Consent condoms: a big fail for the woke

Well, I suppose this product sounds good for about a millisecond when you first hear about it, but another millisecond’s thought proves it to be a dumb and unworkable attempt to solve the issue of consent—and lack thereof—in sexual relations.  The report originates with CNN, which shows the product at issue: a condom in a package that requires four hands to open:

From CNN:

It takes four hands to open this new condom, created by an Argentine company in a bid to highlight the importance of consent.

The “Consent Pack” of condoms was designed by ad agency BBDO Argentina for Tulipan, a company which sells adult toys and condoms.

“If it’s not a yes, it’s a no,” and “Without consent there is no pleasure” says the tagline in the promotional video, along with the hashtag #PlacerConsentido, or “permitted pleasure.”

Another tagline reads: “Consent is the most important thing in sex.”

The pack’s “unique system” requires four hands — or two people — to agree to open it, by clicking four buttons on the top and sides of the box at the same time.

Executive creative directors of BBDO Argentina, Joaquin Campins and Christian Rosli, said in a statement to CNN: “Tulipan has always spoken of safe pleasure, but for this campaign we understood that we had to talk about the most important thing in every sexual relationship: pleasure is possible only if you both give your consent first.”

The condom is limited edition for now and being given to bar customers and attendees of events around Buenos Aires. But Tulipan plans to sell it online in the future.

The article mentions as well that few Argentinian men use condoms, but I’m not sure how making the package harder to open will rectify that problem:

How it works:

Well, you can think of several problems right off the bat. First, this makes condom use marginally more difficult, not easier, and so doesn’t mitigate the problem of Argentinian men not using condoms. Second, if a guy was planning to have sex with a woman (or vice versa), you can always get a friend to help you open the box beforehand. I can imagine that some people would find this a better solution because it minimizes interruption of the sex act. Third, unless this is the ONLY kind of condom available, of what use is it? People can always buy the regular kind.

I suppose a woman could produce this product and insist that a man use it or there will be no sex, but she can simply produce a regular condom and insist on the same thing. If he refuses and tries to force a woman to have sexual intercourse without a condom and without her consent, that is an act of rape that will not be alleviated by this product.

Finally, by the time a condom is required during sex—right before intercourse—it would seem that there has already been mutual consent. But there lies the rub(ber)! The most common objection is that consent can be withdrawn after even a four-handed condom has been produced, but there are others:

From Cosmopolitan (their emphasis):

I get the idea: The four-hand requirement ensures that there’s been a clear, consensual agreement from two parties who are about to have sex. In theory, these condoms should promote having a conversation beforehand (never a bad thing!), and from what I can tell, are meant to be somewhat of a symbolic product dropped in a few bars around Buenos Aires. Clearly, no harm intended.

The thing is…the assumption behind this new condom completely misses the mark. It presents a fantasy in which sex is always clear cut and naturally egalitarian; where the simple act of two able-bodied individuals opening a box together assures an equally straightforward sexual experience. It believes that people (including rapists and sexual predators or abusers) always wear condoms in the first place and importantly, that once a condom is on, consent cannot be revoked. Ever. It’s a done deal.

. . . Reading #MeToo accounts can be painful, and it’s understandable, even admirable, that people want to help eliminate sexual violence. The problem is: It’s not going to be simple, or easy, or quick. Consent lives in the nuances of human interaction. Consent involves navigating tricky areas—someone saying “yes” because they’re too shy to say “no,” or verbalizing something like, “It kind of hurts, but I think I’m okay?”

Rolling Stone raises issues that I didn’t even think of!

Instead of being applauded for promoting the importance of consent, the Tulipan condom ad was excoriated on social media, for a fairly wide range of reasons. Some argued it was ableist, as it discounted the experience of amputees who would be unable to open the condom; others argued that it was discriminatory against polyamorous people, on the grounds that it assumed that only two people would be having sex. Some people even expressed concern that such condoms would be used as “evidence,” potentially in sexual assault cases, to protect those accused of sexual assault rather than the accusers, as a way to demonstrate that consent had been provided when it in fact had not.

