This is terrific. It ties together multiple trends that I've witnessed in the past 18-24 months. Sure, we should support ongoing research into contraceptive options, including ones that men can employ. But Harrington's statements are being picked up by some of the really retrograde pols and think tanks. While she's often an original and provocative thinker, she also truly seems to be serious about the "reactionary" element in her "reactionary feminism."
Myself, I benefited massively from being able to time my two children in my later thirties. They got a more mature (if wearier) mother, and I got to finish my graduate education. When mothering was hard - and it was, many days - I knew that I'd chosen it, and that made all the difference. I want my sons' future partners and my many female students to have the same options. Already, with Dobbs, many of them will have fewer rights, although at least for now we've preserved the status quo ante here in Ohio.
As the mother of a 13 year old girl, there is a great deal of pressure coming from relatives / school parents to put said child on birth control. "You don't want to be a grandmother right now, do you?" I watched all 3 of my nieces, put on birth control at 13, struggle with fertility later in life. Was it related, I don't truly know. But I think my daughter has a right to choose her own way when she is ready, and it is up to me to provide information not medication.
I love your writing, Shannon; you have a fantastic way of pulling together so many view points without disparaging any. Thank you.
I just spent the weekend with a group of female friends, one of whom has a 14-year-old with a steady boyfriend. She told us she's concerned, and is having the birth control talk with the daughter, while trying to walk the line between "there's no shame in sex / we will get you what you need" but also "sex shouldn't be undertaken lightly." This is all great. But I couldn't help but notice that not a lot of attention was being given to what the girl actually wants, what she's ready for, whether she knows how to assert her boundaries. That has to be a part of the equation, especially with someone so young.
Reminds me of a scene from “My So Called Life” when Angela (played by Clare Danes) was immediately offered contraception when what she really wanted was a chance to talk about her concerns. This shut down all talk. It would have been a great time for the medical profession to have that more nuanced conversation. I am so grateful for the Pill, but also grateful that I was taught about the seriousness/sacredness of sex, even when that came with a big dose of fear. Something I managed appropriately as I got older and more confident. After all, is fear not a rational response to an act that is so powerful?
Great post. I have had a very similar experience with the Pill (except I had a break for having a child): no side effects, no major scares, and a bonus of not having to endure very painful periods.
Amen to that! Well said overall. Women's hard-won reproductive rights, and the technologies that make them possible to realize, are so often taken for granted...until the reactionaries revoke them, that is. Like the song says, we only miss the sun when it starts to snow...
Women are sharing their negative experiences on the pill because we weren't warned of all the potential side effects and risks associated with taking it, especially long-term use. Yes, it affects every woman differently. Yes, some women will still want to take it, even though they experience side effects. But women also have the right to INFORMED consent. And that means there should be an open discussion about the possible negative consequences of using the pill, which would ideally include harm reduction methods so that women can use the pill more safely.
There is excellent evidence that the pill depletes certain nutrients -- B vitamins, Vitamin C, Vitamin E, zinc, magnesium, and selenium -- even the NIH and Scientific American have acknowledged this. Several of these nutrient deficiencies directly impact fertility AND the ability to breastfeed. Obviously this isn't a big deal to women who don't want children anyway, but there's an awful lot of women out there trying to conceive and having trouble, and their time on the pill may be partially to blame.
These deficiencies can also negatively impact mental health, and women are considerably more likely to be prescribed SSRIs after starting the pill. But the effects of nutrient depletion can be moderated by avoiding other nutrient-depleting substances (e.g. alcohol, nicotine, caffeine, refined sugar), and eating a healthier diet.
Also, the pill doesn't make women choose "gentler" men, it makes us more attracted to more FEMININE men (and in some cases, it can even confuse sexual orientation). Again, there is good evidence to support this. Gentle and feminine are not the same thing, unfortunately (which I'm sure you realize ... and which, in part I suspect thanks to my time on the pill, I have some bad experience with as well).
The lowered sex drive can be devastating for some women, too.
Maybe it is a "luxury" to be able to say "no" to the pill ... the ability to avoid a lot of things which harm our health is a "luxury", unfortunately. Our society is unwell, unfair. But people have the right to information, and to warn others about the potential harms of drugs and other substances they put in their bodies.
