Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
Pedantry corner - you can't usually see whether or not a condom is on when someone is penetrating you. You can check with your hand, of course, but again, you'd have to not fully trust the person.
Yes, it'd have been better if you confirmed there was a condom, and next time do that. But he still had sex with you without your consent. And nothing excuses that.
@LW : this partner has proven himself to be a manipulating asshole, don't ever hook up with him again.
You are dumb.
"He suggested we not put one back on because he could pull out in time, and I said that it was out of the question and that we absolutely had to use a condom. (Seriously, throughout the evening I think I mentioned the condom rule a dozen times.) "
Then you reiterated what you'd already said (12 times general and one time specific to his "pull-out" idea) WHILE having sex (as he started to penetrate you again) )at the time. - "“No, we can’t do that.”"
And that he replied with - "“Oh, don’t worry—I’ve got it.” " Can only be viewed as an intentional lie on his part to get you to continue. He knew, BECAUSE YOU TOLD HIM, that sex without protection was not okay.
I'm very sorry to have to be the one to point this out to you but I think the reason why you're feeling so "betrayed and dirty and sad and guilty" is that you've been raped.
It doesn't matter that you consented to and were having sex. It doesn't matter that you might secretly have wanted to have unprotected sex. What matters is that you VERY clearly (good job you!) verbally communicated before and during that all you were consenting to was penetrative sex with a condom.
Don't get caught in the "body language" quagmire. It's essentially the same as "I know she said no...but her "body" said yes.", which is a classic rapist argument. It is not a valid argument for consent ever but especially not when you had so clearly laid out what was, and was not, permitted.
This is not your fault. You were violated. And I sincerely hope that your husband and friends can give you the support you need in dealing with this, but also don't think you should hesitate in contacting a therapist if family and friends are less than fully supportive and/or you need a non-judgemntal environment to explore that aftermath.
And if you haven't done so already (though you sound like the responsible type that would have) I'd go in for a full battery of STI tests (and pregnancy if you don't have another from of BC in place). The type of person who would disrespect your boundaries is also the type who might have lied about his STI status.
And again, I'm so sorry.
How does "No, we can't do that" translate into "You seemed like you had consented with your body language"??!?
What idiot would use "seemingly consensual body language" to ignore explicit spoken aloud "No"? A lying sack of shit, that's who.
I would spread word of this asshole far and wide as a warning to other women in the community.
And ps. Get checked for STDs. Someone who lies about "protected" sex with you has done the same with other people. Get checked.
3 and 5 are right to emphasize the degree of trust you can have in a casual partner. With someone you trust you can negotiate X-not-Y, and build trust with each other based on how well you respect each other's boundaries. So with hindsight, I'd say that going forward she should red flag any guy who wants to renegotiate the condom rule after she states it once. Or any rule she's been clear about, but condoms are an especial no-brainer for casual partners.
But this is on the hazy side of assault: Dan is right that the 'putting on the condom' moment is noticeable and was absent: it's not like he took it off when she wasn't looking. A while back a girl wrote to Dan after her first ever lover took the condom off midway: she noticed and kicked him out in all possible senses. Dan called that rape, and I agreed. This situation has more ambiguous communication.
Lack of putting on a condom is another thing to miss entirely.
The "oh, I didn't know what you meant" claim is bullshit used to cover up trampling on someone else's autonomy. If we can figure out how to drive in traffic (so many subtle cues from other cars!), we can figure out how not to fuck people without condoms without their consent.
A few years ago my wife got into a nasty, but non injurious car accident. She *was* at fault, but the layout of the intersection was dangerous, and the other vehicle most likely was speeding.
When my wife walked in reeking of blown airbag and shaking in fright my response wasn't "Bad Girl!". It was all about comfort and protection (and getting her out of stinky clothes). I would hope the LW's husband responds in kind.
Sure, I was upset that our insurance was going up (again), and drove to the site to scope it out myself (residue of having to contest a single vehicle accident of my own), but that was a byproduct of my FEAR for my wife. The primary outcome was a loud "don't do that again" on my part and lots of internal thanks it wasn't much, much, worse.
To the LW: remember, you're not alone. Get checked out and get whatever help you need to get right again. And don't let it happen again...
Peace.