. . . the Tulipan ad fundamentally misunderstood the concept of consent. As one woman wrote, “putting on a condom does not equal automatic consent of all sexual activity.” The ad basically glosses over the fact that consent can be revoked midway through the act — if one partner does something that the other is uncomfortable with, for instance, or simply if one partner changes their mind for whatever reason. Agreeing to use a condom is a step in the ongoing process of obtaining sexual consent, but it is by no means the final one, and some argued that the campaign minimized the need for an ongoing and open dialogue about consent during and after sex, not just beforehand.

And from HuffPost:

But while the product may be well-intended, critics, including sex therapists, say it promotes some misguided ideas about consensual sex: True consent is not a one-time transaction ― press the magic buttons or hear “yes” once and you’re in the clear. Consent is an ongoing conversation.

But how ongoing?

Yes, of course consent—and it’s clear they’re talking about women—can be withdrawn at any time, and if it is then you need to stop. What bothers me about this is the introduction of this product, and the conversation about it, demonstrates an increasing fear of sex and of accusations of forced sex, issues that surely must be affecting young people.  Certainly consent should be there by both partners throughout the act, but it seems to me that constant questioning of the sort like “Now that I have the condom on, can I insert my penis into you?” has to not only take the pleasure out of sex, but make students unwilling to have sex at all. (This is not a joke: Brown University specifies a series of questions like this.) Does consent always have to be verbal, in answer to a question?

It’s a tough thing to be a sexually healthy young person these days, and the idea of making the act of sex into a continual contract, whether that be verbal or written, combined with the fear of a post-coital accusation of “implied lack of consent”, is gong to turn a lot more young folk into celibates.

95 Comments

  1. Ken Kukec
    Posted April 14, 2019 at 10:17 am | Permalink

    It takes four hands to open this new condom …

    So much for one-armed folk ever gettin’ laid again.

    • Diana MacPherson
      Posted April 14, 2019 at 10:50 am | Permalink

      I know that’s the first thing I thought. Also, if there is a wrong way to open a package, I’ll find it. Always upside down or backwards and the whole thing is destroyed in the process so if there are others out there like me, that’s what’s going to happen.

    • Mike Cracraft
      Posted April 14, 2019 at 10:58 am | Permalink

      Well,there’s always wanking.

    • Posted April 14, 2019 at 11:21 am | Permalink

      But it does make the package “child-proof” so that innocent two-year olds won’t be using them by mistake.

      • infiniteimprobabilit
        Posted April 14, 2019 at 6:10 pm | Permalink

        ROTFL!

        That one wins the thread!

        cr

  2. Posted April 14, 2019 at 10:22 am | Permalink

    One solution is to require consent in writing. With a notary as a witness. Either that or a video recording if the whole process.

    I was talking to a mother of a fourteen year old boy the offer day. She is seriously worried and mentioned the written contract not as a serious idea but to show the extent of her concern about a girl changing her mind afterwards and claiming she did not consent to whatever occurred

    • yazikus
      Posted April 14, 2019 at 10:28 am | Permalink

      Far better than a written contract is the consideration that if you are not sure your partner is enthusiastically willing – abstain.

      • bj
        Posted April 14, 2019 at 11:03 am | Permalink

        Unless you have someone who is constantly shouting “yes yes do me do me,’ you can’t be 100% sure.

        • yazikus
          Posted April 14, 2019 at 11:05 am | Permalink

          That would seem to indicate a successful encounter, no? But really, if the choice is slightly less sex because some people aren’t sure if their partner is into it, or more sex where some of that might be assault, I’ll take the former. Young people can always use practice at good and clear communication.

          • Posted April 14, 2019 at 11:23 am | Permalink

            +1. EVERYONE “can always use practice at good and clear communication.”