Are societies with widely available birth control pills healthier? It seems to me there's a pretty big mental health and physical health crisis in Western countries. And a lot of evidence of hormone disruption.
It is a luxury to have no need to worry about birth control. But it's disgraceful that this method is promoted so much when others should be. I would argue NFP is a bit of a luxury as it requires time to keep an eye on your cycle and wouldn't work for those w an irregular one. Condoms are good. IUDs have other effects and should be improved.
Hi Megan, I commented on your substack last week & found the info on diet potentially causing late in life bisexuality v interesting. However, are you sure it's clear cut that the pill can only cause naturally straight wommen to become bisexual? I agree that can happen.
But what about women who say they only realised they were lesbian or bisexual when they STOPPED taking the pill? Has the pill permanently changed their sexuality, or did it falsely make them believe they were straight? Personally, I think it's likely that the pill is more likely to induce bisexuality so after stopping it most realise they're straight but others will realise they're lesbian. So they haven't been made gay, but they were fooled into thinking they're bisexual. Otoh, for a few bisexual women, the pill might change their sexuality to straight or lesbian so they 'become' bi when they stop. Essentially, I think whatever your baseline sexuality is, it can alter when on the pill. Sensationalist headlines about the pill making women lesbian or bi tend to miss the nuance.
Birth control is crucial and many developing cultures would benefit from more choice. But there are other options. Condoms, iud, NFP yes too tho that will not work if you have irregular periods & requires extreme accuracy to be reliable.
I think it's reasonable to be concerned about the decline in condom use and the simultaneous rise in rates of use of hormonal birth control. It's very plain to see in this an abdication of responsibility and self-control by men, and a willing-or-not assumption of that duty by women -- a unfair state of affairs, to say the least, made all the more unfair by the fact that condoms don't have side effects for the user or on potential children in the case of failure, whereas hormonal birth control is in biological terms "a much bigger deal."
It is, however, completely missing the point to focus this discussion on hormonal birth control, when the root cause is men increasingly *not* taking care of contraception themselves. This, to me, comports with various other ways that men are increasingly rejecting basic social and self-directed responsibilities like working, socializing, participating in education, eating healthily, etc etc etc...in a world where cereal consumption is falling because putting a clean bowl and a clean spoon together is harder than opening a packet snack, it does not surprise me in the least that men are increasingly too lazy to figure out the condom thing & so they put it on their partner's shoulders.
This may be a surprising thing to hear from a man, but I think a lot of radical feminists give men far too much credit. They increasingly deserve straight-up whupping. I'd like to introduce you to the concept of "Blanket Guy" -- which originated from https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/comments/jhzxu2/aita_for_expecting_my_sister_to_share_her_blanket/ -- and which refers, essentially, to men who seem to have no other real motive or desire beside immediate personal comfort, and who act petulant & disturbingly childlike when anything impinges on their comforts. Imagine asking such a guy to use a condom when he was hoping to get away without one. Not only is it never going to happen, he'll piss and moan until he gets what he wants, which is a girlfriend on birth control. I've seen this exact scenario play out in far too many people's internet writings, for whatever that's worth...
I don't know if you're calling me a radical feminist, but I am not prepared to identify as one as currently practiced.
Condoms are not an acceptable substitute for many of us women, and not just because of effectiveness.
I absolutely would not trust a man to take care of contraception himself, even in a hypothetical world of highly responsible men, because it is my body that will become pregnant. I similarly wouldn't leave all my health decisions to a highly competent medical professional, unless I was somehow incompacitated and couldn't choose otherwise. I'll admit this is more of a concern with not-committed sex, as surgery may be a better option for the married, but I also think not-committed sex is very important for some of us.
As per my latest post on "gaslighting," expecting men to change in lieu of caring for myself physically is absolutely not an option.
That said, conversations about men taking more responsibility absolutely can and should happen in parallel.
