To think contraception has been a greater liberator to men than to women?

Also, parenting looks like unpaid domestic labour for both mothers and fathers to me. But then most parent couples I know seem to share it out equally.

I don't think parents should opt out of parenting (SN child or not), though both fathers and mothers can certainly do so if they really want to. The option I was referring to was choosing not to have children in the first place - a decision I personally made in large part because parenting looked like a lifetime of unpaid domestic labour. That's something we can thank contraception for.

Both parents legally have the option to walk away: it’s just that the biology of pregnancy generally means women feel a greater attachment and bond to a baby, and very few are willing to just give it up for adoption or into residential care and walk away to get on with their lives. And, I suppose, from a social perspective, internalised misogyny means that women are often the greatest critics of women who choose to do that.

I think it’s more what female would trust them to take it! Men don’t get pregnant, it’s women who have the burden.

If that's what you're saying, it's wrong. A woman who has an SN child doesn't get to choose whether the father will take on his share and certainly won't have the option of a society that steps up. Given that such children already exist, clearly one cannot simply say that women can opt out. Can't put the kids back.

I certainly don't think it makes sense though! For men maybe. Not for society as a whole. But then that's misogyny for you.

I think the idea of trapping hasn't really moved on from where it was 50 years ago, even though the reality has. Once upon a time a woman would fall pregnant and a man was "expected to do the right thing" and would often step up and marry. That would 'trap' the man and result in greater financial security for the woman.

Now there is very little expectation for men to marry if his girlfriend falls pregnant and he hadn't seen a long-term future with her. People still cling onto this myth of trapping, but realistically a woman falling pregnant ends up with a baby, the man will need to pay maintenance, which wont actually cover the costs of raising a child, but gains no additional financial security for herself.

We still talk about 'trapping', because on the surface woman gets pregnant, man has no choice, man has to pay; but the reality is very different to the historical reality, there is now no financial benefit to women- therefore she might make a choice relating to the pregnancy the man disagrees with, but it isnt trapping.

It isn’t: this post was in response to a poster who seemed to think it’s unfair that women are supposedly called “evil” if they tamper with or lie about their contraception in order to conceive the baby they want that their partner has said no to.

Can't believe asking a man to take care of his own child is seen as trapping him.

Absolutely. It was one of my main reasons for having sex early on when I started seeing someone. Who wants to fall for someone who is a disaster/inept/selfish in sexual terms?

Not to mention waiting to have sex with the guy, having to get married in order to do it and then find out that he is absolutely useless in bed and isn't willing to do anything about it.. No thanks.

Are you living in a Jane Austen novel?

Your entire premise seems to be based on a belief that sex is a favour granted to men by women. A woman should withhold the favour until the man can assure her of security when she gets pregnant.

Meanwhile, the man may have sex with other women who've got no choice: they have always been 'liberated' from fear of pregnancy. Think about how different today's world would look if conquering armies hadn't been able to repopulate new territories in their own images by raping women.

Most young women like consensual sex and relish the opportunity to choose partners without fear of pregnancy. Those who wish to delay consummation are free to find young men of a similar mindset - they exist!

I don't think men get a greater benefit. The argument that men can sleep around without (much) risk of getting a woman pregnant doesn't hold much weight. Maybe it's a benefit to the man, but it's also a greater benefit to the women who don't get pregnant by a man who behaves like that.

The argument that it means it's harder for women to "trap" a man by getting pregnant is pretty offensive. If there are men who don't get "caught out" by a woman "trapping" them because of contraception, that's good all round. Getting pregnant should be primarily for the benefit of the baby, not as a lifestyle choice.

I can't think of any good reason why men get a greater benefit from contraception than women do. Women are the ones who are left to pick up the pieces when a man shags them then leaves. If fewer unwanted pregnancies result, that is better for women. The man probably wouldn't care too much either way.

I don't think any woman I know would trust a man who said he was on a pill.