          • BJ
            Posted April 14, 2019 at 11:35 am | Permalink

            But most people don’t do sex like that. Most people don’t shout like that during sex. Most people don’t want to. Are you going to make women do that? Or are you going to make men ask every 15 seconds while they’re having sex if the woman still wants to have sex? Will the woman have to do the same?

            • yazikus
              Posted April 14, 2019 at 11:39 am | Permalink

              I would argue that it is not actually difficult to tell if a partner is willing. I think the majority of folks who would be unsure would be the young or the inexperienced, and in their case caution is not unwarranted. A quick ‘is this good for you?’ here and there certainly won’t kill the mood. Sex is an act between partners, and just like anything that requires a level of trust, coordination and participation (whether that be dance, sport, a duet, whatevs) I trust that people will find the communication style that works for them. A one-size-fits-all rule like ‘shout every 15 seconds’ would never work, nor would it be necessary.

              • BJ
                Posted April 14, 2019 at 11:46 am | Permalink

                So there will be an age cut-off? What will that age be? There are tons of adults out there who are sexually inexperienced. What about them?

                You’re right, it’s not difficult to tell if a partner isn’t willing, which is why enthusiastic consent rules don’t really change any of the dynamics at play. “No means no” works just as well as “yes means yes.” And, for young people, sexual encounters should be kind of awkward and weird. They’re supposed to be figuring things out. Asking at the very beginning is fine, but, beyond that, I say no to the idea, and I certainly say no to legislating any of this.

                With regard to my other comment below before you made this one, I’m talking about many of the proponents of this idea, not necessarily you.

              • yazikus
                Posted April 14, 2019 at 11:53 am | Permalink

                I’m not in favor of legislating this sort of thing, we already have rape laws and this is too ambiguous. I do believe in robust communication – and as for not asking after the initial consummation of the act? I could see lots of scenarios where a well-timed ‘does this feel good’ wouldn’t hurt. What if one partner wants to try a new and adventurous position? I think that communicating here would lead to a more varied and rich sexual encounter and allow both parties to expand their bedroom-repertoire if desired. As with most silly things, the reason we have to have this conversation at all is because there are assholes out there who will ignore a partner’s discomfort and proceed in the act and then try to blame it on a lack of an explicit ‘no’ – when they knew well all along the partner was not enthusiastically willing. I think those unpleasant folks are in the minority by far, and the rest of us will be just fine.

            • Adam M.
              Posted April 14, 2019 at 11:56 am | Permalink

              Right. I tried this with a woman once and she hated it. She wouldn’t answer a single question even though she was the one pushing for sex in her plausibly deniable and mostly nonverbal way. (“I can’t sleep…” and rolling next to me etc.) Having to be explicit was uncomfortable for her, and the silence after each question was a very awkward one. Plus, it made her think I was weird. 😛

              • Diana MacPherson
                Posted April 14, 2019 at 12:19 pm | Permalink

                “Plus it made her think I was weird” – and not in a good way!

              • Posted April 15, 2019 at 4:13 am | Permalink

                I think you should have persisted in your attempts at explicit communication. Then, after a while, you would have been pretty sure that she didn’t want to have sex with you anymore.

          • BJ
            Posted April 14, 2019 at 11:43 am | Permalink

            People act like this “enthusiastic consent” thing is an answer to any problem, but it’s really not. First, anyone who has trouble saying no when not being asked (either because they feel bad rejecting someone, or feel awkward, or whatever) is going to have just as much trouble saying “no” when asked directly (hell, they might feel even more uncomfortable now that they’ve been asked). Second, since consent can be revoked at any time, nobody can be sure when it is or isn’t in effect unless they are asking every few seconds or their partner is saying “yes yes do me do me” every few seconds. Third, which parts do you have to ask before, and which parts don’t you? According to most of the crowd pushing this idea, you have to ask before every single change, and, again, consent can be revoked at any time. So, I have to ask, “can I kiss you,” then “can I put my hand on your breast,” then “can I put my hand on your butt,” then “can I put my hand on your breast, but under your shirt,” then “can I put my hand on your breast, but under your bra,” then “can I undo your bra,” then “can I lift your shirt and lick your breast,” then…well, there are probably 20 to 50 more questions before you might actually get to intercourse. I have never seen or heard of anyone having any such encounter, and you’d be trying to socially engineer the entire human history of sexual contact away with this. It simply doesn’t work. Maybe asking at the very beginning whether one wants to have a sexual encounter (as in, “can I kiss you?”). But after that? The person who wants to stop needs to say stop because you can’t ask at every single change in the encounter whether the other person is OK with it.

