I’ve mentioned before that no “pro-life” group in the United States supports contraception access (despite the fact that contraception is the most effective way to decrease the abortion rate), and we’ve detailed dozens of instances of “pro-life” groups taking active stances against contraception, even though doing so inevitably jacks up the demand for abortion. Now that it’s spring break time, anti-choice groups are again up in arms that Planned Parenthood and other pro-choice groups are giving out emergency contraception. Now, I suspect that a lot of the “College students are having crazy promiscuous spring break sex!!!” headlines are overblown, but whether or not spring break action is as heated as the scaremongers claim, it still makes sense to prevent unwanted pregnancy. The “pro-life” folks, though, would prefer to just tell college students to knock it off and not have sex til they’re married — a scheme that has not worked in any society in the history of the world, but that’s not stopping ‘em from trying. Who knows, maybe 2008 will be their year.
(Of course, they’re also telling us that using the word “vagina” is “live porn” and that masturbation enables violence — it “breaks down the concept of relationship, and thus promotes radical individualism, which is adamantly opposed to community building, which is necessary for the eradication of violence” — so perhaps their understanding of sex and human relationships is a tad off. And no I could not make this shit up if I tried).
So we know that “pro-life” groups are all about increasing the abortion rate in order to promote their no-sexual-pleasure-without-punishment agenda. But what about married folks? To hear anti-choicers talk, marriage is the magic bullet: Sex, which was once dirty and disgusting and shameful, is magically transformed into something beautiful and pleasurable and perfect, and you apparently never need condoms, contraception or abortion, because God has your back. But what about married people who only want two or three or six children, or none at all? What about women who have health or life-threatening conditions that make pregnancy dangerous — and what about men who don’t think their wives should have to sacrifice their lives at the altar of “pro-life” politics?
The solution is simple: Take up Scrabble or something, because you’re gonna need a hobby to make up for all the sex you aren’t having:
It is possible to enjoy, and I mean enjoy, a sexless relationship.
My husband and I married and both agreed that sex meant little to either of us.
We did want a family. But once we had our children, we did not feel the need to continue to have sex.
That doesn’t mean we are not very affectionate towards each other. I believe it helped we are both strong Christians. Neither of us liked the idea of contraception. Sex should, after all, be about having children so instead of any pill or other method distasteful to us, we chose celibacy.
This year we will celebrate our ruby wedding so, at least for us, it worked. I think like the lady who wrote to you, that it can make a relationship stronger.
If you don’t want to have sex, more power to you. If contraception isn’t your bag and you want all acts of copulation to be open to babies, good on you. Do your thing, and I promise 100% that I will not interfere. But that’s the problem with the “have as many babies as God gives you” crowd; since they aren’t satisfied simply having as many babies as God gives them, they want to make you accept their version of God’s plan too.
Anti-choicers argue that birth control is bad because it’s medicine that doesn’t “heal;” there’s nothing disordered about fertility, they argue, so why try to control it? So I wonder, are pro-lifers allowed to take Zicam and AirBorne? I mean, if God wants you to get sick, don’t you think you should accept His gifts? What about vaccines? Preventative medicine in general?
If you don’t want to have sex, don’t have sex. If you think sex should only be for baby-making, then baby-make away. If you think masturbation is murder, then keep your hands above your waist. But can you at least let the rest of us enjoy ourselves?
Similar Posts:
- Anti-Choicers Defeat Birth Control Bill in South Dakota by Jill February 11, 2008
- College Republicans Diaper Drive at NYU Today by Jill September 26, 2007
- Plans by Jill February 4, 2008
- Leslee Unruh Eats Babies by Jill May 28, 2007
- Pro-Choice Congressmen More Likely to Have Slutty Daughters by Jill June 18, 2007
I think sex doesn’t mean that much to them because they haven’t had good sex. ;)
There are genuinely some people who have little or no sexual desire as such. More power to them to act on their own (lack of) sexual feeling – but that doesn’t mean that it’s necessarily a good idea for everyone else.
