Men Just Aren't Used to "No"?

[trigger warning: rape. please visit this delightful otter instead.]

(Also, much thanks to [redacted] who actually answers me when I sent this post, half written, and asked "where am I going with this?")

Women as gatekeepers of sex is so deeply ingrained in our society that it took me 35 years to figure out what's wrong with natural family planning- although something about it always struck me as wrong*. I just couldn't figure out what.

Oh, right, you might need some background, because you're not actually in my brain. (We're all better off that way, trust me.) According to the Guttmacher Institute, which is either an institute seeking to advance sexual and reproductive health worldwide or the world leader in the production of aborted baby lasagna, 98% of Catholic women, including women who go to church at least once a month, use some form of birth control, including sterilization, IUDs and birth control pills.

This is controversial in that the Pope says that birth control is bad and there is no excuse for it. Are you currently living in poverty, unable to feed yourself, let alone someone else? Have more babies! Do you live in an area where 1 in 2 people are infected with HIV? Have unprotected sex! Do you currently have Stage IV cancer? Moar baybeez!

Really, though, is anyone surprised that almost all Catholic women capable of ignoring this advice currently are? Apparently, some people are, but those people have some startling views on consent and gatekeeping.

I think it takes a lot of courage and faith in God to use NFP during a marriage. I say this with deep trepidation, but the biggest draw back I’ve encountered is an unwillingless on behalf of my husband to abstain. I think a lot of men who grew up in the Post Pill era have never been told that they can’t have sex, ever. It’s really hard to get someone to change in a marriage. And the times that I’ve had to give in to him, and I went to confession, I’ve never had a priest give me a hard time about it.

There are so many things wrong with that paragraph, and none of them are the birth control pill. "an unwillingless on behalf of my husband to abstain." What she means to say is that she says no to sex and he won't take that no as an answer. That's not an unwillingness to abstain, that's rape**. And it's not the fault of slutty pill-popping feminists. He's heard "no" before. Every man has heard "no" before and will hear it again. His problem is that he is a rapist.

This makes me see red: And the times that I’ve had to give in to him, and I went to confession . . .

Her husband ignored her when she said "no" and she went to confession? And the priest said anything other than "you need to leave him, now"? I'm not surprised by that, and it makes me sad that I'm not surprised by that. I hope nobody wonders about my deep-rooted cynicism.

Serious consent issues aside, this is a major drawback of natural family planning. One of many. Abusive men frequently sabotage birth control in order to gain more control over their victims. Pregnant women are less likely to leave- and more likely to be killed. Homicide is the leading cause of death among pregnant women in America. That's right. Murder. And that is true across all races and all socioeconomic classes. Abusive men sabotage birth control, impregnate their partners, abuse escalates during pregnancy and leads to murder a disturbing percentage of the time.

Natural family planning requires the consent of both parties to work. If one partner decides that this no thing isn't working for them, there is no birth control. In the above example, at least the husband is agreeing to use some other form of birth control (my guess would be condoms), but now this woman is carrying around guilt that she prevented a pregnancy in what is clearly a rather unhealthy relationship.

And why is she carrying this guilt around? Because women are the gatekeepers of sex. Men want sex, all the time, women do not. Women only have sex to get love or money or commitment. Men cannot control their sexual urges, women don't really have sexual urges so it's up to women to allow, but not enjoy, sex or not. This woman is upset because of the abuse, but she's also upset because she feels that she has failed at the one job women aren't supposed to fail at: gatekeeping the sex.

NFP really depends on women successfully gatekeeping, as women are the ones who suffer the most from pregnancy, physically, emotionally, financially, socially, etc. Ultimately, women must succeed at gatekeeping for NFP to work, and as shown above, gatekeeping ain't always easy.

*Other than the 25% failure rate, that is.

**I think that someone might point out that her husband isn't raping her, he's pestering her until she relents, so, in the immortal words of [redacted]: What [Faith is] trying to say in the double-star note is that all "she gave in" apologists can just not bother commenting, because badgering one's life partner until he/she gives in...is NOT getting consent. It's the gatekeeper now being responsible for KEEPING THE PEACE, TOO, SO STFU.

