From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Choice for men: moving beyond anti-feminism
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 18:00:53 GMT

In article <3ZmRRB7w164w@cellar.org> rogue@cellar.org (Rachel McGregor) writes:
>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>
>> In article <1992Sep21.184943.4215@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) wri
>
>GF>One of the things these men may not want to put up with is
>GF>any kind of responsibility for contraception which impinges
>GF>on them.
>> 
>DB> Actually, it appears to me that many women don't want to put up
>DB> with contraception that "impinges" on them, such as IUD's.
>
>For males, there are two forms of contraception available - condoms and
>vasectomy.  
 [condoms do not impinge; vasectomies are invasive]
>Compare condoms to the 'variety' of contraceptives available to women,
>all of which are physicaly or chemically invasive.
 [discussion of the Pill and IUD's]

You conveniently omitted the diaphragm.

In any case, you missed the point, which was to say that *humans*
don't want to put up with contraception that "impinges" on them.
It's not a male trait.  Your opinions seem to be proof of this.


>GF>Consequently, while the
>GF>American model has been improved with respect to bells and
>               [ ^ condom --rkm ] 
>GF>whistles (e.g. textures, colors and perfumes) it has not
>GF>been improved with respect to the essentials (sensitivity 
>GF>and reliablility).   Why bother, when the market is
>GF>controlled?
>> 
>DB> This seems to be feminist-driven in part: men must be educated to
>DB> know the female body and give pleasure.  Hence textures are
>DB> important, because a man dare not ignore a woman's pleasure.
>DB> Sensitivity and reliability don't seem to concern the woman much
>DB> (he's a man, he'll get his pleasure anyway; if it's unreliable, 
>DB> she's free to choose an abortion).
> 
>For how long, O Wise One?  If you're at Penn State, you should know even
>better than I the kinds of restrictions that state governments, especially
>Pennsylvania's, can place on a woman's access to abortion.

You're off topic, O Wise One (a term of endearment or respect, I hope),
but you ought to have noticed that most of Pennsylvania's restrictions 
were struck down as "undue burden."

>  Have you ever
>considered the physical and emotional pain a woman getting an abortion has
>to go through?  Have you ever seen a woman go to a health center, pay
>hundreds of dollars*, and then lie on a gynecologist's table while the 
>fetus is removed?  Have you ever read the description of a D&C?  

Yes; no (insurance paid); yes.  I think women might worry *more* 
about the reliability of a condom if abortions were illegal.  


>I personally don't get overly excited by imagining different colors and 
>textures on condoms.  I just want them to work.

Me too.  But what is relevant *to an analysis of the current market*
is what the buyers think.  The *buyers* may be influenced in part 
by feminist attacks on men ignoring women's pleasure and biology.
Whether the buyers "buy into" misconceptions as a result is irrelevant;
their "misconceptions" direct their purchase patterns.


[biological difficulties preventing a male Pill]

>DB> It's not a matter of sexist research.

>Granted, in part.  But it shouldn't take more than another ten years (yes,
>I'm being optomistic - why not?) to find a pill that can safely shut down 
>sperm production without interfering with a man's endocrine system or his
>ability to sustain an erection.  Whether you call it sexist or not, the
>pharmaceutical companies are working harder to get it 'just right' for men
>than they ever did for women.

Do you have any basis for this?  Or do you accept a 10% permanent
sterility rate for men as closer to "just right" than the female Pill?

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:1707 soc.men:17007 soc.women:17108