I offer this in the sense of what she could do in future to avoid a similar situation. If you have to keep reiterating a given rule, then your partner isn't too interested in respecting it and you should probably not trust them enough to go ahead with sex. Wherever one falls on the "is it rape" question (and I think it's hazy but damn close), the answer "so there is absolutely nothing you can do differently in future except wait helplessly to have it happen to you again" doesn't strike me as a comforting or helpful advice.
So LW, the next time you *need* to bring up a rule multiple times over the course of the evening, view that as a bad sign about his respect for your boundaries and leave. There are other guys out there.
@13 I can't tell the difference, except sometimes when it's entering. Haven't got much in the way of nerve endings inside.
@19 "the next time you *need* to bring up a rule multiple times over the course of the evening, view that as a bad sign about his respect for your boundaries and leave."
Good advice.
Doesn't matter really, the guy was clearly a selfish prick and stupid to risk getting an STI from her or getting her pregnant.
Haha! Bullshit, she totally knew.
Still a rationalization, but closer to the truth.
Listen, WTFH, you are not to blame for this. Your naivete doesn't justify his violation. But really, take #19's advice to heart.
Sure, but what if the dude's like totally hot?
Under no uncertain terms, he raped you.
You are not to blame for this.
Please get tested and I hope you had/have access to Plan B.
I'm sure there are lessons here but there always are when you have 20/20 hindsight.
Dan has said many times he will never reveal whether he's top/bottom but he let it slip! "So anytime a guy started to go for it without pausing to put a condom on, WTFH, I knew. And I objected/insisted/punched, etc."
Cue the music:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0kqobQRc…
Was *not* my guess back a while back when he dropped hints about brownies with/without walnuts, though can't find that on Google site search -- did I imagine it? If anyone can find it pls put link in the comments...
But rounding an ugly, but common, breach of trust up to rape? Having seen the effects of sexual violence first hand, I hate seeing the word rape thrown around so casually.
I can't imagine telling a woman who was raped--be it through violence, coercion, or incapacity to give meaningful consent--that her experience was the equivalent finding out a guy wasn't using a condom when she thought he was. Is there anyone who wouldn't find such a comparison demeaning?
Men need to take rape and sexual assault seriously. There are too many who don't. Hyperbole doesn't correct that problem.
Yes, the guy was an obvious douchebag. But she wanted the douchebag's dick.
That's pretty goddamned unambiguous. She told him NO right in the moment, and he IMMEDIATELY lied to her about it. His argument about mistaking her body language is as much a lie as his statement of "don't worry -- I've got it."
What a piece of shit.
We don't know what the minutes leading up to them resuming their fucking were like. There may well have been enough fumbling in the dark for her not to know. She may have just not thought about it in the moment, and been too trusting. Hell, I've never tried to hide the fact that I was putting on a condom, but there've been times when that action HAS escaped my partner's notice, just because, hey, that's not where her focus was right at that moment. There's a lot more that goes on in a solid minute of groping and rolling around than can be adequately described in a couple paragraphs, and as has been mentioned earlier, many women who have been violated will recount the experience in a way that shifts blame onto them. Do you have *any* evidence that she's not doing exactly that?
"The moment he penetrated her under circumstances she had expressly NOT consented to, it became rape"
Really? Rape, as in raped at knife point by a total a stranger in a parking garage, rape?
Yes, precisely and I hate to incur the wrath of the righteous, but I'm kinda with @35: let's not devalue the meaning of the word.
I have never personally directly experienced anything which I would call sexual assault, though I had some statutory (age related) illegal encounters. I never felt violated and was an eager participant, though as an adult now myself, I kind of think there was something weird about those adults.
I do know someone who was very nearly murdered (would have died hung up on a hook, literally), except that she was discovered quickly and survived...following an exceptionally violent rape. I'm quite certain she would disdain and mock anyone who compared her experience and the resulting PTSD and life-long damage (physical and emotional) to the experience of not using a condom.
And for the record, we do have 'degrees of assault' - there are misdemeanor charges for sexual battery which covers this kind of douchebaggery.
Which leads me to this...
@3 - But is there something else, about her having a level of trust in this guy that wasn't a good fit?
@5 - I think a fundamental aspect of a casual hookup is that you do not fully trust that person.
Here's what I want to know: does the fact that he's a boundary-pusher give him bad-boy sexy? Is there a component of this which is like her saying she wanted unprotected (oral) sex? Does being a douchebag make him a little sexy?
