Following our extensive discussions of the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision, and amidst the heat and bother over Gordon Howie's statement that life begins before sperm meets egg, Larry Kurtz sent me an essay by the Guardian's Jessica Valenti arguing that we shouldn't use health reasons as an excuse to protect women's access to contraception. We defenders of women's rights facilitate the fundi-puritan narrative, Valenti says, when we shy away from stating the obvious: women deserve to enjoy sex without the fear of getting pregnant, just like men.
It's also OK – wonderful, even! – that women use birth control to have sex and not get pregnant. Even more wonderful: it works. The advent of contraception is arguably the most important liberatory discovery for women of all time. We're allowed to use it. And not just for our periods – but to have hot, sweaty, fantastic, fun, non-procreative sex. That doesn't make us "sluts"; it makes us human [Jessica Valenti, "Women Like Sex: Stop Making 'Health' Excuses for Why We Use Birth Control," The Guardian, 2014.07.08].
Dang—adopting Valenti's courageous stance means we all have to stop thinking sex naughty. (Uh oh: someone is going to unload on me for that one!)
Sioux Falls writer Dianna E. Anderson calls the "American evangelical purity culture" patently absurd. In a post on contraception and intentionality, Anderson writes that the crowd that cheers Hobby Lobby's anti-contraceptive discrimination against women thinks using birth control is worse than unplanned hookups:
The rules about keeping oneself pure end up creating a world where unsafe, “unintentional” sex is better than sex that you plan to have and embrace fully. Sex in the heat of the moment can be excused, written off as a good person getting caught up in emotion. But sex that you plan for, sex that you intend to be safe and protected? That evinces a moral failing of the person, as someone deliberately choosing to disobey God [Dianna E. Anderson, "Unlearning Purity Culture: Intentionality," blog, 2014.07.16].
Andersons sees stronger, healthier sexual ethics in taking control of one's sex life, talking about and planning what one does with one's partner, rather than viewing oneself as a "passive receiver" of that thing that just kinda happened. Sex based on intentionality means women experience less fear and more empowerment.
Less fear and more empowerment—I look at my wife and daughter and think, "What could be wrong with that?
I think by now any logical person would note that the Fundamentalist Christians, Catholics, and others who have tried to turn the natural, exciting, act of sex into a "sin" end up being some of the most "deviant" of us all.
Catholics...well, you know the story there. no need to rehash it.
What was really enjoyable back the the wretched Reagan 80's was watching all the supreme leaders in Christ go down in flames because of their self-imposed repression.
Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Baker, and more recently Ted Haggard (who has since managed to "cure" his homosexuality), and countless others are poster children for why this demonization of contraception is clearly the TRUE behavior that is "against nature".
If Swaggart and Baker would have just slapped on a condom, or "allowed" "their" women to chose birth control, they could have stayed home, had as much sex as they wanted, and saved themselves and the people around them so much emotional agony.
God told Jimmy Swaggart that fornication is a sin. Did God also tell Jimmy to go to a hotel with a prostitute?
Anyway, blah blah blah.
Ye of faith: keep repressing your natural urges until they break free in unnatural ways. Just leave the rest of us alone and stop trying to legislate the amazing sex lives the rest of us are having without you.
Pat Robertson's first born son,Tim, popped out less than nine months after mom and dad were married. Swaggart reported a fellow Reverend's indiscretions and got him de-frocked and then another person of the cloth had Swaggart followed and turned him in for payback.Or so the story went. These guys have the morals of alley cats and get rich pretending to be more perfect than thou.
My dear old deceased Dad used to say, "The first baby can come at any time, but after that they almost always take nine months."
In my more evil moments, I start to think that those with the most loud persistent opposition to birth control realize that if their mother had access to it, they themselves would never have been born.
The world probably won't be destroyed with a big bang, but by the whimper of the latest baby of overpopulation.
I like this post. Progressives are partially at fault for our politicians movements to the right. Giving conservative arguments credibility and then moving right to try to meet them halfway has been an unfortunate strategy, especially since the conservatives keep moving the goal posts.
Female autonomy deserves full respect, and females certainly have the right to fully enjoy the human sexual experience. And as Rocky explains, when it comes to evangelicals I would have to say "methinks doth protest too much" with their demonization of sexual active humans.
When Sibby marries his dog, will he denounce any form of birth control and pursue his deviant sexual demands?
BCB, that progressive fault concerns me. Tell me if I'm wrong, but I get the impression that we liberals tend to accommodate opposing narratives more than conservatives do. On birth control, we accommodate some puritanism. On health insurance, President Obama and cautious Dems accommodate the contention that Americans don't want government insurance (although Rick Weiland is pulling us back from that position by offering Medicare as a public option).
How courageous dare we be? Is there any reason we can't be as courageous as the Tea Party in asserting our belief in women's rights?
Cory, progressives have been angry at liberals from the beginning of OCare:
http://4and20blackbirds.wordpress.com/2009/04/28/health-care-reform-and-senator-max-baucus/
Cory, exactly. While it is important to have reasoned dialog, I believe it is a mistake to compromise decent values for mediocre results. All that seems to do is legitimize the very policies we see hurting women and the poor.
