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

[Macrodatarefiner]

And for sure, it is a great liberator to women too. Just on balance, men seem to get the better benefit. AIBU?

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

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.

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.

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

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 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.

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.

Men. Patriarchal societies. People who pander to patriarchal ideas.

Sorry op. I slightly missed the point. I thought you were saying it liberated men as much as women but you’re saying it liberated them more.

It’s a fair suggestion, but I think it’s liberated men and women in different ways. Men can shag about but then I think they always did. Either through ignorance or by force. Pre-pill it was mainly religion and social codes of morality that kept open promiscuity in check. Behind closed doors men still did what they wanted. Now they can stand a queue with a 1000 other chumps and fuck away in full view. They rape and get away with it because there is no evidence that bears their genetics on its face.

For women it’s freed them up from the obligations of child bearing as they were going to get fucked either way (see above). The sexual freedom comes secondary I think. Not all women are driven sexually - just from reading MN I’ve gathered that women who enjoy a lot of sex say things like ‘it’s about closeness’ or ‘I like feeling desired’ - they don’t necessarily emphasise the enjoyment of the physical side of sex which is what I think the pill gives us. It also allows those women who don’t want kids more options than going to a nunnery.

But, like antibiotics, could we be on borrowed time?

A woman is 100% entitled to not want sex until a certain point in a relationship or even not want sex at all.

A man is 100% entitled to think "that's not the right woman for me."

I don't see how the availability of contraception has liberated one more than the other.

Er... You think that contraception is going to stop working because we all become resistant to it? Or what?

Maybe the human race will die out because no-one is having children. By choice or because of the very long term effects of hormonal contraception on fertility.

The norm is sex before marriage now. It wasn't before. The entitlement is there but there are pressures and expectations

The availability of contraception has meant that the "default" has flipped from expecting no/limited sex before commitment, to expecting years of sex before commitment.

Most women who "like sex" like it with a loving partner who cares for them.

It's not that contraception hasn't benefited women at all but I don't think it's possible to answer the question of whether it's benefited men or women more, without reference to the social changes that it has wrought. Unless you have a proposal for a world with freely available contraception but some other generator of social mores that discourage years of sexual access without commitment.

Certainly there’s a strong argument that the sexual revolution and women’s so called sexual liberation which came about as a result of the contraceptive pill has changed things in ways which are more beneficial to men than to women. Though this would probably be better discussed in depth elsewhere than in AIBU.

Yes but these men have drifted from woman to woman. How often do we see threads on here about women putting up with complete pricks because they don't want to be in their own or lack self confidence. Without contraception, these men couldn't behave as they do.

But without contraception, many of those women with poor self confidence desperate to keep a man would also be raising more babies. If it’s lack of confidence or fear of loneliness which pushes those women into feeling they need a man, they aren’t likely to risk him leaving them because they aren’t offering any sex: they’d just be risking that sex unprotected.

@Macrodatarefiner "
Not in a culture where men are no longer considered responsible. Any children are now the woman's choice"

Fortunately, CMS does not agree with you.

More so if you take in to account the impact to women's health of hormonal contraception and the impact of failure of contraception (eg anti biotics can impact effectiveness of contraception)

What’s the alternative don’t take it and risk getting pregnant to spite the men?

Overall, I think the greater beneficiary has been women, simply because of being liberated from 20+ years of constant child bearing or struggling with less reliable methods of contraception. However, I also see numerous downsides and unresolved issues, many already alluded to here. One thing that certainly didn't happen in the early days (I was a teenager in the 1970s) was consent. It was assumed by men that if you were on the pill, there would be sex. As an ex once pithly put it during z discussion on that very subject: 'You wet? Yes. You hard? Yes.' Et voilà! The sex was usually on their terms ie little attention paid to female pleasure. Even now, I think that men who are properly curious about female sexual pleasure are in the majority.

What a very arch use of scare quotes there.

This is the thing though. The idea that a woman can enjoy sex for itself, and not necessarily in a loving and committed relationship, is still anathema to some people. And those people will do everything possible to police and slut-shame women who don't fit into their world view, where sex is something only men want (and that men only ever want) and women reluctantly give in order to have children (which is what all women actually want).

This thread is giving Aunt Lydia tbh. You can see the exact mindset in several posts here. I grew up in the church so I'm not unfamiliar with it, but it's still shocking that in 2025 there are women who think that, on balance, contraception is a net negative for women.

I don’t think the restriction of the sexual and reproductive freedoms of others is a preferable state of affairs to this.

If a woman or man wants to wait then it’s their responsibility to hold their own boundaries. Some may struggle to find someone of the same mindset, but that isn’t a problem anyone else is required to solve.