Ok, assault counselors, I'm ready, flame away...
A woman commenting here another time this came up noted the number of young acquaintances telling her they were date raped and when she started trying to figure out the high numbers--did you say no? loud enough for him to hear you over the music?--discovered that they were murmuring "we shouldn't" while wiggling a little. These encounters almost certainly would have ended with a firm "NO" accompanied by pushing away, but the girls weren't willing to go that far. I believe the vast majority of date rapes are rape, but stretching the definition to include "didn't pick up subtle signals I wasn't totally into it" doesn't help.
If you are not willing to risk hurting or disappointing someone who turns out to be more into you than you are into them, you shouldn't be kissing anyone. Being willing to draw and hold boundaries is one of those things that indicates you're mature enough to be having sex. I find the teenage girls looking back thinking "If only he had asked, or if only I had found the courage to speak up" heartrending, in part because one of those options was completely in their control.
But in the slog-that-I-still-can't-find, Dan said, humorously as always, that preference for brownies with or without nuts shows whether one is a top or a bottom. If I remember correctly, he indicated he liked just one type of brownie.
@39 camp, not self-congratulatory smugness. See my abundant use of capital letters, phrases like cue the music, linking out so you could imagine me sashaying from side to side as I belt out the lyrics to the song while patting myself on the back for figuring it out (and could check out the song if you didn't get the reference)... hello? Or do all SLOG comments have to be about serious things that give one the sads like levels of assault and consent. Sigh. [imagine emo boi emoticon]
But not all sexual assaults are rape. And not all lies are sexual assaults. All three are, however, violations and serious. But once we accept false equivalencies, we loose the moral ground for calling out misogynists for doing the same.
Maybe I should have written:
Imagine the hue and cry if a Republican senatorial candidate said that the experience a woman being raped is the equivalent finding out a guy wasn't using a condom when she thought he was.
The outrage would be righteous and deserved.
I think that's a reasonable question, in the sense that I'm interested in the problem "How can someone avoid being assaulted?" e.g. Don't get wasted and assume everyone else in the bar will stay sober and use good judgment for you. Don't ignore a gut instinct, even if it means being rude. If someone doesn't respect your boundaries, get up and leave. If you don't like what's happening, speak up and match your body language to your words. Yes, your partner will probably be hurt to discover that you are not as into them as they imagined.
Sexy games with a bad boy who pushes your soft boundaries are better played with someone you know extremely well and can trust.
Dan has trashed condom haters (I'm one) for ages, and protests that it's as simple as re-training your dick...I think he's right that one can retrain your dick so that you can get there was significantly dulled sensation, but let's just be honest: it's significantly dulled sensation.
After having heard several recent rants about this - and about Dan's little just-so story/challenge regarding broken condoms: yes, you can tell, you can always tell, just about instantly when it breaks or tears because you get a HELL OF A LOT MORE SENSATION instantly. Any guy who says you can't tell is lying about it.
And yes, there are plenty of women who also hate condoms, though I'm really happy for the ones who can't tell the difference (that it doesn't ruin it). Just because we don't love condoms does not make us non-viable sex partners. Yes people should be cheerful about negotiating mutually acceptable responsible sex, but making a dislike of condoms socially unacceptable is like saying we ought to make cunnilingus or foreplay socially unacceptable - who cares if it's ten time harder for you to get off without those?
Thank Dog my fiance was happy to ditch condoms as soon as we'd both gotten clean bills of health for STIs. I very much appreciate that she dislikes condoms as much as I do..fortunately we are in our own little club for socially unacceptable rejects.
FOUND IT! (@52 myself), SLLOD Nov. 18, 2010, link at end of comment, in which Dan deflates the you-like-nuts-you're-a-top myth and says that he loves nuts in brownies & peanut butter, and Terry loves nutless brownies and smooth peanut butter.
While "not" talking about his sex life it was a public speculation about his sex life -- and logic suggests that a primarily versatile person already joking about his sex life and brownies would have made a joke that of course, some people like both types of brownies. Since Dan didn't include that, one can rule out vers.
