The Sexist

Sexist Comments of the Week: When Dudes Won’t Wear Condoms Edition

Yesterday's post on a guy named “Dirty Jersey” who refused to strap one on sparked a more general discussion about guys who refuse to wear condoms. Then, commenter Shinobi chimed in with an area  for further inquiry: "Hilarious reasons guys can’t wear a condom."

Shinobi kicks it off:

Can I get a WTF on college aged guys who bitch about wearing condoms? Not that I took a represenatative sample or anything……. but it happened a LOT. (Actually, after college too… again, not a representative sample.)

I think what college papers actually need is a column about how men who want to get laid need to have the testicular fortitude to wear a fucking condom, and in fact, provide said condom, and show a little fucking consideration for the girl and not make her practicly beg you to put it on.

Also, don’t take it off in the middle, because that’s fucked up and means you are a scumbag.

I think I needed to use the f word more in this comment.

Liss chimes in:

Super extra fail to the guy who told me that he “couldn’t” wear condoms because he was JUST TOO BIG for them! (Even though bigger guys than him had worn the exact same type of condom and gotten off just fine with them.)

So: Have you heard a hilarious reason why a guy won't wear a condom? Even better: Are you a guy with a hilarious justification for why you won't strap one on? Best: Are you a lady or guy with a hilarious justification for why you don't want your sex partner to condom up? Even bestest: Do you totally object to the idea that your reasons for not wearing a condom are, in fact, hilarious? File it in the comments.

Photo by Darrow Montgomery

  • jf1

    "… Sometimes I wonder, does jf1 know any *actual* women, or does he just read about them in magazines?"

    ...one thing that I've learned in life, people who are much smarter than I am tend not to have long conversations with me. On the other hand I do tend to have long conversations with people who aren't nearly as smart as I am simply because I like to hear myself talk. I do impress myself sometimes.

  • LeftSidePositive

    Study design FAIL: "Without prior testing, you don’t know that any more than they each know if they each “may” have one."

    EXACTLY!!! And, this is exactly how people interact in the real world. The vast majority of the time partners DO NOT know their std status a priori. If you actually wait to find out someone's status before you sleep with them, you would be pretty (but not entirely!!) safe, but since the majority of people don't actually do that, it really has no bearing on the public health issue and the topic of this thread. But, if you're in a situation where you don't actually have a recent printout from the person's health provider certifying they're free of STDs, use a condom.

    All of your wasted words on how many starting conditions there are is irrelevant--you're just describing a bunch of case-control studies that don't address what the prevalences of these groups are in the actual population.

    In sum--people who use condoms consistently have dramatically lower STD prevalences than those who don't. None of the 1000's of words you've written about "starting conditions" change that fact.

  • jf1

    "Study design FAIL: “Without prior testing, you don’t know that any more than they each know if they each “may” have one.”

    EXACTLY!!! And, this is exactly how people interact in the real world."

    But the doubt is all in the minds of individuals, not the two together. She thinks that she knows that she doesn't have an STD so she demands that he has one because she doesn't know his status as well as she knows hers. Why can't that work both ways?

    The product of the two doubts is clearly less than each individual component. You take her doubt and just...run with it to all sorts of illogical conclusions.

    You should be more rational. Unless you're happy just being an emotional girl ;)

    But in any case you and many women like you are trying to force men into wearing condoms when really they just don't want to. So how's that working for you?

    Las Vegas, Nevada (CNN) -- To some men, she might seem like the perfect woman: She's a willowy 5 feet 7 and 120 pounds. She'll chat with you endlessly about your interests. And she'll have sex whenever you please -- as long as her battery doesn't run out.

    Meet Roxxxy, who may be the world's most sophisticated talking female sex robot. For $7,000, she's all yours.

    "She doesn't vacuum or cook, but she does almost everything else," said her inventor, Douglas Hines, who unveiled Roxxxy last month at the Adult Entertainment Expo in Las Vegas, Nevada.

    Lifelike dolls, artificial sex organs and sex-chat phone lines have been keeping the lonely company for decades. But Roxxxy takes virtual companionship to a new level.

    Powered by a computer under her soft silicone "skin," she employs voice-recognition and speech-synthesis software to answer questions and carry on conversations. She even comes loaded with five distinct "personalities," from Frigid Farrah to Wild Wendy, that can be programmed to suit customers' preferences.

    "There's a tremendous need for this kind of product," said Hines, a computer scientist and former Bell Labs engineer.

    Roxxxy won't be available for delivery for several months, but Hines is taking pre-orders through his Web site, TrueCompanion.com, where thousands of men have signed up.