            And remember, BOTH SIDES need to ask with every change. As a man, I’ve had plenty of sexual encounters I regretted because I either felt bad rejecting the person or didn’t want to say no for some other reason. Them asking me outright wouldn’t have changed that anyway.

            • yazikus
              Posted April 14, 2019 at 11:48 am | Permalink

              And remember, BOTH SIDES need to ask with every change. As a man, I’ve had plenty of sexual encounters I regretted because I either felt bad rejecting the person or didn’t want to say no for some other reason.

              100% on board with this – sans the actual ‘asking’ part. Checking in can be verbal or nonverbal, imo, such as noticing whether the other person looks/acts like they are into it (moaning, mutual touching, asking for more), but I have to wonder, if one of those partners had picked up on your lack of enthusiasm and asked, “Hey BJ, are you sure you are into this? If not, that is okay” whether you would have still continued on with the act you would later regret.

            • darrelle
              Posted April 14, 2019 at 1:38 pm | Permalink

              I’m not clear on one thing. Do you think that consent should not be able to be revoked at anytime? Not of course hours, days or weeks after the fact, but during an encounter? Do you think that if someone goes along willingly at the beginning of a sexual encounter, even says out loud “Yes I’m okay with having sex with you,” and then a few minutes later says “I’m sorry I want to stop now,” that their partner should not have to stop? Legally or in the context of what is socially acceptable?

              • Deodand
                Posted April 14, 2019 at 7:50 pm | Permalink

                Most SJWs and politicians that support them seem to think that consent should be given at ‘every stage of the process’ without defining what ‘every stage’ means and that consent can be withdrawn at *any* time, even years after the event at which point it becomes rape and the ‘perp’ should be locked up without trial because why would a ‘survivor’ be mistaken or lie about events. And of course as ‘everybody knows’ in rape cases accusation = guilt.

              • darrelle
                Posted April 15, 2019 at 6:23 am | Permalink

                Thanks, but that’s not what I was asking.

        • Ken Kukec
          Posted April 15, 2019 at 8:39 am | Permalink

          “Unless you have someone who is constantly shouting ‘yes yes do me do me’…”

          I thought that’s what women always shouted, but maybe that’s just me. 🙂

          • Ken Kukec
            Posted April 15, 2019 at 8:41 am | Permalink

            At least until I untie ’em and let ’em out of the basement, anyway. 🙂

            • merilee
              Posted April 15, 2019 at 9:03 am | Permalink

              That’s when they shout UNdo me.

        • gravelinspector-Aidan
          Posted April 15, 2019 at 6:39 pm | Permalink

          So … mute people can’t have sex?

          • rickflick
            Posted April 15, 2019 at 9:34 pm | Permalink

            Maybe only mute MDs who have been trained to write fast. I can imagine the bedroom floor covered by small notes.

    • Christopher
      Posted April 14, 2019 at 10:44 am | Permalink

      I think that in order for that to work the male would be required to get notarized consent prior to each thrust and meet with his potential partner’s legal team following ejaculation. Of course this still won’t help, as if the partner decides at any time in the future that she no longer consents to the consent she gave in the past, it will be retroactively annulled and deemed rape.

      And in case any reader missed another crazy news story, that bastion of free speech, KU in Lawrence Ks, will be offering an “Angry White Man” course next year…

    • Diana MacPherson
      Posted April 14, 2019 at 10:51 am | Permalink

      I say always bring your lawyer with you when you are going to have sex and call him into the room with a document to sign.