In the recent SLLOD Dan states he has had repeated prior experience with tops not putting on condoms -- most tops I know since the mid-1980s have, like me, used condoms routinely in casual encounters, so in order to have had many such experiences of unexpected attempts at no-condom penetration, he must have regularly bottomed before he partnered and became monogamish (and bottomed with a different kind of top than the ones I know, who are all like me anal retentive afraid of death non-drug using queer Woody Allen types). While vers. people do exist, those who are primarily tops rarely bottom, Woody Allen types or not.
As Sherlock Holmes said, when you have eliminated the impossible, what remains, no matter how improbable, must be true (or something like that). Dan Savage = bottom. Not. My. Guess. I would have totally pegged him as a top (so to speak). Anyway, cue the music.
Now, back to watching Benedict Cumberbatch as Sherlock, and my fantasies of doing Holmes. In more ways than one. And no, I don't for a moment think I'm correct or that this matters, but I really don't want to do work today, and am so tired of reading SLOGGers who want to turn everything into an oh-so-serious discussion of rape. Lighten up, people, this is SLOG.
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…
In fairness to Dan, even with kegels, sphincters are tighter than vaginas and provide more friction so the condom issue is probably less of a problem. If he were a regular connoisseur of the va-jay-jay, I'd find him more credible on this issue.
I never ever thought I'd fake orgasm, but the last time I was with a partner who insisted on condoms (to which I cheerfully acquiesced, just because I didn't want to be a jerk) I faked it...regularly. Fortunately, the condom made it easy to conceal. I just couldn't get there. I tried for several months, without success, to retrain my dick. Needless to say, interest in sex pretty much dried up quickly and the relationship died too - I'm sure there was more than just the condom to blame for the bad sex and lack of intimacy, but it certainly was like the icing on the cake.
@59: East Coast Douglas, just ignore trolls. Logic never helps, and they aren't making points that a reasonable person might wonder about.
I agree with you on devaluing the word "rape." There was a Republican a few months back explaining that he knew what it was like to wrestle with a rape pregnancy and when people asked "really" he explained that his daughter had gotten pregnant out of wedlock. Through consensual sex with her boyfriend, but as her dad it totally felt the same as rape.
I generally find anal to be looser than vaginal sex, at least past the initial penetration and sphincter muscles. My sample size is single digits so your mileage/tension may vary.
TMI, I know. Feel free to throw me back out of your club.
1) Many women can't feel the difference between a sheathed penis and an unsheathed one once it's inside, except perhaps at the base where it slaps up against the opening of the vagina and the little ring of latex or whatever can be detected sometimes and by some.
2) It's unlikely that women who insist on condoms don't care about their partner's pleasure, but condoms are the only reliable anti disease method (and still don't prevent all STIs) which is also a fairly reliable pregnancy preventative, too. Women are at far more risk than straight men of contracting something: the penis, as a doctor once told me when a committed boyfriend and I were getting tested prior to forgoing condoms, is a really good disease-spreading tool; the vagina, far less so. And of course, in the case of an unintended pregnancy, it's the woman left holding the bag, so to speak.
In other words, and just to reiterate the obvious, we're not trying to kill your buzz by reducing sensation just because we don't care--we have real, actual life-changing (sometimes even life-threatening) concerns that are mostly allayed by a man's wearing a condom.
3) Most long term, committed couples are able to get to a point of being able to go condom-less with each other. Very few women will/would insist on a condom with a partner she is monogamous with and whom she knows well and trusts. When you're involved in a real relationship, the condom rules often change.
@cute: I don't really disagree with any of your three points which is why I've always deferred - cheerfully - to my partner's wishes, but, that said:
1) sure, but does that mean her pleasure trumps mine? this is the explicit reason I mentioned cunnilingus and dental dams. Saying it's a form of contraception that's acceptable because it doesn't impact or limit her pleasure in any way is kind of like a guy insisting on HBC instead of a condom. It's not a valid reason to use them.
2) Indeed, they are the best all-purpose tool in the arsenal, and sadly, condoms aren't effective against all STIs. This is really the only reason I think condoms are the preferred method for random hookups.
3) Yes, I'm well aware, and with exactly one exception, this matches my entire personal history.
I just get a little tired of women - for whom condoms are generally undetectable - blasting men for disliking them and that dislike being the basis for being deemed socially unacceptable! I certainly acquiesce to the sensibility of condoms but please don't make it out like it's the same for men as women (essentially invisible). I know it might make women feel bad or selfish or whatever (bad fee fees as Dan has put it in other contexts) to think you might be asking your partner to accept slightly less pleasure as the price of admission, but don't, in your denial, project denial onto him for saying it reduces his pleasure.
