Slog
News & ArtsMonday, March 11, 2013
Savage Love SL Letter of the Day: The Missing Condom
Posted by Dan Savage on Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 4:30 PM
I am a happily married lady in a poly relationship.
My husband and I date other people and have had no problems with it. We have two rules about dating: 1) complete honesty and full disclosure; and 2) we only have unprotected sex with each other. I was on a date with a new partner last night and then we went back to his place to make out. We decided to have sex for the first time, talked about condoms and agreed that we were going to use them. He didn’t have lube and the condom got dry after a while, so he pulled out and we went back to making out. 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.) So we’re making out and waiting for me to get lubricated enough to go again. He pushes his dick against my pussy opening and I say, “No, we can’t do that.” And he replies, “Oh, don’t worry—I’ve got it.” Which I take to mean that he has put on another one. We have sex for a few minutes and then he pulls out and cums on my stomach. Fuck.
I feel terrible about this for multiple reasons. And I am conflicted as to whether I’m responsible for this happening or not. I talked to him about it before I left that night and he said that I seemed like I had consented with my body language. In all honesty, I wanted to have unprotected sex the same way I think that everyone does. And I guess I had been rubbing up against him. But isn’t that what everyone does when they’re making out? Should I have been more explicit about condom usage? Could I have been?!? Should I have just stopped everything after he suggested that we not use one? I feel betrayed and dirty and sad and guilty. I’m all mixed up about who was responsible for what. I feel like I “cheated” on my husband.
Who's The Failure Here?
P.S. And FYI, I told my husband immediately after and he doesn’t feel that I did something wrong. Please help me figure this out, I’m don’t know how to understand what happened.
My response after the jump...
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
First off, WTFH, you made yourself crystal clear. You consented to sex on the condition that condoms were used and condoms weren't used. You are not at fault here. He is.
But I gotta say...
I've never had sex with someone—I've never rolled around and made out with a guy—and not noticed the moment when he paused to put on a condom. Ripping a condom packet open, making sure you've got the condom right-side-up, rolling it down your dick: all of that requires both hands and momentarily shifting focus away from the person with whom you're rolling around. I've never fucked a guy who could put a condom on so stealthily that I didn't perceive it. There are no condom ninjas. 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.
In this particular case, WTFH, the dude said something ambiguous and you didn't ask for clarity. (You didn't even look down.) So it seems possible that you may have heard what you wanted to hear. When he said, “Oh, don’t worry—I’ve got it,” it's possible you heard, "Oh, don't worry—I put a condom on," because you didn't want to think this guy was the asshole he clearly is. What would that say about your taste and your judgment? Or maybe you heard "Oh, don't worry—I put a condom on" because, as you stated in your letter, you wanna have unprotected sex the same way everyone else does. And perhaps, in this instance, in the heat of the moment, this asshole's self-serving and highly ambiguous statement and your prior insistence on condoms created an opportunity to have unprotected sex without your having to take responsibility for choosing to have unprotected sex.
I'm not trying to make you feel worse, WTFH, and I'm not saying it's your fault. But we sometimes we find ourselves in situations where ambiguous and/or misunderstood statements, our own powerful desires, and conscious or subconscious acts of self-sabotage result in us doing something we didn't want to do and we deeply regret. Please don't mistake me: I'm not exonerating the asshole who violated you. It's possible, I suppose, that he made a sincere mistake that he feels terrible about. But I doubt it. Anyone who say things like, "But it seemed like you consented with your body language!", can't be trusted in the sack or anywhere else. I believe he mislead you on purpose to get the condom-free sex he wanted.
You need to give yourself a break, WTFH. There's no need to feel dirty and sad and guilty. We all make mistakes, we are all taken advantage of at times. You have a right to feel betrayed and violated and I think you should call the asshole and give him a piece of your mind. Then make up your mind to take pride in the fact that you told your husband what happened and comfort in the fact that your husband reacted with compassion and understanding.
UPDATE:
@amandamarcotte Can I get a ruling here, Amanda? Did I blow this response? Second opinion? slog.thestranger.com/blogs/slog/mob… — Dan Savage (@fakedansavage) March 12, 2013
@fakedansavage It sounds like he stretched the definition of "ambiguous" to the breaking point. I would have avoided second guessing her. — Amanda Marcotte (@AmandaMarcotte) March 12, 2013
@fakedansavage Probably worth saying, "For future reference, guys who test boundaries should not be trusted to do what they say." — Amanda Marcotte (@AmandaMarcotte) March 12, 2013
@amandamarcotte Agreed, and feel like I did- guy's an asshole, can't be trusted. But would you call this rape, as some of my readers have?
— Dan Savage (@fakedansavage) March 12, 2013
@fakedansavage It's not prosecutable, but for friends this has happened to, I find labeling it a kind of sexual assault can be clarifying.
— Amanda Marcotte (@AmandaMarcotte) March 12, 2013
@fakedansavage As in, it helps women see why seeing that guy again is a bad, bad idea.
— Amanda Marcotte (@AmandaMarcotte) March 12, 2013
@fakedansavage That's why I don't like seeing this as a black-or-white thing. We have degrees of assault for a reason.
— Amanda Marcotte (@AmandaMarcotte) March 12, 2013
@crobins72ca @fakedansavage Also helpful to think of a guy who does this as having the same motivations as a rapist: power, violation.
— Amanda Marcotte (@AmandaMarcotte) March 12, 2013
@luxnightmare @fakedansavage Men who enjoy hurting women are often gaming how to do it without getting in trouble. Something to remember.
— Amanda Marcotte (@AmandaMarcotte) March 12, 2013
@luxnightmare @fakedansavage Agreed. If she wasn't diligent, well, women are conditioned to fear the word "nag" like it's acid in your face.
— Amanda Marcotte (@AmandaMarcotte) March 12, 2013
@amandamarcotte @fakedansavage Yep! And the number of times I have heard, "I never do that, but you got me so turned on." UGH.
— Lux Alptraum (@luxnightmare) March 12, 2013
@amandamarcotte @fakedansavage Plus I think men not seeing it as "rape" or assault gives them license to justify doing it.
— Lux Alptraum (@luxnightmare) March 12, 2013
@amandamarcotte @fakedansavage (Sorry, like nine different guys have pulled this move on me so it's an issue that gets me riled up.)
— Lux Alptraum (@luxnightmare) March 12, 2013
@luxnightmare @fakedansavage No, it's important! The most helpful discussion is to talk about why men do this. Helps women game it.
— Amanda Marcotte (@AmandaMarcotte) March 12, 2013
3
Good answer, Dan. But is there something else, about her having a level of trust in this guy that wasn't a good fit? What happens going forward - how can one to learn to trust/distrust people the right amount for casual hookups?
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.