      • rickflick
        Posted April 14, 2019 at 10:55 am | Permalink

        But be sure to include a clause so the lawyer must then leave the room without getting physically involved. 😎

      • Posted April 14, 2019 at 12:36 pm | Permalink

        Nothing like a lawyer to ensure that you are thoroughly screwed.

        • Diana MacPherson
          Posted April 14, 2019 at 12:42 pm | Permalink

          Ba dum da….tish.

    • Posted April 14, 2019 at 11:18 am | Permalink

      obligatory share.

      • Posted April 14, 2019 at 11:28 am | Permalink

        +1

      • Diana MacPherson
        Posted April 14, 2019 at 12:08 pm | Permalink

        I should have guessed that Fry & Laurie would have done this. I was actually wondering if it had been done by Mitchell and Webb.

  3. dvandivere
    Posted April 14, 2019 at 10:22 am | Permalink

    I would be really surprised if they ever meant to mass produce them. Rather, it was probably meant as a marketing event – which worked.

    I mean, OBVIOUSLY there’s all kinds of practical and production problems with it. I’m a bit surprised that anyone’s looking at it as anything but a marketing plan that focuses on consent.

    More importantly: cleaned out the kitchen and discovered 7 more bottles of West Vleteren!

    • rickflick
      Posted April 14, 2019 at 10:53 am | Permalink

      That was my thought. The concept people were not fools. They know the many ways this is an absurd idea, but the motive has to be publicity. Millions of people now know the brand name that originally didn’t.

    • Michael Fisher
      Posted April 14, 2019 at 12:59 pm | Permalink

      Yes it’s clearly marketing & it’s working – they’ll sell loads of battery powered RABBITS off the back of this.

      “tulipán” is Spanish [& Hungarian, Galician, Czech & Slovak] for tulip which in turn comes from the Turkish or Persian for Turban for obvious reasons. Somewhat male orientated given their core consumers are female. If they want to stick with the male thing I suggest the company rebrand for the Anglo market to “todger” or “bellend” [as we say in the UK] – though I like “Spurt” as it’s a properly woody word [M. Python] 🙂

      Sex brands for women have very coy or uninspired names unfortunately – fun & raunchy names are needed: Ann Summers, Victoria’s Secret, Dame Products [founded by women], Unbound Babes, Love Woo, Maud, Pulse.

      • Diana MacPherson
        Posted April 14, 2019 at 1:15 pm | Permalink

        I vote for “cum hither”.

        • Jenny Haniver
          Posted April 14, 2019 at 1:30 pm | Permalink

          That’s good.

          There’s a Bell End Street in London and the residents want the name changed but were turned down. They say that it’s driving down real estate prices. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/02/residents-bell-end-call-change-embarrassing-street-name/

          • Diana MacPherson
            Posted April 14, 2019 at 1:33 pm | Permalink

            I had to look up what that meant as it’s not known in North America or maybe not known to me (I could be behind on my penis slang). I think it would be fun to have the job of coming up with amusing double entendres and puns.

        • Michael Fisher
          Posted April 14, 2019 at 1:40 pm | Permalink

          Excellent choice! You are a very wise owl.

          • Diana MacPherson
            Posted April 14, 2019 at 1:43 pm | Permalink

            I’ve missed my true owly calling.

      • dvandivere
        Posted April 15, 2019 at 2:03 am | Permalink

        I expect the thinking is this: there’s a huge market opportunity since so few Argentinian men use condoms. If they can associate their name with condoms while enlarging the market, they’re likely going to sell a lot of their regular condoms.

        We now return you to your regularly scheduled sophomorism.

  4. yazikus
    Posted April 14, 2019 at 10:27 am | Permalink

    This seems a little different than other well meaning ‘anti-rape’ products (like that spike condom, the roofie coasters, etc) – but seems a novelty to me all the same. For young people, with less experience, I do think the encounter should involve a fair amount of communication and consideration, and I’m not in the camp that finds verbalizing explicit consent to be un-sexy.