There are women - several that I know, in fact - who would say that a man who can't be trusted to be responsible on this subject is not a welcome sexual or life partner, full stop and end of story. There are degrees of radical on this subject, and I suppose among the most is female separatism, which holds that women, as a group, should divest themselves in every practicable way possible from men, until women establish their own independent societal frameworks that put them on an equal footing with men.
That is asking a lot of people, & while I can't quite fault the logic academically, I don't feel that it's reasonable to set such a drastic requirement, and I have to admit I think I enjoy life more because my partner does not follow that guideline.
Yet I have to say I just can't wrap my head around participating in not-committed sex in a world in which I didn't feel I could trust the people I went home with in the way that you're saying you feel you can't. When I was a bit younger, it felt generally understood that when people went home together the guy brought a condom & used it or he didn't get past kissing. That, to me, seems like a reasonable social contract between the sexes on the subject of not-committed sex. Condoms, after all, do a lot more than just preventing pregnancy: lots of things besides babies spread when people put skin to skin.
Thus I feel that women - as a group - are far too accepting & forgiving of the male-laziness-derived breakdown of the condom-use status quo. Hormonal birth control is an imperfect, more-consequential substitute for one function of condoms, that of preventing pregnancy, while doing nothing as far as the other function, that of preventing the transmission of other little creatures. I fear that the perspective you take here accepts the status quo breakdown as the inevitable result of human nature rather than taking it as a backslide that could be changed by action on the part of women.
I likewise can't understand remaining with a partner who I didn't trust to look out for my health & my life in this basic way. Often when I say things like this, I get responses like "Everyone makes sacrifices for their relationship." I find that horrifying -- if you look at it via stereotypical "abuser dynamics" it's obvious what's going on. Women would rather take the pill than have to fight with their sh*t-for-brains partner about condoms every time he wants to put it in. I find it heartbreaking that so many women have this perspective. They've been steamrolled and exhausted into taking care of it themselves, at the cost, at least marginally, of their own health, and also of their time & attention in remembering to take care of yet another thing on a daily basis. Meanwhile men continue to do barely a quarter of household labor, including of course childcare/at-home education, but also including basic things like cooking, maintenance, cleaning after themselves, washing their own underwear, etc...the stories I've heard. Me, I don't let anyone else touch the laundry, though I will, somewhat hypocritically, complain that it's hard to keep up with my esteemed girlfriend on these subjects...but she would think my whole family lives rather shabbily...anyway...
It is, again, a bit much to expect mass action on any subject, and I understand the difficulty in personal action on the subject - to some extent - but I will say, also, that letting men get away with this one is only going to lead to further demands & impositions, both on a societal & individual level. You said, "[C]onversations about men taking more responsibility absolutely can and should happen in parallel." -- Sure, but if you're waiting for men to take up that responsibility, you'll die waiting. I understand fighting with people about the same thing over and over again is exhausting, but giving in & retreating from a particular position or requirement like the use of a condom just moves the line of scrimmage a little bit - to get male - not that I understand much in football - in other words, men will keep pushing. Take birth control so he doesn't have to use condoms, shave half your body because he likes it, spend an hour every day on a hamster wheel or even take Ozempic to get that flat stomach...I'm not, of course, saying that everyone who does these things does them "for men", but in the case of contraception, it's rather hard to buy the argument that it's anything else...
I grew up around women - some might call them second-wave - who had the mindset of ripping up the societal rulebook and writing one from scratch & first principles the held the sexes equal. "No makeup, no shaving, no dress, no purse, and certainly no pills just to make men's lives easier at the cost of our health -- and we don't care what the historically sexist medical industry claims about safety -- and if men don't like it, tough turtles." I don't, as a result, condone these notions of compromise -- and personally, it's at least in part because I reject the implication that men aren't capable of being responsible. For one thing, they used to be, and plenty are. The condom-averse men who are increasingly getting their way on the margin are just selfish, careless, inconsiderate people -- the worst people to give an inch to -- and, as I observe it, it's exactly these men who are increasingly also bringing pornographized violent and degrading behaviors into the bedroom -- and porn has a lot to do with their anti-condom attitude, too -- so women, for their own very literal safety, are going to have to start saying "No" to this type of man or to his ever-greater demands in greater numbers, and real soon, or things will get real bad. (Or, if you prefer, even worse.)