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.
4
He had sex with you in a way you explicitly did not consent to. The guy is a rapist. And he uses a typical rapist's excuse. Do not ever be involved with him in any way ever again.
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.
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.
6
@3 How can anyone be ever expected to "fully trust" a casual partner ?
@LW : this partner has proven himself to be a manipulating asshole, don't ever hook up with him again.
@LW : this partner has proven himself to be a manipulating asshole, don't ever hook up with him again.
9
You know, whenever I'm having sex with a guy, *I* put the condom on him. Mostly because then you can turn a sort of annoying, mood-killing act into something sexy, but also partially so that I know it's there. Is this not something people do regularly?
11
That you'd clearly negotiated for condom sex, only -
"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.
More...
"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.
12
I think you are too hard on her.
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.
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.
13
Bit of a tangent here, but I'm curious - how common is it that a woman's vajuicy can't distinguish cock from latex? Not sure if I've ever been with someone who couldn't tell the difference.
14
@4: Nonverbal communication does matter, and in real actual-not-hypothetical sex is the norm. If you say "I want X but not Y" and when Y starts you happily cooperate, your partner has every reason to think you communicated a change of mind. If when Y starts you say "no" and firmly push away, you're consistent. And if your partner starts in with Y again at any point in that particular encounter, you should put your clothes on and leave.
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.
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.
15
@13: As with men (per the last missing condom letter), it depends on a lot of subtle factors: sometimes yes, sometimes no, sometimes it takes a while. Never assume the other person can just tell the condom is now off and their lack of vocalizing on the issue means they agree.
Lack of putting on a condom is another thing to miss entirely.
Lack of putting on a condom is another thing to miss entirely.
16
The jerk owes the LW new test results for all STIs, and the HIV test should be the RNA version. If he did this with her, he's done it with others who are probably less safe than the LW.
17
It's not that they don't understand, they just don't like the answer.
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.
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.
18
I have no poly experience, whatsoever. So I will put it in a different context:
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.
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.
19
Further thought: the dozen times she mentioned the condom rule, were those her proactively bringing it up? Or was that him repeatedly saying "now we don't REALLY need to use condoms, or not the whole time, and it's more fun without..."?
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.
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.
20
I'm with @11. The moment he penetrated her under circumstances she had expressly NOT consented to, it became rape. I would feel dirty and violated, too.
21
@9, yes, agreed.
@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.
@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.
22
That one line: "In all honesty, I wanted to have unprotected sex the same way I think that everyone does" throws a wrench into the situation. It's the only thing that makes me question if she did really give a mixed message. No mention of alcohol or drugs which could make their judgement less reliable.
Doesn't matter really, the guy was clearly a selfish prick and stupid to risk getting an STI from her or getting her pregnant.
Doesn't matter really, the guy was clearly a selfish prick and stupid to risk getting an STI from her or getting her pregnant.
23
In "The Gift of Fear" something Gavin de Becker brings up is that anyone who does not accept your "no" has an agenda. Same would go for someone who needs a rule repeated multiple times - he has something in mind, and it will benefit him, not necessarily you.
24
Which I take to mean that he has put on another one.
Haha! Bullshit, she totally knew.
In all honesty, I wanted to have unprotected sex the same way I think that everyone does.
Still a rationalization, but closer to the truth.
25
@22: She's not sending a mixed message; if she brought up the insistence on condoms repeatedly, she was sending a very clear message. Like so many women who blame themselves when their boundaries are crossed, she's acknowledging a *feeling* she had and assigning some portion of the guilt to herself when it was the man who was 100% in the wrong. And then others are listening to her and concluding that indeed she is partially at fault. This is not unlike a woman who was date or acquaintance raped saying to herself "I feel like I'm partly to blame, because, in all honesty, I liked it that he was clearly admiring the way I looked." Women do that to themselves all the time.
Listen, WTFH, you are not to blame for this. Your naivete doesn't justify his violation. But really, take #19's advice to heart.
Listen, WTFH, you are not to blame for this. Your naivete doesn't justify his violation. But really, take #19's advice to heart.
26
The Condom Rule should be heard, absorbed and respected the FIRST TIME. Anytime I've been in a casual encounter and this was not the case- when I had to repeat myself- I saw myself to the door and never called back. It might sound harsh but I've saved myself some serious bullshit.
28
@lolorhone: The Condom Rule should be heard, absorbed and respected the FIRST TIME
Sure, but what if the dude's like totally hot?
Sure, but what if the dude's like totally hot?
30
That happened to me. I knew he didn't have a condom on and I pushed him off within seconds. That was the last time I saw that guy and I later made him apologize for raping me. I didn't accept "we were both drunk" as an excuse.
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.
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.
31
@27 Assanged -- good one. Also gets at how in Sweden there are "degrees" of sexual assault and they include a level where somebody does something nonconsensual during an encounter. That's a good idea as it emphasizes it is criminal, but doesn't lessen the magnitude of entirely nonconsensual assaults.
32
@25 Won't argue with you, very likely it is her rationalizing why it happened and trying to take some of the blame.
I'm sure there are lessons here but there always are when you have 20/20 hindsight.
I'm sure there are lessons here but there always are when you have 20/20 hindsight.
33
EVERYONE MISSED IT: THE BOY IS A BOTTOM! (or at least vers.)
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...
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...
34
With such amazing powers of deduction (i.e. first to notice the bleeding obvious), I think I should get lifetime free tickets for 2 to HUMP plus behind the scenes annual cocktails with Dan.
35
I'm kind of dispirited buy the devaluation of the word Rape on here tonight. I hope the letter writer has the sense never to see this douche again, clearly her trust was violated. And I hate being in the position of saying something that could be misconstrued as defending him - his actions described in this letter are indefensible.
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.
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.
37
@13: My vagina mostly seems to notice pressure and temperature but can't really tell differences of texture, if that makes any sense. I can't feel a difference between skin and latex in my pussy.
39
@33, 34. I doubt very much Dan is pure top or pure bottom. Versatile is the word, I think.
So no freebies--demerits, rather, for being so smug and self-congratulatory over such a dubious 'insight.'
So no freebies--demerits, rather, for being so smug and self-congratulatory over such a dubious 'insight.'
40
@35 I see your point, but you run the risk of defining some rapes as "legitimate" or not. Todd Akin territory. If we were all Swedish and enlightened, we'd have a legal spectrum of rapes, but we don't. We have "counts" or "doesn't count", "innocent victim" or "lying whore". We could call this situation "penetration under nonconsensual circumstances via manipulation rather than physical force", if you like.
41
@40 Except, you know, there's the part where she says she wanted the dick without condom.
Yes, the guy was an obvious douchebag. But she wanted the douchebag's dick.