    "They're like, 'I can't wait to meet her,' " Hines said. "It's almost like the anticipation of a first date."

  • jf1

    Wow.

    How long before she's "interviewed" on Leno? :)

    Would she make as much of an ass of herself as Madonna has on a regular basis when she appears on Letterman? I wonder how much statistical data can be downloaded into her computer-brain? :)

  • jf1

    I swear, can you post without posting nonsense? Is that at all possible?

    " If you actually wait to find out someone’s status before you sleep with them, you would be pretty (but not entirely!!) safe, but since the majority of people don’t actually do that,"

    Do the majority of people have an STD?
    Do they even have one, not to mention many?

    Then for the majority of people this is ok.
    It actually works well.

    Even your Thai sex workers didn't have an HIV rate over 50%, right? Even before using condoms?

    Are we at the point yet where over half of the US population has an STD, yes or no? I presume no, and ask you further, what percentage of the US population uses a condom on a regular basis? 50%? 20%? 10%? Do you even know?

    Do you even *care* to know?

    Or are you just intent on chanting your mantra...knowing that people don't want to hear it?

    "...but since the majority of people don’t actually do that, it really has no bearing on the public health issue and the topic of this thread."

    What, the fact that even a minority of people actually wait to find out the STD status of their partner (not to mention themselves) has no bearing on the PH issue or the topic of this thread?

    WHAT?!?

    So you're just going to dismiss my entire position out of hand? I see :)

    Apparently you don't feel like considering it seriously :)

    " But, if you’re in a situation where you don’t actually have a recent printout from the person’s health provider certifying they’re free of STDs, use a condom."

    Yet again for the Nth time, the fact that you think that they don't know the status of their partner does not equate to their use of a condom. It doesn't even *imply* the use of a condom. You have said many times that they cannot know for sure. So be done with this. There will always be uncertainty just as there will always be hard-ons and wet-pussies. Hard-ons and wet pussies aren't going to use a condom just because you're afraid that they might get an STD if they have sex! You have to give them something better than "if you don't know the STD status of your partner for sure then use a condom". Don't you get it?

    Writing it on a fucking billboard doesn't make it make sense! Your fucking fear of the unknown with regards to two other people doesn't make a good explanation for why THEY should use a condom. The central issue is the woman who is on the verge of having sex INSISTING on the use of a condom. NOT YOU. Your opinion is fucking irrelevant and your statistics have no significance in their situation.

    But you would feel better if they respected your opinion over their own, yes?

    "All of your wasted words on how many starting conditions there are is irrelevant–you’re just describing a bunch of case-control studies that don’t address what the prevalences of these groups are in the actual population."

    No, and in individual cases the prevalances of these groups in the actual population doesn't matter either. There's no connection between general statistics and individual cases. Your point is not only moot, it's nonsensical.

  • jf1

    If your position made any sense at all, if it were at all logical, we could look at general statistics across the population and KNOW the likelihood that each of us has an STD.

    It's like you do not fucking understand statistics and probability.

    If you were making any sense at all and you were a white female between the ages of 21 and 25 with a 4-year college degree from an eastern school, we could just look up the "general statistics" on such women and KNOW the likelihood that you have an STD. It would be, let's see...ask the Google...23.15376829385%. Depending on whether we are talking about a weekend night or a weeknight. No other factors considered. You don't see the difference between that and actually talking about your specific case?

    It's no wonder that you babble about "data". It goes in your eyes and out your mouth just like there's no brain between the two.

    If that were true you would have an equal chance of getting an STD from fucking any white guy between the ages of 21 and 26 with a 4 year college degree from an east-coast school, yes?

    I swear you're too dumb to see how dumb you are.

  • LeftSidePositive

    Basic syntax FAIL:

    "But the doubt is all in the minds of individuals, not the two together. She thinks that she knows that she doesn’t have an STD so she demands that he has one because she doesn’t know his status as well as she knows hers. Why can’t that work both ways?"

    What the hell does this mean? "The doubt is all in the minds of individuals, not the two together"??? Huh? What point are you TRYING to make, and could you say it in English?

    She doesn't know his sexual history, so she should insist he uses a condom. He probably doesn't know hers either, so he should insist on a condom.

  • LeftSidePositive

    Oh, my god!! Not understand statistics and probability? Like you, the fucking genius who can't understand the phrase "reduced by 80%"??