1. I no longer have sex with men. But sex with a condom has never been of interest to me, as stated before, so whether men will show up with one is irrelevant. That's only a "reasonable social contract" for people interested in that contract. This is a low bar anyway, as I've never messed with a man who wouldn't produce a condom if asked. I am middle-aged, so had my wild days at a different time, and also vetted partners for a much higher bar than this. Because you have expressed concern, I had other ways of mitigating STDs (and I have never caught one).
2. "I just can't wrap my head around participating in not-committed sex in a world in which I didn't feel I could trust the people I went home with in the way that you're saying you feel you can't."
First, I didn't say what you think I said, though I do highly recommend wrapping one's head around the fact that people exist who aren't like you.
You've said "going home with" twice at this point, which tells me you're imagining (taking for granted, in fact) a very different kind of sexual encounter than I am, for what it's worth.
Second, this is like saying, "I can't wrap my head around going to a doctor that I wouldn't trust to jab a needle in my side anytime she thinks of a medication I need." Even if many highly trained and trustworthy doctors existed, trust is not a good parameter in either case. I will not cede the fate of my womb to another person and cannot recommend such for anyone else, especially if she does not want children (condoms have a *much* lower effectiveness rate than the pill). It should be noted that pregnancy is not an acceptable possibility for some of us--I've seen that many participants in this conversation think of pregnancy as a possibly unwanted but acceptable outcome. Taking care of one's own body oneself strikes me as nearly the most basic responsibility of any human.
Relatedly, I'm glad I'm not the man when it comes to hetero sexual encounters, because I can 100% prevent my own pregnancy, while I would not be able to prevent my partner's.
I date a woman, and I trust her with my life. But if there was somehow some activity that needed completing daily to keep me from dying, I'd still do it myself as long as I was able. I'm pretty sure everyone would.
3. "I likewise can't understand remaining with a partner..."
I am speaking mostly of not-committed sex, as I've said. But in either case, see #2.
4. "Conversations about men taking more responsibility absolutely can and should happen in parallel." -- Sure, but if you're waiting for men to take up that responsibility, you'll die waiting"
I won't wait, nor die, although I'm confused about what you're proposing here. Make women drive the conversation? After all that talk of women holding men responsible?
I can assure you I am not this woman you imagine, who is too easy on men/male laziness, tired of fighting, etc. For what it's worth, I don't like men enough to participate in any of that. (Yes, it's possible to sexually desire someone you don't want a relationship with, even for women).
I caution against characterizing every woman who controls her birth control as abused, steamrolled, exhausted, etc. This is frankly condescending.
I have never fought about this, nor would I. I would not have sex with anyone who approached sex negotiations of any kind as a fight. My sexual encounters have been careful, joyful, enthusiastically consented to, and completely devoid of these dynamics you imagine. For what it's worth, that doesn't seem to be the case for many of the women taking these other approaches.
I'm sure there are women out there who need (part of) your lecture, though I'd advise any woman experiencing that level of dysfunction to take more control over her fertility, not less.
More on this: "I date a woman, and I trust her with my life. But if there was somehow some activity that needed completing daily to keep me from dying, I'd still do it myself as long as I was able."
I'd argue, in fact, that martyring yourself on your partner's promises is by far the more female-socialized path.
Costs and benefits... trade offs. Yes the pill is grand because it can stop you getting pregnant before time, to someone unsuitable, as the result of abuse or violence etc but hormones are powerful and more so for some than others (speaking from experience). We are all a unique biological universe inside our sack of skin. Reliable contraception (and safe abortion) has made it possible to choose who the father of your child is (great for children when decided wisely.) However, it has also made it easier to expose or coerce women and girls into sexual acts before their time; too young, too soon, to someone unsuitable or violent. All technology needs to be handled with care.
This is terrific. It ties together multiple trends that I've witnessed in the past 18-24 months. Sure, we should support ongoing research into contraceptive options, including ones that men can employ. But Harrington's statements are being picked up by some of the really retrograde pols and think tanks. While she's often an original and provocative thinker, she also truly seems to be serious about the "reactionary" element in her "reactionary feminism."