    I would see this more as a product for men to impress the would-be partner with their wokeness, which isn’t a bad thing.

    • Posted April 14, 2019 at 3:28 pm | Permalink

      “…a product for men to impress the would-be partner with their wokeness, which isn’t a bad thing”

      For a second, I imagined how reproductive isolation appears and grows between woke and non-woke H. sapiens, eventually leading to speciation.

  5. Randall Schenck
    Posted April 14, 2019 at 10:38 am | Permalink

    If not a joke product and meant to be serious it would be hard to be. Lets run it by the Pope before going into production.

    • Christopher
      Posted April 14, 2019 at 10:49 am | Permalink

      Due to age, I’m pretty sure an alter boy cannot give consent, especially if he is forced to help open the box by the priest.

  6. Posted April 14, 2019 at 10:49 am | Permalink

    In the most charitable sense I do see it as having a role, if mainly a symbolic one, on certain occasions like the Olympics. As I understand it, the hosts of the games have been issuing condoms to the athletes. So having this brand in the swag bag that they get at the very least sends a message: Have Fun, but Get Consent. People do tend to behave better if they are reminded to do so.

  7. FB
    Posted April 14, 2019 at 10:49 am | Permalink

    The real problem of sexual consent in Argentina is that every day almost 10 girls aged 10-13 get pregnant (about 3000/year). Teen pregnancy is 16% (more than 100,000/year). I wish the woke would talk more about this.

    • Christopher
      Posted April 14, 2019 at 11:44 am | Permalink

      Indeed. But then they also ignore violence against women and homosexuals when perpetrated by muslims. Go figure.

  8. bewilderbeast
    Posted April 14, 2019 at 10:51 am | Permalink

    I think they’ll sell like hot cakes.
    And the number of hot cakes I have ever seen being sold or being bought is, um, well, come to think of it, not a single one.
    I’m with vvandivere here – it was a marketing gimmick that sure worked!

    • dvandivere
      Posted April 15, 2019 at 2:04 am | Permalink

      Have you never seen a Denny’s? Or an IHOP?

      • bewilderbeast
        Posted April 15, 2019 at 9:25 am | Permalink

        No, thank goodness – we have few them in Africa! Do they serve hot cakes!? You’d have to grow up with that to want them, I’d guess.

  9. Posted April 14, 2019 at 11:15 am | Permalink

    Per the condom, I suspect it’s novelty marketing for couples who want to try it for fun. Per consent, I’m not sure but by the terms of the “yes means yes” laws in NY, California, etc., I think every sex act I’ve ever had was a mutual rape, since neither my partner nor I explicitly asked or said “yes, it’s OK” before the act. I prefer to align with 1960s feminists (who proclaim for women equal strength and agency with men) more than with current feminists (who more often risk infantilizing women for political gain).

    • Posted April 14, 2019 at 12:18 pm | Permalink

      In re: “by the terms of […] I think every sex act I’ve ever had was a mutual rape”

      I strongly suspect this is the case for the extremely vast majority of people who have ever lived – including those pretending that getting explicit verbal consent is “sexy” and whatnot, at least up to the point this nonsense began to “be a thing”.

  10. pablo
    Posted April 14, 2019 at 11:57 am | Permalink

    Surveys indicate that young Americans are having less sex than previous generations. That’s probably a good thing, though I’ve seen articles that treat it as though it were a crisis.

    I’m just glad that I’m gay. So far we remain untouched by the new rape hysteria.

    • Mark R.
      Posted April 14, 2019 at 12:44 pm | Permalink

      Last Friday on Real Time, Bill Maher talked about kids having less sex and how people were hysterical about it. His take was ‘good’ we don’t need more humans on the planet. I agree. At the same time, I don’t know if this new trend is necessarily a good social change. It says something (imo) about the pervasiveness of social media, and how it inhibits real/physical/meaningful relationships.

