, directly involved in concerns of gender discrimination and equality i.e. feminism.
Fair point I suppose about definition of feminism, what I said is what it means to me, and ultimately what I think it should mean.
Couple things I'd say to this. One, I really really doubt most women's reluctance to the female condom is primarily due to sexual pleasure, unlike men, it just doesn't work the same.
My biggest concerns would be pregnancy (98 vs 95 doesn't sound like much, but 90% would be 1 in 10 odds and 99% would be 1 in a hundred, it doesn't have to read like a lot to be a lot).
The big flaw in your argument is it seems to assume that the female condom and the male condom are the same except for who wears it, that's just not the case.
There's not much else I can say except to repeat that, it is not equal for both partners to go 50/50 in their preferred use of contraception, because the woman is ultimately at more risk, that inherently makes it unequal.
Of course both partners in the long term should make compromises for each other, but those compromises are for them to work out, there's no one correct answer that would apply to every couple.
Feminism is something I strongly believe in, sexism is something I am strongly against, including when it happens to men. But it's naive to deny there are, perhaps unfair inherent differences between women and men.
Is it fair men are generally stronger than women? Or that a woman has to be the one to give birth or that the man can't? None of this is 'fair', it's just the way it is. In the same sense that the man should follow the woman's wishes on contraception. Believe me, it's not about women 'reserving greater pleasure'.
Fair point I suppose about definition of feminism, what I said is what it means to me, and ultimately what I think it should mean.
Couple things I'd say to this. One, I really really doubt most women's reluctance to the female condom is primarily due to sexual pleasure, unlike men, it just doesn't work the same.
My biggest concerns would be pregnancy (98 vs 95 doesn't sound like much, but 90% would be 1 in 10 odds and 99% would be 1 in a hundred, it doesn't have to read like a lot to be a lot).
The big flaw in your argument is it seems to assume that the female condom and the male condom are the same except for who wears it, that's just not the case.
There's not much else I can say except to repeat that, it is not equal for both partners to go 50/50 in their preferred use of contraception, because the woman is ultimately at more risk, that inherently makes it unequal.
Of course both partners in the long term should make compromises for each other, but those compromises are for them to work out, there's no one correct answer that would apply to every couple.
Feminism is something I strongly believe in, sexism is something I am strongly against, including when it happens to men. But it's naive to deny there are, perhaps unfair inherent differences between women and men.
Is it fair men are generally stronger than women? Or that a woman has to be the one to give birth or that the man can't? None of this is 'fair', it's just the way it is. In the same sense that the man should follow the woman's wishes on contraception. Believe me, it's not about women 'reserving greater pleasure'.
Female condoms may "just not work the same," but whether that's a good thing or not is something I'm arguing women should give men a chance to weigh in on more often.
What do you mean by bringing up the unfairness of men being physically stronger or women having to bear children and saying that's in the same sense that this question should be understood? Yes, being gendered is unfair. Females can die in pregnancy. Males can be drafted to go die in a war or be born with hemophilia. I certainly won't try to argue that the burdens males are born into are as arduous as those of females, but the point is one sex bears no direct responsibility for what’s born into the other.
There’s a distinction between an inborn individual responsibility and a mutual responsibility shared equally. Sex, as we’re discussing it, is of the latter type. It’s a choice shared between two people, a willful act whose goal is pleasure for both sexes. This is what changes the ethical relationship. If we believe in sexual equality in our relationships then we share a responsibility to offer an equal chance at this pleasure to each other (the chance and our own best efforts, yes, but unlike the chance we can't ensure our efforts are equal). It's unfortunate, but in having sex the risk of pregnancy for women must be weighed at the outset, and so by definition it cannot figure into any equally shared responsibility with another who does not bear it. This is what makes it wrong for women to assume that the fact that they can get pregnant is a reason why men should be the only ones to wrap their genitals in some 20th century invention that has nothing to do with their innate biology.
Even if we do entertain the 95% to 98% effectiveness rate of female vs. male condoms as reason for males to be the ones to wear condoms 100% of the time, if you add oral or interuterine contraception on top of that the difference in pregnancy risk between the two condom types becomes far less.
Consider the breakdown of contraceptive use in the U.S:
Current Contraceptive Method Used by U.S. Women Ages 15 to 44 Who Are Using Contraception, 2006-2008
*Includes emergency contraception, female condom or vaginal pouch, foam, cervical cap, Today sponge, suppository or insert, jelly or cream (without diaphragm), and other methods.
†Data do not meet standards of reliability or precision.
Source: William D. Mosher and Jo Jones, "Use of Contraception in the United States: 1982–2008," Vital and Health Statistics 23, no. 29 (2010).
Among condom using couples, this gives us an idea of how often men are denied sexual friction vs. women. We know there are many women who are using the pill in this thread. Since you girls are using the pill, which is around 99% effective on top of either condom type, that 3% difference in effectiveness narrows quite a bit. You're theoretically talking about using a 99.95% effective contraceptive combination versus a 99.98% effective combination. And you’re claiming THAT very slightly greater risk of pregnancy over male condoms justifies denying males a key component of life's greatest natural pleasure as often as the chart above indicates you are (pretty much all the time)? C'mon girls, that's cold.
If a man were to say, they weren't willing to have unprotected sex with someone they didn't know for sure was STD free, would you consider it sexist of the man? Of course not, it's a precaution they have the right to take.
If a woman were to say they weren't willing to take the risk of pregnancy with a form of contraception they weren't comfortable, it is not sexist or anti-feminist of them either.
And there is DEFINITELY nothing feminist about arguing that a woman should feel guilty for refusing to have sex in any way that she isn't comfortable with.
You have that right too, to refuse to have sex with a women who doesn't use a female condom half the time. But don't kid yourself that it's some moral stance against hypocritical feminists.
I can't make it any simpler than that.... NO ONE has the moral right to guilt, shame or otherwise coerce someone to have sex in a way they're not comfortable with. You have the right to discuss what you want with your partner... but when they say no, that's the end of it.
To the OP, I ask this. Is sexual friction reduced when your partner uses a female condom? Wouldn't the male lose out on friction anyway? This is a serious question, as I'm curious.
If a man were to say, they weren't willing to have unprotected sex with someone they didn't know for sure was STD free, would you consider it sexist of the man? Of course not, it's a precaution they have the right to take.
If a woman were to say they weren't willing to take the risk of pregnancy with a form of contraception they weren't comfortable, it is not sexist or anti-feminist of them either.
And there is DEFINITELY nothing feminist about arguing that a woman should feel guilty for refusing to have sex in any way that she isn't comfortable with.
You have that right too, to refuse to have sex with a women who doesn't use a female condom half the time. But don't kid yourself that it's some moral stance against hypocritical feminists.
I can't make it any simpler than that.... NO ONE has the moral right to guilt, shame or otherwise coerce someone to have sex in a way they're not comfortable with. You have the right to discuss what you want with your partner... but when they say no, that's the end of it.
Whoa there all caps. What's this talk about "guilt," "shame," "coercion," and all the defensively proclaiming rights stuff? How did meaning to maybe improve some future guys' sex lives by asking a hypothetical question about a statistically nearly equivalent alternative form of safe sex get us here?
My last post was intended to explain why the “we pay for the pill, therefore men should always wear the condom” argument doesn’t work, and to add perspective to the claim that the female condom is significantly less effective than the male condom. I did the first by pointing out that the argument failed to make the distinction between an inborn individual responsibility and a mutual responsibility shared equally, thereby situating it among a different set of ethical considerations than you had been assuming. I did the second by multiplying some stats. Where in the logic of my approach do you perceive an argument that men should coercively guilt women into having sex they’re uncomfortable with such that a reminder that no means no is called for?
It’s either fair assuming deference to sexual equality or it isn’t. That’s the question we’re trying to answer. But of course the answer doesn’t necessitate any action on the part of either men or women in response. There’s no coercion, just individual’s appraisal of what’s involved and their conscience. I assume women can deliberate and make choices from there for themselves. With that clear ...
