Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    Wow!! What a great idea!!!
    
    Those offended by the physical mechanics of intercourse may want
    to NEXT UNSEEN.
    
    
    
    Reminds me of a SF story (long forgotten) where some sort of invisible
    force field is found/invented which is absolutely skin tight. You
    can't tell it's there. After the protagonist and some woman have
    sex, she just sort of tugs on her skin near her vagina and out pops
    his ejaculate.
    
    

    Back when I was a kid, before I heard of existing methods,
    this is how I envisioned birth control!

    For some reason, I'm not jumping for joy over this. If this new
    device ends up better than condoms, then in the end EVERY VIABLE
    METHOD becomes the responsibility of the woman. Nothing burns me
    up more than the male who *expects* the woman to be prepared, who
    never gives birth control a thought except perhaps to ask me which
    method *I'm* using. A new, improved condom for "women" is not a
    condom to me. I'd rather they stuck to improving the one for males
    to the point where he couldn't wait to put it on! Now that, to me
    is a step in the right direction.

    Re .3, .4, I'm with you guys!  
    

    I respect the annoyance factor of yet another contraceptive which
    puts the responsibility on the shoulders of the woman.  But I read
    many women saying it is their choice and their choice alone to abort
    or carry to term.  If the woman carries to term the involved male
    has a legal responsibility to the resulting child.  (I don't know
    if the man has a legal responsibility during the pregnancy.)
    
    Is it a logic conclusion to say, if the decision to abort or carry
    to term is soley the woman's then the decision to practice 
    birthcontrol is soley the woman's.  
    
    Given the above paragraph, the male would practice birthcontrol
    if and only if he was concerned about the legal and financial
    ramification of his sexual acts. 
                 
    The above is not asked to start another abortion arguement or to
    cast either men or women in a poor light.  It is asked becasue I
    am somewhat uncomfortable with two conflicting statements:
    
    	.  The decision to abort or carry to term belongs only to
           the woman
    
    	.  The responsibility for birth control belongs to both the
           men and women
    
    Douglas

    re: .3, .4, .5 
    
    I want there to be reliable comfortable male contraceptives to
    allow responsible men to make sure they don't father unwanted
    children.  I also want there to be reliable, comfortable female
    contraceptives that allow *me* to protect myself from pregnancy
    and disease.  
    
    I'm in a relationship right now where we consider it a joint
    responsibility to prevent pregnancy, since we don't want another
    child right now, and we have chosen the method that gives us the
    best combination of pleasure and protection.  It's not ideal, and
    we'd certainly try a "female condom", though I'm not pleased by
    the need for lubricant. 
    
    But not all relationships are so equal, not all women are in
    permanent heterosexual relationships, and not all sex takes place
    in p.h.r.'s either, and in those circumstances, *I* want something
    *I* control and enjoy to protect *myself* from pregnancy and
    disease.  I don't want to worry about whether I know him well
    enough to trust him to do his part.  
    
    If it's my body and my pleasure, then it's also MY RESPONSIBILITY
    and I simply cannot follow an argument that says any random man I
    want to have sex with should be expected to share responsibility
    for my actions. 

    --bonnie

    Re .7, but Bonnie, sex is a *joint* action (well, except for
    masturbation), so *both* people should share responsibility for
    possible pregnancy - no matter how random the encounter!  The only
    men who shouldn't be held responsible are the ones who were raped.
    
    Lorna
    
    P.S.  I'm not saying that a woman should use no birth control and
    then be pissed when she finds out she's pregnant, and blame the
    guy for not using anything!  I'm saying that whoever is going to
    be pissed about the pregnancy - male or female - should do something
    about preventing it!
    

    Re .7, .8, I guess I've just heard of too many cases where it was
    the man who was outraged about the pregnancy, but *he* didn't do
    anything to prevent it!  He just *assumed* that the woman was!!
    Then he expects *her* to get an abortion because *he* doesn't want
    a kid!  (I am for abortion, but don't think it's any woman's idea
    of a good time)
    

    Lorna,
    
    I agree with you. If two can engage in sex why should the burden
    of prevention be on one? 
    
    -karen    

    re. 6 
    
>    Is it a logic conclusion to say, if the decision to abort or carry
>    to term is soley the woman's then the decision to practice 
>    birthcontrol is soley the woman's.  
 