You would still take responsibility for your own contraception. It wouldn't negate the need for the female pill or move responsibility onto men. You might end up with fewer pregnancies, because you would have few instance of failures due to things like sickness interfering with the female pill, but I doubt it would help on a statistically significant level.

There’s one under development. The social reality is that how many women really want to be totally reliant on a man saying “oh yes, I take my pill reliably every single day” when the risk to her if he’s not being truthful or can’t remember when he has forgotten is so much greater than in reverse?

Exactly. I came of age in eighties Ireland with legislation about contraception still profoundly bound up with the Catholic church’s position on it (basically, ‘no’) and with a termination involving a struggle even to get access to reliable information about abortion before travelling to the UK in time to have one and bleeding into a pad on the ferry home. That was the reality of life before easily-available, reliable contraception for women, and no one who lived through it wants to go back to the ‘good old days’.

Why isn't there a male pill? Because mens bodies are valued more than women's. Men aren't expected to take full responsibility for their fertility.

Men's bodies are not tampered with to the same extent.

Individuals are responsible for their own fertility. If men don't want children, get the snip, don't expect women to carry the burden of their fertility.

Contraception is not a female only issue.

Has access to contraception increased male entitlement? I think yes it has.

Just read any thread on Mumsnet about men who won't commit and you'll see that this is true. The negative impact to women is at a societal level. When was the last time you heard of a woman who didn't sleep with a new man by at least the third date? It's just expected.

Women like sex but I don't think in aggregate that they really want to have lots of sex with different partners with no love and commitment.

Obviously contraception + social norms encouraging commitment from men would be best... but that's not the world that emerged.

I doubt that many women who were sexually mature and active before the advent of easily available contraception would agree with you. I certainly don’t.

I often think this. I especially think when husbands suddenly announce they don't want children or that they only want one. The wife is in agonies because she wanted/expected more. However, because of contraception the husband thinks he can still expect unlimited sex but with no children as a consequence. Of course they hardly ever offer to get a vasectomy. Whereas years ago, if you had sex, pregnancy was a very real possibility every time. Of course, women were the losers when they were constantly pregnant. But the agonising now caused by men who just want lots of sex but no responsibility...that feels like a very real benefit to men. Of course women are evil if they consider having an 'accident' because men should be entitled to consequence free sex, never mind that for many women of child bearing age, having kids is a central purpose of getting married at all. Just musings really - I appreciate lots of women don't want children. But in my experience, it's mostly men who delay and aren't that bothered.

And if you were a married woman, good luck getting your husband to “take precautions”, when sex was considered his marital right and he didn’t want to use a condom.

The onus was always on women to take precautions: by not “leading him on” or “giving it away” or “keeping your legs closed.” Or using toxic chemicals to douche after sex, or procuring a backstreet abortion. The only difference was that if those precautions failed, women also had to rely entirely on a man taking precautions such as effectively withdrawing before ejaculation, or using a condom, (or not denying that he was the father and just walking away in an age where there was no way of proving who was.)

OK, can't seem to edit the formatting, the asterisk should be at the start of that sentence and no bold.

I do think the OP has a point in that the availability of modern contraception has tended to put the onus on the woman to "take precautions" whereas in the days when the options were a condom or non-PIV sex it was more on the man,

That said, I think the benefits of the variety of contraception available to women* are worth it even if they also benefit men.

Where they *are available, let's not forget that modern, effective contraception is not available to all women, everywhere. Probably not even the majority, globally.

P.S. Wouldn't this be a great topic for the Feminism: Chat board?

🌵No tumbleweed emoji, have a cactus!

(Edited for formatting)

Well that’s good isn’t it? You want someone to have the same viewpoint as you.

I don’t understand how waiting to have sex benefits women? Most women I know want to be able to have sex with someone when they want it. What’s the alternative, wait for a guy, get frustrated because you want to sleep with him, then have to marry them as you don’t want to wait any longer, then get saddled with being pregnant every year if you want sex more than twice in your relationship. Also saddled with a man you just wanted to have sex with, but are now enmeshed with because of the children.

Sounds an awful deal for women!!!