Letters to the Editor
-
male bc
I would love for there to be safe and effective male form of birth control (outside of the condom). If it were available and if I were still single, it's not something I would rely on my partner to use. I'd still use a condom and/or my own form of birth control. No form of hormonal birth control is going to keep you from contracting an STD. Market research found that 55% of men said they would be interested in a male bc pill. There indeed ongoing human trials, I think University of Washington was running one.
The side effects for female birth control are not negligible: an increased risk of embolisms, perforated uterus(IUD), increase menstrual flow and cramping (IUD),PID(IUD), headache, depression, decreased libido, diminish bone density(depo), mood swings, faux morning sickness. But we put up with it anyway. Why? Because all of those are preferable to an unwanted pregnancy. Tubal ligation rates are much higher (the stat I found said 3x higher) than vasectomies, even though tubal ligation is a much more invasive procedure.
As someone in a hetero marriage who has had complications with hormonal bc and difficult periods, I'd love for my husband and me to have more options. We tried condoms for a year and they really aren't as terrible as people here say they are, plus with responsible usage they are very effective.
-
Sex between the ears
I'm Anonymous - Thursday, July 19, 2007 10:36 AM
I read the letters, and just thought that the big deal over condoms was missing the point about male sexuality because it seemed to be reducing it to simply "an unsheathed penis in a vagina..." Thus the whole "between your ears bit."
Your mileage may vary on that, but as for the larger point about being forced or not forced to use a condom in heterosexual vaginal intercourse, unless you're willing to:
a) trust your partner to use birth control;
b) have a vasectomy;
c) abstain; or
d) risk pregnancy;
I don't really see what your alternatives to a condom are? And, therefore, getting hung up on this one incontrovertible fact of human sexuality to the exclusion of the enjoyment of sex seemed to me, at a minimum, counterproductive (no pun intended).
I think I overstated my case with the "ears" thing. I'm certainly aware (and I think it goes without saying?) that there is a physical element to sex, and that different people enjoy different things. I have no inclination to tell people how their sex lives should be.
What I was responding to was the dissatisfaction with the reality of heterosexual relationships that I lay out above - that unless the male actively contravenes, he forfeits reproductive control to his partner. I don't see anyway around that.
Railing against this by railing against condoms seems fruitless, when, in my opinion there's so much more to sex. And again, it seemed that all male sexuality was being reduced to an unsheathed penis in a vagina.
I'm not a sex therapist. But it seems to me that if you're not willing to consider the four possibilities listed above, and you find sex with a condom unsatisfactory, then perhaps you should discuss this with a sex therapist. Outside of unfocused anger, I'm not certain what alternative outlets you may have available to you.
-
I meant Anon at 10:34
I meant Anon at 10:34 - I picked up the wrong time stamp in my last post.
-
One more try
GRRR. Forget the time stamps - I'm the Anon who wrote the "Unbelievable" post. Again, sorry.
-
Hopeless
"Railing against this by railing against condoms seems fruitless, when, in my opinion there's so much more to sex. And again, it seemed that all male sexuality was being reduced to an unsheathed penis in a vagina."
No one is "railing" against a condom. It was pointed out that it's not the best solution for male sexuality, a thing that lesbians and feminists don't like anyway. (Why is that companies invest billions trying to improve female control over reproduction, but when a man asks for male b/c he's accused of railing? Methinks stories of female oppression are just that -- stories.) The best solution is male bc. Yes, it's being worked on and yes, there's a demand, esp. for men who are in committed relationships but don't want children. The one I read about said that the main draw back to the best candidate is that it causes dry orgasms. Many men will settle for this if it means they get to have a say over the $360K price tag for junior. Science will continue to make improvements (I believe) and someone day, there will be pills that give men a chemical vasectomy of the reversible kind. An implant will release substances needed to nuke the sperm while leaving the fluid "usable"; at that point, sex will be even better and, the gals will lose their monopoly on reproductive decision-making.
What man wouldn't want this in the age of high divorce rates, false paternity claims and stagnating wages? What man would want to risk someday having to pay for two households in the event of divorce? One Univ. of Wisconsin study -- the largest of its kind -- revealed that 78% of all divorces in the U.S. are initiated by women. The reasons given had to do with a general unhappiness with married life. Meaning, hubbie wasn't beating her or failing as a provider, the wife was simply bored. For any man willing to take a cold shower and look at things objectively, marriage is very risky to one's financial health. I've watched many married men in my profession suffer financial costs and impoverishment as the result of divorce. Whether it was their "fault" or not is irrelevant since the courts no longer care about this anyway.
Many men will choose marriage anyway and even end up happy and content. Others though will realize that heterosexual marriage may have had its place in agrarian society, but in a consumer culture where spouses are easily disposed of through no-fault divorce, it simply no longer makes any sense to get married. It's not like the planet needs more people either. An earlier poster mentioned "petro dollars." For those who watched the documentary "Crude Awakening," you already know that we will see mass starvation within the next few decades as food supplies can no longer be moved around. One of the interviewees noted that pre-oil earth would be able to support at most 1.5 or 2 billion people. We're at 6.5 right now and that means we need to be mindful now of our duty to reduce the future misery we know is coming.