Myself, I benefited massively from being able to time my two children in my later thirties. They got a more mature (if wearier) mother, and I got to finish my graduate education. When mothering was hard - and it was, many days - I knew that I'd chosen it, and that made all the difference. I want my sons' future partners and my many female students to have the same options. Already, with Dobbs, many of them will have fewer rights, although at least for now we've preserved the status quo ante here in Ohio.
The “natural female cycle” + heterosexual sex = babies whenever they come. If that’s your thing, great!
But it’s not most women’s thing, and straight-out lying about the pill is not just dishonest, but - as you say - paternalistic and insulting.
Also, babies or diseases as a “punishment” for having sex is a shitty mindset to grow up with.
Even more importantly, it's shitty to the babies.
As the mother of a 13 year old girl, there is a great deal of pressure coming from relatives / school parents to put said child on birth control. "You don't want to be a grandmother right now, do you?" I watched all 3 of my nieces, put on birth control at 13, struggle with fertility later in life. Was it related, I don't truly know. But I think my daughter has a right to choose her own way when she is ready, and it is up to me to provide information not medication.
I love your writing, Shannon; you have a fantastic way of pulling together so many view points without disparaging any. Thank you.
Thank you Kathleen!
I just spent the weekend with a group of female friends, one of whom has a 14-year-old with a steady boyfriend. She told us she's concerned, and is having the birth control talk with the daughter, while trying to walk the line between "there's no shame in sex / we will get you what you need" but also "sex shouldn't be undertaken lightly." This is all great. But I couldn't help but notice that not a lot of attention was being given to what the girl actually wants, what she's ready for, whether she knows how to assert her boundaries. That has to be a part of the equation, especially with someone so young.
Reminds me of a scene from “My So Called Life” when Angela (played by Clare Danes) was immediately offered contraception when what she really wanted was a chance to talk about her concerns. This shut down all talk. It would have been a great time for the medical profession to have that more nuanced conversation. I am so grateful for the Pill, but also grateful that I was taught about the seriousness/sacredness of sex, even when that came with a big dose of fear. Something I managed appropriately as I got older and more confident. After all, is fear not a rational response to an act that is so powerful?
You are SO Goddam right Shannon, on every point!
Great post. I have had a very similar experience with the Pill (except I had a break for having a child): no side effects, no major scares, and a bonus of not having to endure very painful periods.
Amen to that! Well said overall. Women's hard-won reproductive rights, and the technologies that make them possible to realize, are so often taken for granted...until the reactionaries revoke them, that is. Like the song says, we only miss the sun when it starts to snow...
Women are sharing their negative experiences on the pill because we weren't warned of all the potential side effects and risks associated with taking it, especially long-term use. Yes, it affects every woman differently. Yes, some women will still want to take it, even though they experience side effects. But women also have the right to INFORMED consent. And that means there should be an open discussion about the possible negative consequences of using the pill, which would ideally include harm reduction methods so that women can use the pill more safely.
There is excellent evidence that the pill depletes certain nutrients -- B vitamins, Vitamin C, Vitamin E, zinc, magnesium, and selenium -- even the NIH and Scientific American have acknowledged this. Several of these nutrient deficiencies directly impact fertility AND the ability to breastfeed. Obviously this isn't a big deal to women who don't want children anyway, but there's an awful lot of women out there trying to conceive and having trouble, and their time on the pill may be partially to blame.
These deficiencies can also negatively impact mental health, and women are considerably more likely to be prescribed SSRIs after starting the pill. But the effects of nutrient depletion can be moderated by avoiding other nutrient-depleting substances (e.g. alcohol, nicotine, caffeine, refined sugar), and eating a healthier diet.
Also, the pill doesn't make women choose "gentler" men, it makes us more attracted to more FEMININE men (and in some cases, it can even confuse sexual orientation). Again, there is good evidence to support this. Gentle and feminine are not the same thing, unfortunately (which I'm sure you realize ... and which, in part I suspect thanks to my time on the pill, I have some bad experience with as well).
The lowered sex drive can be devastating for some women, too.
