Trying to get it…

A post over at Dawn Eden’s anti-choice-to-the-extreme blog has generated a lot of interesting comments — and helped me to further understand the complete disconnect between the anti-choice/anti-sex crowd and the pro-choice/sex-positive group.

Contracepting couples are denying the life-giving aspect of themselves, rendering their copulation as sterile as masturbation. Oh, heck, it feels good, and it’s a bonding experience, but it is not the total selfless giving of a totally open conjugal union.

So if you don’t want to get pregnant, you’re using your partner as a vibrator. This is doubly insulting, since we all know that masturbation is evil.

My question is, wouldn’t this logic make sex-for-baby-making equally bad? Because if you’re only doing it for the purpose of getting pregnant because you want a child, you’re not exactly being totally selfless, are you?

The avoidance of death does not justify immoral actions when there are other ways of getting around it. IF a woman gets pregnant, her life MIGHT be in peril, ASSUMING there is nothing surgery can do to save her. I suppose continence would be irresponsible. It IS irresponsible for a man to get a vasectomy even here, because his wife might die for just about any reason at any time. Vasectomy might save a man from an infection, but I have no idea how it’s supposed to keep someone else from dying. He might want to re-marry, especially if they had young children, and he and his new wife might want to have children.

I don’t think it’s wonderful for a man to have a vasectomy and reverse it all in honor of a woman. I think it’s sick, and it reminds me of the practice of wives jumping on the husband’s funeral pyre. In a way the very notion of a marriage vow shows you love something more than husband or wife, or what would you be swearing by? Even marital love has definite limitations, and some which people might actually not want.

Limitations of marriage: using contraceptives or getting a vastectomy to prevent your wife’s death from pregnancy complications. Because, hey, she might die anyway! And then you might have to get your vastectomy reversed so that you can impregnate your new wife, who you will certainly need to marry ASAP if you have young children from Dead Wife 1 (it’s not like you can be expected to care for them). And doing things to save your wife’s life may be construed as actually “honoring” her, and that’s just sick.

My point, however badly stated, was that if a woman is likely to die from sexual intercourse, she should not engage in it. Vasectomies and contraception are not necessary because it is not necessary that even married people have sex.

To clarify, this guy is responding to a woman who said that she would likely die from another pregnancy, and so her husband had a vastecomy. They are both, apparently, selfish heathens who should just give up sex entirely.


Similar Posts (automatically generated):

Post navigation

25 comments for “Trying to get it…

  1. September 12, 2005 at 12:32 pm

    This needs to be served with crack, because even after a second read, I’m still kind of not getting it. So, no sex because the woman might die from pregnancy complication? Sincerely? This isn’t some kind of parody?

  2. September 12, 2005 at 12:38 pm

    Wow! I didn’t know masturbation was evil. I just thought it made you go blind.

  3. Ledasmom
    September 12, 2005 at 2:25 pm

    No, it only makes you go blind verrrrrry slowly. I’ve done it all my life and I can still get by with glasses.

  4. September 12, 2005 at 2:35 pm

    What confuses me is that no one just suggests that they simply refrain from *traditional* sex. I mean, there’s alternatives… oh, wait – that’s the whole thing of “using” your parnter again. Man, I’m so selfish! I never knew!

  5. Tapetum
    September 12, 2005 at 2:37 pm

    I wish it were some kind of parody, but this…ahem…person…is in all seriousness as far as I can tell, after a large number of posts, and several exchanges.

    It’s apparently much better for marriages to never have sex again, than it is to use contraception, or get sterilized.

    One wonders how he feels about the naturally sterile?

  6. Kyra
    September 12, 2005 at 3:18 pm

    I really cannot believe this bitch.

    “The avoidance of death does not justify immoral actions when there are other ways of getting around it.” What immoral actions? Hmm? C’mon, Dawn, what immoral actions are you talking about here. Because–get this–people who use birth control DON’T BELIEVE BIRTH CONTROL IS IMMORAL! These people are not you, Dawn. They do not have to live by your morals. They get to live by their own. ‘Cause, y’know, it’s a free country.

    “I don’t think it’s wonderful for a man to have a vasectomy and reverse it all in honor of a woman. I think it’s sick, and it reminds me of the practice of wives jumping on the husband’s funeral pyre.” Uhh. So, a man making a very small sacrifice, of his own free will, for his wife’s continued survival and to avoid making her make a much bigger sacrifice (one-time minor surgery is significantly less of a hardship than a life without sex), is comparable to women being forced to DIE, painfully, with no effect whatsoever on the man’s health risks (as he is ALREADY DEAD). Meanwhile, asking a woman to sacrifice a lifetime of sexual pleasure, so her husband can be unhampered in creating a new family as if she never existed, is perfectly acceptable? Dawn, you’re making my brain hurt here.