    What point are you trying to make with this college-educated white male aged whatever? Any person may have an STD. It doesn't matter if a group with which you have arbitrarily associated them has a 25% or a 44% chance. That person either does or doesn't. You don't know. So protect yourself. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

    This makes no sense:

    "The central issue is the woman who is on the verge of having sex INSISTING on the use of a condom. NOT YOU. Your opinion is fucking irrelevant and your statistics have no significance in their situation."

    Yes, I am saying she should insist on the use of a condom. (So should he, too, but this thread is specifically about dealing with guys who don't.) How do the statistics have no relevance to their situation? For all they know they could have STDs, so they should take steps to protect themselves and their partner. Statistically, those who protect themselves are MUCH better-off.

  • jf1

    ...the female, who insists on condom use, is making that determination on her own, on her own basis. Which could be for any reason.

    You are making it for your own reasons and agreeing with her, partially because you have no idea who she's fucking. You're making a whole host of assumptions and running it through that rats' nest that you call a brain and agreeing with her.

    What if she looks at you like I would and says that you're an idiot? What would you say about her then? Well, *I* disagree with you, what if she does? Are you going to say that everyone who disagrees with you is an idiot?

    You cannot just SAY these things and make them true. Even if you feel like saying it. simply vociferously and repetitively voicing your opinion in a strident tone does not make the words coming out of your mouth any more logical (indeed in polite society we tend to dismiss such pronouncements out of hand, as the voice of a mad person, but I won't go that far as that isn't logical either).

    You don't know the STD status of your partner, you have two simple choices (I swear this is like explaining drinking too much to a 15 year old). Either you have sex with them or you don't.

    They're going to have sex assuming that they stay together.

    Thus they have two choices. Use a condom or not.

    They're going to stop using condoms if they stay together.

    But look here we have you sayng that they should use a condom!

    Because condom use cut HIV rates by 80% for Thai sex workers and they also reduced STD rates for teenagers in Massachusettes and "in general" they are good for our society!

    That doesn't matter a hill of fucking beans for the two people who are staring at each other with lust in their eyes. They are not "general society" do you get it?

    We must assume that they want to have sex because they find each other to be sexually desirable. Is this simply because he has a cock and she has a pussy? Because they're both horny and each is willing? You act as if it is!

    Have you ever stopped to think about why they want to have sex with each other? Has that ever occurred to you? And do you think that every couple wants to have sex for the same reasons, in the same conditions?

    Can you simply not see that even if they do not KNOW the STD status of each other, they still may be quite right in THINKING that neither one of them has an STD and unprotected sex between them would be just fine? Even if you think otherwise? In fact your "statistics" prove that that is the case quite often, yes?

    Yes, some couples are wrong in reaching this opinion. I realize this. But that doesn't mean that they are ALL wrong. But you don't care about that, you have a mantra and you want them to repeat it. That will make you happy and in your opinion, "make them safer".

    Well I have a mantra for them too even though you just dismissed it out of hand. Fine. Let's just forget about it then because you will be happier that way.

    Well following that logic, let's assume that the woman would be happier if the man uses a condom. Let's take logic entirely out of this and run on pure emotion. Let's assume that she'll even be so ecstatic that she will fuck him if he doesn't and she'll be so unhappy that she won't have anything to do with him if he refuses. Fine. Are we to assume that the man has no emotions as well, yes or no? Because if he is ruled by his emotions much like a woman is, then he is just as likely to do something even less logical, just like a woman. Yes or no?

    And if she insists that he uses a condom, he will EMOTIONALLY respond by telling her that the only reason they need a condom is if she has an STD. And she will EMOTIONALLY respond in the same vein. And then they each will EMOTIONALLY deny that they have an STD. And then they will say, rationally, "ok, fuck it, we either won't use a condom or we won't have sex".

    Yes or no?

    Or, "emotionally" the man will agree to use a condom and then resent the woman forever after. And as well she will resent the fact that she had to make him use a condom.

    And in the long run neither of them will ever really know for sure if they have an STD (yes?) so they are locked into this negative emotion forever, she not trusting him and he resenting her.

    And that is what you RATIONALLY think should happen?

    But you don't give a shit as long as they use a condom. Right? That's all it takes to make you happy, right?

  • jf1

    "What the hell does this mean? “The doubt is all in the minds of individuals, not the two together”??? "

    They're not the fucking borg, lady. They may each have the same opinion but the opinion exists in her head or his, maybe they each share it but it's not "a common opinion".

    They cannot have the exact same opinion about who has what STD and what to do about it and why. They may come to the same conclusion and state it together (or at least profess to) but they won't have the same rationale behind it.