In Which I Make Ridiculous Assumptions About Things Instead of Learning the Truth

I have this awesome blog on my blogroll written by the Boganette. She's great, but that's not my point. Prior to seeing her blog, I had never come across the words "bogan" or "boganette" before. So I asked her what it meant. (It's the New Zealand equivalent of America's white trash.) Apparently, what I did was wrong. Instead, I should have just made up some meaning for those words that furthered whatever political goals, othering or general hatefulness I need to fulfill, thusly:

I think the fear of babies, the fear that leads to women gulping contraceptive chemicals like candy regardless of what these things may do to their bodies, that leads men to abandoning pregnant girlfriends or wives, that leaves to both men and women fearing and hating each other's reproductive ability even within the context of a loving marriage, and drives some people to the abortion clinic, is rooted in a truly deep and ugly fear: the fear of having to give up one's own carefully structured selfishness and, with it, the desire to remain a child.

You know, you could simply ask people why they . . . gulp contraceptive chemicals like candy? I have no idea how you eat candy, Erin, but I don't swallow one tiny little piece of candy at the exact same time each night (within 1 hour). I has a sad nao considering Erin's candy paucity. I guess I'd be a hateful, arrogant asshat if that were my only interaction with candy. Shall we take up a collection to send Erin a large shipment of Cadbury Minieggs complete with proper candy eating instructions (hey, as much as you want, whenever you want)?

While it is true that I am somewhat fearful of getting pregnant, I don't hate my husband's testes, nor do I think he hates my uterus. Really, what an odd world Erin inhabits.

Ah, and my "carefully structured selfishness". Is that what we're calling poverty these days? You know, Erin, you could go to imnotsorry and find stories about abortion written by women who have abortions and I'll tell you something, you arrogant twit, "I didn't want to give up my carefully structured selfishness" isn't in it. You know what is in it? Poverty, abuse, poverty, poverty, poverty and, let's be honest, if a person says they would not be a good parent, let's just assume they know themselves better than we know them.

The rest of the post descends into something that really pisses me off: you're not really a grown up until you spawn children of your own.

A. You should be* a mature, responsible person before you inflict yourself on a helpless infant. BEFORE.

B. Having children does not make one a mature, responsible person. Some people rise to the occasion, some people do not.

C. Not having children has nothing to do with maturity, either. Some people without children are mature and responsible, some people without children are not.

In other words, the qualities we associate with adulthood, such as responsibility and maturity, are independent of reproduction. Having children will not magically turn you into a person you are not, stop lying about it. Seriously, think of the children, born to people who don't want them and can't care for them. Let's not encourage more of that, okay?

And the next time you want to know why people use birth control or don't have children, ask them. It's that simple.

*Yes, I know we don't live in a perfect world, but I'm pro free birth control for everyone, which would be a big step.

An Interesting Interpretation

I hated my senior year English teacher. She was a cruel person who thought nothing of mocking students for being overweight or having severe acne or being poor. So, I spent the entire year mocking her by interpreting everything we read as relating to death. The Great Gatsby? The death of a dream. Brave New World? The death of individuality and morality. Everything was death.

One day, she decided to stump me by assigning a poem about a cat. The entire poem was simply a description of the author's cat, nothing more. (I don't remember the name anymore.) "So, Faith, how is this related to death?" she taunted me.

"I'm sure that cat's dead by now, and all the author has left is her memories and this poem," I replied. Everyone laughed, I got sent to talk to a rather befuddled principal ("I have to talk to you because she didn't like your interpretation of a poem?") and both of us learned an important lesson. She learned not to challenge me and I learned that while it is possible to interpret everything through a very specific lens, it takes a lot of effort.

Abigail Ruth of Culture News is expending just such an effort every day for far less amusing reasons.

Enabling Men to Push The Pill on Girls

It's ironic that feminists want to make it easier for men wanting sex to force medications on young girls by making birth control pills and abortifacients* available without a prescription.