Yes, the guy was an obvious douchebag. But she wanted the douchebag's dick.
42
Invite him back into your bed, make like you have a special surprise for him, blindfold him, and when he is good and ready for things to get started, kick him in the balls. Hard. Several times.
43
" He pushes his dick against my pussy opening and I say, “No, we can’t do that.” And he replies, “Oh, don’t worry—I’ve got it.”
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.
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.
44
@28: The second one was hot. Like Brazilian summer transfer student hot. It fucking sucked walking out on that, but rules is rules, you know? I didn't have to go get tested next day, so there's a win in there somewhere.
45
@41: Except, you know, there's the part where wanting something isn't the same thing as actually consenting to it.
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?
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?
46
Change the activity involved and the relationship in the case and I could have written this letter several times over. I think Ms Cute comes nearest the mark on this one. I suppose that becoming much more forceful about hard limits might have prevented one or two violations, but in actuality feeling less entitled to limits at all wasn't conducive.
47
@33, @34 Nah, actually all that tells us is that Dan has bottomed at some point in his life. If you've read his books, that's not news.
48
Maybe you people need lawyers in the room to help your sex lives? Only Americans could make sex so litigious.
"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?
"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?
49
@41 - Yes, the guy was an obvious douchebag. But she wanted the douchebag's dick.
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...
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...
50
Reluctance towards condoms should be socially unacceptable. If you can't be cheerful about protection, everyone in a ten-mile radius should know you're not a viable sex partner.
51
Re 35, 40: More broadly than this letter, I don't like the trend toward defining sex one party later regrets as rape. "Her body language said yes" can mean "when she helped take her clothes off and get our bodies positioned correctly." (There was a touching letter a while back from a young lesbian who had things with a friend go farther than she intended, and now the friend thought they were deeply bonded and the LW felt sad and dirty. A few people wanted to define that as rape since she didn't really want to have sex but didn't want to disappoint her friend by saying no.) If you say "I don't want to do more than kiss" and things start to go farther, and you melt into it, your partner will probably take that as "yes." Seduction, being carried away in the moment, it feels forbidden but it feels so good, all are tropes of lovemaking. It's on both parties to match their body language to what they say they want to happen.
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.
More...
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.
52
@47 well, haven't we all.
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 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]
54
@40 You're right, I was keenly aware of the whole "legitimate" rape BS when I wrote the post. That's why I included the "violence, coercion, or incapacity to give meaningful consent" mention. You can't score the seriousness of a rape based on the rapist's technique. Rape is rape.
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.
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.
55
@49: "does the fact that he's a boundary-pusher give him bad-boy sexy?"
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.
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.
56
@50 - Give me a break - tell you what, let's just encase your clit in a layer of latex to make good and sure you have an easy time getting to orgasm! Does a Dental Dam (or, as one of Dan's sensible medical advisors suggested to lesbian worried about STIs: a cut open condom) leave your clit just as sensitive to your lover's tongue?
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.
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.
57
@54 so how many years should condomless guy get on McNeil island? What should the sentencing guidelines be? Any takers?
58
I can't believe he'd want to fuck this tramp WITHOUT a condom. I wouldn't touch her with my worst enemy's cock.
59
Wait, did the troll actually read my posts? I'm the one who said "condomless guy" is a douche-bag, not a criminal.
60
Changing my profile name to Sherlock.
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…
More...
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…
61
@56 - Mrs. Horton and I are firmly in your club. Not sure if that makes your club more or less appealing.
62
@61 - as long as it's same-room only, and no swapping, we're good with it!
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.
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.
63
@60: The fact that no one joined your fun in the intervening 30 posts was supposed to be a clue.
@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.
@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.
64
56, in the case of the great condom eating vagina (which turned out to be guys going soft and someone not putting the condom on correctly) there were a few guys who had lost a condom and not noticed until the end, just like the letter writer's boy toy. That the change in sensation varied by both person and how far along things were.
65
@60, I'd say Kremlinologist more than Sherlock. That is some fine tea-leaf-stringing-together, there, sir.
66
Nope, Dan, you blew it. I agree with #11; she explicitly negotiated her boundaries and he explicitly ignored them. Not OK.
67
@62 - Last time I was lamenting my married status with my single friend who has a small concubine of beautiful women, his one word reply made me feel better: condoms. His analogy - like going to a five star restaurant with cling wrap on your tongue and taste buds.
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.
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.
68
A couple of points (especially for Tim Horton and AFinch):
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.
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.
69
@horton - Heh..um, my sample size is larger, but not statistically significant. Nope, happy to have you all in the club.
@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.
More...
@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.
70
@68 - all good points. I am not bashing the necessity of condoms. After my high school girlfriend's pregnancy scare at age 16, I wore them religiously during casual encounters. Much like the hockey visor, the state of Iowa and those LiveJasmin pop-up ads on my free porn websites, condoms are a necessary evil.
71
@AFinch, casual sex is often more pleasurable for men than for women. So reduced sensation because of condoms may just be making the sex equivalent for the two partners.
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.
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.
72
Hey, you know what?
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.)
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.)
73
@69 There's another reason why they're preferred for hookups: It's possible to tell whether one's partner is using them. If someone has a vasectomy or is on the pill (or doesn't have any STIs), you've got to take his or her word for it. Not so with condoms.
74
I really sympathize with the woman's conflicted feelings -- the same thing happened with me, only it was with a "friend" (male) penetrating me when I didn't want to have sex (and was very drunk). Struggling with feeling violated while at the same time questioning whether one has the "right" to feel that way is a terrible thing.
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.
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.
75
I really want a cigarette right now, but as someone that has decided not to smoke for the past several years, I would be really fucking upset if someone shoved one in my mouth while I was sleeping and didn't consent to it. Kind of like how I would be upset if someone stuck their bare dick in me when I only consented to protected sex. Even though I really like bare dick/cigarettes.
76
@71 - I'm sorry but "leveling the pleasure playing field" WTF? He should be upping his game if the sex isn't as good for you as it is for him, and I wonder how you actually know this (that casual sex is in general not as good for women as men) anyway to make such a broad statement.
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).
More...
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).
77
@75: Thank you!
@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.
More...
@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.
79
@9 Your valuable contribution was unjustly ignored.
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".
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".
80
@77 - I'm sorry, once again, you're getting off into justifying why:
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.
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.
81
@77 Very good post.
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.
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.
82
@AFinch and nocutename : it seems to me that you're mostly agreeing with one another ?
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.
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.
83
@77 "WE GET IT: YOU DON'T LIKE CONDOMS. No one does."
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.
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.
84
@ AFinch
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.
More...
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.
85
@ 72, not consenting to what = rape?
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?
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?
86
If we’re all just idly bitching about condoms the same way one might bitch about the weather, then I’m right there with you! Condoms suck**!