    The bottom line is that it's highly unlikely that they each share the same opinion about who has what. And once one of them puts their foot down on the issue of condoms, the other has to either play along or lose outright. Even if he says "yes" that doesn't mean that he actually thinks that it's a good idea or even necessary simply because he's not arriving at this point by free will and shared info He's arriving at it by coercion.

    ...........................................................................................

    if she thinks that he may have an STD and makes him use a condom because of this and he does not think that he has an STD what the hell do you think is in his mind if he agrees?

    Why should he agree to support her fear, even reinforcing it, by putting a condom on?

    You're not considering ANY of this. Just leaping from your favorite "data" to your favorite "logical conclusion". With 5 million assumptions along the way.

  • jf1

    She doesn’t know his sexual history, so she should insist he uses a condom. He probably doesn’t know hers either, so he should insist on a condom."

    Again you're assuming this.

    Yet thinking that they would want to have sex with each other.

    and this makes sense to you. somehow

  • jf1

    let me just summarize here.

    As long as your opinion is extrapolated from the data that you choose to see and the logic that you wish to use, it is no better than that data and no stronger than that logic.

    Your logic is weak and your data highly irrelevant, almost completely irrelevant, to any one couple. Time and time again you miss this.

    There's really nothing more to say here. I realize that you refuse to think logically, if you even *can*. I see that you prefer to analyze everything emotionally and call that logic. I give up. It's pointless strying to have a logical discussion with you based on facts and relevant data and I cannot deal with you on an emotional level.

    400 fucking posts of this is more than enough proof of this.

  • jf1

    You're making a blanket statement based on general principles that everyone should use a condom.

    It's like you just don't understand what you're saying or the world in which you are speaking.

  • jf1

    ...even worse it's like you don't give a fuck, at all, about the real world. All you care about is the way that you think that things are and what you want people to do.

  • jf1

    Well, I must occasionally be guilty of this too.

    It doesn't make sense to argue about what someone else should do. You're not in their situation, you don't know the facts of their lives. Even the facts that you do know don't tell you anything conclusive. You have to do what is right for you, they have to do what is right for them. It just doesn't help for you to act as if you know what that is.

    At best you know what is right for yourself. And the mistake you make is in believing (even thinking that you are rational in saying) that what is right for you is right for everyone else. I'm not quite that bad but I'm not sure that my position is entirely "great" either. I'll have to think about this, and no I don't see any further discussion with you as helping in that. You're the problem that I'm trying to avoid: letting my emotions convince me that my opinion is rational.

  • jf1

    Anyway immediately I can see that the central point is the threat of no sex without a condom. Like any threat it's impossible to make this decision without considering the negative consequences emotionally and reacting to them emotionally.

    This raises the spectre of the woman demanding that the man use a condom simply on an emotional level, no logic involved, simply due to the threat of STDs period, in the abstract, or because she's afraid of what she or her friends will think if she has sex with him without a condom. Even when, logically, there's no reason for them to use a condom at all.

    It's easy to see that the woman could insist that he use a condom out of fear of STDs and their consequences (or fear of something else) and he, knowing that he absolutely does not have an STD would agree to it just to make her happy (and calm her down, and get laid). It's also easy to see that he might react negatively to this threat and refuse not only to use a condom but to even have sex with her if she changed her mind or just agree to it but "pay her back" in some other way at some other date and time.

    It does open the door to a discussion of the entire concept of one person threatening the other in a relationship, with threats of witholding sex or any other "favor". Much like date rape or spousal abuse or any other form of domestic violence. Except that we are supposed to believe that in this case it's a good thing. Because it would make her "safer". But would it really?

    Not only is there the possibility that there is no chance of her getting an STD from the guy (and you don't know this a priori, neither do you care)

    ...but there is also the possibility that it will inspire the guy to do something bad to her, in return. Or something good for him but bad for her.

    The point is that all of these concerns must be taken in mind by the woman when she makes her demands. Actions do not happen without consequence and he cannot predict the consequences. She can only live with them, just as he must if he acts in response to her demand. It is a massive assumption on many levels to assume that condom use will make them both safer much less that she should demand that he use a condom. I realize that you're incapable of seeing that and I hope that you will forgive me for talking to myself again here. You wish to only speak of condom-preventable STDs in sex between adults where there is a real-world chance that they may actually exchange these STDs if they have sex, ignoring the possibility that they neither have an STD nor use the condom correctly nor have an STD that isn't "condom-preventable" nor have a relationship that isn't strong enough to tolerate such one-sidedness on the part of the female. And that's fine. You live in a simplistic emotionally-derived world. You don't have to live with the consequences of your own advice so you are free to give it out at will, even push it onto others.

