Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    Re: .0
    
                               ARRRGGGHHHH!!!!
    
    (How do I get double height double width on this thing?!)
    
    Are these people SERIOUS? Have they done any market research or
    is this simple knee-jerk sexist stupidity? I CAN'T STAND IT! Does
    anyone have any more information on the Chinese results?
    
    Re: .1
    
    I suspect that both forms are non-reversable, but even so, any
    procedure that is significantly cheaper, or safer, or more reliable
    than existing birth control methods should at least be INVESTIGATED.
    To categorically exclude it simply because it's for MEN makes me
    furious (in case you couldn't tell)
    
    Goshamickle dickle pickle, geewillywoggle, dog my cats and ROWERBAZZLE!
    
    Moomph moomph moomph.
    
    -- Charles

    re: .2, those last two lines sound like a lulu of an alien cheer...
    
    re: .0, there was also the suggestion several years ago that the
    U.S. begin studying a european (british?) development of a "male
    pill" called Gossypol.  I'm not sure why it didn't pan out that
    way but I suspect it was due in part to the same attitude.  One
    tack that these arguers take is that it is much easier to stop 1
    egg per month than to stop more than 50 million sperm a day (or
    some such).  I am not sure if this is true (probably depends on
    the technique and its resulting effectiveness), but it doesn't hold
    water if that (accompanied by the "it's a woman's place to control
    these things") is the only argument such people can make.
    
    -jody
    

    	RE:  .3
    
    	When I saw your title, I thought you were adding more words
    	to Charles' list of epithets.  :-)
    
    	"Gossypol" sounded like it would have fit right in with the
    	rest of Charles' "alien cheer"...
    
    

    I suspect that these decisions were related highly to the
    pharmaceutical companies projected bottom line, not potential market
    for the product.

    Re: .5  
    	Ditto.  It's most likely more profitable to persue a female
    oriented method of birth control, than a male oriented method.
    
    Re:  Jody
    
    The 'male pill' people took an opinion survey,and found that most
    women would be unwilling to trust a man (who they were only casually
    familiar with) who said he took the pill.  As .0 pointed out,
    women bear the ultimate consequences of birth control (or lack
    thereof).
    
    It would be great if such a product were available, but I think
    it'll probably be a long while before it becomes popular....
    
    Dave
    

    Re: .2 - The "cheer" is a fuming tirade from "Pogo", if you've seen
    the strip where Pogo uses it, you understand my feelings perfectly.
    
    Re: .3
    
    Gossypol had the unfortunate "side effect" of sometimes being
    irreversible. It also occasionally reduced libido. It's fatal flaw
    though, was that it is unpatentable and inexpensive to produce.
    [I hear myself getting shrill again...]
    
    Re: .5
    
    DAMN RIGHT.
    
    Re: .6
    
    I'm not interested in whether or not WOMEN think a male pill is useless
    or undesirable, or whether they wouldn't trust a man claiming to use
    it, I WANT IT FOR MYSELF! *I* want to have a voice in my reproduction!
    *I* don't want to have to trust someone else to "take care of things",
    I want to *know* I'm not going to "accidentally" father a child. If she
    doesn't believe me and wants to use birth control herself, THAT'S FINE.
    If she wants me to use a condom for *whatever* reason, THAT'S FINE TOO.
    But to deny ME an oral contraceptive just because someone else believes
    I won't use it is patronizing, infuriating, and just plain stupid. Just
    men's attitudes towards women's oral contraceptives are not
    interesting, relevant, or important, likewise women's attitudes towards
    men's oral contraceptives are consummately irrelevant. 
    
    [This is one of the reasons I'm a feminist. I experience some of the
    pain and frustration that women have had to face in this and other
    areas and it makes me incoherent with anger.] 
    
    Because some jerk of a man can run off and leave a pregnant woman means
    that SHE should be careful. Because I *wouldn't* leave a pregnant
    woman, even if she had gotten pregnant deliberately and under false
    pretenses, means *I* should be careful. The two cases are
    complementary, NOT exclusive. Yes, women can be forced to bear the
    ultimate consequences of pregnancy, but conscientious men bear the
    consequences of pregnancy as well, and they should be able to control
    their chances too.
    
    Even when you do trust each other, in a large number of couples both
    partners would use birth control. Better safer than surprised.
    