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.
More...
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.
89
@76, sorry, but regardless of whether you do it -- at least in my personal experience and maybe other women can back this up -- guys bring up their complaints of condoms primarily to needle for condomless sex, in a way I have NEVER heard of women doing to pressure a guy into giving them oral sex.
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.)
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.)
90
Also, @84 and @86. THIS.
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.
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.
91
I'm confused, but it seems to me that what WTFH is describing is an open marriage and not a poly relationship. Sorry for the digression.
92
Except for Ms Cute's, I don't know the extent of any of the posters' gender essentialism. Any of you who could clarify how much it matters that this was an opposite-sex encounter would be providing a significant assist to correct interpretation.
93
@92 (Mr. Van): My agreement with #89 notwithstanding, I don't know if I think gender essentialism comes into this, though at first I would have said so. Perhaps this represents the perfect storm of the intersection of selfishness and being the one who should be wearing the condom in any particular act and with any particular partner. I guess I tend, as most of us do, to think of an issue in light of my own perspective an experience, but there is no reason the person who is being pressured and nagged couldn't also be a man.
I'm not defaulting to the "men are all pigs" attitude.
But oh #86, i thank you for your very eloquent comment.
I'm not defaulting to the "men are all pigs" attitude.
But oh #86, i thank you for your very eloquent comment.
94
Thanks @21 and @79! I sort of decided to take the thread's disinterest in that technique as a resounding "no, people don't do that," but I'm glad to see that I'm not actually the only one.
95
Except, you know, there's the part where wanting something isn't the same thing as actually consenting to it.
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.
96
@92, I don't believe in any sort of inherent differences based in sex or gender identity. (If I'm interpreting your question correctly.)
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.
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.
97
Might have also pointed out that prolonged naked grinding before putting on a condom is far from perfect use. There's a risk to everything and maybe this still falls well within her and her husband's comfort zones, but it seems like a lot of people use condoms badly and expect full protection.
98
Disliking condoms is fine. Trying to weasel out of using them with a non-fluid-bonded partner is not. It's part of the price of admission.
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.
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.
99
@93: I thought Dan's switch of the situation to two men (unacceptable if one person had insisted on condoms, but the second bore some responsibility for noticing no condom had been applied) worked well by removing the gender aspect.
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.
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.
100
Dear $deity -
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).
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).
101
Finch, I think you read "no man may express any opinion on whether condoms reduce sensation" where most people read "no man should protest using condoms for casual nonmonogamous sex."
102
As a single woman, I buy and keep on hand condoms. I'm in need of a resupply. So in light of this discussion, what brand(s) would people recommend the help maximize sensation for the wearer? I currently have Kimono.
104
@101 - you may be right; I was reacting to:
Reluctance towards condoms should be socially unacceptable.
...and I don't think I was reading challenged.
This part I actually whole-heartedly agree with:
If you can't be cheerful about protection, everyone in a ten-mile radius should know you're not a viable sex partner.
I conflated these to read "cheerful about condoms"...and I don't think that is a clearly wrong mis-reading. Anyway, yes, we were arguing past each other.
Reluctance towards condoms should be socially unacceptable.
...and I don't think I was reading challenged.
This part I actually whole-heartedly agree with:
If you can't be cheerful about protection, everyone in a ten-mile radius should know you're not a viable sex partner.
I conflated these to read "cheerful about condoms"...and I don't think that is a clearly wrong mis-reading. Anyway, yes, we were arguing past each other.
105
@102 - I am probably not the best person to give advice on this, based on my experiences.
I am - as far as I know - an average sized guy; I don't have any real experience with other erect penises. However, I tried Durex (they sucked) and regular Trojans (marginally better) and got some relief from magnums (which were not available in ultra-thin). I'm not a huge guy and I don't have an inflated view of my dick, so it wasn't obvious to me that I was struggling with something too snug. So, what I'd suggest is: have an assortment of sizes on hand.
I got the advice on using some lube in the tip (this helps the tip slip around on the guy's sensitive head and can vastly improve the stimulation).
I don't want to violate the TOS for the stranger, but I found an online "depot" which had much better options (variety) than I could easily find in my college town pharmacies.
Good luck and sorry to have been antagonistic.
I am - as far as I know - an average sized guy; I don't have any real experience with other erect penises. However, I tried Durex (they sucked) and regular Trojans (marginally better) and got some relief from magnums (which were not available in ultra-thin). I'm not a huge guy and I don't have an inflated view of my dick, so it wasn't obvious to me that I was struggling with something too snug. So, what I'd suggest is: have an assortment of sizes on hand.
I got the advice on using some lube in the tip (this helps the tip slip around on the guy's sensitive head and can vastly improve the stimulation).
I don't want to violate the TOS for the stranger, but I found an online "depot" which had much better options (variety) than I could easily find in my college town pharmacies.
Good luck and sorry to have been antagonistic.
106
My thanks to those who specified.
I often have difficulty with posts by posters of whom I've not yet formed a strong impression that mention How Women Are Socialized and then basically leave it at that. Except with such people as Ms Cute, with whom I've had enough conversations to know in general how she intends things, I'm at a loss to know which of multiple interpretations to apply. I've seen such a prelude used simply to explain why some things happen more often to women, to say that men have noone to blame but themselves if they are mistreated, or to give women only a pass for not preventing an encounter from going off in a bad direction.
In this case, clearly the mixed sexes were going to matter because pregnancy potential would be a factor. But there were various posts that could have been interpreted in multiple ways.
I often have difficulty with posts by posters of whom I've not yet formed a strong impression that mention How Women Are Socialized and then basically leave it at that. Except with such people as Ms Cute, with whom I've had enough conversations to know in general how she intends things, I'm at a loss to know which of multiple interpretations to apply. I've seen such a prelude used simply to explain why some things happen more often to women, to say that men have noone to blame but themselves if they are mistreated, or to give women only a pass for not preventing an encounter from going off in a bad direction.
In this case, clearly the mixed sexes were going to matter because pregnancy potential would be a factor. But there were various posts that could have been interpreted in multiple ways.
107
Dan,
FWIW I think your response was letter perfect.
The guy was clearly a douche bag and manipulating the situation and you made that clear. However, the letter writer facilitated what happened by choosing not to check, as she admits most likely due to her own desires and the heat of the moment.
FWIW I think your response was letter perfect.
The guy was clearly a douche bag and manipulating the situation and you made that clear. However, the letter writer facilitated what happened by choosing not to check, as she admits most likely due to her own desires and the heat of the moment.
108
@100
"I am not an 'entitled prick' playing a small dick violin."
Actually, I said: "*world's smallest cock-shaped violin plays wanly*" but, since everything is about you, I also said that "your posts tell me you're an entitled cock."