    I did not know this when I first started to understand your position. Now I can see it clearly and frankly that makes this entire issue a moot point. What is good for the goose is not necessarily good for the gander. In fact it often isn't.

  • jf1

    another point:

    you're assuming that the two are actually a good couple. And thus assuming that they are like-minded.

    It's entirely possible that they are not like minded yet still want to have sex with each other, indeed they only agree on this point. Presumably the woman would put condom use before having sex with the guy in this case? "she should, she would be better-off if she did".

    Would she really?

    I can't get around that question. Would he really be better off if she used a condom? Why?

    But that begs logic and hard data and that isn't going to happen here. For every guess that we make there is a counter. We really don't know if it would be good, or bad, or immaterial.

    We don't even know the consequences of condom-use for these two individuals. This whole fucking thread is just layers of guesses glued together with assumptions.

    "...they would be safer if they used a condom". Why? Better question, "how"?

    Because condoms (mostly) prevent the spread of certain STDs? That means that they would be safer?

    No. This is not logical.

    It means that they would be AT LEAST as safe as if they did NOT use a condom, assuming that she did not *force* him to actually use it, and he uses it of free choice. They might even be *more* safe but only if one of them has an STD that is transmittable through intercourse and that STD is one that is effectively blocked by a condom (and they use it properly).

    So there is an inherent, fatal, flaw, in her demanding that he use a condom before she will have sex with him. Her choice should be to *offer* him (the choice of using) a condom, and at best refuse to actually have sex with him if he chooses not to take it and use it of his own free will. This still leaves the question of why she feels that he needs to use a condom in the first place. And there is no way around this, this is a delicate question. Simple "brute force" emotion-driven statements could ruin the whole issue just as much as anything else. Let me explain.

    If a man were to say to a woman, "I would like to have sex with you, but I'm going to use a condom because you might have an STD and I'm unsure of it, and I want to be safe", how would a woman respond? Stop thinking about how it's a good idea for a woman to make a man wear a condom because he might have an STD and think instead of how you would feel if a man that you want to have sex with were to say to you that you might have an STD and he's going to wear a condom "just in case".

    Pretend just for the sake of argument that you would not feel insulted, get dressed and walk out of the room never to speak to him again. Pretend likewise that you wouldn't agree to it just to have sex with him just once, to see what it was like, and then, never speak to him again, and tell all his friends that he had a small cock and cried like a baby after you made love. Let's pretend that these things don't happen as an emotional response to his statement about the necessity of using a condom with you. What do you do, what do you say otherwise?

    It seems to me that if you are sure that you don't have an STD you will say so, at the very least. And then he would say, "oh but we don't need to use a condom then, except that I don't want to get you pregnant right away"...and so you agree to let him use a condom. And that might work both ways. But you say, "I just had my period, there's no way that I could get pregnant right now".

    Now the question is, would you say that if you were worried that your "boyfriend" might have an STD? No you would not, because he would immediately want to have sex without a condom, not having fear of a pregnancy, right? Assuming, of course, that he trusts you when you say that you couldn't get pregnant.

    And so again we arrive at the question of trust. Who has what STD is matched by who can get whom pregnant and when. It appears that the reasonable argument for condom use is to prevent an unwanted pregnancy not to dissuade a certain STD or two from crossing from one to the other across the linens of love. Even bringing STDs into the discussion automatically renders the idea of having sex moot, at least between rational people, even a fair share of emotional ones. And here I am saying that you are being entirely unrealistic in thinking that you can tell your partner that you are afraid that he might have an STD and still expect him to want to have sex with you. Likewise that he would have sex with you even if you mention STDs to him. And insisting that he use a condom just ain't gonna to work out well.

    And I think that you would know that very well if you would just try to follow your own advice. You might get him to use one, he may even want to use one on his own, you may see "general data" show that condom use reduces STDs in the general population, but I'm telling ya, a bunch of unhappiness is going to result from this and in the long run you're just not going to have a good relationship with anyone if either of you think that using a condom to prevent the spread of STDs between you is in any way a good idea much less "necessary". That's the kiss of death.

    But that's just my opinion. Yet again I say, feel free to go forth and prove me wrong. I am not going to insist that you agree with me.

  • LeftSidePositive

    What the fuck?

    "What is good for the goose is not necessarily good for the gander. In fact it often isn’t."

    This makes absolutely no fucking sense. Condoms protect BOTH genders. Why is this so hard for you to understand??

  • jf1

    "Her choice should be to *offer* him (the choice of using) a condom, and at best refuse to actually have sex with him if he chooses not to take it and use it of his own free will."