      • Diana MacPherson
        Posted April 14, 2019 at 1:13 pm | Permalink

        He also talked about how people annoy him with standing too close, having garlic breath, spitting when talking – so he doesn’t see those people but he’d rather deal with those people than be behind his phone all the time. I feel the opposite. Ugh, I have enough people interaction all week. I want to be away from the people sometimes. My manager got my a pin that says “It’s too peopley outside”. It’s perfect.

        • Christopher
          Posted April 14, 2019 at 1:52 pm | Permalink

          I feel your pain (but only with your consent). I struggle with severe social anxiety and need quite a bit of alone time just to keep my tenuous grip on the thinnest shred of sanity. Of course this results in my being what I call “terminally single”, so this consent thing isn’t really any issue for me. And I have phone issues, too, so that doesn’t help me much. If I could conduct all life’s business anonymously and via text…not that this lends itself to a healthy physical relationship.

          • Diana MacPherson
            Posted April 16, 2019 at 9:24 am | Permalink

            I too am not a phone fan. I refuse to use the phone unless completely forced. Fortunately all the kids like to communicate via text as well so it’s great.

        • Mark R.
          Posted April 14, 2019 at 2:06 pm | Permalink

          “It’s too peopley outside”

          I need one! Actually, it fits my wife better than me…

      • XCellKen
        Posted April 14, 2019 at 1:55 pm | Permalink

        It also may say something about the ubiquity of free porn

        • Mark R.
          Posted April 14, 2019 at 2:03 pm | Permalink

          Interesting…hadn’t thought of that.

        • infiniteimprobabilit
          Posted April 14, 2019 at 6:31 pm | Permalink

          I think that probably has a lot more to do with it.

          If you’re a typical young male – randy but not very good at chatting up the chicks – and you find the Saturday night ritual of cruising the bars in vain a bit of a challenge – it’s much easier just to dial up naughtyvideos.com on your ‘device’, and you *know* they’re not going to play hard to get or cost you your last week’s pay packet (or give you a disease or get pregnant, either).

          So they are having just as much sex, but not as we know it. 😉

          (The girls, I can’t answer for and wouldn’t speculate).

          cr

      • Posted April 14, 2019 at 3:35 pm | Permalink

        People are having less sex in advanced countries that already have self-extinction birth rates. In the majority of the world, which is not fit for human habitation, there is much sex and high birth rates.

        • Michael Fisher
          Posted April 14, 2019 at 4:28 pm | Permalink

          mayamarkov:

          “People are having less sex in advanced countries that already have self-extinction birth rates. In the majority of the world, which is not fit for human habitation, there is much sex and high birth rates”

          “Self-extinction” sounds very scary!

          • Posted April 16, 2019 at 3:21 pm | Permalink

            It does to me, for sentimental reasons, because I belong to people bringing themselves to extinction. But humanity will go on. As the proverb says, cemeteries are full of irreplaceable people.

        • rickflick
          Posted April 14, 2019 at 5:09 pm | Permalink

          I think, though, that the majority is catching up to the minority, which should help the plants, animals, and other aspects of the planet.

        • Tim Harris
          Posted April 15, 2019 at 7:26 am | Permalink

          Ah, shitholes, are they, all those places in the ‘majority of the world’, which is not fit for human habitation? No wonder they all want to come to the ‘advanced’ areas, and who can blame them? — but of course that does not seem to go down well with the ‘advanced people’, does it?

          • Posted April 16, 2019 at 3:39 pm | Permalink

            Tim,
            Nice to hear from you again! Yes, you read through my euphemistic phrase. Only you appreciate the efforts I make to keep the bon ton, and nobody even praises me! (Actually, all I strive for is to avoid bans.)

            “…Of course that does not seem to go down well with the ‘advanced people’, does it?”
            My impression is that the majority seem to like it.

  11. Roger Lambert
    Posted April 14, 2019 at 12:19 pm | Permalink

    Consent condoms not approved for use in elevators or conferences.

