Apparently you cannot read. This post is not about genetic material.
The post is obviously about the gender bias in the law discussed by the
orginal post and link.  You replied the the remark about female condoms
by saying that women should not have to suffer decreased sensation.
(Both parties experience decreased sensation with any male or female
condoms BTW.)

You stated that any benefit from female condom use being required would
be because a woman is more reliable with contraceptives and/or
protection. (BC is contraceptive, condoms are both contraceptives and
protection.) I simply stated that if this is the case then why does
birth control not prevent 99.9% of pregnancies. You reply that women
might want to become pregnant. Therefore, women could not be trusted to
use female condoms because they might want to become pregnant.

No assumptions are made about "babysitting sperm" or women being
"responsible for male reproductive materials." The valid conclusion is
reached, as reference above, that women would not be more responsible
with contraceptives/protection than men, because, as a whole, women
fail to even use birth control effectively.

I commented that a loss of sensation appears to only be a problem, in
your eyes,  when women experience this loss, as drawn from your post
about loss of sensation by women with female condoms. It is common
knowledge that male condoms reduce sensation for men (and women).

The rest of you post is off-topic as usual. Maybe you need tutoring
about how to make sense when posting?



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/9/05 8:08:56 PM ---