"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."
Ah, there it is, I called it: you don't like the thought that women can deem you unfuckable because of your personal opinions and preferences, especially when those preferences have a history of being manipulated and extorted, or in the case of this LW, TAKEN from women. And you don't like the fact that your gender's cultural history of oppressing women on the basis of sex negatively affects your ability to attract sex partners and the context in which those potential sex partners perceive you.
Wank me a fuckin' river.
Also, newsflash: "previous generations," do not have a monopoly on "the Evil Misogynist Patriarchy." We are not living in a post-patriarchal world, as evidenced by the LW's experience as well as your own unexamined male privilege on this thread.
"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."
Speaking of straw cocks, no one is saying this! This is akin to those free speech discrimination complaints people make after saying ignorant or discriminatory remarks and they don't like that other people also have that right and use it to call the commenter on their bullshit. Again, wah-wah, sad penis.
"Of course women don't pressure men for oral sex the same way men pressure women for condomless sex - that is a thought exercise."
A completely false comparison made in bad faith--there is no point to this "thought exercise" as many of us have pointed out. And which you acknowledge in the same breath as you carry on:
"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."
Hah! Another between the lines revelation: "women are socialized (though clearly not on SLOG!) to be deferential"--and you don't like this! That women, like those of us on SLOG, are no longer reliably "deferential" and are changing and leveling the playing field in the public and private spheres.
YES PLEASE
Let's change the culture so that men know not to expect condomless sex OR consent so that women no longer have "to be the [only] ones to insist on" safe, respectful, enthusiastically-consented to sex.
Otherwise, we will continue to see this entitled, douche-bro, miogynist school of thought re: consent as kindly provided by @95:
"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)."
Not only does @95 misconstrue the incident: saying "[she] sat on his dick," when the LW states: "Which I take to mean that he has put on another [condom]. We have sex for a few minutes and then he pulls out and cums on my stomach. Fuck;" he also has no fucking clue what "rape" or "consent" mean. "You're trying way too hard to rationalize her as a victim of rape." Really? I think you're projecting your, what did Dan call them? Oh, right. Your hurt "fee-fees" that rapists are overwhelmingly men; you are a man, so this LW's sex partner's transgression of her consent and thus, yes, that means he raped her, hits, perhaps, a little too close to home.
Most rapists don't think of themselves as rapists because they are otherwise good people and rapists aren't good people willfully ignorant about consent, they are bogeymen with "rapist" tattooed on their forehead who jump out of bushes and kidnap women and violently gang-rape them on buses in India. But not here, not men like you! And everyone in our patriarchal society knows that a rape victim isn't a rape victim unless she's a completely innocent virgin and nearly or actually beaten to death--pssha, this LW is SO NOT a victim, amirite, fellas?
@35 "I'm kinda dispirited buy the devaluation of the word Rape on here."
Who's really devaluing the word "rape" on this thread? Certainly not me or anyone who takes it and consent seriously, that's for fuckin sure. "Kinda dispirited" are you? Aw! How sweet and concern troll-y of you! Just imagine how "dispirited" our rape culture makes women. Talk out about an understatement. Not to mention oh so helpful and constructive!
Time to examine your own behavior in past sexual interactions. Now THAT is a worthy "thought exercise" based in reality.
Back to @100:
"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"
All of your posts on this thread stem from one particular "whine" and you contradict yourself all over the place. Congratulations! By your own standard as stated above, you have hereby been deemed an asshole and unfuckable!
Take heed, sisters.
More...
"I am not an 'entitled prick' playing a small dick violin."
Actually, I said: "*world's smallest cock-shaped violin plays wanly*" but, since everything is about you, I also said that "your posts tell me you're an entitled cock."
"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."
Ah, there it is, I called it: you don't like the thought that women can deem you unfuckable because of your personal opinions and preferences, especially when those preferences have a history of being manipulated and extorted, or in the case of this LW, TAKEN from women. And you don't like the fact that your gender's cultural history of oppressing women on the basis of sex negatively affects your ability to attract sex partners and the context in which those potential sex partners perceive you.
Wank me a fuckin' river.
Also, newsflash: "previous generations," do not have a monopoly on "the Evil Misogynist Patriarchy." We are not living in a post-patriarchal world, as evidenced by the LW's experience as well as your own unexamined male privilege on this thread.
"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."
Speaking of straw cocks, no one is saying this! This is akin to those free speech discrimination complaints people make after saying ignorant or discriminatory remarks and they don't like that other people also have that right and use it to call the commenter on their bullshit. Again, wah-wah, sad penis.
"Of course women don't pressure men for oral sex the same way men pressure women for condomless sex - that is a thought exercise."
A completely false comparison made in bad faith--there is no point to this "thought exercise" as many of us have pointed out. And which you acknowledge in the same breath as you carry on:
"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."
Hah! Another between the lines revelation: "women are socialized (though clearly not on SLOG!) to be deferential"--and you don't like this! That women, like those of us on SLOG, are no longer reliably "deferential" and are changing and leveling the playing field in the public and private spheres.
YES PLEASE
Let's change the culture so that men know not to expect condomless sex OR consent so that women no longer have "to be the [only] ones to insist on" safe, respectful, enthusiastically-consented to sex.
Otherwise, we will continue to see this entitled, douche-bro, miogynist school of thought re: consent as kindly provided by @95:
"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)."
Not only does @95 misconstrue the incident: saying "[she] sat on his dick," when the LW states: "Which I take to mean that he has put on another [condom]. We have sex for a few minutes and then he pulls out and cums on my stomach. Fuck;" he also has no fucking clue what "rape" or "consent" mean. "You're trying way too hard to rationalize her as a victim of rape." Really? I think you're projecting your, what did Dan call them? Oh, right. Your hurt "fee-fees" that rapists are overwhelmingly men; you are a man, so this LW's sex partner's transgression of her consent and thus, yes, that means he raped her, hits, perhaps, a little too close to home.
Most rapists don't think of themselves as rapists because they are otherwise good people and rapists aren't good people willfully ignorant about consent, they are bogeymen with "rapist" tattooed on their forehead who jump out of bushes and kidnap women and violently gang-rape them on buses in India. But not here, not men like you! And everyone in our patriarchal society knows that a rape victim isn't a rape victim unless she's a completely innocent virgin and nearly or actually beaten to death--pssha, this LW is SO NOT a victim, amirite, fellas?
@35 "I'm kinda dispirited buy the devaluation of the word Rape on here."
Who's really devaluing the word "rape" on this thread? Certainly not me or anyone who takes it and consent seriously, that's for fuckin sure. "Kinda dispirited" are you? Aw! How sweet and concern troll-y of you! Just imagine how "dispirited" our rape culture makes women. Talk out about an understatement. Not to mention oh so helpful and constructive!