  12. Nicolaas Stempels
    Posted April 14, 2019 at 1:31 pm | Permalink

    Seriously though (referring to some witty comments above), putting on a condom is itself often a spoiler, detracting from the ‘flow’, if I may express myself that way.
    I think that in only very few cases a four-hand opening is not a killer -or at least a dampener.
    I think that dvandivere is spot on.
    Here in South Africa it would not work though, condoms are for free, subsidized by the State, they come in four forms: regular, strawberry, grape and banana taste (and colour).

    • Diana MacPherson
      Posted April 14, 2019 at 1:41 pm | Permalink

      Four-handed opening sounds like a sex act in itself.

      • rickflick
        Posted April 14, 2019 at 2:04 pm | Permalink

        Or a play in bridge.

      • Posted April 14, 2019 at 3:30 pm | Permalink

        Rules out bondage, though.

    • Christopher
      Posted April 14, 2019 at 1:42 pm | Permalink

      Strawberry, grape, and banana? I’ve never understood this. Is this for people who get aroused when walking through the produce department?

      • Michael Fisher
        Posted April 14, 2019 at 1:58 pm | Permalink

        Oral stimulation of a cloaked dick going flaccid before mission accomplished: banana etc flavours are preferable to latex, but indeed seem juvenile – pina colada would be the most poetic flavour. I believe one can get bacon too – presumably not dry aged & maple syrup would sell well with the Canuck suckers…

        • Christopher
          Posted April 14, 2019 at 2:13 pm | Permalink

          I guess I’m old-fashioned I that I would prefer a penis-flavored penis and a vagina-flavored vagina and I wouldn’t want a drunk hungery person taste bacon and start chewing away…

      • Posted April 14, 2019 at 3:13 pm | Permalink

        And they have missed the opportunity for chocolate flavored condoms. This alone would inspire more interest in using them.

  13. eedwardgrey69
    Posted April 14, 2019 at 1:33 pm | Permalink

    I guess there’s no way that if a guy doesn’t care about consent he’ll just – you know – skip putting on a condom entirely?

  14. infiniteimprobabilit
    Posted April 14, 2019 at 6:37 pm | Permalink

    Yes I can just see the scenario – young couple tear their clothes off, go through all the erotic preliminaries, the magic moment arrives, they… grab the condom box and spend all of three seconds frantically wrestling with the thing trying to get it open before they hurl it into a corner and decide to risk it…

    cr

    • Christopher
      Posted April 14, 2019 at 7:55 pm | Permalink

      I wonder, will they introduce a multipack that requires six hands…

  15. Posted April 14, 2019 at 8:00 pm | Permalink

    This suggests a great phone app. Each participant takes their phones to bed with them. At the right moment each has to enter their PIN into a consent box which is then exchanged with the other phone. Once the phones sync, so do the players. In the free version, they have to watch some ads first.

    • Diana MacPherson
      Posted April 14, 2019 at 9:29 pm | Permalink

      Ha ha. And for security, they have to sign up for two-factor authentication so before they can even watch the ads, they have to enter the code sent to their phone or use Google Authenticator. If you have NFC, you can hold your phones together but you still need to authenticate as described above.

      • Posted April 14, 2019 at 10:18 pm | Permalink

        You’re a tech geek. Can you code this?

        • Posted April 14, 2019 at 10:22 pm | Permalink

          We’ll call it WeTwo.

          • Diana MacPherson
            Posted April 14, 2019 at 10:33 pm | Permalink

            Haha.

        • Diana MacPherson
          Posted April 14, 2019 at 10:33 pm | Permalink

          Haha no. I just know how it hangs togetherish.

      • dvandivere
        Posted April 15, 2019 at 2:06 am | Permalink

        I believe someone’s already got an app in production.

  16. Martin
    Posted April 14, 2019 at 8:33 pm | Permalink

    We need four handed guns. That way only chimps will be shooting people.

  17. Posted April 14, 2019 at 11:09 pm | Permalink

    And what if you don’t have two hands?


Post a Comment

Required fields are marked *
*
*

%d bloggers like this: