Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Martian
Birth control at it's core, like most things, comes down to a cost/benefit decision. Each method has it's own benefits in preventing pregnancy or disease, which balances against it's cost in terms of discomfort, stress or other undesirable effects. What method is best for any given couple, then, will depend largely on that couple's own priorities and how the equation balances out for each one. I sort of thought this was common knowledge, at least around these parts. What I take issue with is the implication that I am somehow inferior to other men based on my own preferences. I doubt you'd let me get away with accusing one of our ladies of not being a 'real woman' because she didn't want to use an IUD or the pill; why should it be appropriate in the other direction? Frankly, the very idea offends me.
|
Look man, we're pretty much in agreement here. Where is all the hostility coming from? Once again, my intention was not to make this into some competition, but to praise the guys who would be willing to do any form of male birth control that was safe and available to them, period. Yes, I consider that to be a praiseworthy stance. Did I say personally to anyone that they were not a "real man?" No, and certainly did not say it to you (you seem to have taken it rather personally). I did not accuse anyone of anything, so I perceive that you read a bit more hostility in my tone than I intended (and believe me, if I'm intending hostility, I'll be a lot more clear and direct about it--you know that!).
And you know what? If the roles were switched--(truly switched, which can only be a hypothetical situation)--where the man was the only one with access to (often experimental) hormonal BC for the last 40 years, and there was no form available for women--and if the man had been going through all kinds of hell to try all different kinds of BC, and then suddenly a brand new, safe, effective method (albeit painful) became available for the woman--and if the woman was opposed to the idea of getting the BC simply on the basis of being uncomfortable (after everything the guy had already gone through on his side of things)--you better believe I would praise another woman who said, "Sure thing, I'd be willing to give any form of birth control a try, after all the shit that my man has gone through for both of us." Would I attack a woman for saying it was uncomfortable and she didn't want to do it? No. But I would certainly praise someone for stepping up to her responsibility as a female, if she suddenly had access to BC and could take some of that burden off of her man, regardless of the cost to her comfort level.
So no, there is no double standard in my mind--IF the same situation were to actually exist, in every aspect, with opposite genders. Hope that's clear to you now. As for the comparison between an undilated cervix and a male urethra? It was not for intention of "shock value"--the male urethra was the closest thing I could think of, in the genital vicinity, that is shaped like a thin straw, with sensitive nerve endings, that sometimes gets things shoved up it in uncomfortable ways. I don't really think it's that far off to see the parallel, but each to their own.
If this post hasn't settled the issue, I don't see how this debate will really go anywhere.