Time to examine your own behavior in past sexual interactions. Now THAT is a worthy "thought exercise" based in reality.
Back to @100:
"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"
All of your posts on this thread stem from one particular "whine" and you contradict yourself all over the place. Congratulations! By your own standard as stated above, you have hereby been deemed an asshole and unfuckable!
Take heed, sisters.
110
@109
Oh, I do! I think of men as human beings capable of sophisticated thought and communication. I also think of them as humans accountable for their actions and attitudes. (Shocker alert: I think of women the same way! *gasp* no! really? Really!)
I do NOT think men are giant walking boners incapable of self control or self reflexion, spurting cum-tears at the slightest hit to their testicular egos. And I don't think we feminists are alone in having grown tired of those old tropes.
It's ok, though, I understand that when women are not deferential enough to men, like the dames in the good ole oppressive days, it can be frightening for them. Poor sweet man-lambs.
Oh, I do! I think of men as human beings capable of sophisticated thought and communication. I also think of them as humans accountable for their actions and attitudes. (Shocker alert: I think of women the same way! *gasp* no! really? Really!)
I do NOT think men are giant walking boners incapable of self control or self reflexion, spurting cum-tears at the slightest hit to their testicular egos. And I don't think we feminists are alone in having grown tired of those old tropes.
It's ok, though, I understand that when women are not deferential enough to men, like the dames in the good ole oppressive days, it can be frightening for them. Poor sweet man-lambs.
111
@108 Thanks for answering my post at 35. I had a small amount of discussion on the thread, but I assume they were hard to notice among all the back and forth on whether it is acceptable and/or male privilege to admit you don't like condoms. My point turned out to be a minor tangent in this thread.
But I will ask you. Would you tell a woman who was violently gang-raped on a bus in India, drugged at a college party, or wasn't able to stop a date who refused to accept that no means no, that her experience was the equivalent of a guy she chose to have sex with taking off the condom half way through without her noticing?
But I will ask you. Would you tell a woman who was violently gang-raped on a bus in India, drugged at a college party, or wasn't able to stop a date who refused to accept that no means no, that her experience was the equivalent of a guy she chose to have sex with taking off the condom half way through without her noticing?
112
"Would you tell a woman who was violently gang-raped on a bus in India, drugged at a college party, or wasn't able to stop a date who refused to accept that no means no, that her experience was the equivalent of a guy she chose to have sex with taking off the condom half way through without her noticing?"
First of all, the experience at the heart of this thread, the LW's, is not that the "guy she chose to have sex with [took] off the condom half way through without her noticing." She explicitly made clear her consent was to condomed penetration only. He clearly violated that consent. Sex that is not consented to is rape. No, he didn't beat her--it doesn't matter: he calculatedly ignored her bodily autonomy. Period.
You are asking the wrong question. I'll answer it, but it's problematic as hell, which I'll explain in a second.
Yes, I would. As a woman who was drugged at a university party, though mercifully was taken care of by friends and NOT raped, thank fuck--the statistics don't lie, you gotta realize this shit is not purely theoretical and chances are, the women you interact have been directly affected by our rape culture.
I would say that the moment consent is transgressed, rape has been perpetrated. After that, the degrees of brutality of the transgression further classify the rape. And you know what? I would expect the rape victim that meets your specific "legitimate rape" qualifications to be horrified and disgusted that you know so little about rape, consent, bodily autonomy or the experience of existing as a woman in our society that you would be so naive and arrogant as to think that you know better what it means to have your consent and your body violated than does a rape victim. I would say anyone who thinks what that man did to the LW is NOT categorically rape needs to examine their knowledge and attitudes about consent and respecting others' bodily autonomy.
Your question is problematic because it assumes that a woman must be violently raped. Not to mention, you fail to realize that you included the LW's experience IN YOUR QUESTION twice! Though, to be fair, you misconstrue that incident immediately after correctly identifying it as a rape:
"Would you tell a woman who...wasn't able to stop a date who refused to accept that no means no," THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED TO THE LETTER WRITER! "that her experience was the equivalent of a guy she chose to have sex with taking off the condom half way through without her noticing?"
She "wasn't able to stop a date who refused to accept that no [condom] means no [sex]."
Which is equivalent to:
"The guy she chose to have sex with [deceived her about putting on a condom] half way through [when she knew they needed a new condom so she told him, YET AGAIN, that she did not want to fuck without a condom and to put one on and instead was he purposefully vague and dismissive and he penetrated her anyway]."
My question to you is: how could you in good conscience tell a woman that her rape doesn't matter and isn't really rape because she wasn't violently gang-raped on a bus in India or drugged at a college party? That less brutal transgressions of consent aren't real because they don't meet your definition of a thing you are far more likely to perpetrate than to be a victim of?
More...
First of all, the experience at the heart of this thread, the LW's, is not that the "guy she chose to have sex with [took] off the condom half way through without her noticing." She explicitly made clear her consent was to condomed penetration only. He clearly violated that consent. Sex that is not consented to is rape. No, he didn't beat her--it doesn't matter: he calculatedly ignored her bodily autonomy. Period.
You are asking the wrong question. I'll answer it, but it's problematic as hell, which I'll explain in a second.
Yes, I would. As a woman who was drugged at a university party, though mercifully was taken care of by friends and NOT raped, thank fuck--the statistics don't lie, you gotta realize this shit is not purely theoretical and chances are, the women you interact have been directly affected by our rape culture.
I would say that the moment consent is transgressed, rape has been perpetrated. After that, the degrees of brutality of the transgression further classify the rape. And you know what? I would expect the rape victim that meets your specific "legitimate rape" qualifications to be horrified and disgusted that you know so little about rape, consent, bodily autonomy or the experience of existing as a woman in our society that you would be so naive and arrogant as to think that you know better what it means to have your consent and your body violated than does a rape victim. I would say anyone who thinks what that man did to the LW is NOT categorically rape needs to examine their knowledge and attitudes about consent and respecting others' bodily autonomy.
Your question is problematic because it assumes that a woman must be violently raped. Not to mention, you fail to realize that you included the LW's experience IN YOUR QUESTION twice! Though, to be fair, you misconstrue that incident immediately after correctly identifying it as a rape:
"Would you tell a woman who...wasn't able to stop a date who refused to accept that no means no," THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED TO THE LETTER WRITER! "that her experience was the equivalent of a guy she chose to have sex with taking off the condom half way through without her noticing?"
She "wasn't able to stop a date who refused to accept that no [condom] means no [sex]."
Which is equivalent to:
"The guy she chose to have sex with [deceived her about putting on a condom] half way through [when she knew they needed a new condom so she told him, YET AGAIN, that she did not want to fuck without a condom and to put one on and instead was he purposefully vague and dismissive and he penetrated her anyway]."