    Yes, it would be great if such a product were available, but I'm not
    holding my breath (or anything else) waiting for it. It would
    be instantly popular, look at how many vasectomies are being performed.
    Think about all those men, who will someday get a vasectomy, but in the
    mean time are reduced to choosing between condoms, abstinence, or
    "taking their chances".
    
    	-- Charles

    	RE:  .7
    
    	Charles, I can sympathize with the anger that you feel about
    	being denied a male contraceptive.
    
    	Glad that you are keeping in mind that it wasn't women who
    	refused to allow you to have it.  The women polled merely
    	said that they wouldn't trust a man to "take care of things"
    	-- an understandable concern.
    
    	It was the "male pill people" who based their decision on that
    	poll.  
    
    	In the future, it is my feeling that people of *neither sex*
    	will be willing to trust others to "take care of things" (esp.
    	if the relationship is new or casual.)  This sort of attitude is
    	understandable from *both sides* (no matter who is likely to
    	bear the greater burden of pregnancy.)
    
    	The problem is that the "male pill people" didn't believe that
    	men would BUY the product if they knew that women were already
    	using birth control.  If they thought that MEN WOULD BUY THE
    	PRODUCT (in spite of the birth control practiced by women),
    	then the male pill would have gone on the market.
    
    	The prevailing attitude is that *either* one person *or* the
    	other will use protection (but not both.)  So if women insist
    	on "taking care of things" for themselves, then the "male pill
    	people" sincerely believe that men won't bother.  (I agree that
    	this is a very dumb attitude on the part of the "male pill
    	people"!)
    
    	Men need to make it known that REGARDLESS of whether or not
    	their partners are protected, they (men) would like to be
    	protected as well (and that they would buy the product if it
    	were available.)
    
    	Equality (in this situation) is that all parties know for certain
    	that they *can insure* that they will *NOT* become parents (whether
    	their partners also use birth control or not.)

    Re: .8
    
    Suzanne,
    
    I don't know if that was supposed to be a gentle hint or if you were
    just "echoing", but just in case, let me make it clear that I agree
    that just because some women are justifiably unwilling to trust *their*
    contraception to a man claiming to be "on the pill" that that doesn't
    make it their fault that I don't have the pill. Far from it. The
    problem is, as you point out, that the drug manufacturers are not being
    responsive to the very real needs of men (and women) for safer, more
    reliable, and more convenient forms of contraception.
    
    We can speculate as to why they are being unresponsive, and I have
    my own dark suspicions, but the bottom line is that they are not
    actively pursuing new methods of male contraception and that is
    criminal.
    
    In Janice and my relationship contraception is a two way street.
    Sometimes we use a diaphram (and sometimes *I* insert it, and wash it
    later) and sometimes we use a condom and cream (and sometimes *she*
    puts it on and takes it off). In any case we *both* KNOW what kind of
    contraception is being used, and by whom. I don't want people to get
    the impression that I think you could NEVER trust a man (or woman) who
    claimed to be using contraception. But even if you do trust them
    completely, what possible harm can there be in being certain? When the
    consequences of a mutual misunderstanding are so serious, it seems
    reckless not to check. 
    
    	-- Charles

    	RE:  .9
    
    	Yes, I did mean to agree with your statement in .7 (that it
    	is wrong for the manufacturers of the "male pill" to be so
    	unresponsive to the need for a male contraceptive.)
    
    	Was just trying to suggest that men make their needs known
    	to the right people (because, sure as shootin', if the
    	"male pill people" thought there were bucks to be made, they
    	would very likely work on getting a male pill on the
    	market.)  Potential profits can be highly motivating, after
    	all.  We can worry about educating them later if we can convince
    	them *now* that the product is needed.
        
    	Also agree with you that there is more than just "trust" between
    	sexual partners involved here.  Having both partners protected
    	seems like such a sensible idea to me (no matter how serious
    	the relationship.)
    
    	In my reply .8, I didn't mean to sound cynical when I said
    	that people will not be willing to "trust" each other with
    	taking care of contraception.  What I should have said is
    	that, in the future, people will probably not be so willing
    	to delegate the responsibility to the other party.  It is
   	my opinion that people of both sex will feel an equal respon-
    	sibility (no matter what kind of relationship they have.)
    