If condoms didn't reduce sensation for men, none of this debate would be raging - most men would be happy to avoid unwanted STIs (is pregnancy an STI? A virus is a DNA injection...yes, penises were designed for just this!) and pregnancy and would just wear them. Not all, but most.
Gah. Ok, I need to chill.
Men who lose a shit-ton of sensation with condoms should make sure they have tried out all sizes of the expensive super-thin Japanese condoms, in case there's a condom now that suits them better than whatever they decided was their brand twenty years ago.
nocute@68, the condom rules can change yet again in long-term relationships which evolve into "open" relationships. We've used more condoms together in the past couple of years than we ever did at the start of our relationship -- I want to know he's confident he can come with a condom on. We ordered a sampler of condoms and he discovered he likes Okamoto Crown best.
Not consenting = Rape!
Sure, it's not popular. It's nearly impossible to prosecute. It's not knife wielding rape, but hell, look up date rape, peoples. He knew (12 times??) that she didn't want it. I'm with IPJ @19. If you have to repeat yourself more than twice for clarification, he is pushing your boundaries. That was a red flag. Walk away.
I didn't want to say it in my last post since she wasn't likely to get legal outside corroboration that it was rape. However, technically, she did not consent to what went down. Are we really going to go old school to the times when the prosecution asked the victim: "Did you have an orgasm?"
And yeah, maybe I am less talented than all of you, but I cannot tell the difference between a latex covered condom and a bare penis. I can't tell if I guy comes inside of me. And I've been in situations where the guy was rocking me with his fingers or his mouth and was able to get a condom on while I was in bliss. (One hand with teeth, former. Two hands with sense of touch, latter. It's not brain surgery, it's putting a piece of latex on a part that most guys are extremely intimately knowledgeable with.)
Oh and also wandering in late but
@69 "Saying it's a form of contraception that's acceptable because it doesn't impact or limit her pleasure in any way is kind of like a guy insisting on HBC instead of a condom."
Unfortunately, HBC and condoms are completely different. The HBC are 24/7 and can have a lot of side effects outside of sex, including reduced libido, moodiness, or physical side effects. So, a woman is asking a man to "suffer" for the duration of sex if they use a condom -- a man is asking a woman to put up with a lot more, if he insists on HBC. And, while a woman can't feel the condom inside of her, it does not mean that it doesn't negatively impact sex for her, since condoms are drying and can irritate the vagina. So if it makes you feel better -- no one likes condoms.
Also, women would probably be a lot less irritated with men expressing dislike of condoms if that dislike were not so often a tactic to bully or manipulate the woman into condomless sex. And again, it's hard to feel sorry for the pity parade when typical PIV sex is usually less pleasurable for women than men, as others have noted.
I do think you are absolutely right about the importance of fit and using lube (in the tip as well). If I ever wind up in the market for them again, I'll check out the japanese ultra-thin ones.
@73 - yep, agreed, a simple verifiable guarantee.
@74 - no, you're missing (and making) my point: the duration of the discomfort isn't the issue, the issue is that saying something is better because it's better for just one partner or because the discomfort and burden fall only on one partner is fundamentally selfish.
It is selfish for a man to to say 'HBC is better because even though it gives you wacky side effects, I can have sex and not suffer any side-effects from the BC'. Any guy who took that attitude you'd call out for being insensitive to his partner - whether or not she only had those side effects during sex. This is why I used the dental dam argument originally.
Is saying you can't reach orgasm from penetration alone "a tactic to bully or manipulate the" man into oral sex? No? It's just using your words to tell him what works and what doesn't, right?
What if he says he's not interested - no sex - unless he gets strictly PIV pump and dump? Is that manipulation, or just sticking up for what is important to him?
I have said, repeatedly, that I believe and agree condoms are the best all-purpose tool for avoiding pregnancy and STIs and that it's therefore quite reasonable to insist on them and quite reasonable to accept them as a necessary evil and the price of admission, and yet, it's not enough: one must love and embrace them because someone else might not feel good about the fact that you don't really like them and they do really, in fact, kind of interfere with it for you.
And yeah, I know what you mean about the drying thing - that resulted in chafing and pretty much is why I started faking a lot - just to end it.