Wow, that's quite the scandal there, isn't it? Feminists want to make it easy for men to force medication on young girls. I'm shocked! and appalled! and dismayed! Feminists are actively trying to mandate that grown men shove dangerous drugs down the throats of 8 year olds!

Or, you know, not.

What's actually happening is that a D.C. council member tried to introduce legislation that would allow women to buy birth control pills from the pharmacist without a prescription. This would remove on barrier that women encounter when attempting to control their fertility, having to take time off from work to see a doctor, and having to pay for that visit.

That's odd. I don't see anything in there about men, young girls, or forcing. Nor does Abigail Ruth make the slightest attempt to prove her initial, peculiar assertion, other than to intimate that perhaps men could purchase birth control pills. There's also nothing about "young girls", which I would like an explanation of in that young girls don't menstruate and therefore do not need birth control to prevent pregnancy. I am left questioning Abigail's understanding of biology and wondering what definitions of "young" and "girls" we're using here.

Oh, wait, the producers of Plan B (the "morning after pill") are attempting to have age restrictions removed from their product. That didn't help me understand her initial assertion either.

Now, Abigail, if you're going to relate everything to child molestation, you should put at least as much effort into it as I did in pissing off my English teacher. It's like you're not even trying!

Spiritual Care?

religion, christian, health care, hatch, enzi, kerry, public option, rape, birth control, abortion, abstinence, safe sex,
The Secular Coalition for America is fighting three amendments to the health care bill that are egregious examples of religious intrusion in government that we all should be aware of and fight against.

Of great concern is a bipartisan amendment sponsored by Senators Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and John Kerry (D-Mass.) that would require private and public health plans to cover all "spiritual care" - whether or not the individual has religous objections to medical care. This proposed funding undermines our Constitution and will open up your tax dollars to scam artists.

This amendment will make an existing problem worse. Religious people who object to medical care already have some "spiritual care" covered by Medicare and Medicaid. This "spiritual care" includes reimbursements for payments that Christian Scientists make to members of the Church who pray for them when they are ill. Numerous children have died while receiving this "spiritual care" when modern science would easily have saved their lives. And you helped pay!

We currently pay people to watch children die. Allow me to repeat myself: your tax dollars pay people to watch children die. This is appalling and should not be allowed to continue. The fact that the government doles out tax dollars for this reprehensible practice is . . . I don't know what to say. I don't have words for that.

One Christian Scientist congregation presided over the deaths of 64 children between 1975 and 1995, and Orrin Hatch and John Kerry want to encourage that. I suggest contacting them and telling them no.

Senator Enzi wants to make sure that if my doctor is opposed to birth control pills or, well, anything, he doesn't even have to tell me the treatment exists. This is already a problem with morning after pills, especially for rape victims. Rape victims who visit Christian (usually Catholic) hospitals, or who are seen by those opposed to birth control, are often not even told that after the fact birth control exists. I am personally quite opposed to exposing already traumatized rape victims to the further trauma of having to choose between giving birth to their rapist's baby or aborting it.

We are fighting another amendment, proposed by Senator Mike Enzi (R-Wyoming), which would ensure that doctors can deny patients any care or information that violates the doctor's religious beliefs. This violation of medical ethics is labeled with the Orwellian term "Conscience Clause" - i.e. denying or delaying proper care for a person in need. This amendment cruelly places the religious beliefs of practitioners (such as pharmacists) above the medical needs of patients. This amendment threatens your access to contraception, end-of-life care, HIV care, and any other care to which a health provider employee objects.

Senator Hatch also wants to revive abstinence-only programs, despite the fact that they are a miserable failure.

Third, Senator Hatch has submitted an amendment requesting that funding for Title V abstinence-only-until-marriage programs be restored. Congress has wasted $ 1.5 billion on such programs since 1996. Numerous studies, including a 10-year government-funded evaluation of the Title V abstinence-only program, have found that these programs do not delay sexual initiation and have no beneficial impact on young people's health or sexual behavior. In addition to being ineffective and leaving out information on safe sex, many such programs contain false and misleading "medical" statements and teach religious propaganda and theologically-driven gender stereotypes to our children.