My question to you is: how could you in good conscience tell a woman that her rape doesn't matter and isn't really rape because she wasn't violently gang-raped on a bus in India or drugged at a college party? That less brutal transgressions of consent aren't real because they don't meet your definition of a thing you are far more likely to perpetrate than to be a victim of?
113
@112 Thank you for your in depth responce, it's given me a lot to think about.
I agree the guy described in the letter did clearly violate the conditions of her concent. She consented to sex with the unambigious condition that he were a condom. His decision to ignore what he had agreed to was unconscionable, evil, indefensible and possibly criminal.
My question--indeed problematic as hell, that's why it's exactly the right question-- is if every sexual act is indeed rape.
Don't assume this is all hypothetical to me, it's not. Ironically, I've gone through my posts before putting them up and changed gender-neutral language to the feminine. I think it's more useful in this particular conversation to stay grounded in in women's experiences.
I actually intended both the examples of being drugged at a party or a date rape as specific examples of rapes that did not involve physical violence. Since that wasn't"t clear, let me say plainly that the use of physical violence has zero correlation to weather a rape has occurred. And while I'm stating what should be obvious, not clothing choices nor prior behavior nor consent to other physical acts nor ANYTHING ELSE a victim may have said or done mitigates rape. Sex with someone who doesn't want to have sex with you is rape. There are no excuses.
I would never in any conscious tell a woman (anyone) that her rape does't matter and isn't really rape for any reason, nor would I ever be so naive and arrogant as to think I know better what it means to have my consent and my body violated than does any rape victim. If the letter writer had said rape I never would have posted at #35, it would have grossly offensive to dispute her own understanding of her own experience.
But she didn't say rape. She also didn't say assault or violate. I disputed how other posters cooped her narrative to put their own labels onto her experience. I never wrote in all caps "THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED TO THE LETTER WRITER!" You did.
More...
I agree the guy described in the letter did clearly violate the conditions of her concent. She consented to sex with the unambigious condition that he were a condom. His decision to ignore what he had agreed to was unconscionable, evil, indefensible and possibly criminal.
My question--indeed problematic as hell, that's why it's exactly the right question-- is if every sexual act is indeed rape.
Don't assume this is all hypothetical to me, it's not. Ironically, I've gone through my posts before putting them up and changed gender-neutral language to the feminine. I think it's more useful in this particular conversation to stay grounded in in women's experiences.
I actually intended both the examples of being drugged at a party or a date rape as specific examples of rapes that did not involve physical violence. Since that wasn't"t clear, let me say plainly that the use of physical violence has zero correlation to weather a rape has occurred. And while I'm stating what should be obvious, not clothing choices nor prior behavior nor consent to other physical acts nor ANYTHING ELSE a victim may have said or done mitigates rape. Sex with someone who doesn't want to have sex with you is rape. There are no excuses.
I would never in any conscious tell a woman (anyone) that her rape does't matter and isn't really rape for any reason, nor would I ever be so naive and arrogant as to think I know better what it means to have my consent and my body violated than does any rape victim. If the letter writer had said rape I never would have posted at #35, it would have grossly offensive to dispute her own understanding of her own experience.
But she didn't say rape. She also didn't say assault or violate. I disputed how other posters cooped her narrative to put their own labels onto her experience. I never wrote in all caps "THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED TO THE LETTER WRITER!" You did.
114
I hit send before I was done (believe it or not). I feel your anger, Femwanderlust. And your anger is righteous. Rape culture is real and it is corrosive to men and deadly to women. Everyone should be angry about it. Anger is important and powerful. Hell, gay men would still be dying in the streets if ACT UP hadn't harnessed anger to force real change 25 years ago. We're still reaping the rewards of the change they forced.
But anger isn't effective if it's just a howl of rage at the unfair world.
You've gotten visibly pissed at both AFinch and I for (if you words are any indication) not sufficiently deferring to your views on sexuality. Both he and I have repeatedly expressed respect for woman and for their absolute autonomy over their own bodies and their own sexuality. We're not your enemies. (I'll stop speaking for AFinch, now, as I don't actually know the guy.)
Focus your anger were it will do good, not at those of us who are 85% with you already. Please.
But anger isn't effective if it's just a howl of rage at the unfair world.
You've gotten visibly pissed at both AFinch and I for (if you words are any indication) not sufficiently deferring to your views on sexuality. Both he and I have repeatedly expressed respect for woman and for their absolute autonomy over their own bodies and their own sexuality. We're not your enemies. (I'll stop speaking for AFinch, now, as I don't actually know the guy.)
Focus your anger were it will do good, not at those of us who are 85% with you already. Please.
115
Ok. Thank you for your good faith reply.
I actually wanted to amend my response exactly because this: "your question is problematic because it assumes that a woman must be violently raped," didn't sit right with me precisely because you mention the possibilities of someone drugging a woman or not accepting no for an answer, which, as we both acknowledge, are not necessarily violent incidents.
Then I realized I was focusing on the wrong phrase. "Would you tell a woman who was [legitimately raped] that her experience was the equivalent of a guy she chose to have sex with taking off the condom half way through without her noticing?"
A GUY SHE CHOSE
That is the phrase that is problematic--it's victim-blamey. Gang raped? Not your fault. Drugged? Not your fault. Say no, mean no, but date doesn't care? Not your fault. Desire a man, engage in sexual activity, he deceives and manipulates you, an otherwise willing partner, into unconsented-to condomless sex? You chose to have sex with him: your fault.
The funniest thing about all this bs?
"My question--indeed problematic as hell, that's why it's exactly the right question-- is if every sexual act is indeed rape."
I never understood your question to be: "is every sexual act (indeed) rape?" Nor does that make it exactly the right question because no. Where there is mutual consent there is no rape. Key word: CONSENT. Honorable mention: MUTUAL.
I would say, no, of course not.
If you want to make sure you are not raping someone, simply ask! Ideally, before you start whatever it is you wanna do. If you are still not sure, ask for an explicit answer: am I raping you? is this ok? Do you want me to stop? Let me know if anything I do hurts you. Do you like this? Do you want to take over? Just say stop and I will stop. Really, any variation on the former are good ideas.
More...
I actually wanted to amend my response exactly because this: "your question is problematic because it assumes that a woman must be violently raped," didn't sit right with me precisely because you mention the possibilities of someone drugging a woman or not accepting no for an answer, which, as we both acknowledge, are not necessarily violent incidents.
Then I realized I was focusing on the wrong phrase. "Would you tell a woman who was [legitimately raped] that her experience was the equivalent of a guy she chose to have sex with taking off the condom half way through without her noticing?"
