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?

I think the bare legs might be a graphic device combined with the crossed fingers at the top--note the similar nail polish. Asking the question, "What's better to avoid pregnancy, cross your fingers or cross your legs?" (The legs are crossed.) Maybe it shows up better on the printed page, not that I'm claiming to have seen it.

I don't know that it's fair to grumble about men not using condoms, when the women seem to be just as irresponsible, but it's too bad that the personal statements about people's experiences were all made by women. What have men thought about contraception when they've had sex, any sense that they've failed in their duty if they didn't do anything? The author just seems to be philosophical about it, just saying ho hum, this is what young people will always do. But then if she didn't, she'd need to be very tactful in saying that young people are being reckless with their most personal behaviour. We're already saying that women are being blamed for it when men aren't--but apart from making sure that men get equal treatment, I don't see the alternative.

Also, there are a fair number of references there to people having sex while they're drunk. If we think people should be careful and considerate, what can anyone say in response to that?

Tangentially, I have never understood why loss of sensitivity through condom use is worse than having to stop shortly before the critical moment.

But I don't have a penis.

tei - yes, I think it is a visual device. But, well, isn't that quite dodgy? 'Better keep your legs crossed dear!' Yuck. Actually, much better to feel confident you can ask for condoms, you can sort out your own contraception, etc.

I'm not sure about the drunk bit. It did worry me, because a responsible way to report that would have been to ask the follow-up question about whether or not these women felt able to consent - then you'd be able to send out a message about consent.

Maybe I'm reading too much into it.

Glad I'm not alone in reading this and going 'eh?!!' at the legs.

I was also saddened by the women who are too (?) scared of rejection to ask for condom usage. Why are they not more terrified of STDs?! I think more education about the realities of STDs (and not just the names of them, vague list of possible symptoms, and 'oh but don't worry, you can get antibiotics for that') should be made a priority - in schools maybe? Or where?

I know my dad used to lecture us about STDs at the dinner table, but he's a microbiology professor, and perhaps our childhood wasn't 100% representative of yer average family...

Thanks for flagging this up, LRD. I read the article and felt uneasy, but it wasn't until I read this thread that I understood why.

I don't get why they put 'speak to to women (and men)..' what's that all about?

And the photo of the crossed fingers, is that supposed to be a visual metaphor for us to keep our legs shut

Let's not be obsessed with the issue of men having sex with intoxicated women, and when or whether that amounts to rape. As far as the Guardian piece is concerned, it's a story for another day. If the writer had asked "If you'd been sober, would you have had sex with that man at all?" it would have been a different article.

My point was that the author left an important question unasked, about whether it's possible to be careful and responsible about having sex when you're drunk. Perhaps people should keep a breathalyzer in the bedroom, and if it shows danger, they should say "Sorry, I just can't do it right now. Maybe tomorrow." (Yes, this is insane.) But how can we hear about people doing something with serious consequences when their judgement is weakened, and just accept it without comment?

No mention of the blood clots then?! I ended up in hospital for three weeks in my twenties with blood clots in my lungs from taking the pill.

I've had an abortion too and as awful as it was I'd take that over being riddled with blood clots anyway.

Hormonal contraceptives are not right for a lot of people. Do we think that more would be done to improve them and lesson side effects if it was men that took them...?

tei - ah, ok, I thought you'd intended to bring up the question of consent.

I think it's perfectly valid to raise the issue of women and men not remembering protection when they're drunk, and this being potentially much more serious if the consequences are higher for you (eg., if you know you stand a fair risk of getting an STD/getting pregnant and don't want to, or if you don't know the situation with your partner cos you don't know them well). I don't have any issue with calling it irresponsible.

What I have a huge issue with is that being discussed in the same article as the women whose decisions not to use protection - or to use methods of protection they knew to be less than optimal - were informed and long-term rather than impulsive. It is absolutely ridiculous to put that first sitution together with the description of a couple in a relationship who've stopped using protection.

By putting them together, you imply that all these situations are irresponsible and that, basically, you don't really trust 20 somethings with their own health and pregnancy choices.

ezin - thanks, I was glad to get to discuss it too.

As a child of the 80s (AIDS:don't die of ignorance ) casual sex without a condom is beyond my comprehension frankly.

Yes I thought it was very odd. Made it all an issue for women, men's role was almost completely ignored. And it was presented as if it was a crazy, flighty decision taken by a bunch of thoughtless risktakers looking for thrills - when in almost every case there were real physical issues at play or when the women concerned were actually in long term relationships and would have been happy with a pregnancy.

There were two interesting bits in it that were brushed over - the bit at the end with the scientist saying "we have to work harder to make the pill work for women" which could have been a whole piece in itself. And referencing another thread, why is it still so painful for women to get smear tests/have the coil? These things are not prioritised but they should be.

The other was the statement that men never initiate condom use - though most will oblige if asked. That shocked me. Another whole article in itself.

And good point about the legs. I look forward to the companion article about men's attitudes, illustrated with a nude, photoshopped pair of men's legs. No? I've never seen that either.

It's interesting that the theory that these women want to get pregnant is never even mentioned.

Ime there's a lot of blasé ness because in our society it isn't socially acceptable for under 25 yo women to want babies.

Pregnancies have to be 'accidents' through half hearted use of contraception or they wouldn't happen.

1 in 4 of all pregnancies are an 'accident' so this isn't uncommon and our birth rate would be far too low without it.

Yeah ... and (stating the obvious) half of all 20-somethings are over 25, so even there, perhaps it's not 'socially acceptable' to the author of that piece?

quangle - YY, it would have been good to see 3/4 articles exploring different areas in depth, instead.