Maybe it is a "luxury" to be able to say "no" to the pill ... the ability to avoid a lot of things which harm our health is a "luxury", unfortunately. Our society is unwell, unfair. But people have the right to information, and to warn others about the potential harms of drugs and other substances they put in their bodies.
Are societies with widely available birth control pills healthier? It seems to me there's a pretty big mental health and physical health crisis in Western countries. And a lot of evidence of hormone disruption.
It is a luxury to have no need to worry about birth control. But it's disgraceful that this method is promoted so much when others should be. I would argue NFP is a bit of a luxury as it requires time to keep an eye on your cycle and wouldn't work for those w an irregular one. Condoms are good. IUDs have other effects and should be improved.
Hi Megan, I commented on your substack last week & found the info on diet potentially causing late in life bisexuality v interesting. However, are you sure it's clear cut that the pill can only cause naturally straight wommen to become bisexual? I agree that can happen.
But what about women who say they only realised they were lesbian or bisexual when they STOPPED taking the pill? Has the pill permanently changed their sexuality, or did it falsely make them believe they were straight? Personally, I think it's likely that the pill is more likely to induce bisexuality so after stopping it most realise they're straight but others will realise they're lesbian. So they haven't been made gay, but they were fooled into thinking they're bisexual. Otoh, for a few bisexual women, the pill might change their sexuality to straight or lesbian so they 'become' bi when they stop. Essentially, I think whatever your baseline sexuality is, it can alter when on the pill. Sensationalist headlines about the pill making women lesbian or bi tend to miss the nuance.
Birth control is crucial and many developing cultures would benefit from more choice. But there are other options. Condoms, iud, NFP yes too tho that will not work if you have irregular periods & requires extreme accuracy to be reliable.
I think it's reasonable to be concerned about the decline in condom use and the simultaneous rise in rates of use of hormonal birth control. It's very plain to see in this an abdication of responsibility and self-control by men, and a willing-or-not assumption of that duty by women -- a unfair state of affairs, to say the least, made all the more unfair by the fact that condoms don't have side effects for the user or on potential children in the case of failure, whereas hormonal birth control is in biological terms "a much bigger deal."
It is, however, completely missing the point to focus this discussion on hormonal birth control, when the root cause is men increasingly *not* taking care of contraception themselves. This, to me, comports with various other ways that men are increasingly rejecting basic social and self-directed responsibilities like working, socializing, participating in education, eating healthily, etc etc etc...in a world where cereal consumption is falling because putting a clean bowl and a clean spoon together is harder than opening a packet snack, it does not surprise me in the least that men are increasingly too lazy to figure out the condom thing & so they put it on their partner's shoulders.
This may be a surprising thing to hear from a man, but I think a lot of radical feminists give men far too much credit. They increasingly deserve straight-up whupping. I'd like to introduce you to the concept of "Blanket Guy" -- which originated from https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/comments/jhzxu2/aita_for_expecting_my_sister_to_share_her_blanket/ -- and which refers, essentially, to men who seem to have no other real motive or desire beside immediate personal comfort, and who act petulant & disturbingly childlike when anything impinges on their comforts. Imagine asking such a guy to use a condom when he was hoping to get away without one. Not only is it never going to happen, he'll piss and moan until he gets what he wants, which is a girlfriend on birth control. I've seen this exact scenario play out in far too many people's internet writings, for whatever that's worth...
I don't know if you're calling me a radical feminist, but I am not prepared to identify as one as currently practiced.
Condoms are not an acceptable substitute for many of us women, and not just because of effectiveness.
I absolutely would not trust a man to take care of contraception himself, even in a hypothetical world of highly responsible men, because it is my body that will become pregnant. I similarly wouldn't leave all my health decisions to a highly competent medical professional, unless I was somehow incompacitated and couldn't choose otherwise. I'll admit this is more of a concern with not-committed sex, as surgery may be a better option for the married, but I also think not-committed sex is very important for some of us.
As per my latest post on "gaslighting," expecting men to change in lieu of caring for myself physically is absolutely not an option.
That said, conversations about men taking more responsibility absolutely can and should happen in parallel.
