Comments on: Abstinence 4 Life http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/02/24/abstinence-4-life/ In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set. Fri, 10 Feb 2012 06:12:24 +0000 hourly 1 By: Vanessa Robinson http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/02/24/abstinence-4-life/#comment-157428 Vanessa Robinson Wed, 12 Mar 2008 15:42:12 +0000 http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/02/24/abstinence-4-life/#comment-157428 <blockquote>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</blockquote> 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 <em>can</em> stop transmission of HIV, chlamydia, gonorrhea and syphilis but <em>not</em> 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. <blockquote>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.</blockquote> 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.

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

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.

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.

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.

]]> By: Ben Andrews http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/02/24/abstinence-4-life/#comment-154341 Ben Andrews Thu, 28 Feb 2008 18:31:31 +0000 http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/02/24/abstinence-4-life/#comment-154341 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 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

]]> By: Dana http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/02/24/abstinence-4-life/#comment-153690 Dana Tue, 26 Feb 2008 04:08:51 +0000 http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/02/24/abstinence-4-life/#comment-153690 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. 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.

]]> By: sigh http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/02/24/abstinence-4-life/#comment-153604 sigh Mon, 25 Feb 2008 23:09:08 +0000 http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/02/24/abstinence-4-life/#comment-153604 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? 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?

]]> By: sigh http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/02/24/abstinence-4-life/#comment-153599 sigh Mon, 25 Feb 2008 23:06:34 +0000 http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/02/24/abstinence-4-life/#comment-153599 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 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

]]> By: ThickRedGlasses http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/02/24/abstinence-4-life/#comment-153595 ThickRedGlasses Mon, 25 Feb 2008 22:51:31 +0000 http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/02/24/abstinence-4-life/#comment-153595 Dana says: <blockquote>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?</blockquote> 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. Dana says:

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?

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.

]]> By: Dana http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/02/24/abstinence-4-life/#comment-153578 Dana Mon, 25 Feb 2008 22:28:02 +0000 http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/02/24/abstinence-4-life/#comment-153578 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? 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?

]]> By: Dana http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/02/24/abstinence-4-life/#comment-153577 Dana Mon, 25 Feb 2008 22:23:19 +0000 http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/02/24/abstinence-4-life/#comment-153577 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.) 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.)

]]> By: ThickRedGlasses http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/02/24/abstinence-4-life/#comment-153537 ThickRedGlasses Mon, 25 Feb 2008 19:11:45 +0000 http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/02/24/abstinence-4-life/#comment-153537 They both masturbate in the shower. Let's be honest here. They both masturbate in the shower. Let’s be honest here.

]]> By: bekabot http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/02/24/abstinence-4-life/#comment-153497 bekabot Mon, 25 Feb 2008 17:28:54 +0000 http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/02/24/abstinence-4-life/#comment-153497 (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!!" (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!!”

]]>