I do want to repeat: this guy was a jerk (at best) and totally reneged on the deal he'd agreed to. I do think if you agree to something, then you must follow through and you ought to do so cheerfully (ie, don't be a sulking jerk).
@AFinch: #'s 71 and 74 really bring it home. Your analogy between men who insist on HBC and women who insist on condoms just doesn't work. I doubt that a woman has ever felt, "what's the big deal; I can't tell the difference."
WE GET IT: YOU DON'T LIKE CONDOMS. No one does. Furthermore, most women don't want to deprive their male partners of significant sensation and full enjoyment.
But what other risks to men's health and overall quality of life do condoms pose?
Because HBC elevates women's risk for stroke. It can cause weight gain, bloat, gas, or nausea, interfere with libido, dry out skin and hair. It also provides no protection against any STIs.
An accidental pregnancy ends only one of three ways:
*the woman has an abortion.
*the woman has the baby and gives it up for adoption.
*the woman has the baby and raises it herself, with or without the participation of the man.
All of these options include potential physical and emotional complications. They are life-changing events. The man can decide he wants no part of the whole thing; if the sex took place in the context of a casual hookup or a one-night stand, he might not be around in a few weeks when she discovers she's pregnant.
As EricaP pointed out, a lot of women experience diminished pleasure in casual sexual encounters; many don't come the first time or few times with a new person, yet they're at risk for infection/disease EVERY time they have sex with someone they don't know well, if condoms aren't used.
So sorry that women's valuing their quality of life has become so *socially acceptable* that it may infringe on a man's valuing getting his full sexual satisfaction in a random encounter.
I tend to try to put the condom on the guy myself, too. It's a lot more sexy - I'm not waiting on the side, slightly bored, until the guy is done with puting it on ; I'm actively participating.
I'm not very good at puting condoms on guy parts, so the guy will actually end up positioning the thing - but I love to valiantly try. That way I'm ready to give a lick or three if some undesirable softness sets in (if there's a clean bill of health, of course). For me, it's a part of having sex together, not a side action.
As for female sensations with or without condom.
For a partner I'm very used to, and with whom I might do condomless sex on occasions, the entry will feel different with a condom on (a bit colder, not as nice), but if the guy maintains a honest erection the feelings are totally alike with or without after a few minutes. So at the end, the condom may slip without either of us feeling anything.
For a partner with whom I never have condomless sex, sex with a condom on feels enjoyable enough that I don't even think of having sex without one.
My enjoyment of PiV sex depends mostly on my degree of readiness and on my partner (how much I like him as a person, and how good he is in bed), not on whether condoms are worn. When there's been bad or no oral sex before PiV, my vagina is unsufficiently excited and I have almost no sensations, as if my partner had a 1mm thick condom on, even if he's condomless.
I use thin ridged condoms, marketted "for her pleasure".
a) women shouldn't take risks of pregnancy or of STIs - something I'm not arguing - I agree, they shouldn't and I further agree: condoms are what should get used. I most definitely do not begrudge them their quality of life and their right to look out for their own well-being.
b) why hormonal birth control is worse than condoms. I don't disagree - for many women HBC is much worse than condoms are for men (for many it is not, however, and many women are quite happy with the effects of HBC on their bodies). I'm saying a guy would be a jerk for insisting on it strictly because the burden didn't fall on him.
You're arguing against straw men - things I'm not saying. Just stop saying 'condoms are no big deal'. Or, condoms don't affect the quality of the sex for men. Or, in the original case, 'it should be socially unacceptable for men to object to condoms". That's all I'm saying.
BTW: I'm painfully, first-hand familiar with the effects of the failure of HBC for even it's basic purpose, without getting into the issues of side-effects.
One can't compare the shared, and low level, discomfort of using a condom with the unshared burden of female HBC. For the record, if there were efficient HBC for guys, I would still use condoms - because it's still my body which would grow a child if the birth control failed - or if the guy was lying. And anyway, hormonal birth control doesn't protect from STIs.
My body can't take any existing forms of HBC. So I don't use any. That way, I can't be pressured to go condomless by casual partners who claim to be disease free. When faced with a condom or a child, the guys I meet nowadays have the good sense to actively stick to condoms.