    	*Still* sounds to me like the "male pill people" need to know
    	that men would be interested in having this sort of product
    	available.

    	What can we do to get this message to them?

    If every *person* who is sexually active felt actively committed
    to preventing unwanted pregnancies in addition to anything their
    partner(s) might be doing along the same lines, it might be the
    beginning of solving several big social problems!
    
    I think you make a good point, Charles, about wanting to be sure
    for your own peace of mind.  What a different world it would be
    if everyone felt that way.
    

    Re .7, Charles, if I were a man I think (or at least hope) that
    I would feel like you do about responsibility for unwanted pregnancy.
     I figure that anyone (male or female) who knows they don't want
    to have a baby at a certain time should make certain that *they*
    don't, and not just depend on the other person.  If I were a man
    and I knew that I didn't want to father a child I'd like to have
    some type of safe, reliable pill to take.  That way I would know
    for sure.  It seems strange to me that so many men have left this
    up to women for so many years.
    
    I remember a conversation I once had with a male friend who complained
    that a woman he wasn't in love with had gotten pregnant by him.
     I asked him why he let it happen, and he looked at me in amazement
    and said, "She didn't use birth control!  What could I do?"  It
    seemed to me he thought that getting somebody pregnant was totally
    out of his control, like the weather or something.
    
    Lorna
    

    Re: .12
    
    Thanks Lorna,
    
    I think the problem is a mental block that many men have. Deep down
    inside I think a lot of men still feel that "nice girls don't do that".
    They want to think of sex as something wild and spontaneous and out
    of control, not something planned for. They want to believe that "she's
    a nice girl, but I'm irresistable". If she uses birth control then
    she's obviously planned for this, on the other hand, he sure *hopes*
    she's using birth control. So he can't ask.
    
    I don't *know* that this ridiculous situation is what's really happening,
    but I wouldn't be at all surprised. This kind of thinking even has
    a name, it's called "cognitive dissonance" and is the subject of a
    branch of psychology of the same name.
    
    Now as to why most men don't take responsibility for birth control.
    I think many, many, men do, and these days more and more are. The problem
    is the ones that don't. I think they tend to be either young, or
    insensitive. The young ones are embarrassed, after all, *she* probably
    want's to think that this is all a "moment of passion" too, and if
    he whips out a condom from his backpack, she'll *know* he planned it
    all along, and feel seduced and betrayed.
    
    [Climbing up on my soapbox again.]
    
    Lord help as all from attitudes like this. We need better sex education
    NOW. This is one of the reasons I support Planned Parenthood, there
    is no other organization as committed to providing complete sex education
    to everyone.
    
    Twenty years ago it was illegal to buy ANY KIND of birth control in
    many states. Planned Parenthood is one of the reasons why you have
    a choice of legal, (relatively) safe birth control methods today. If
    you question carefully, you will find that MANY of the groups opposing
    Planned Parenthood on "abortion" grounds ARE ALSO AGAINST BIRTH CONTROL.
    
    Check for yourself. If you value the ability to control your own
    reproduction, DON'T RELAX, you could lose it almost overnight. Keep
    pushing, don't get complacent. Unless you want to go back to the days of
    back alley abortions and "Sold for the prevention of disease only" keep up
    your support.
    
    Talk to your children. Talk to your friend's children. Yes it's
    embarrassing at first, but it's just like raising "liberated" children.
    You have to make the effort. In my family, I called home one time when my
    sisters were still in high school and discovered they were "dating". I
    asked them if they were having sex. They wouldn't tell me. I asked them if
    they had ever even *considered* having sex. They admitted they had. I
    asked them if they were using birth control.
    
    I was shocked. Not that they were having sex, I expected that, but NO
    BIRTH CONTROL. I told my mother to take them to Planned Parenthood the
    next day. She was shocked. I didn't let her get away with it. She took
    them. Neither of my sisters has gotten pregnant (as far as I know).
    
    80% of teenagers of both sexes have had sex by the time they leave
    high school. The kids you know are no exception.
    
    [Off my soapbox.]
    
    	-- Charles
    
    P.S. I used the word "girl" above deliberately. The kind of person that
    thinks like this probably *does* think "nice girl" not "nice woman". If he
    thought "nice woman" he would be willing to admit that a woman was capable
    of making her own decisions about sex and birth control, and that it is
    perfectly reasonable to talk about such things before having sex. 

           
    re -.1      
    
    All very well, but all the education in the world won't change
    the fact that suddenly whipping out the precaution will in all
    likelyhood kill the woman's desire, as you mentioned. 
    