Despite your claim that the situation is “simple,” most women just aren’t comfortable with the female condom, and “that’s the end of it,” I find it unconvincing that the massive divide between male and female condom use owes more than slightly to such considerations. With such a high proportion of women opting for sterilization surgery I doubt many could be so perturbed by a little bag as to totally reject it. I think it’s just that the mere idea to use female condoms rarely enters the heads of either men or women because it’s so far in the periphery of our collective sexual awareness. Others in this thread have said it’s because it doesn’t work right, but I came across this old article, which indicates, in the UK at least, it didn’t make it because of comments in the mass media like: “what’s that amoeba between your legs.”
Yet the situation in Sri Lanka and India was radically different: (NSFW’d for space)
NSFW:
Its reception was unprecedented. "It's very hard to reverse negative preconceptions," says Anne Philpott, who worked for FHC, introducing the female condom into sexual health programmes for three years until last February. "But in Colombo, Sri Lanka, where I was working with female sex workers, their clients hadn't heard of a female condom before. So there were no preconceptions, and rather than saying, 'This is a condom, this is going to protect you,' [the women] marketed it as a sex toy, allowing the client to insert it - a real thrill, because seeing a vagina up close, or touching one, is a huge taboo in Sri Lanka." ...
... The design held a further unexpected thrill, as the plastic ring inside rubs against the tip of the penis during intercourse, intensifying the man's orgasm. Subsequently, the prostitutes started charging more for sex with a female condom. ...
… "In India," says Philpott, "women told me they had become so excited inserting the condom that they didn't want to have sex. I couldn't work it out - were they doing it wrong, hurting themselves? Then I realised they'd been having orgasms just from putting the condom in. Probably because they'd never touched themselves before."
Lastly, I'm not sure what you mean by "don't kid yourself that it's some moral stance against hypocritical feminists." As I said above, I don't think this line of thinking has even occurred to many men or women. I doubt there's many out there for me to take a stance against. The question is, after having read all this, is it fair assuming deference to sexual equality? If it is, a refutation of all the points I’ve made that wait unaddressed is the only good or fun way to show it. That's the ethical aspect.
Tude said:
To the OP, I ask this. Is sexual friction reduced when your partner uses a female condom? Wouldn't the male lose out on friction anyway? This is a serious question, as I'm curious.
They wouldn’t lose out relative to male condoms. Who knows, the increase in friction might even keep a few men satisfied who might otherwise insist on not using the normal male condom.
Why wouldn't men lose out anyway? Either way, there's a barrier between the penis and vagina. I would agree with you if only the effectiveness of both methods were equal, but it doesn't seem that way. Three percent doesn't sound like a lot, but it is to those who had a kid/got an abortion lol.
Why wouldn't men lose out anyway? Either way, there's a barrier between the penis and vagina. I would agree with you if only the effectiveness of both methods were equal, but it doesn't seem that way. Three percent doesn't sound like a lot, but it is to those who had a kid/got an abortion lol.
Put some plastic wrap over yourself and make sure it doesn't move the next time you pleasure yourself (so just your fingers or whatever are sliding). That's the difference -- movement over the skin. Since the proposal is to use female condoms half the time, that percentage difference in effectiveness over time isn't 3 percent, it's 1.5 percent -- and far less than that if paired with oral contraception. No matter how small, the consequences of condom failure are obviously highly consequential, but weigh that against only feeling sexual stimulation from another person's genitals through that plastic wrap you try out. That's probably the easiest way for women to get an idea whether it's worth the extra risk for them and those they use male condoms with or not.
I don't think the three percent would drop to one-and-a-half percent. One percentage doesn't affect the other since the studies are independent of each other.
What I mean to point out is that the 3 percent difference figure between male and female condoms isn't an accurate reflection of increased risk of pregnancy over time because the proposal isn't to entirely switch and use female condoms 100 percent of the time, but rather 50 percent of the time in alteration with male condoms. By adopting the 50/50 practice over a lifetime of sex women wouldn't be increasing their risk of pregnancy 3 percent as they would if they always used female condoms instead of male. Again, any difference could be consequential, but it's not as big as the terms being used to talk about it earlier seemed to indicate it was understood to be. The 50/50 alternation over time can be treated as an average of the 95 and 98 percent figures. That average is 96.5%, which by my calculator indicates the 50/50 alteration practice would be 1.530612244897959% less effective at preventing pregnancy than the 98% effectiveness of using male condoms 100 percent of the time.