A GUY SHE CHOSE
That is the phrase that is problematic--it's victim-blamey. Gang raped? Not your fault. Drugged? Not your fault. Say no, mean no, but date doesn't care? Not your fault. Desire a man, engage in sexual activity, he deceives and manipulates you, an otherwise willing partner, into unconsented-to condomless sex? You chose to have sex with him: your fault.
The funniest thing about all this bs?
"My question--indeed problematic as hell, that's why it's exactly the right question-- is if every sexual act is indeed rape."
I never understood your question to be: "is every sexual act (indeed) rape?" Nor does that make it exactly the right question because no. Where there is mutual consent there is no rape. Key word: CONSENT. Honorable mention: MUTUAL.
I would say, no, of course not.
If you want to make sure you are not raping someone, simply ask! Ideally, before you start whatever it is you wanna do. If you are still not sure, ask for an explicit answer: am I raping you? is this ok? Do you want me to stop? Let me know if anything I do hurts you. Do you like this? Do you want to take over? Just say stop and I will stop. Really, any variation on the former are good ideas.
116
@113
You dummy. You were supposed to say "if every awful sexual act is indeed rape."
Talk about undermining your own argument...
:-(
You dummy. You were supposed to say "if every awful sexual act is indeed rape."
Talk about undermining your own argument...
:-(
117
@115 we crossed posts. I have to go to bed here on the east coast. But I'll pick this up tomorrow, I promise.
118
@114
What a change of tune! As far as I can tell, from years of SLOGGING, I am hardly the RAR HULKiest of commenters.
I don't think men are my enemy.
I just call it like I see it. If that makes you uncomfortable, that's on you, guy, not me. It's not my responsibility to change for you, to make you comfortable. I don't owe you that.
Also, again, not everything is about you or AFinch specifically, but the ideas and attitudes you hold are common among even "enlightened" men. If you don't rape, don't take things said about rapists personally.
"Anger isn't effective if it's just a howl of rage at the unfair world." Says the guy who's 180d in the span of one blog post thread.
I'll up the ante because shit like this doesn't make me feel angry, it inspires RAGE.
Feminist RAGE is righteous. Feminist RAGE is important. Feminist RAGE is effective.
I am feminist, hear me howl, Unfair World aka East Coast Douglas! Does a woman's anger "visibly" scare you this much or is it just me? Also, "an unfair world" doesn't just happen, it's made that way by the people who shape it.
What a change of tune! As far as I can tell, from years of SLOGGING, I am hardly the RAR HULKiest of commenters.
I don't think men are my enemy.
I just call it like I see it. If that makes you uncomfortable, that's on you, guy, not me. It's not my responsibility to change for you, to make you comfortable. I don't owe you that.
Also, again, not everything is about you or AFinch specifically, but the ideas and attitudes you hold are common among even "enlightened" men. If you don't rape, don't take things said about rapists personally.
"Anger isn't effective if it's just a howl of rage at the unfair world." Says the guy who's 180d in the span of one blog post thread.
I'll up the ante because shit like this doesn't make me feel angry, it inspires RAGE.
Feminist RAGE is righteous. Feminist RAGE is important. Feminist RAGE is effective.
I am feminist, hear me howl, Unfair World aka East Coast Douglas! Does a woman's anger "visibly" scare you this much or is it just me? Also, "an unfair world" doesn't just happen, it's made that way by the people who shape it.
119
following up @115, another thing that works is to ask the "bottom" to get on top. It's amazing how much clearer it is that you do or don't want to participate, when you're the one on top, the one who is in control of the rhythm, the one who can easily check for a condom, the one who can easily stop everything just by getting up.
120
An experience does not have to be identical for the violation to be equivalent.
Acknowledging that an experience isn't identical is not assigning fault.
I'm not sure that being encouraged or told outright to feel raped would have helped me, but it may be different for others.
Acknowledging that an experience isn't identical is not assigning fault.
I'm not sure that being encouraged or told outright to feel raped would have helped me, but it may be different for others.
121
Dan, I for one think you got this one right. 'Degrees of assault for a reason' indeed. And yet, it does not make his motives any less about power, control, lack of respect for her words/stated limits, and his total entitlement that he would get what he wanted by some means.
Which is the same way a rapist thinks, right? So, rape is a fair thing to call it. Rape is someone - almost always a guy - deciding that he can do what he wants no matter what she says/does/doesn't do/thinks/expresses/suggests/implies. That is the definition.
Who knows what would have happened if she stopped the action and checked? Would he have decided more force was necessary, and disregarded her stated wishes more boldly? Because that does happen too. So maybe her lack of desire to follow through on checking his 'ambiguous statement' had to do with her gut feeling that what she wanted didn't matter because he was a controlling asshole who was determined to have unprotected sex with her.
Alllll these possibilities, they do not exist in a void. They exist because we hesitate to call rape what it is: an act of power and control that has fuck-all in common with what sexual partners on equal footing do for/with each other. If you're not equals, it's because someone's abusing their power. Gosh, who could that be? If you said 'a rapist', you win!
Which is the same way a rapist thinks, right? So, rape is a fair thing to call it. Rape is someone - almost always a guy - deciding that he can do what he wants no matter what she says/does/doesn't do/thinks/expresses/suggests/implies. That is the definition.
Who knows what would have happened if she stopped the action and checked? Would he have decided more force was necessary, and disregarded her stated wishes more boldly? Because that does happen too. So maybe her lack of desire to follow through on checking his 'ambiguous statement' had to do with her gut feeling that what she wanted didn't matter because he was a controlling asshole who was determined to have unprotected sex with her.
Alllll these possibilities, they do not exist in a void. They exist because we hesitate to call rape what it is: an act of power and control that has fuck-all in common with what sexual partners on equal footing do for/with each other. If you're not equals, it's because someone's abusing their power. Gosh, who could that be? If you said 'a rapist', you win!
122
Feminist RAGE is righteous. Feminist RAGE is important. Feminist RAGE is effective.
Effective only in making the feminist RAGER feel good about herself.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
GOP Congressman: We Have to Ban Abortion Because Fetuses Are Masturbating In There by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: The Tell-Tale Handjob by Dan Savage
-
Foie Gras Tastes Like Cat Food by Callan Berry
-
Cap Hill Is Becoming a Little Like What? by Charles Mudede
-
SL Letter of the Day: Let Me Think... by Dan Savage
-
Pizza Update: Breaking the 5-Minute Barrier by Goldy
-
President Obama Says NSA Spying Is "Transparent" by Paul Constant
-
The Wednesday Morning News by Goldy
-
Less Than a Quarter of Americans Have Confidence in Newspapers by Eli Sanders
-
Slog Bible Study: Leviticus 20:9 by Goldy
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (122) RSS