    Not to make it a precondition to him.

    Never try to force anyone to do anything for you in the bedroom. It's just not a good idea. Even if you think that it's a good idea for them, too. I would think that you women would react to that instinctively, I think that it's fair to say that men would react instinctively to that too.

    You ask them to think about it "intelligently" trust me all sorts of things are going to go through their head. No guy is going to say "ok I'll use a condom if it'll make you happy" and not have some real doubts about you.

    You want to make that deal with the Devil, keep it in your own head. And as far as making you "safer", it will only make you safer if the only STD he has is one that will be blocked by a condom. But in any case you really shouldn't be fucking this guy.

    And saying that "you want to but you don't know his STD status so you want him to use a condom" is no excuse. Ignorance combined with impatience is no excuse to be stupid.

  • LeftSidePositive

    In which jf1 inadvertently describes his own thought processes:

    "…even worse it’s like you don’t give a fuck, at all, about the real world. All you care about is the way that you think that things are and what you want people to do."

    THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU'VE BEEN DOING.

    Oh, we'll just assume that good people would get tested before having sex. Oh, we'll just assume that people are only having sex to potentially create a baby. Oh, we'll just assume that a woman who insists on a condom is a skank. Oh, we'll just assume that people who say they won't have casual sex actually won't. Blah, blah, blah-de-fucking-blah!!

    You've ignored TONS of real-world data about how people actually behave, and about what actually happens to people who make certain life choices, and yet, you can't accept it and you start spinning ridiculous scenarios to try to justify your totally untenable position.

  • LeftSidePositive

    Understanding of English FAIL:

    "“Her choice should be to *offer* him (the choice of using) a condom, and at best refuse to actually have sex with him if he chooses not to take it and use it of his own free will.”

    Not to make it a precondition to him."

    How is it NOT a precondition if she won't have sex with him otherwise???

  • jf1

    So yet again we are left with the possibility that the condom will not block an exchange of STDs looming over our heads like an old shoe, an ax, an anvil, or an unwanted uncle :)

    You make him put it on to no effect.
    He wears it and you still get an STD, or worse, he get one from you.

    The bottom line is that you had sex and got an STD and no amount of "hard data" or "logic" is going to get it off.

    And frankly that's the choice that all couples face whether they know their partners' STD status or not. The only way that they will actually find out for sure whether they have an STD or not is to get on top of each other and start grinding, sucking and rubbing. You think that you can avoid that risk with a condom, you're wrong. Plain and simple. You need to decide whether you want this guy (or guys, this girl) even if she *does* have an STD. Plain and simple.

    cheers

  • jf1

    last but not least

    ergo the whole concept of "safe sex" is an oxymoron. And those who preach it are delusional idiots.

  • jf1

    You need to decide if you want to fuck your partner even if they give you an STD. Because you cannot prevent that from happening if they do have one.

  • LeftSidePositive

    Okay, so jf1 was almost trending toward relevance there for a few posts before he totally went off the deep end again...Amanda, I think I'll stress again how valuable a "report this user" feature would be!

  • jf1

    "This makes absolutely no fucking sense. Condoms protect BOTH genders. Why is this so hard for you to understand??This makes absolutely no fucking sense. Condoms protect BOTH genders. Why is this so hard for you to understand??"

    They can only protect you from any specific STD when

    A) that STD is effectively blocked by condoms

    B) when they are used correctly

    C) and that STD cannot be transmitted in any other way.

    Like condoms cannot prevent the spread of HIV when HIV can be transmitted in other ways than through intercourse without a condom. Like, condoms are not an effective way to prevent the spread of other STDs like genital herpes and warts, among many others.

    So you are wrong. Inherently wrong. On this count as well as the others that I pointed out above.

    And I've told you this 500 times already.

  • jf1

    re: #421

    I rest my case.

  • jf1

    ...oh, I'm so patient and tolerant that I should be a teacher somewhere.

    You don't say to the guy, "I won't have sex with you if you don't agree to use a condom".

    You don't say, "if we aren't going to use a condom then I'm not going to have ex with you".

    You say something along the lines of, "would you like to get a condom?"

    And if he says no or tries to argue otherwise and you are so sure that you need him to use one? Then don't sleep with him.

    The rest is up to him, really. You've made your choice, now you'll have to deal with it.

  • jf1

    "
    Okay, so jf1 was almost trending toward relevance there for a few posts before he totally went off the deep end again…Amanda, I think I’ll stress again how valuable a “report this user” feature would be!"

    I'll spare you the trouble.