Amen! This is something that, sadly, can’t be said enough. Sing it, sister!
Birth control, fwiw, can also function as a “healing” medicine. Not that it matters to them, because they aren’t making the distinction in good faith. They’re seeking rationalizations to put a friendlier face on an ugly motive.
Oh god. This woman thinks that because she (and fortunately her husband) are asexual that the rest of the world is too and is just in denial? Good for her, but they are in the minority, and I’m amazed she actually believes otherwise :o
There actually is a huge overlap between the anti-contraception crowd and the anti-vaccination crowd, believe it or not. A whole lot of people in San Diego and area currently are under quarantine for measles because their religious wingnut parents decided not to have them vaccinated, enough so that the herd immunity at their particular charter school stopped functioning.
These types are a health hazard for the rest of us, that’s for sure.
Whoa, the only thing that left my more confoozled than the claim that masturbation enables violence was the following complaint:
Funny coming from a line of belief that reduces a woman to her uterus.
It makes the misanthropy doubly offensive. They want you to be unhappy in your abstinence, and they aren’t even willing to do something to make themselves unhappy (beat their feet with hammers, maybe?) to make it equitable. “I’m perfectly happy not having sex, so you should be miserable not having sex,” is not a compelling argument.
Don’t tens of thousands of history argue against the idea that most people don’t like sex that much and would just as soon abstain if they don’t want kids? (That everyone is hetero is their assumption, not mine, by the way.)
Sure there are people out there who aren’t that into sex (or aren’t into at all) and I respect that. But does this particular couple really think people in general are going to just suddenly say “Oh, hey, I just won’t have sex if I don’t want a baby! It’s no big deal after all!”
“More power to them to act on their own (lack of) sexual feeling – but that doesn’t mean that it’s necessarily a good idea for everyone else.”
It’s about as good an idea for everyone else as compulsory daily sex would be a good idea for them.
Of course, we wouldn’t be hearing about these folks if their own particular, relatively unusual, and fortunately compatible view of sex couldn’t be used to bludgeon women with sex drives who aren’t willing to suffer through a dozen pregnancies over it.
One of the best pieces of advice my mom gave me was (in cruder variants) “You don’t have to just b/c he wants to”. I had to figure out the part about ME wanting to by myself, but it’s not like she struck down the possibility, just never addressed it.
I wish the abstinence people would be similarly practical: it’s OK to choose not to have sex, at any point and for any reason.
No, they can’t allow everyone else to enjoy themselves. The problem with the anti-sex crowd is that their relationship to sexuality is so damaged their gender roles so rigid that they cannot simply make their own choices and leave it at that. Sexuality is too stirring, too anxiety provoking, too scary. This isn’t about not wanting to engage in sexual activity, this is about seeing sex as so basically threatening that it needs to be harshly controlled. If they simply make a choice not to engage in sex it say something about them, it implies that there is either something wrong about them or that they have some choice in the matter. If instead sex is highly restricted, then their choice is validated by god or society. It is no longer a choice but an imperative They need this external validation in order to maintain abstinence, they need to face punishment for transgression, which means you need in order for said punishment to have any significance.
(In humble deference to William’s analysis)
Shorter Antisex Activism Screed:
“Don’t have sex until you get married!!”
“O NO NO NO WAIT!! On second thought, don’t have sex even then!!”
They both masturbate in the shower. Let’s be honest here.
What if your doctor puts you on birth control for health reasons? Is that against the religion too? If someone is on BC for health reasons and has sex, are they violating god’s rules?
(Sorry, but this topic is among the most perplexing when it comes to religion.)
Also, in one of my psych classes, my professor brought up the idea that priests molest children because they have been sexually repressed, so now they act out their sexual fantasies with someone at the same level of sexual maturity.
Not saying that excuses the priests, but shouldn’t this be a sign that maybe encouraging healthy sexual behavior will lead to less instances of pedophilia/rape/sexual abuse/etc?
