Guardian article on women having unsafe sex

[LRDtheFeministDragon]

Here: www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/may/23/unsafe-sex-why-everyones-at-it

I feel I might be being harsh, but I really didn't like this. Is it just me?

Obviously, if you are having sex with someone and there's a risk of STDs, it matters hugely to protect yourself and them.

Obviously, if you don't want to be pregnant or get someone pregnant, it matters.

I just feel it's very unbalanced to focus almost entirely on women (as the article does), especially when a fair bit of it is about using condoms. Then there's a paragraph about 'genuine' issues with hormonal contraception (something I know a fair few MN threads have discussed and which does carry risks for depression etc.) ... which is shot down with the following implication that women are really influenced by 'scare stories' and 'hyperconscious' and 'backwards' if they don't like the pill.

The author's talked to several women in long-term relationships, and she acknowledges with one of them that (duh!) she and her partner might actually be kinda wanting a baby therefore relaxing contraception. But as a whole, the article sounds to me as if she doesn't really understand or believe that a woman in her 20s might want a baby and that not using contraception might be a reasonable choice. I find this really odd - I'm 29, many of my mates have children, and several have had children for years now. It's normal, isn't it?

Anyone else find this a bit odd and anti-feminist?

Its good you have and opinion, and that women talk so openly about this..any open discussion is a progress.

Uh ... I guess so.

I don't mean to sound rude ... but I know it's good I have an opinion. I'm slightly confused to be congratulated for it. I'm sure you didn't intend it but that didn't half come across like 'pat on the head'.

Do you not have an opinion to contribute?

I thought the scientist saying " well if the pill is so crap for many women we need to do better" was interesting.

It isn't entirely clear why a pair if long bare legs was required to improve my understanding either.

^^That's the weirdest post of the day, and I've been on AIBU.

I can understand the focus on women because the writer tends to write about issues affecting women. Usefully found in the 'Women' section of 'Life and Style', because that's the only bit of the paper any of us read, and we're only ladies so don't need much space anywhere.

However, it shouldn't just focus on women . I was a bit surprised at the emphasis on natural family planning, which might be grand if you're in an LTR and have had a sexual health check, but provides no protection against STIs.

And women not taking the pill are 'over cautious'? She can fuck right off with that. I stopped taking it when I was bleeding every single day, which my (male) GP didn't actually see as a problem.

It's made my hackles go up a bit. I wish there were articles written for men, explaining contraceptive issues and why women don't necessarily want to go for hormonal contraception at risk to their own health.

Fine if you feel patronised but you asked if it was odd...anti feminist..etc...my opinion is that any in which contraception is openly discussed is positive..and why turn it into a debate? For many readers the article is a set of case stories of modern young women's options. 20 years ago this coverage didn't exsist, and for some of us oldies that is within our sexually active lifetime. You don't know you are born love..now that's patronising.

Ah, I follow you now frames. I didn't get that from your first post.

No need to be rude about it.

And how is it a useful discussion? If you didn't understand about contraception, it's not helping you, is it?

balls - yes, I know she writes about women, and so I felt a bit bad criticizing it. But I felt like you ... she was really downplaying issues like you've had. I think you've hit the nail on the head asking why she didn't write it aimed at men.

bill -ooh, ouch, yes. It's awful but I actually more or less blanked out the random legs. Grr.

Its the guardian...so the writers assume readers will have some basic knowledge of contraception....but there is a different between knowing facts about contraception and openly discussing what women really use...and why that is what is so useful about the article. An article aimed at educating readers about contraception would be pitched in a different way.

The legs are lovely, the article discusses young women who are having sex...how would you illustrate it?

Somewhat off-topic, but I'm intrigued by the Guardian's house style photography...has gazing wistfully into the middle-distance come back into fashion?

The writers shouldn't assume too much, I think.

I don't see that the article is useful. She's reporting a mish-mash of anecdotes without seeming to have any sense of why - except that she wants to label all of it 'unsafe sex' and contrast it to the supposed 'responsibility' these women show in other areas.

There's nothing I can see that is irresponsible about not using contraception that makes you ill, nor is there about stopping contraception if you have a long term partner and are both happy with the possibility a baby will result. To put those examples together with the others seems to me rather unpleasant.

I assume you're kidding about the legs.

Not to mention green nail varnish, BoF.

Bloody depressing.
I'd like to see more about why women feel unable to ask or insist on the man they are having sex with wearing a condom.

I can't believe all the chances some of the people (men and women) referred to are taking and talking about GUM visits as the inevitable result of a sexual encounter.

I totally understand not taking the pill, but not using anything repeatedly and taking your chances despite poor experiences seems like a terrible state of affairs.

I'm left with an impression that sex is done to women and men are not to be questioned.

They could photograph men being all wistful about stuff too...

YY, that is a very good point about agency.

But is it surprising? The author of this article is meant to be quite feministy, and yet she's writing something with a strong overtone of shaming women for being irresponsible about the way they have sex.

Yes, it is a bad decision to have unprotected sex if you're risking STDs or pregnancy, but surely there's a way to discuss that without coming across like this?

That man just looks as if he's going to end up with a strained muscle in his crotch.

Yes, especially if he doesn't rethink his contraceptive options.

It really is.

The other depressing thing is, it's placed very prominently in the Guardinan online, right below election news, which is unusual for an article from that section IME. Yet it's not actually feminist.

Well, that was the thing that first bothered me.

I've had plenty enough mates who've had children under the age of 30 (which, for goodness' sake, is hardly unusual!) and got nasty comments about planning or contraception, she doesn't need to add to that.