Condoms Are to Male Contraception as City Buses Are to Public Transportation: Not Good Indicators of Overall Acceptance

Posted by figleaf | Tags:

Sun, 2010-08-08 13:35

In replying to a perfectly reasonable comment by on my post about male contraceptive pills I had a little epiphany about condoms.

The short version of a very common question would be: men tend to be reluctant to use condoms so why assume they’d be more willing to use a pill instead?

It occurred to me that, for whatever reason, for both men and a lot of women, condoms seem to be to contraception what city buses are to public transportation: sensible, practical, economical, reliable, and… underused and underappreciated compared to, say, subways or single-occupancy vehicles. In other words it’s inexplicably dumb but, for condoms and buses both, shouldn’t be taken as evidence of universal hostility to their respective ideas.

Share this post:

From what I understand, most

Submitted by ozymandias (not verified) on Mon, 2010-08-09 11:23.

From what I understand, most people who dislike buses don’t like them because they think they go slow, and most people who dislike condoms don’t like them because they think they make it feel less good and interrupts the flow.

Which proves that inconvenience trumps all. See also: way more people will invest in IRAs if they’re opt-out instead of opt-in.

“...interrupts the flow.”

Submitted by figleaf on Mon, 2010-08-09 13:21.

“...interrupts the flow.”

I think that’s the crux of the problem in both cases, Ozymandias. Once you get the hang of either putting on condoms or figuring out bus schedules (the printed vs. actual traffic-delayed) they’re really not that bad. But until then they can be a major inconvenience — lost time and missed appointments for buses, wilted erections and pulled pubic hair for men, “shouldn’t be a problem” chaffing for women, and general all-round lost momentum. Once again, once you’ve got it both are fine. And at least with condoms putting them on can become a really integrated part of the buildup and suspense. But they are obstacles to adoption. And therefore, I’m now arguing, they shouldn’t be used as evidence of generic indifference or antagonism to their respective general ideas.

Thanks!