    And then we have this marvelous gem of illogic: “My point, however badly stated, was that if a woman is likely to die from sexual intercourse, she should not engage in it.” The women we’ve been discussing here are NOT likely to die from sexual intercourse. They are likely to die from PREGNANCY. Therefore, it is pregnancy, not sex, that she should not be engaging in. Hence, birth control.

    Duh.

    And, as if I hadn’t had enough of Dawn to last me a couple weeks, “Vasectomies and contraception are not necessary” (unless you need to avoid getting pregnant because nasty anti-choicers like Dawn have made it less likely that you’ll be able to get that lifesaving or health-saving abortion) “because it is not necessary that even married people have sex.” Necessary, no. Desirable, yes. You know, kind of like for Dawn, a computer to write this shit on is Desirable, but not Necessary.

    Dawn, try to understand the following concepts: Other people have different morals than you do. They have the right to live their lives according to those morals. They do not have to limit their enjoyment of life in order to fit into your morals. You have no business demanding that they do so. You have no business trying to legally force them to do so. And if people don’t have birth control, more of the ones who don’t want to get pregnant, will get pregnant. People who don’t want to be pregnant, tend to get abortions. And the people who deny them birth control are doing nothing but a) adding to the number of abortions, and b) raising the price of bodily autonomy for anyone who doesn’t fit into their stifling definition of morality.

  7. September 12, 2005 at 3:30 pm

    Just to clarify, the obnoxious comments weren’t Dawns. They were just in a comments section of her site (although I don’t imagine she disagrees…)

  8. Kyra
    September 12, 2005 at 3:38 pm

    ” . . . but it is not the total selfless giving of a totally open conjugal union.”

    Yes, it is. In fact, it is more selfless than non-contracepting sex, because one gives without potentially demanding that partner’s help with the (rather time-consuming and exhausting) creation and care of a baby. Non-contracepting sex cannot be completely selfless unless both people really truly want a baby from that union–otherwise the partners are selfishly demanding that their partner take the risk of either pregnancy or fatherhood (and therefore financial responsibility).

    And, um, reason number eighty-something of why anti-choicers make no sense to me:

    A healthy, fulfilling sex life is very important to me.

    So is not getting pregnant when I don’t want to be pregnant.

    The two of them are so important that:
    a) I am willing to spend money on birth control pills, and spend time on taking them each day;
    b) I am willing to spend much more money, time, and effort on getting an abortion in order to avoid an unwanted pregnancy.

    The birth control choice is greatly preferrable to me.

    The pro-lifers seem to think abortion is worse than birth control.

    So why are they so anxious to stick me (and many other women) with the second option? With the sole option of abortion, which they think is so bad?

  9. Kyra
    September 12, 2005 at 3:42 pm

    OK, (mildly) sorry about wrongly incriminating Dawn, although I imagine she’d happily incriminate herself, and (majorly) sorry about the blame not hitting those who actually said all that rotten anti-choice illogical batshit.

  10. September 12, 2005 at 5:17 pm

    And then we have this marvelous gem of illogic: “My point, however badly stated, was that if a woman is likely to die from sexual intercourse, she should not engage in it.” The women we’ve been discussing here are NOT likely to die from sexual intercourse. They are likely to die from PREGNANCY. Therefore, it is pregnancy, not sex, that she should not be engaging in. Hence, birth control.

    It appeared to be a deliberate attempt at underlining their belief that consent to sex equals consent to pregnancy (the “should have kept your legs closed” principle. Oh, and rape victims… uh, should have kept their legs closed). And yes, they are serious about saying that if you don’t want to be pregnant, you shouldn’t have sex. What I want to know is how they plan to regulate this. Big government out of our lives, indeed.

    I can never get over the nosiness of these people. I mean, do pro-choicers write tons of whining screeds about people who have kids? No, because we’re pro-CHOICE.

  11. j swift
    September 12, 2005 at 6:21 pm

    And I am certain that the “guy” never touched himself, never had pre-marital sex, is currently happily married (no divorces), only has sex as is necessary to knock up the wife and then abstains until such time as the wife is ready to bear another.

    Sniff, sniff, anyone smell… hypocrisy?

  12. September 12, 2005 at 7:14 pm

    How much LSD did these people do way back when? And this one was my favorite….

    My point, however badly stated, was that if a woman is likely to die from sexual intercourse, she should not engage in it. Vasectomies and contraception are not necessary because it is not necessary that even married people have sex.

    Unless they’re popping out babies for Jeebus, right? And yes bud your point is badly stated. Did we fail English 101 in college? Let’s be a little more coherent in our batshit-crazy, wingut statements, mkay?

    To clarify, this guy is responding to a woman who said that she would likely die from another pregnancy, and so her husband had a vastecomy. They are both, apparently, selfish heathens who should just give up sex entirely.

    That’s right Jill, they certainly are indeed! These people should form an anti-sex party much similar to the one in ‘1984‘. Oh wait, don’t the Republicans have that covered?

