Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)

The Sexual Cartel

124»

Comments

  • #92
    StudentDad
    Registered Users Posts: 1,239 ✭✭✭ StudentDad


    28064212 wrote: »
    In what way? Any man with access to condoms has as much control over resulting pregnancies as a woman with access to the pill

    The pill does not work for all women. Side effects etc. Like I said above, condoms tear. As it stands a man can be celibate or have a vasectomy. The latter is extreme but necessary in some cases, such as long term relationships where a pregnancy is undesired or forms too great a health risk to the woman.

    SD


  • #93
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭ The Corinthian


    28064212 wrote: »
    In what way? Any man with access to condoms has as much control over resulting pregnancies as a woman with access to the pill
    You were responding to a scenario where the man agrees to unprotected sex "after being assured that protection is in place" though, thus to dismiss this assurance is essentially a vote of no trust in the woman's competence or agenda.

    It might, in practical terms, be the smart thing to do, but it also is based upon the suspicion that the woman may be looking to get pregnant, thus you should not trust her word. And that, as a generalization, is misogynistic.


  • #94
    28064212
    Registered Users Posts: 10,156 ✭✭✭✭ 28064212


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    You were responding to a scenario where the man agrees to unprotected sex "after being assured that protection is in place" though, thus to dismiss this assurance is essentially a vote of no trust in the woman's competence or agenda.

    It might, in practical terms, be the smart thing to do, but it also is based upon the suspicion that the woman may be looking to get pregnant, thus you should not trust her word. And that, as a generalization, is misogynistic.
    Actually, I was responding to the post as a whole, not specifically the last line. There already is a good (if not perfect) contraceptive method available for men. A male pill would make very little difference to unwanted pregnancy rates.

    Secondly, it is in no way either misogynistic or misandrist to state that each person should take responsibility for their own contraceptive methods

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using post-migration Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, and a dark mode setting)



  • #95
    StudentDad
    Registered Users Posts: 1,239 ✭✭✭ StudentDad


    28064212 wrote: »
    Actually, I was responding to the post as a whole, not specifically the last line. There already is a good (if not perfect) contraceptive method available for men. A male pill would make very little difference to unwanted pregnancy rates.

    Secondly, it is in no way either misogynistic or misandrist to state that each person should take responsibility for their own contraceptive methods

    In the scenario I suggested above the man is led to believe contraception is in place. What sort of an insult to the woman would result if he were then to say, 'that's great but we're still going to use condoms?'

    If the man in question has control over his own fertility in the form of a male pill he does not have to worry about such assurances. It cannot come to market fast enough as far as I am concerned.


    This article is a little old but we can hope that progress has been made since then

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7857262/Scientists-invent-first-male-contraceptive-pill.html

    SD


  • #96
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭ The Corinthian


    28064212 wrote: »
    Actually, I was responding to the post as a whole, not specifically the last line.
    So you were not actually responding to the post, but what you would have liked the post to be.
    A male pill would make very little difference to unwanted pregnancy rates.
    I wouldn't agree. A male pill would not require any additional thought, pause in activities or sobriety - all things that condoms need to some extent or other. As you said, condoms are not much worse than the pill, in terms of effectiveness, but only if properly used and that's often where problems arise.
    Secondly, it is in no way either misogynistic or misandrist to state that each person should take responsibility for their own contraceptive methods
    Actually, it is and I stated why. If you trust someone, then their assurance should suffice as 'taking responsibility', otherwise trusting anyone in any scenario would be irresponsible as you would have not directly verified or taken your own precautions. And if the reason you mistrust them is gender based, which it is in this case, then it is misogynistic or misandrist by definition.

    Bottom line is that while it is practical to take responsibility for your own contraception and not trust anyone, that mistrust is ultimately based upon gender based generalizations. Logically, you cannot avoid that conclusion.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    28064212
    Registered Users Posts: 10,156 ✭✭✭✭ 28064212


    StudentDad wrote: »
    In the scenario I suggested above the man is led to believe contraception is in place. What sort of an insult to the woman would result if he were then to say, 'that's great but we're still going to use condoms?'
    No insult at all. The pill fails, even with perfect use. Two methods of contraception are far safer than one
    The Corinthian wrote: »
    So you were not actually responding to the post, but what you would have liked the post to be.
    Nope, I responded to the central point of the post. He was bemoaning the fact that men have no control over their fertility. I was pointing out that there is a perfectly acceptable contraceptive method available already
    The Corinthian wrote: »
    I wouldn't agree. A male pill would not require any additional thought, pause in activities or sobriety - all things that condoms need to some extent or other. As you said, condoms are not much worse than the pill, in terms of effectiveness, but only if properly used and that's often where problems arise.
    Why do you think the male pill would be used any more properly than the female one?
    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Actually, it is and I stated why. If you trust someone, then their assurance should suffice as 'taking responsibility', otherwise trusting anyone in any scenario would be irresponsible as you would have not directly verified or taken your own precautions.
    Who said anything about trusting anyone? It wasn't mentioned in any scenario to this point, it could just as easily be a one night stand as a 30-year marriage. Trust isn't a pre-requisite to having sex
    The Corinthian wrote: »
    And if the reason you mistrust them is gender based, which it is in this case, then it is misogynistic or misandrist by definition.
    Is a gay man misandrist if he takes responsibility for his own sexual health by insisting on condoms?
    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Bottom line is that while it is practical to take responsibility for your own contraception and not trust anyone, that mistrust is ultimately based upon gender based generalizations. Logically, you cannot avoid that conclusion.
    No it is not. I don't insist on condoms because I mistrust my partner or all people of that gender, I insist on condoms because I take responsibility for my own contraception.