Guys who unwillingly become fathers, and who complain that the partner has lied about her HBC ? If you really didn't want a child, you should have put a condom on, everytime. If you didn't, you deserve absolutely no sympathy.
AFinch : thanks for being a male voice ready to call on the guys who are jerks in matters of contraception. My comment on unwilling fathers was not meant for you at all - the cave man I was lashing at is my own brother.
Actually, I prefer condoms in many situations. I can last a lot longer and sometimes that's a plus. I even like them for when I'm being given a hand job -- most men are way to rough in their hand jobs for my liking, but with a condom on I can take a lot more rough hands and rough movement. As someone said above, it makes faking an orgasm easier -- I've had a lot of guys I'll fuck be unhappy unless I "finish" and they rarely check the condom to make sure.
The reasons you object to condoms are not the reasons "It should be socially unacceptable for men to object to condoms." *world's smallest cock-shaped violin plays wanly*
Everyone posting here should read the link posted @17 by zuulabelle
"Drawing on the conversation analytic literature, and on our own data, we claim that both men and women have a sophisticated ability to convey and to comprehend refusals, including refusals which do not include the word ‘no’, and we suggest that male claims not to have ‘understood’ refusals which conform to culturally normative patterns can only be heard as self-interested justifications for coercive behaviour."
The main reason "it should be socially unacceptable for men to object to condoms" is the cultural history of men and their "self-interested justifications for coercive behaviour" in regard to women and sex.
According to AFinch: "the issue is that saying something is better because it's better for just one partner or because the discomfort and burden fall only on one partner is fundamentally selfish."
I don't understand why AFinch so badly needs women to acknowledge that men don't like condoms for reasons that have nothing to do women, and because we don't (though many posters HAVE acknowledged that and more) we are being "fundamentally selfish."
Seems to me your entire point is fundamentally selfish. And beyond saying "I prefer condomless sex and I don't think that should make should make me socially unacceptable," I don't really understand your vehemence.
Unless, as I suspect, in this context "socially unacceptable" reads as "socially unfuckable" to you and being deemed not worthy enough to fuck based on your preference for condomless sex is really what's got your banana hammock in a twist.
Which, again, I don't understand because you say you use condoms and that you do not object to using them because otherwise you know wouldn't get sex. Obviously, it's not so important that you would flat out never have sex again unless it could be condomless every time.
We all make compromises, AFinch, it just so happens that the scales of reproduction are already tipped in your favor, which is why your posts tell me you're an entitled cock.
She did consent to his putting his penis in her vagina, which is exactly what he did.
She put a common and reasonable condition on that consent: that he wrap the damn thing in rubber. He violated that condition and her trust and proved himself to be an asshole.
I'm not sure what to think of your post. Is it that you really believe that not using a condom in the last lap of a consensual sexual encounter, and pulling-out before he came = spreading a woman's legs and using her body against her will? Those things are really equal to you?
Or is it that you believe in a misogynistic society that often repunishes rape victims over and over if they try to pursue justice, that it's just better to default to calling any sexual encounter that takes an ugly turn rape because victims need that extra level of support, and nuance is a small thing to sacrifice for that goal?
Otherwise, I’m not sure what the point is supposed to be. That you can't have unprotected sex, AND prevent pregnancy, AND prevent STIs, all while having one night stands and flings? Welcome to life! What exactly do you expect to be done about this? Or that it’s unfair how “socially unacceptable” it is to hate condoms? Actually it isn't. What's socially unacceptable is acting like condoms are this super heavy burden, or trying to trick your way out of wearing them every chance you get. As for that, well, sorry. It’s socially unacceptable to do a lot of stupid things. It’s also socially unacceptable to cough in people’s faces without covering your mouth; cry me a fucking river. Again, welcome to life.
Carry around female condoms and insist on those. Or only have sex in serious, monogamous commitments and go raw. Or find partners who don’t give a shit about condoms and suck it up when you get the clap. Or put numbing creams outside your condoms to make it more "fair." Or just deal with wearing condoms like a grownup.
But don’t try and paint condoms as some misandrist conspiracy to reduce men’s pleasure. It's not like that was a specific goal in their design. A woman who insists on condom use isn't “prioritizing her pleasure over yours” so much as “not being a fucking moron.” There’s a lot of obvious, useful shit that condoms do (STI prevention, pregnancy prevention), and I’m pretty sure that’s her motive for insisting on them; not just callous apathy towards your pleasure.