There are women - several that I know, in fact - who would say that a man who can't be trusted to be responsible on this subject is not a welcome sexual or life partner, full stop and end of story. There are degrees of radical on this subject, and I suppose among the most is female separatism, which holds that women, as a group, should divest themselves in every practicable way possible from men, until women establish their own independent societal frameworks that put them on an equal footing with men.
That is asking a lot of people, & while I can't quite fault the logic academically, I don't feel that it's reasonable to set such a drastic requirement, and I have to admit I think I enjoy life more because my partner does not follow that guideline.
Yet I have to say I just can't wrap my head around participating in not-committed sex in a world in which I didn't feel I could trust the people I went home with in the way that you're saying you feel you can't. When I was a bit younger, it felt generally understood that when people went home together the guy brought a condom & used it or he didn't get past kissing. That, to me, seems like a reasonable social contract between the sexes on the subject of not-committed sex. Condoms, after all, do a lot more than just preventing pregnancy: lots of things besides babies spread when people put skin to skin.
Thus I feel that women - as a group - are far too accepting & forgiving of the male-laziness-derived breakdown of the condom-use status quo. Hormonal birth control is an imperfect, more-consequential substitute for one function of condoms, that of preventing pregnancy, while doing nothing as far as the other function, that of preventing the transmission of other little creatures. I fear that the perspective you take here accepts the status quo breakdown as the inevitable result of human nature rather than taking it as a backslide that could be changed by action on the part of women.
I likewise can't understand remaining with a partner who I didn't trust to look out for my health & my life in this basic way. Often when I say things like this, I get responses like "Everyone makes sacrifices for their relationship." I find that horrifying -- if you look at it via stereotypical "abuser dynamics" it's obvious what's going on. Women would rather take the pill than have to fight with their sh*t-for-brains partner about condoms every time he wants to put it in. I find it heartbreaking that so many women have this perspective. They've been steamrolled and exhausted into taking care of it themselves, at the cost, at least marginally, of their own health, and also of their time & attention in remembering to take care of yet another thing on a daily basis. Meanwhile men continue to do barely a quarter of household labor, including of course childcare/at-home education, but also including basic things like cooking, maintenance, cleaning after themselves, washing their own underwear, etc...the stories I've heard. Me, I don't let anyone else touch the laundry, though I will, somewhat hypocritically, complain that it's hard to keep up with my esteemed girlfriend on these subjects...but she would think my whole family lives rather shabbily...anyway...
It is, again, a bit much to expect mass action on any subject, and I understand the difficulty in personal action on the subject - to some extent - but I will say, also, that letting men get away with this one is only going to lead to further demands & impositions, both on a societal & individual level. You said, "[C]onversations about men taking more responsibility absolutely can and should happen in parallel." -- Sure, but if you're waiting for men to take up that responsibility, you'll die waiting. I understand fighting with people about the same thing over and over again is exhausting, but giving in & retreating from a particular position or requirement like the use of a condom just moves the line of scrimmage a little bit - to get male - not that I understand much in football - in other words, men will keep pushing. Take birth control so he doesn't have to use condoms, shave half your body because he likes it, spend an hour every day on a hamster wheel or even take Ozempic to get that flat stomach...I'm not, of course, saying that everyone who does these things does them "for men", but in the case of contraception, it's rather hard to buy the argument that it's anything else...
I grew up around women - some might call them second-wave - who had the mindset of ripping up the societal rulebook and writing one from scratch & first principles the held the sexes equal. "No makeup, no shaving, no dress, no purse, and certainly no pills just to make men's lives easier at the cost of our health -- and we don't care what the historically sexist medical industry claims about safety -- and if men don't like it, tough turtles." I don't, as a result, condone these notions of compromise -- and personally, it's at least in part because I reject the implication that men aren't capable of being responsible. For one thing, they used to be, and plenty are. The condom-averse men who are increasingly getting their way on the margin are just selfish, careless, inconsiderate people -- the worst people to give an inch to -- and, as I observe it, it's exactly these men who are increasingly also bringing pornographized violent and degrading behaviors into the bedroom -- and porn has a lot to do with their anti-condom attitude, too -- so women, for their own very literal safety, are going to have to start saying "No" to this type of man or to his ever-greater demands in greater numbers, and real soon, or things will get real bad. (Or, if you prefer, even worse.)