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using post-migration Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, and a dark mode setting)



  • #98
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭ The Corinthian


    28064212 wrote: »
    No insult at all. The pill fails, even with perfect use. Two methods of contraception are far safer than one
    Actually that is not what comes across if you reject someone's assurance that contraception is being dealt with.
    Nope, I responded to the central point of the post.
    No you were cherry picking from it.
    Why do you think the male pill would be used any more properly than the female one?
    For the same reasons that you believe that two forms of contraception are better than one? I suggested that a male pill would be used more properly than condoms, especially in the 'heat of the moment'.
    Is a gay man misandrist if he takes responsibility for his own sexual health by insisting on condoms?
    He may be homophobic if his partner assures him that he has no STI's and he refuses to believe him on the basis that homosexual men are prone to lie on this.
    No it is not. I don't insist on condoms because I mistrust my partner or all people of that gender, I insist on condoms because I take responsibility for my own contraception.
    So you taking the word of someone else is not taking responsibility and not lacking trust in them? I really don't think you've thought this through.


  • #99
    28064212
    Registered Users Posts: 10,156 ✭✭✭✭ 28064212


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    He may be homophobic if his partner assures him that he has no STI's and he refuses to believe him on the basis that homosexual men are prone to lie on this.
    What makes you think he's basing his decision on the basis of his partner being a homosexual man. Obviously, he is only going to be in that situation with homosexual men, but if he was to be in a situation with people of other orientations, he would treat them exactly the same.

    And again, you're totally ignoring the fact that contraception fails, even when used perfectly. I can lessen the likelihood that I will end up with an unwanted pregnancy by making sure I use contraception. This is true regardless of what actions my partner takes

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using post-migration Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, and a dark mode setting)



  • #100
    Carlos Orange
    Registered Users Posts: 2,499 ✭✭✭ Carlos Orange


    The Corinthian wrote: »

    He may be homophobic if his partner assures him that he has no STI's and he refuses to believe him on the basis that homosexual men are prone to lie on this.

    I have seen gay men comment on articles related to Truvada that they use it because there are gay men who deliberately spread hiv.
    Do you really think they are homophobic for protecting themselves?


  • #101
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭ The Corinthian


    28064212 wrote: »
    And again, you're totally ignoring the fact that contraception fails, even when used perfectly. I can lessen the likelihood that I will end up with an unwanted pregnancy by making sure I use contraception. This is true regardless of what actions my partner takes
    And you are deliberately ignoring the fact that someone would be using additional contraception despite being assured by the other party that there is no problem.

    If your partner tells you a particular task is taken care of, do you check anyway, and if so why? You can rationalize it as being 'responsible', but ultimately because you do not trust that they've carried it out.

    So fundamentally the issue is of trust, be it their motivations or their competence, but trust nonetheless. The condom is used because they do not trust their partner - full stop.

    And where this stems from presumptions based upon sexual orientation or gender then it becomes a decision not to be 'safe' because contraception fails, but ultimately because of prejudice.

    You simply cannot escape that fact unless you simply pretend it's not there, as you are doing.


  • Advertisement
  • #102
    28064212
    Registered Users Posts: 10,156 ✭✭✭✭ 28064212


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    And you are deliberately ignoring the fact that someone would be using additional contraception despite being assured by the other party that there is no problem.
    Anybody claiming that is either ignorant of reality, or a deity. Nobody can claim with 100% certainty that heterosexual intercourse will not result in a pregnancy.
    The Corinthian wrote: »
    If your partner tells you a particular task is taken care of, do you check anyway, and if so why? You can rationalize it as being 'responsible', but ultimately because you do not trust that they've carried it out.
    How important is it? Will it affect me? If it's very important, and will affect me a lot, yes I will check. Especially when my partner has no way of knowing the definitive result of that task.
    The Corinthian wrote: »
    And where this stems from presumptions based upon sexual orientation or gender then it becomes a decision not to be 'safe' because contraception fails, but ultimately because of prejudice.
    Absolutely, 100% incorrect. And you repeating it doesn't make it so. I may only apply it to one gender because of my orientation, that doesn't mean I don't believe it applies equally to everybody. That's like saying a hospital is misandrist because it has only ever treated women in its maternity wards. It's patently absurd