Once you enter an LTR with somebody, get tested, and earn some mutual trust, then you can decide to go raw. Until then, condoms aren’t some sexist favor that men are unfairly expected to do for women; they’re a means of disease prevention. Until some amazing fucking hero invents something better, wearing them doesn’t make you a tragic martyr.
**Compared to unprotected sex. But they fucking rule compared to getting HIV, having a crack baby, or putting your dick back in your pants and dealing with blue balls the rest of the night.
Complaints are strategic, and usually the strategy is a passive-aggressive way to get somebody to do something for you. (Obvs. not always the case -- sometimes shared complaints build rapport.)
Especially @84's: The main reason "it should be socially unacceptable for men to object to condoms" is the cultural history of men and their "self-interested justifications for coercive behaviour" in regard to women and sex.
THIS. THIS. THIS. THIS. THIS. THIS. THIS.
I'm not defaulting to the "men are all pigs" attitude.
But oh #86, i thank you for your very eloquent comment.
You're trying way too hard to rationalize her as a victim of rape. She said she didn't want to fuck without a condom, then sat on his dick, knowing full well he didn't have a condom (she says so herself). The guy is a douche bag and she's a hypocrite. Nobody wins, everybody loses.
Regardless, I think that if AFinch's premise "it's 'socially unacceptable'* for men to complain about condoms" is true, it is only true in so much as there is a stereotype about men whining about condoms in order to engage in condomless sex. Maybe this is incorrect (hence the heavily qualified anecdotal tags) but I do think you could find instances of this trope in fiction, television, etc. Finch's other hypothetical "selfish" acts like a woman "saying [she] can't reach orgasm from penetration alone [as] 'a tactic to bully or manipulate the' man into oral sex" I don't think have achieved the same level of trope-iness... and again, I speculate, for the good reason of it doesn't happen. Also, incidentally, AFinch seems to have missed the distinction between articulating desires without pressuring a partner (whether for oral sex, or only PIV sex, whether the desire is selfish or not) and outright complaining.
Complaining about having to wear condoms during sex comes across as incredibly, I dunno, ungrateful. Like, having sex is not enough -- you have to make a passive agressive big stink and complain about every little thing that isn't perfectly in your favor. I don't expect my male partners to embrace or love condoms any more than I do. I don't think anybody does. I do feel like complaining about them either feels manipulative (he's hoping I'll say "yeah, me too, let's not use one") or, it's just an attempt at a pity party which isn't deserved.
*To be honest I have no idea what they meant by "socially unacceptable" here, since I do not think at the general level or in all spheres it is unacceptable.
I hate them. I have never, ever tried to talk a partner into having sex without them.
Pro tip: the "thin" condoms really do feel better.
One thing where I think it mattered that she was a woman: I believe his pov would be that she only worried about condoms for pregnancy prevention because she wasn't sure she could count on him to pull out. (That is, every time she brought up condoms that's what he was determined to hear.) And so his "I've got it" meant "I'll withdraw and not get you pregnant." It's hard to claim you thought your male partner was only worried he might get pregnant.
Look, for the gazillionth time: I use condoms; I don't whine and bitch and guilt my partners about it. I agree that condoms are about the ideal solution for casual sex encounters (ie, non fluid-bonded). I would use one with a new partner whether or not she asked for it - until we'd been tested (and had a clean bill of health) and monogamous for a while. I am not an 'entitled prick' playing a small dick violin (but way to go all ad-hominem).
I do object to the notion that it's not socially acceptable (and yes, this means "socially unfuckable") just because previous generations of the Evil Misogynist Patriarchy were assholes.
The assertion was that men should not even have the right to express a desire for certain activities and I think that's just wrong on it's face.
Of course women don't pressure men for oral sex the same way men pressure women for condomless sex - that is a thought exercise: men are socialized to be more assertive and women are socialized (though clearly not on SLOG!) to be deferential - in fact, I suspect this is why women would prefer to make it unacceptable for men to ask for condomless sex rather than having to be the ones to insist on it.
I don't think that's it's right that women are socialized to be deferential and I don't think baking that in by accommodating it is helpful. Take a little ownership for your own demands and be assertive about them (yes, that's right, you'll have to listen to some assholes whine - when they do, you can deem them socially unfuckable and dump them).