    Unless the education consists in artfully producing and using 
    precautions, it doesn't seem to me that any new ground is
    being broken. 
    
    BTW - my 7 year old knows all about condoms, since he sees the
          messages on TV and isn't shy about asking " Hey Dad, what
          are condoms?"

    Always remember
    
    	"wild and uncontrolled" isn't synonymous with "sensuous"
    
    The most sensuous men I can remember didn't whip anything out, but
    they did have a condom handy.  I was never frightened off.  I don't
    know what I might be called, but I've never frightened anything
    off by being prepared, either.
    
    I can't imagine public school sex education classes instructing
    you how to murmur lovingly in his/her ear about how you're going
    to get safe, but it is an amusing image.
    
    The method I used on my sisters was to give them each a copy of
    "Our Bodies, Our Selves" at a dangerous age.  It would immediately
    vanish, along with them, into privacy; later I might get a 
    comment about the "neat" book.  This is a method I recommend highly
    to shy people who might fret about teenaged relations or friends.
    It's a lot more personal and personable than the bunk they're likely
    to get at school.  (At my high school, "health ed" was taught by
    the basketball coach off-season, and he was all height no brains.)

    Re: .-2
    
    I disagree. If we were brought up to talk about sex and not be
    embarassed about it, I think it would go a long way towards making
    it "safe" to use birth control. If using birth control was the expected
    thing, and not using birth control was unthinkable, then getting
    out the condom (or whatever) would be an integral part of sex. No
    one would even concieve :-) of anything else.
    
    We need to get sex out of the closet and into the bedroom (and desert)
    where it belongs. When was the last time you talked about contraception
    over dinner? I'd sure like a world where I felt comfortable comparing
    brands of condoms over dessert. I'd sure like a world where every 11
    year old boy knew what a tampon was and didn't act like they'd bite him
    if he touched one.
    
    Re: .-1
    
    "Our Bodies, Ourselves" is a great idea. I'll have to remember that.
    I have a very close friend about to turn 11, I wonder if it's time.
    (Her mother won't let her read "Split Infinity" because of the *sex*!
    Maybe I'll just give her mother a copy, and tell the 11 year old that
    she's not allowed to read it. That way she'll pay more attention...)
    
    	:-)
    	-- Charles

    A further note of caution:
    
    Please do not count on the public schools to inform kids of any
    of this stuff. They always play to the lowest common denominator,
    and are (today) so petrified of OFFENDING anyone, that nothing of
    substance is likely to be taught.
    
    Where I taught, in JUNIOR HIGH <critical time for this>, the course
    was called "Life Education". IT included an entire section of
    drug education (not bad in itself, but took time away from the
    "Real" subject in a limited time-frame) and the teacher could NOT
    EVEN MENTION Birth Control and Masturbation.
    
    Guess what 2 subjects are at the top of the average junior high
    school student's mind, under the general all-encompassing thought
    
    			SEXSEXSEXSEXSEX
    
    
    --DE
    

    re: .17 --
    
    "... so petrified of OFFENDING anyone, that nothing of substance
    is likely to be taught . . . "
    
    Sounds like trying to teach a class and trying to moderate a notes
    file are dying on the same stupidity, doesn't it?
    
    --bonnie

"It seemed to me he thought that getting somebody pregnant was totally out of
his control, like the weather or something."

That is quite close to that a lot of men do think.  Men do not have the option
of a discrete method of contraception; they have no pill, diaphram, IUD or foam.
The only method which is even slightly discrete would be a vasectomy, which in
my experience women reject out of hand 'some day *they* might want to have
children'!!!  And if I had a vasectomy and didn't mention it, I would feel like
I was being false with a woman that I presumably in love with. Condoms ...
well, they've been covered... I don't have anything to add. 

Jim.

    re .19: huh?
    
    getting somebody pregnant is not as uncontrollable as the weather!
    even if men's birth control options are limited, they can still
    participate. they can still ask women what precautions the couple
    should take to avoid pregnancy. they can still share the burden
    of those precautions.
    
    liz

    re: .19
    
    Of course there is always abstinanace (sp!) on the males part.
    