    You whine like a little bitch when you lose.

    So we won't play. You can't handle it.

  • jf1

    "You need to decide if you want to fuck your partner even if they give you an STD. Because you cannot prevent that from happening if they do have one."

    ...and that explains why people take-back partners when they cheat.

    I just figured it out. That finally makes sense to me. They miss them so bad that they would take them back even if they have an STD, even though they were unfaithful, especially if they can rationalize the infidelity and they think that no STDs will come back in the process. But obviously they did cheat and they could have an STD so at least some part of the process is tolerance of that. But *that* part is no different than it was when they first met.

  • jf1

    ...well, after all those posts the truth of my original position is even more clear. And more logically-established than ever.

    1: abstinence is really the only way to keep from getting an STD, and even that assumes that you don't get one through nonsexual contact. Condoms are simply not effective protection for STD-transmission.

    2: beyond that the only thing you really can do is to make good choices when it comes to choosing your sex partners, and either choose them because you're as sure as you reasonably can be that they do not have an STD, or else be prepared to deal with the consequences if they do.

    But beyond that...really I must point out that a certain poster here is demonstrating why liberal policy has generated such a national backlash. It's because they start off with a few bits of bacon and lettuce and say that they now have a huge "Happy Meal" and that everyone can eat it, should eat it, and be happy, and it'll be good for them. When that's just not the case. But they stick their fingers in their ear, look at their bits of bacon and lettuce and begin to restate their position like a mantra. *Then* they begin to castigate those who disagree with them, as if their belief has granted them godlike status, and to even criticize them is a crime.

    Attempting to force a policy on other people based on half-truths and dogged denial is just not a healthy way to deal with friends and family. If you really think that it's a good idea for you to use a condom, then either use one or don't. Don't attempt to force someone else to buy into your belief-system. I think that fundamentally every man who has read this thread has instinctively realized that that part of this whole argument is just wrong, not to mention that women would never give into such a threat made by a man. Indeed the moment that he insinuated that she might have an STD? She'd leave. Unless she was a skank and knew that she might have an STD, and then she'd think that he was a skank too for wanting to have sex with her anyway. Ultimately the bottom line here is that sex is not clean, it cannot be made clean and that two people who are about to have sex have an unspoken agreement between them that they are about to engage in an unclean act. An act that is no more clean than the two people involved. Only a delusional person would think that such an act can somehow be "sanctified" by condom use. Condoms are the epitome of skanky sex and for very good reason. Condoms are the symbol for a person who engages in sex when they are not in a position, either romantically or financially, to support a child, and as well they likely are also using the condom in an attempt to isolate themselves from their partner even further in terms of STD-transmission. There is no romanticizing or sanctifying the use of a condom. And indeed they will be happy to let you down if you try to do so. Which in the end is why so many people are so eager to suggest that others use condoms. "It sounds like a great idea for you, especially because you're in such an at-risk group. But for me they aren't necessary, because I don't deal with the same risk-factors that you have to deal with".

    Doctor, heal thyself. Follow your own advice and leave others to seek the path best for them. Don't threaten your partner by telling him that you will not have sex with him if he doesn't use a condom. Give him the option of choosing one on his own, and follow his lead. If he chooses not to use one and this is a huge deal for you, just don't have sex with him. Stand up for your own beliefs. And that way you can't be accused of trying to leverage your pussy to get your way in bed. Similarly if he threatens to withhold sex from you for lack of compliance, you can then decide whether you will break things off with him for that reason alone. But don't let your partner beat you over the head with a half-truth. Condoms are not going to keep you from getting an STD.

  • jf1

    "Condoms are not going to keep you from getting an STD."

    ...indeed, if belief in their effectiveness leads you to have risky sex with a skank who actually has one, then obviously they will make it even more likely that you will get one.

  • jf1

    How?

    Because they will only block certain STDs during intercourse, not all, even if used properly, and there's always the chance that they won't be used properly as well as the chance that you can get the STD through nonsexual contact, or sexual contact other than intercourse.

    Keep rubbing up against a dog with fleas and eventually you're going to get fleas.

  • Banyan

    @jf1 hey sorry for last night. I was out of line and being a prick.

  • jf1

    Last but not least:

    "Amanda, I think I’ll stress again how valuable a “report this user” feature would be!"

    Yes, it would be extremely valuable to you because it would help you to power up your Denial Field. You could then use it to request that anyone who not only disagreed with you, but who actually had the logic and intelligence to make their argument stick and yours look bad, consistently, could be blocked, banned or entirely deleted.