There is no reason to teach abstinence only other than religion. Abstinence-only programs don't work, as is ably demonstrated by the fact that teens in highly religious states have the highest pregnancy rates. Abstinence-only programs deter birth control use, not sex.

Please help out teenagers, women, rape victims, children, yourself, and everyone else and tell these politicians, in no uncertain terms, to keep their religion out of the health care bill.

Wow. Just Wow.

ten commandments, crazy, death, penalty, homosexual, rape, bestiality, incest, capital, euthanasia, infanticide, prochoice, prolife, abortion, birth control,
Daniel Florien, at Unreasonable Faith, reminded me of the Society for the Practical Establishment and Perpetuation of the Ten Commandments.



Daniel just did a post on the article "Exposing the Atheist", and I've done a couple on the SPEPTC, as well, so I went looking around the site to see if there was anything new to discuss.



All I have to say is that I clearly didn't look closely enough at this site the first time around.



Controlling the World's Population



by Robert T. Lee



The present world's population of people is said to be nearly 6 billion. It is expected to rise to 8.9 billion by 2030, and reach 10 to 14 billion by 2050. The largest increases are expected to take place in some of the poorer countries, such as Africa and southern Asia. I actually don't know if this is true or not, but it sounds about right, especially with the Pope running around telling people that condoms are Teh Evul.


In view of those projections, more and more attention is being placed on ways to control the world's population.


Some of the present methods proposed and practiced are: legislation restricting how many children a family can have, contraceptives, sterilization, sexual abstinence, permanent celibacy which would be different from sexual abstinence how?, deliberately induced abortions as opposed to accidentally induced abortions?, infanticide, euthanasia, homosexuality i'm pretty sure nobody is a homosexual purely for the sake of population control, delayed marriage, sterilization of the retarded which we could include under "sterilization", war as population control?!, fatal disease inducement upon certain portions of the human population see: what the eurpoeans did to the native americans and etc. "and etc."? uh, yeah.


Although demography draws its insight from several of the so-called intellectual fields, such as anthropology, biology, economics, history, medicine, sociology and statistics, so called intellectual fields? if none of the above are intellectual, what is? it is quite obvious that most of the ways proposed and being tried to control the human population is are blindness -ness, foolishness -ness, immoral and thus infringes upon the God-given rights of the weakest and most innocent of the human community. wait until you see what is seeing, wise, moral and doesn't infringe on rights.



There is a better and more sane way to control the human population without allowing immorality, the immorality of delayed marriage or sexual abstinence? without doing injustice to anyone wait for it. and while not seeking to discourage pronatalist prolife, i think. views among the human population. we don't really care about prochoice lemurs, after all.


Since the population of mankind is a "closed" population - no humans can migrate to and from earth, only the rate of births and deaths can increase or decrease the human population. what living thing on the planet would not qualify as "closed" under this definition? just curious.


Therefore, the way to control the population growth is through the increase of the human mortality rate by legitimate means. we're almost there. Not through the crimes of abortions, infanticide, euthanasia and etc; but through the automatic DEATH PENALTY for the broad spectrum of deeds that are high crimes in the sight of the true GOD. that's right kids, abortion, infanticide and euthanasia are crimes, but the death penalty for adultery is just and righteous. that's his moral answer to overpopulation: kill everyone. This principle of population control has never been addressed by demography. I wonder why? It is the cornerstone better than birth control! of proper human population control which the builders have rejected. i just can't see why.


Some of the high crimes which God requires the human society to vigorously odd use of an adverb enforce the death penalty upon are: blasphemy against the true God i'm dead; idolatry leigh at odins daughter, and denelian, dead.; breaking the Lord's day we're all dead; dishonor to parents every teenager to ever live, dead; murder; adultery according to the last study i saw, 40% of women and 60% of men would be dead; incest; homosexuality half the people i know dead; bestiality; rape not punishable by death in the bible. there are two punishments for rape in the bible: marrying your victim or paying her father; kidnapping what verse is that? god was fine with the israelites kidnapping virgins and turning them into sex slaves; seeking to destroy the righteous what?; putting to death the innocent i'm gonna need a bible verse on that one(such as putting innocent embryos and fetuses to death in abortions); seeking to overthrow God's appointed authority question Mr. Lee and you're dead, etc.