    _peggy
    
    		(-)
    		 |
    
    			In order for a woman to get pregnant
    			at sometime a man had to be willing.
    
    

    So who cares if it's discrete or not?!!  Do you have women packing
    the aisles, screaming that they must have your baby?!!

    *I* care whether it's discreet!!! It's a damned nuisance to stop
    at a critical moment and slide a condom into place!  There are ways
    to make it more interesting, and you get used to it, and for us
    it's better than the alternatives, but it's still a nuisance and
    if they come up with anything better, we'll be on it like a flash
    (or in it, or it in us, as the case may be :) :) )
    
    --bonnie

    re .19
    
�    Men do not have the option of a discrete method of contraception; they
�    have no pill, diaphram, IUD or foam. The only method which is even
�    slightly discrete would be a vasectomy [...]
    
    I think a large part of the reason you refer to these forms of
    contraceptive as discreet is because you do not have to think about
    them or apply them.  Foam has to be applied _verrrrry_ near to the
    time of ejaculation, and its pre-application prevents one of the
    most pleasurable forms of sex for a woman (many, many women cannot
    have an orgasm without such stimulation).  So foam is not discreet
    for either man or woman.  The diaphragm can be applied more in advance,
    but its pre-application ALSO precludes oral stimulation.
    
    While the pill and the IUD are more discreet DURING sex, they are by NO
    MEANS discreet the rest of the time.  Even ignoring the fact that some
    of the "side effects" include permanent sterility and death (by stroke,
    severe infection, ectopic pregnancy - terribly indiscreet), one has to
    have REGULAR check-ups, you have to check for the string in an IUD at
    LEAST once a month (it is not exactly easy to reach), and the "minor"
    side-effects are a major pain in the neck (as is true with the
    diaphragm). 
    
    If _you_ were to assume some of the responsibility for these methods,
    you would be very aware of exactly how "discreet" they are NOT.
    
    "But they are all methods for _women_"
    
    Horse-hockey!  They are methods for the woman's BODY, but nothing
    is preventing you, men at large, from taking a large part of the
    responsibility for the proper application.  Help her check her IUD
    string.  Insert her diaphragm.  Check it for damage.  Bring her
    her daily pill.
    
    I posted the following in Blacknotes and think it is appropriate
    for this discussion.
    
               <<< WSL::DUA0:[NOTES$LIBRARY]BLACKNOTES.NOTE;1 >>>
                 -< Topics of interest to black DEC employees >-
================================================================================
Note 190.41                   "Havin' Mah Babay..."                     41 of 43
GCANYN::TATISTCHEFF "Lee T"                          65 lines   5-APR-1988 10:10
                                 -< Harrumph >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    re .36 
�    As for your your four options for males:
�    	1) condom
�    	2) "trust"
�    	3) luck
�    	4) 'just say no'
    
�    I would add:
�    	5) vasectomy
    
    The following is not addressed to ANY INDIVIDUAL - "you" is generic
    
    Whatever happened to the man taking part in the _application_ of
    the birth control device?  Like inserting the diaphragm, jelly/foam,
    helping to check that the IUD string is still in place, bringing
    her the daily pill etc?
    
    When you yourself have had a part in the application, you: 1)
    demonstrate to your partner that you care as much about her body
    as she does, 2) demonstrate to your partner that you are indeed
    a man who _gives_a_[expletive deleted]_ about whether or not he
    is a father, and 3) never, EVER, need to doubt the integrity of
    your lover, even in passing moments.
    
    **warning** explicit information and strong opinion follows form-feed.
    
    
    "I thought she was using something" - phooey! If you didn't ask,
    then CHECK, it's your own ^&*^$%#$% fault!
    
    "I thought the diaphragm was in" or "she poked needle holes in it" -
    double phooey! A diaphragm is not a little thing and is easily found if
    you go look for it.  Small holes are irrelevant as the diaphragm does
    _not_ work by making an inpenetrable seal so that no sperm get past the
    diaphragm at all - it just makes sure they get killed off before entry
    into a possibly fertile region; by holding spermicide up next to the
    passage into the uterus (the cervix), the diaphragm makes sure they
    don't get inside alive.  Large holes might prevent the spermicide from
    staying at the cervix.  In any case, both large and small holes are
    easily seen if you look for them (like when you put the jelly on before
    insertion). 
    