A few things:
1. I no longer have sex with men. But sex with a condom has never been of interest to me, as stated before, so whether men will show up with one is irrelevant. That's only a "reasonable social contract" for people interested in that contract. This is a low bar anyway, as I've never messed with a man who wouldn't produce a condom if asked. I am middle-aged, so had my wild days at a different time, and also vetted partners for a much higher bar than this. Because you have expressed concern, I had other ways of mitigating STDs (and I have never caught one).
2. "I just can't wrap my head around participating in not-committed sex in a world in which I didn't feel I could trust the people I went home with in the way that you're saying you feel you can't."
First, I didn't say what you think I said, though I do highly recommend wrapping one's head around the fact that people exist who aren't like you.
You've said "going home with" twice at this point, which tells me you're imagining (taking for granted, in fact) a very different kind of sexual encounter than I am, for what it's worth.
Second, this is like saying, "I can't wrap my head around going to a doctor that I wouldn't trust to jab a needle in my side anytime she thinks of a medication I need." Even if many highly trained and trustworthy doctors existed, trust is not a good parameter in either case. I will not cede the fate of my womb to another person and cannot recommend such for anyone else, especially if she does not want children (condoms have a *much* lower effectiveness rate than the pill). It should be noted that pregnancy is not an acceptable possibility for some of us--I've seen that many participants in this conversation think of pregnancy as a possibly unwanted but acceptable outcome. Taking care of one's own body oneself strikes me as nearly the most basic responsibility of any human.
Relatedly, I'm glad I'm not the man when it comes to hetero sexual encounters, because I can 100% prevent my own pregnancy, while I would not be able to prevent my partner's.
I date a woman, and I trust her with my life. But if there was somehow some activity that needed completing daily to keep me from dying, I'd still do it myself as long as I was able. I'm pretty sure everyone would.
3. "I likewise can't understand remaining with a partner..."
I am speaking mostly of not-committed sex, as I've said. But in either case, see #2.
4. "Conversations about men taking more responsibility absolutely can and should happen in parallel." -- Sure, but if you're waiting for men to take up that responsibility, you'll die waiting"
I won't wait, nor die, although I'm confused about what you're proposing here. Make women drive the conversation? After all that talk of women holding men responsible?
I can assure you I am not this woman you imagine, who is too easy on men/male laziness, tired of fighting, etc. For what it's worth, I don't like men enough to participate in any of that. (Yes, it's possible to sexually desire someone you don't want a relationship with, even for women).
I caution against characterizing every woman who controls her birth control as abused, steamrolled, exhausted, etc. This is frankly condescending.
I have never fought about this, nor would I. I would not have sex with anyone who approached sex negotiations of any kind as a fight. My sexual encounters have been careful, joyful, enthusiastically consented to, and completely devoid of these dynamics you imagine. For what it's worth, that doesn't seem to be the case for many of the women taking these other approaches.
I'm sure there are women out there who need (part of) your lecture, though I'd advise any woman experiencing that level of dysfunction to take more control over her fertility, not less.
More on this: "I date a woman, and I trust her with my life. But if there was somehow some activity that needed completing daily to keep me from dying, I'd still do it myself as long as I was able."
I'd argue, in fact, that martyring yourself on your partner's promises is by far the more female-socialized path.
Costs and benefits... trade offs. Yes the pill is grand because it can stop you getting pregnant before time, to someone unsuitable, as the result of abuse or violence etc but hormones are powerful and more so for some than others (speaking from experience). We are all a unique biological universe inside our sack of skin. Reliable contraception (and safe abortion) has made it possible to choose who the father of your child is (great for children when decided wisely.) However, it has also made it easier to expose or coerce women and girls into sexual acts before their time; too young, too soon, to someone unsuitable or violent. All technology needs to be handled with care.
Some women are fine w hookups. The issue is when those who are not feel pressured to do so. Other issues like condoms & std safety too.