There are plenty of other sexual practices that do not involve risk of pregnancy, and men need to take more reponsibility for their actions. In raising 2 teenage boys, I have been very clear with them on this point.
This is very laudable!
And it means it's likely there's some BS their partners won't have to confront, that we've had to confront in our generation.
When my brother, in his early 40s and married, decided to jump into bed with his secretary just out of school and barely in her 20s, my (incidentally church-going!) mother saw nothing wrong with that. She didn't like his wife, who'd brought two children from a previous relationship into their marriage, and thought that wasn't really a marriage. When the girl got pregnant, it was considered her responsibility. I was fuming with my entire family - this was not just about cheating on a partner you were still married to (marriage on rocks or not, I don't think it's right to sleep with someone if you're still formally a couple with someone else, living with them etc), it was also a huge breach of duty of care of an older employer to a young employee. It's NOT OK ethically, in my book, for someone in a power position through being the employer to be having sex with a really young person in their employ - for a middle-aged man to be making eyes at a girl barely out of high school. This power imbalance also applies in some other circumstances, e.g. university lecturers who are grading students shouldn't be sleeping with them, even if both parties are over the age of consent. ...I suppose my mother really wanted a little virgin bride for her golden boy (no joke, she had been shopping for one and set up dates before my brother met his wife-to-be), who would carry his slippers for him too, and know her place. Don't get me started on misogyny and how women themselves perpetuate it too - not just men.
And, in reference to the protection of condoms, I was surprised to just check and find that the protection rate is now listed at 98%. Well, I don't know what's happened in the past 30 years, but I remember that in the AIDS-hooplah era, they were supposedly 99.8% effective. Looks like the boys have got to get their act together.
I think it depends on the sample group etc. Also, at the peak of the HIV panic in the 1980s and 90s, condoms with nonoxynol-9 tended to be very popular, because this chemical fairly reliably kills the HIV virus as well as sperm, providing very good protection from HIV and pregnancy even in case of condom breakage / unnoticed leakage (effectiveness cited as about that figure; non-spermicidal condoms are less effective). Of course, even 99.8% effective means 2 in 1000 people are going to get pregnant in any given year using that method (and potentially get HIV - the risk rate for that is higher than for pregnancy since you can get it at any stage in the female cycle), which is not good if you happen to be those people.
This is probably TMI, but, for medical reasons, I am not able to use hormone-based contraception, so my DH uses condoms. In doing the math, over our twenty-odd-year marriage, if condoms really are only 98% effective, I should have a couple dozen extra little Spanish Riders galloping around. Just sayin'.
On the other hand, couples who use barrier contraception tend to notice if a condom "blew up" and then use morning-after contraception as a backstop - giving them excellent pregnancy prevention statistics. It's when you don't
notice that it becomes a problem, which is another case for keeping the light on!
This gets me back to the old family planning joke: How many condoms can you make out of a used tyre? ...365 if it's a Goodyear.