If this method of population control were ever enacted, we wouldn't have to worry about population control, because there would maybe 3 people left, and 2 of them would be in comas.

In order for the world community of humans to actually put this decorous someone needs a dictionary principle into practice, it must adopt the MORAL LAW OF GOD - THE TEN COMMANDMENTS as the supreme laws of the World community. boy am i glad that not only isn't the US a christian nation, but the world isn't christian, either.
This principle of controlling the population punishing everyone everywhere for everything until there isn't anyone left would positively affect the economic prosperity of nations by removing anyone making or spending money?, positively affect the health and increase the life expectancy of lawabidding citizens how? mouthy teenagers aren't the reason for cancer, properly educate the human race in fear i suppose, positively affect the family structure by removing all the families, overwhelmingly reduce crime, etc. actually, capital punishment has never been shown to reduce crime. in fact, capital punishment increases extremely violent crime. think about it: if you're going to get the needle anyway, you may as well go out in a blaze of glory. Every legitimate aspect of the human society would benefit greatly. if by "legitimate aspect" you mean "executioners", i suppose.

By adopting the TEN COMMANDMENTS as the supreme laws of the earth and properly administering them actually the ten commandments don't address bestiality, homosexuality, incest or rape, the true criminals - those worthy of death pretty much everyone, will be the ones put to death instead of the innocent. It is only right to focus on true criminals who commit high crimes of adultery and mouthing off to one's parents in order to control the world's population rather than focusing on the most helpless, innocent and weakest people of the human society. you know, by using birth control.

now that is some grade-A, prime cut crazy, there.

Walrus Does Not Like the BBW's*

asshat, editorials, jackass, opine, preterm, stupid, walrus, misogyny, feminism, feminist, labor, pregnant, abortion, abstinence, birth control,
The Playful Walrus is at it again! Only this time it's not teh gayz- it's fat, ugly feminists! Is no one safe from The Judgey Walrus? (I have to wonder what this asshat looks like. Suggestions welcome.)

Associated Press Medical Writer Mike Stobbe reported, prompted by a CDC report found here.

While it shows the U.S. population is more than replacing itself, a healthy trend, the teen birth rate was up for a second year in a row. Wait, does this mean no more Demographic Winter, or are there too many brown babies in this study?

While it sounds bad that the teen birth rate was up, the article goes on to say point out that the birth rate was up in general. maybe the teen birth rate was up because of abstinence only training? it's been proven that doesn't work.

The birth rate rose slightly for women of all ages, and births to unwed mothers reached an all-time high of about 40 percent, continuing a trend that started years ago. More than three-quarters of these women were 20 or older.

Which means that almost 25% were 19 or younger. i'm impressed. walrus subtracted 75 from 100 and got 25. let's give him a round of applause!

For a variety of reasons, it's become more acceptable for women to have babies without a husband, said Duke University's S. Philip Morgan, a leading fertility researcher. you just know that's going to set an opiner off.

It helps keep sperm banks in business and is one reason I plead with men to never, ever donate sperm. because married couples in which the wife is fertile, but the man's sperm isn't doing anything never, ever use sperm banks. ever. sperm banks are only used by evil, single feminists and lesbians.

Even happy couples may be living together without getting married, they might be, we don't know. duh. experts say. And more women — especially those in their 30s and 40s — are choosing to have children despite their single status. countdown to the opine misogyny explosion in 3 . . . 2 . . . 1 . . .

If a woman doesn't have the time or personality or patience to find, attract, and keep a man she is willing to marry (or a man who will at least have sex with her), should she really be a child's only parent?

that's right. if you're not angelina jolie, you have no business ever being within 5 feet of a child. unmarried women are all ugly and mean. and probably lesbians anyway. in fact, i'm willing to bet that anyone that wouldn't fuck walrus is a lesbian by definition. boy, my hubby is going to be really disappointed when he finds out i'm a lesbian.