I haven't read this whole thread, but.. I read enough.
What irritates me is the assumption that condoms don't reduce pleasure for women too - because they totally do. I hate condoms. I just hate the thought of catching a disease or getting pregnant even more. Condoms reduce friction and sensation for WOMEN TOO. So I don't understand this argument that women are being selfish by expecting a man to use a condom. That doesn't even make any sense.
I've never used a female condom... but I don't understand how it could be that much better than a male condom. They're both a "plastic" barrier. They both reduce sensation, no?
As for the question, if a man pulled one out the first time we had sex, I wouldn't be too thrilled - but more because he hadn't thought to ask me what my feelings were about using one. If after we do it a few times, he was like "you know, I've tried sex with the female condom and it feels better for me, would you try it that way?" I'd be like sure, no problem. It's the "out of the blue" aspect I think that would bother me.
I haven't read this whole thread, but.. I read enough.
What irritates me is the assumption that condoms don't reduce pleasure for women too - because they totally do. I hate condoms. I just hate the thought of catching a disease or getting pregnant even more. Condoms reduce friction and sensation for WOMEN TOO. So I don't understand this argument that women are being selfish by expecting a man to use a condom. That doesn't even make any sense.
I've never used a female condom... but I don't understand how it could be that much better than a male condom. They're both a "plastic" barrier. They both reduce sensation, no?
As for the question, if a man pulled one out the first time we had sex, I wouldn't be too thrilled - but more because he hadn't thought to ask me what my feelings were about using one. If after we do it a few times, he was like "you know, I've tried sex with the female condom and it feels better for me, would you try it that way?" I'd be like sure, no problem. It's the "out of the blue" aspect I think that would bother me.
It's true that condoms reduce the sense of friction for both, but the reduction is greater for the one one wearing it. Sensation can be amplified however by using textured male and female condoms. That way at least one participant can enjoy the greater sensation. For these reasons who wears it is still an issue. If you had read the whole thread instead of assuming you'd read enough you'd have read this in a quote from an article I posted:
The design held a further unexpected thrill, as the plastic ring inside rubs against the tip of the penis during intercourse, intensifying the man's orgasm. Subsequently, the prostitutes started charging more for sex with a female condom.
I haven't read this whole thread, but.. I read enough.
What irritates me is the assumption that condoms don't reduce pleasure for women too - because they totally do. I hate condoms. I just hate the thought of catching a disease or getting pregnant even more. Condoms reduce friction and sensation for WOMEN TOO. So I don't understand this argument that women are being selfish by expecting a man to use a condom. That doesn't even make any sense.
I've never used a female condom... but I don't understand how it could be that much better than a male condom. They're both a "plastic" barrier. They both reduce sensation, no?
As for the question, if a man pulled one out the first time we had sex, I wouldn't be too thrilled - but more because he hadn't thought to ask me what my feelings were about using one. If after we do it a few times, he was like "you know, I've tried sex with the female condom and it feels better for me, would you try it that way?" I'd be like sure, no problem. It's the "out of the blue" aspect I think that would bother me.
It's true that condoms reduce the sense of friction for both, but the reduction is greater for the one one wearing it. Sensation can be amplified however by using using textured male and female condoms. That way at least one participant can enjoy the greater sensation. For these reasons who wears it is still an issue. If you had read the whole thread instead of assuming you'd read enough you'd have read this in a quote from an article I posted:
Ok shit like this is why I stopped posting. Who are you to say "but the reduction is greater for the one wearing it", you're not a woman and I'm not a man, neither of us can make that claim because neither of us really know for sure. Look, you don't have to believe all the female posters, or anyone else, but unless you want to run with the manipulative asshole boyfriend personality, you will simply have to accept it. And maybe have the humility to accept you may not have to truly appreciate someone else's perspective to respect it.