How courageous can you be? The more courageous you are, the more the general public hears the policy ideas that you believe are important. The more the public hears such ideas, the more likely they will begin to understand and agree.
As a living example, I don't think the gay rights movement has backed down on a single point. They have fought openly against sodomy laws, discriminatory marriage laws, discrimination in the workplace, etc. And compare public opinion from 10 years ago until today. Had gay rights advocates said, give us some rights and we will give up others, like the civil union argument versus the right to marry, they would have legitimized the arguments that they were somehow hurting marriage by wanting to be married. They stood their ground, and public opinion began to move in their direction.
If progressives and liberals follow their lead on immigration, women's rights, safety net programs, public option insurance (I like Rick's Medicare position), etc, I have no reason to believe public opinion cannot move in the same direction as it did on gay rights.
When Obama agreed to drop the public option from the ACA to appease wingnuts,how many votes did he gain?
Let's get rid of the hypocrisy. No one has unplanned sex. No one.
Sure, humans at times get carried away by emotions and libido, but, if we have a reasonable IQ level, we have thought about sex and planned for it long before we do it. What is courtship and marriage if not elaborate planning to have sex? And, we all know we can get carried away, and we've should have planned for it.
From the time one is past puberty, one has been thinking about sex for some time before one actually does it. All that touching oneself in an impure manner, well, that's just a lot of planning and practice. So, it's a matter of how much planning you do, and whether you are responsible about protecting yourself from STDs and unwanted pregnancy when you do have sex.
Donald, every single rape victim has unplanned sex.
As for your other thoughts, don't even try to speak for women. Because you are clueless.
Ouch, Pay put his foot in it. That's pretty unusual. I doubt he'll try to defend his position. He must have just had a brain fart. Hey, it happens.
The 4 methods that Hobby Lobby doesn't have to pay for are not contraceptives, they are classified as abortifascients.
Your birth control is none of your employer's business, which is why he shouldn't have to pay for it. Unless you are having sex with the boss. I think this is the stupidest issue the liberals have ever gotten their panties in a knot over. I worked for Catholic hospitals for years, paid for my birth control myself. It never once crossed my mind that the NUNS I worked for should pay for it. That's a really stupid idea. But if you want to insist on your employer paying for it, then your employer should have the right to make you get generic ortho-tri at Walmart for only $40/year. If you want to spend more than that, pay for it yourself.
Anne B-ever had sex with a korporation? I don't mean being screwed by them,business as usual.
Anne, health insurance is an employee benefit. i.e. it's not the employer's money, it's the employees' — part of the compensation they receive for their labor.
Therefore, it's none of the employer's business how employees spend their money. Do you think YOUR paycheck is a gift from your boss?
Man, I just don't see why that point is so difficult to understand.
Anne Beal must not be from South Dakota. Birth control is covered under all South Dakota plans including Avera. a Catholic plan. On that one, there is a rider that is signed to be able to access birth control through a third party.
The health insurance is an employee benefit that employers rightfully can show employees as part of their benefit package. Health insurance has a real value to the employer as well as the employee. The employer gets a stake in the well being of his company trained and groomed employee in that the employee now has access to all of the medical needs that may occur. This is huge for both the employer and employee because by taking care of a problem and dealing with it at its onset, can bring the employee back to full job placement earlier than by having him or her our for months.
The other benefit to employers may well be birth control for all of its employees. The employee who is married and his wife uses the birth control can help cut the high costs of delivering a child and especially if that child may be born premature or with health problems. Birth control is a win win for both the employer and employee.
In Hobby Lobby's case, this is not about anything other than jamming religion down the throats of all. They could care less about abortion or birth control than they do about the next shipment of wall hanging metallic flowers or other scrap junk they sell. If all is what they claim, they would stop importing their crap from China and divest themselves from all forms of the birth control investments they now have. They are frauds.
Anne, who do you think should pay for "male enhancement" medications and/or devices?
Yay Valenti and Anderson!
Jessie, rape victims in no way have unplanned sex. I don't know of any rape victim who would say he or she had sex. They would say they were violently assaulted without consent. That is not sex. Equating rape with sex is abominable. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Thank you, Mr. Pay, curious that a progressive should have to lecture liberals all over again.
Don, I don't think Jessie has anything to be ashamed of. Her response was mine too. That doesn't mean that I don't think rape is a violent and abhorrent crime. It does mean that the violence is accomplished through sexual intercourse.
But Don, the rest of your comment is excellent.
If your definition of "having sex" or "sex" as a noun describing the verb of sexual penetration is restricted to consensual activities, you are certainly entitled to use those words however you wish. However, the American Heritage Dictionary, 4th ed., does not support you. We can both agree that rape is abhorrent and a crime of violence. I'm not going to argue the semantics. Neither am I going to feel ashamed of myself.
Pay makes a good point, but perhaps a bit too broadly. Perhaps his comment applies only to consensual sex. Limited that way it makes sense...or should make sense if we assume any rationality exists in most humans.
It is also not just females who get raped. And rape is not always done with the penis as the tool of abuse. Making a point on sexual relations, consensual or otherwise, is difficult and dangerous. Rabid unqualified positions either way can make problems.