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using post-migration Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, and a dark mode setting)



  • #103
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭ The Corinthian


    28064212 wrote: »
    Anybody claiming that is either ignorant of reality, or a deity. Nobody can claim with 100% certainty that heterosexual intercourse will not result in a pregnancy.
    I never said they could and, indeed, even choosing not to take their word and using a condom as well won't get you the 100% either. Still doesn't address the point of trust though.
    How important is it? Will it affect me? If it's very important, and will affect me a lot, yes I will check. Especially when my partner has no way of knowing the definitive result of that task.
    Never get married then is my advice. No 100% there either.
    Absolutely, 100% incorrect. And you repeating it doesn't make it so.
    Neither does simply saying "100% incorrect" make it so.


  • #104
    28064212
    Registered Users Posts: 10,156 ✭✭✭✭ 28064212


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    I never said they could and, indeed, even choosing not to take their word and using a condom as well won't get you the 100% either. Still doesn't address the point of trust though.
    "Hey, come for a drive with me. I won't crash, I promise. Hey, why are you putting on a seat belt!? Don't you trust me?" - Your argument in a nutshell
    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Neither does simply saying "100% incorrect" make it so.
    Did you just stop reading my post after "make it so"? There was a whole explanation after that sentence which explicitly refutes your entire argument

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using post-migration Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, and a dark mode setting)



  • #105
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭ The Corinthian


    28064212 wrote: »
    "Hey, come for a drive with me. I won't crash, I promise. Hey, why are you putting on a seat belt!? Don't you trust me?" - Your argument in a nutshell
    Then you clearly did not understand my argument.

    You are completely right in saying that 'to be sure' you should take care of such things yourself - Vertrauen ist gut, Kontrolle ist besser, as the Germans say. But as with this expression it is based upon the premise that you should never fully trust anyone. Ever.

    Certainly, if the stakes are high - undesired pregnancy within even a stable relationship - there's an incentive not to trust fully, but if that's the case you'll have to agree that the stakes of marriage failing are high enough to warrant the same caution to the point (given there are not real 'outs' in law) of not marrying. Do you not agree, or is marriage an exception to the rule?

    But all of which doesn't change the fact that your decision is based on lack of trust and in the case of contraception, this lack of trust tends to be based on either on a question of competence or motivations of the other party, which given either could be taken to be driven from their gender, is pretty misogynistic.


  • #106
    28064212
    Registered Users Posts: 10,156 ✭✭✭✭ 28064212


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Then you clearly did not understand my argument.
    • "Hey, come for a drive with me. I won't crash, I promise. Hey, why are you putting on a seat belt!? Don't you trust me?"
    • "Hey, have sex with me. I won't get pregnant, I promise. Hey, why are you putting on a condom!? Don't you trust me?"
    Explain the difference between these two statements, both said between a couple. In both cases, the speaker is making a claim they don't have absolute control over. In both cases, I can take an action that will reduce the possibility of a bad outcome. So wearing a seatbelt means I don't trust my partner?
    The Corinthian wrote: »
    But all of which doesn't change the fact that your decision is based on lack of trust and in the case of contraception, this lack of trust tends to be based on either on a question of competence or motivations of the other party, which given either could be taken to be driven from their gender, is pretty misogynistic.
    My decision is made on the efficacy of contraception.

    And again: I may only apply it to one gender because of my orientation, that doesn't mean I don't believe it applies equally to everybody. That's like saying a hospital is misandrist because it has only ever treated women in its maternity wards. It's patently absurd

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using post-migration Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, and a dark mode setting)



  • #107
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭ The Corinthian


    28064212 wrote: »
      So wearing a seatbelt means I don't trust my partner?
    Clearly yes, you don't. You may have good reason not to if they were to come out with such an assertion, but ultimately you don't trust their word on it.


  • #108
    King Bernard
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 40 ✭ King Bernard


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    You were responding to a scenario where the man agrees to unprotected sex "after being assured that protection is in place" though, thus to dismiss this assurance is essentially a vote of no trust in the woman's competence or agenda.

    It might, in practical terms, be the smart thing to do, but it also is based upon the suspicion that the woman may be looking to get pregnant, thus you should not trust her word. And that, as a generalization, is misogynistic.

    Mysogyny is hatred of women, just because you believe a minority might be deceitful doesn't mean you hate women in general.


  • #109
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭ The Corinthian


    King Bernard wrote: »
    Mysogyny is hatred of women, just because you believe a minority might be deceitful doesn't mean you hate women in general.
    That's sooo nineties...


  • #110
    Jonny Blaze
    Closed Accounts Posts: 753 ✭✭✭ Jonny Blaze


    Interesting article I thought of while reading through this thread.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/05/theres-no-such-thing-as-a-slut/371773/

    It explores the behavior of college age american women surrounding their sexual habits and discusses how they manage their image when it comes to sexual activity.

    Not sure what it says about the debate but an interesting read though.


Advertisement