    To answer VERY directly, the decision to abort or carry is my FINAL
    decision. However, the degree of influence exercised by men has
    already been documented extensively in other notes. To date, I've
    seen ONE exception. The mental pressure applied to women to abort
    can be tremendous. ( Its quite a pendulum swing actually when  you
    consider how years ago the concept of a shot-gun wedding still existed.
    Then there was pressure to carry to term.  - I'm losing my train of
    thought a bit.) And often its indirect. The recomendation to abort
    may be unstated, but the refusal of support for the pregancy and birth
    and care of the child may be quite clear.
    
    I guess as long as men continue to influence and manipulate women
    as to how they will deal with the consequences of sex, ideally,
    the noblesse oblige principle should apply: they should act more
    responsibly about birth control. Coming up with another method that
    does NOT support this seems to only help the small minority of women
    who are educated and responsible about their bodies. I truly believe
    that most of the women in this conference fit that small minority.
    But effective birth control has to be available to more than just
    the educated few. 
    
    So in other words, for me, the method is GREAT. But its not helping
    a lot of my "sisters" who aren't being taught to be responsible
    about birth control but are still being influenced and manipulated
    into sex. Until ALL WOMEN are responsible about their bodies, men who
    want sex need to be "influenced and manipulated" toward using condoms. 
    Making the condom for women won't do that; making the condom a
    hundredfold more appealing to MEN, will.
    
    LKF
    

    I agree with those who don't like the idea of another method of
    birth control that is up to the woman to use.  There should be more
    for men.
    
    On the other hand, there is another use for this device - namely
    the prevention of VD.  With things like AIDS around, I like the
    possibility of having something besides traditional male condoms
    to protect me against these things.  For that reason alone, I like
    shared responsibility to protect against disease.
    
    My opinon on responsibility for birth control.  Ideally, it should
    be discussed and the best method(s) for the situation used.  If
    one is not in a committed relationship, both should take responsibility
    for birth control - don't trust your stranger-partner to use it.
    If it gets used multiple times (i.e., pill, foam and condoms and
    vasectomy), so much the better.  Better to *really* overdo the birth
    control than have an unwanted pregnancy, not to mention reducing
    risk of transmitting disease.
    
    Elizabeth

Correct me if I'm wrong...  Is this thing essentially a condom, except that it
is put in the woman instead of on the man?  And that it covers the outside of
the woman as well?  How far?  

So, really this is like a flexible sheet of plastic formed like a baggy
(probably better then that) that the woman puts in herself, and then the penis
is inserted in the 'baggy', so that the 'baggy' is in the woman, and the man is
in the baggy, and the two are seperated completely by the baggy? 

It sounds asthetically displeasing to me, worse then a condom.  I don't see how
this is any more a 'woman's contraceptive' then a woman keeping a supply of
condoms handy for use.  The only advantage is that it covers more... which seems
more dehumanizing to me.

I abhor men's lack of alternatives for contraception, and their lack of rights
involving abortion, adoption, custody and child support, and their lack of
oportunities to be parents in the fullest sense.

Jim. 

    Jim, If you wish to use a male contraceptive...there is a chemical
    available by perscription...it is as I understand it the compound
    now called antibuse that is used to help 'cure' or control alcoholics.
    As I recall it, the drug in question does supress sperm production
    (tho with no more of a guarantee against permanent supression there
    of, then there was for the early pill) but research into the drug
    was stopped because it made men who took it nausious.  So now the
    only use that I know of for the drug is to treat alcoholics. But
    if  a man really wanted to be *sure* he was not fathering a child
    then he could ask if the drug was available as a contraceptive...
    
    assuming that he was not a person who like to drink, of course.
    
    Bonnie

    
    ps or a man could apply to be a subject for the trials of the 
    Chinese anti fertility drug glossypol (sp?)
    
    

    re .16 ...and it's a good excuse for footrubs ;-)

    re: .16
    
    I wouldn't rely on marathoning. . . Steven was conceived while Neil
    was in training for the Casco Bay Marathon!
    
    --bonnie

    Humph! I just remember (Ithink it was) Bill ROgers whose kid was
    born 9 months after he quit training.
    
    --DE
    

RE:  antiabuse drug

Why do you say the drug would not be good for someone who drinks?  Do you know
anything about the mechanics of the drug?  How about the name?

Jim. 

    i believe the name of the drug is "antabuse". it's specifically
    designed (as i understand it) to help people who drink stay away
    from alcohol by making them ill every time they take a drink. so
    if one _did_ drink, one probably wouldn't want to use antabuse for
    its other side effects.
    
    liz