    Oh these “Jesus cries when you (especially women) fuck for pleasure, use contraception and abortion, and don’t procreate everytime you lay with someone” wacko statements are hilarious (and scary because we have people who think and legislate that way in power now).

  13. mythago
    September 12, 2005 at 10:55 pm

    Contracepting couples are denying the life-giving aspect of themselves, rendering their copulation as sterile as masturbation. Oh, heck, it feels good, and it’s a bonding experience, but it is not the total selfless giving of a totally open conjugal union.

    Now, isn’t Miss Eden all about how she’s remaining chaste before marriage and saving herself for her Perfect Husband someday? Then she’d have no idea what the difference between sex-for-babies and sex with contraception is like. This isn’t about anything but Dawn Eden’s sexual fantasies, people.

  14. September 13, 2005 at 2:43 am

    These people are morons even within the scope of Christian belief. The idea that “desire for sex” (as opposed to “desire to procreate) must be completely sublimated is not biblical, anyway. Paul, who most of these people base their opinions of sex on, claims to be asexual, but is fully aware that he’s in the minority.

    FYI, and sorry for my agnostic and atheist friends whose eyes are about to glaze over, 1st Corinthians 7 says:

    Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry. 2 But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7 I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

    8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

    (Please note the reciprocal nature of verses 3 and 4, a fact of which fundies are all too often ignorant…)

    Paul was kind of a nutjob, but he didn’t expect the rest of us to be the same kind of nutjob. These people are inventing rule after rule in a religion which is supposed to have only two: Love God, and love your neighbor.

  15. September 13, 2005 at 2:52 am

    Oh, and as for the proscription against sex outside of marriage: I have my own theories about the reason for this, and it has an awful lot to do with the misery it could cause – not least because there was no contraception.

  16. September 13, 2005 at 3:17 am

    I can’t care greatly about anything said at Dawn Eden’s blog, ever since that guy called her “a shank between the ribs of the abortionistas” and she liked it!

    Creepy.

  17. AndiF
    September 13, 2005 at 6:34 am

    “a shank between the ribs of the abortionistas”

    Damn, I read that as “skank between the ribs” and was working out some nice imagery to go with the phrase when I realized my mistake.

  18. September 13, 2005 at 7:46 am

    And then we have this marvelous gem of illogic: “My point, however badly stated, was that if a woman is likely to die from sexual intercourse, she should not engage in it.” The women we’ve been discussing here are NOT likely to die from sexual intercourse. They are likely to die from PREGNANCY. Therefore, it is pregnancy, not sex, that she should not be engaging in. Hence, birth control

    Yes but birth control is wrong ok, so there, therefore sexual intercourse automatically means risking pregnancy.

    So the poor woman who can’t have children without risking dying, and quite possibly would like to, should also refrain from having sex, unless you want to go through an agonizing death, because pills and condoms upset Jesus. Not my rules, I didn’t make them up.

  19. alex
    September 13, 2005 at 9:15 am

    Auguste: historically speaking, virginity at marriage and married monogamy have been required of females mainly due to inheritance issues. If a male noble died suddenly, his wife was frequently sequestered for nine months in order to be certain of the descent of potential heirs…

    Bastard children sired by men were merely expected. It’s odd that regulations that were largely political and economic and only applied to the ruling class have been stretched to cover everyone.

  20. September 13, 2005 at 10:22 am

    …disconnect between the anti-choice/anti-sex crowd and the pro-choice/sex-positive group

    Is there a pro-choice/sex-is-overrated group?

  21. piny
    September 13, 2005 at 12:16 pm

    …Lily Tomlin?

  22. Phoenician in a time of Romans
    September 14, 2005 at 1:22 am

    Is there a pro-choice/sex-is-overrated group?

    That would be the women I date, Twisty.

  23. Antigone
    September 14, 2005 at 2:48 pm

    Somehow calling a guy a misgynist and a MRA is a censoring offense, but saying that guys just want to screw women because we’re not good for anything else isn’t an ad homieum.

    WTF is wrong with this person?

  24. Ledasmom
    September 14, 2005 at 9:52 pm

    Well, she didn’t know what MRA means, yanno, and apparently she lives in the magic world where Google doesn’t work.
    She censored my post on masturbation. Not that that’s relevant to anything; it just seems funnier to me every time I say it.

  25. Someone
    September 15, 2005 at 10:00 am

    ledasmom–Didn’t you hear? Google is considered a form of abortificient contraception, used by contraceiving couples who say to God, “No!” Hee hahaha :-)

    Seriously though, when did this “Don’t use contraception” stuff become popular among non-Catholics? It seems that instead of saying, “Gee, maybe we should modernize our views a bit to coincide with overpopulation,” wingnuts are saying, “Gee, the Catholic Church has a great idea. The world needs more white people.” On one conservative board these guys were bragging about how they were “out-reproducing” the liberals and how since getting engaged, their girlfriends were all getting trained in “NFP.” And not all were catholic.

    It’s a scary trend if I say so myself.

Comments are closed.