    Thereby freeing you to propagate your nonsense in a forum that people actually read (as opposed to the CDC website). And that's extremely valuable to you. Obviously.

    Otherwise you would just dismiss my postings here out of hand as the rantings of an uninformed lunatic ;) and dismiss this entire site as the sort of place where lunatics an be found, and refer people to sites that you prefer, "credible sites" where they can find "helpful and accurate information that will help them to keep themselves safe". But you can't do that because, really, you don't have any idea of what content would be on such a site. You don't even understand the real-world meaning of the phrase "helpful and accurate information that will help them to keep themselves safe".

    So you want Amanda to help you in your misguided quest. You can't make it work on your own. So indeed such a feature would be "extremely valuable" to you. Just another sign of how misguided and delusional you are. The best thing for you to do would be to take what has already been said here and just work with it.

  • jf1

    I think there has to be a better name for this than "doublespeak", the art of saying something that is at best only partially true. In the main, false. Possibly even completely false given the right circumstances, but still maybe even totally true given the "wrong"(?) ones as well.

    Like, "condoms make sex safer".

    It all depends on what assumptions you put into play when you hear things like this.

  • Banyan

    Echo Chamber!!!

  • LeftSidePositive

    Oh, dear heavens--I just made the mistake of checking back on this thread.

    Really...this community is not in any way benefitted by some idiot who posts thousand-word screeds, cannot understand the most basic applications of the English language, the laws of probability, or mathematics.

    Worse, this idiot ignores, conflates, or mischaracterizes arguments, hurls a lot of misogyny, and answers real objective evidence with ridiculous ramblings about "Mary" and "Joe" and "Jim" and "Jeff" and how his made-up characters somehow refute reams of real-world data.

    He has his positions refuted by real evidence over and over again, and then keeps repeating the same crackpot theories.

    Then, after all of his delusional ramblings and total ineptitude at understanding basic logical thinking, he declares someone who has presented him with clear, consistent evidence has "lost."

    Ms. Hess, this member is quite simply NOT acting in good faith and should not be tolerated.

  • Banyan

    Of course not! I mean some of his arguments are coherent, but he certainly isn't a seeker of truth, and would not have nearly as much fun without saying denigrating things. You see I think it's a sickness; he garners power over women by luring them into argument, never accepting even straightforward arguments, and mixing in all the words that will piss off any woman and especially a feminist woman. It's play at the expense of other people. He knows that and that's why he became especially angry when you pointed out that he harbors some dangerous attitudes toward women.

  • LeftSidePositive

    @Banyan, yes I know...but, he also derives some power from spouting out his ideas and imagining they're "validated" by everyone's silence.

    Honestly, I've had some long (and quite contentious) arguments with other posters here, but at least people were honestly presenting their opinions and listening to others (even if only to prove them wrong, they put effort into ACTUALLY trying to prove them wrong, not spitting out long, incoherent screeds and declaring that their word vomit counts as a refutation).

    That's why I think that jf1 is a special case and needs to be removed.

  • jfc1

    "I mean some of his arguments are coherent, but"

    ...dear God, that *must* have been painful :)

    I hope that you feel better about it by now, really.

  • jfc1

    "Worse, this idiot ignores, conflates, or mischaracterizes arguments, hurls a lot of misogyny, and answers real objective evidence with ridiculous ramblings"

    ....I'm waiting for the moment when you confess that you're actually talking about yourself.

    When is that going to happen? Oh boy, I can't wait :) it's always so much fun when the main character comes to the realization that they're the embodiment of all of the character flaws that they're so happy to point out about others!

    Usually happens when they realize that they can't be right about everything all of the time, and *no* one is wrong about everything all the time...has that bit of data crossed your Denial Field yet?

  • jfc1

    "Honestly, I’ve had some long (and quite contentious) arguments with other posters here, but at least people were honestly presenting their opinions and listening to others (even if only to prove them wrong, they put effort into ACTUALLY trying to prove them wrong, not spitting out long, incoherent screeds and declaring that their word vomit counts as a refutation)."

    ...boy, you really have your Denial Field at high power. Must be *damm* radioactive in your immediate area. Noticed any local power-outages lately?

    "That’s why I think that jf1 is a special case and needs to be removed."

    I read and understand what you say :)

    Whether you actually believe what you say, is entirely debatable...whether anyone else should pay serious attention to you, is quite a different subject entirely.

    I think that by now the managers of this site and of the Sexist have seen more than enough to make such a decision all on their own. Maybe you don't see it that way, but I sure do LOL

    Keep complaining about me and it will be clear that your main concern is to complain about me.

...