    "she didn't tell me the IUD was removed" - phooey! if you can't
    find the string (it's like fishing line) at the cervix, it isn't
    in place. 
    
    While it's not your body, you have p-l-e-n-t-y of control over whether
    or not you become a parent, whether or not you and your partner
    choose to use condoms.  
    
1)  The only thing YOU can't change is that your partner will NOT have a
    baby if she doesn't want to and has taken *full* responsibility
    for her reproductivity.
    
2)  The only thing SHE can't change is that you will NOT father a child by
    her if you don't want to and have taken *full* responsibility for your
    reproductivity. 
    
    The ONLY exception to 1 and 2 is the _failure_of_the_device_ and she is
    just as vulnerable to this as you are. 
    
    If you want control over becoming a father, _you_ have every
    opportunity to do so.
    
    Lee

    Here's my reply, also from Blacknotes, but with some more tacked
    on the end.
    
    This note contains explicit descriptions of diaphram usage. If you
    are squeamish or offended by that sort of thing, please skip this
    note.
    
    	-- Charles
    
    I participate in "our" birth control. I often put the diaphram in,
    for one thing it's a *lot* more convenient for me than it is for
    her! I also take it out and wash it part of the time too.
    
    Besides, it doesn't HAVE to be clinical, but I admit it's sometimes
    tricky figuring out a sexy way to put in a diaphram. Especially
    when the damn thing is all slippery and wants to spring open. :-)
    
    I also take it out and wash it when she's having her period. Hey!
    Someone has to do it, and if you believe you don't need birth control
    during your/her period, I've got some REALLY bad news for you.
    
    Since the diaphram can be inserted up to an hour before hand, we
    can take the time to get "back into the mood" after putting it in.
    If we're in a hurry, we often use a condom.
    
    Frank discussion of oral sex follows...
    
    As for diaphrams preventing oral sex, to coin a phrase, "horse-hockey!"
    We will usually put the diaphram in AFTER oral sex (very quickly!)
    but it is possible to pre-insert the diaphram and still enjoy oral
    sex. If you wipe the cream/jelly off of any exposed surfaces (how
    mealy-mouthed can I get?) the taste of the spermicide isn't
    particularly noticable, especially if you keep your mind on the
    subject at hand...
    
    Ahem. I claim that anyone who lets a little thing like a diaphram get
    in the way of something like oral sex is insufficiently motivated! Many
    Gay men, in the interests of safer sex, are using condoms during oral
    lovemaking. I know some Lesbians are using dental dams for similar
    reasons. If you can eroticize a condom there is no way a little
    spermicide will slow you down!
    
    	-- Charles

Even if men can still 'participate' in contraception (used by women), they still
have to depend on the woman taking their Pill, checking their temperature/mucus,
etc.  There is still nothing to prevent a man from being the victim of a woman's
negligence or lying. 

Of course I realize that abstinance is a possible method of contraception for
males.  Oddly enough, I remember abstinance proposed as a method of
contraception for women being mentioned before, and the idea was soundly flamed.
What makes you think it is a better form for men, HMMM??? 

'Discrete' contraceptives do require work, just as discrete contact lens require
more work then glasses; but they are worth the added work. Yes, it is *possible*
to personally inspect a woman's contraceptive, but that's a poor second place
which evokes mistrust.  I don't want to mistrust a sexual partner, I want to be
sure that *I* have taken care of *my* contraception. 

What is a "dental dam"?

JMB 

    A dental dam is a sheet of latex that dentists use to cover your
    tongue and such when they want to make sure that germs from your
    mouth don't get into the cavity they're working on.  They usually
    use them when they're working on a deep cavity, such as doing
    root canal work.
    
    They taste like rubber and I personally would rather do without
    sex for the rest of my life than have sex through a dental dam.
    (But that's just one woman's opinion...)
    
    --bonnie

re: dental dams

The AIDS Action Committee has recognized that few women are going to 
actually use dental dams, and the latest recommendation is Saran 
Wrap or the equivalent thereof. It has the advantages of little taste,
easy availability, adjustable size, and locking in freshness... 

    Re: .28

    >>                                 It has the advantages of little taste,
    >> easy availability, adjustable size, and locking in freshness... 

    Furthermore, it's transparent to the user.  :-)

    Dale