Dana says:
I would think that having sex while on birth control would be a no-no, even if the birth control is for health reasons. However, I think since the birth control wouldn’t be used for contraceptive purposes, the couple would some how rationalize any sexual behavior they end up doing together. “It’s not birth control. They’re period pain healing tablets” or something like that.
Priests who abuse children do so because they are pedophiles and they have been given too much power. Repression in priests is a hoax my friend. If they just wanted sexual release, they could engage in masturbation with a LOT less hassle (not to mention the potential to harm another human being and get sent to jail). Priests who are gay, for example, can find willing partners. Hell, priests who are hetero can find willing partners (cheating on vows notwithstanding). However, the choice to injure a child is related to a harmful sexual response to children and (again) the position of power that the church puts them in (and makes them believe they deserve). Repression my ass
Sorry I should have said “and possibly getting sent to jail”
According to your prof’s theory, anyone who isn’t sexually active is sexually immature. Are all older than 20 virgins pedophiles then?
I think he was referring more to intense sexual repression. There’s a difference between a 20 year old who’s holding out for the “right person” or just hasn’t had the opportunity (or whatever other reason), who isn’t committed to suffocating their sexual desires completely. With priests, they basically force themselves to become asexually, sometimes unsuccessfully.
And like I said, that’s no excuse, and I’m totally not condoning their behavior. I just brought it up to point out that maybe repressing sexuality may not be the best idea.
This is the worst representation of a pro-life stance ever. Its easy to knock down your opponents argument when you present it as weak, and fill it with gross generalities. First off maybe you could define what a pro-life stance is. Protection of Life beginning at fertilization and ending at natural death. This article is basically praising promiscuous sexual behavior. For most Abstinence groups the reason they promote abstinence is not to prevent pregnancy, that’s the least of your worries, it is to prevent sexually transmitted diseases. Contraceptives can’t protect you against STDS. Condoms provide “safer sex.” They can’t stop the majority of STDs and can fail at preventing the few they’re supposed to protect against. As for condoms being a surefire way to prevent pregnancy, yeah right, they can break. One 100% sure way to not get pregnant is abstinence. Another is that you can have a vasectomy or hysterectomy, a choice many married couples choose once they’ve decided to not have any more children. Did you even think to explain why a Pro-lifer would object to emergency contraceptives? Look at our definition of life; fertilization to natural death. If fertilization has already occurred, then there is life a new life, a human being at its earliest stage of development, then the morning after pill would give that life and be the earliest possible stage of abortion. Pro-Life people and Abstinence people are not out to destroy your sexual fun. If that were true Abstinence groups would try and outlaw sex out of wedlock, they’re trying to inform people about the real dangerous and consequences of their actions. And Pro-Lifers are their to make sure a child is not killed. Pro-Lifers give aid to single women, and couples that are not ready to have a child. Pro-Lifer is a positive movement that empowers women to give birth to their child, and still follow their dreams. Please do some research before you slander our movement, go look at what groups like Care-Net http://www.care-net.org/ have done, and find out what people like Pam Stenzel http://www.pamstenzel.com/ are talking about
I’ll agree that condoms do not stop all STDs but I think you have got the emphasis the wrong way round. Off the top of my head from sex-ed classes condoms can stop transmission of HIV, chlamydia, gonorrhea and syphilis but not HPV (human papilloma virus – of which one strain causes genital warts) or pubic lice (not technically a disease but I’ll include it anyway). Although that isn’t a complete list it gives a fairer distribution.
The main way in which the ‘morning after pill’ works is to thicken mucus and thereby prevent the sperm from reaching and fertilising the egg. In that case then the only ‘lives’ whose potentials are not being fulfilled are those of the gametes (sperm or eggs cells before fertilisation has occurred). By that reasoning, every egg that does not get fertilised is a ‘life’ not being fulfilled. I hardly think you would advocate all girls from the age of puberty seeking to fertilise every egg that is released and yet that is the logical conclusion if you carry your argument through.