Walrus, you just don't like women. I'm not saying you're gay, I'm just saying you clearly do not like women. You are a misogynist of Limbaugh proportions. And possibly dimensions, but I don't really know.

Meanwhile, U.S. abortions dropped to their lowest levels in decades, according to other reports.

Good.

Some have attributed the abortion decline to better use of contraceptives, but other experts have wondered if the rise in births might indicate a failure in proper use of contraceptives. Some earlier studies have shown declining availability of abortions.

I don't think I've ever heard in recent decades, from an anonymous source or otherwise, "I wanted to get an abortion, but I couldn't find a place where I could get one." Please. There are people out there willing to fly you somewhere and pay for it. as if anyone would suggest to an opiner that they desired, or even worse, had obtained, an abortion. actually, it is incredibly difficult to obtain an abortion in large portions of the country. there are fewer and fewer abortion providers and laws in many states require all kinds of hoops to jump through, including sitting through prolife seminars and waiting periods, and who are these people flying women places for abortions? link? something? anything? nah, just an assertion.

The pre-term birth rate, for infants delivered at less than 37 weeks of pregnancy, declined slightly. It had been generally increasing since the early 1980s.

The March of Dimes likes to use this as a call to fundraising. helping babies with birth defects is bad! bad! However, I wonder just how much of it is due to 1) an increase in multiple-baby pregnancies due to the use of “reproductive technologies” sarcastiquotes why? they are indeed reproductive technologies. i think some people don't know what sarcastiquotes are for, exactly. (remember – twins born prematurely are two births, while a singleton born at full term is just one, easily skewing the statistics about “births” i'm not sure that's true when it comes to the data collection on preterm births. i know some studies count multiples as one pre term birth (it is after all, only one pregnancy), and some studies throw out multiples altogether precisely because they are more likely to be born preterm and thus skew the results.), and 2) an increase in obesity, adding complications to a pregnancy that prompt doctors to remove the baby before full term.

see, it's not just mean, ugly feminists Walrus hates, it's BBW's, too. Actually, I looked up the causes of pre term births, and obesity wasn't mentioned at all. Here are the primary causes of pre term births:

When preterm labor starts on its own (as opposed to being induced):
Infection. About 40-50% of all preterm labor can be traced to infection. Many women do not show classic signs of infection, like fevers. One good note here is that with antibiotic treatement for Group B Strep, we have seen a reduction. Other than for Group B Strep, antibiotics usually lead only to antibiotic resistance and not a reduction in preterm labor rates.
Bleeding. This does include placental abruption, where the placenta tears away from the uterine wall too early. It also includes bleeding disorders that may be genetic or acquired. Bleeding of any sort should be reported to your doctor or midwife.

Stretching of the uterus. The stretching or overdistension of the uterus has also been linked to preterm labor and birth. This can be caused by fibroids, multiple pregnancies (twins, triplets, etc.), or even having too much amniotic fluid (polyhydramnios).

About 25% of all preterm births to mothers with one baby are ended early for maternal or fetal well-being. This can be acheived either through induction of labor or by planned cesarean section, depending on the reason for the early arrival and the condition of mom and baby. The American College of Ob/GYNs (ACOG) says that there should not be any induction done prior to 39 weeks without medical reason (often called social induction), because of the increased risks. That leaves 75% of preterm labors as spontaneous. About a quarter of the spontaneous preterm labors are due to premature rupture of membrames (PPROM).

See, no fat chicks. Jackass.

Among the states, Utah continued to have the highest birth rate mormons and Vermont the lowest. not mormons

Which could mean that more people who will grow up in larger families and want larger families themselves – and value marriage – are being raised than people who will be accustomed to, and will be more likely to create, a smaller family, perhaps without marriage. "We'll win through attrition!" Also the premise of Idiocracy.

*Big, Beautiful Women.

Whoops- I Removed Your IUD! My Bad!

A "prolife" nurse accidentally removed IUDs from more than 1 patient- patients who did not want their IUDs removed. See how crazy religion makes you? So, next time you go to the doctor, make sure Jesus isn't telling anybody to do something dangerous to you.