General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAnd her right to have a happy, joyous sex life that involves an actual male partner?
Birth Control Isnt Really About Womens Health. Its About
Pamela Haag on February 17, 2012, 12:11 PM
http://bigthink.com/ideas/42514
This is a polemic: Access to birth control isnt really about my health. Its not principally about the management of ovarian cysts or the regulation of periods.
Birth control isnt about my health unless by health you mean, my capacity to get it on, to have a happy, joyous sex life that involves an actual male partner. The point of birth control is to have sex thats recreational and non-procreative. Its to permit women to exercise their desires without the sword of Damocles of unwanted pregnancy hanging gloomily over their heads.
This proposition is radical only by default, because mainstream liberal voices in Congress, especially, have euphemized womens desires out of the current birth control and abortion disputes.
I understand why theyve done this, in terms of narrow political expediency. Weve been on the defensive about reproductive rights and women's sexual liberty for decades. Weve used a euphemism of choice for years
..more..
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://networkedblogs.com/uaJD3
Two Steps Back, One Step Forward
February 19, 2012 by Rosemary Rhodes Royston
I just read an excellent essay by Pamela Haag, Birth Control Isnt Really About Womens Health. Its About
.,
http://bigthink.com/ideas/42514, where she makes a very valid pointthat one of the main reasons for birth control is simply not being articulated in our public discourse that birth control is a means to recreational, non-procreative sex. Furthermore, Ive noticed two greatly differing portrayals of female sexuality (one in lit, another in a TV sitcom), that left me pondering. In short, we seem to be taking two steps back and one forward when it comes to female sexuality and choice.
In her essay, Haag points out that the entire birth control argument totally sidesteps one of the key issues: birth control (i.e., the pill) is mainly used to prevent pregnancy during recreational sex. Whether sex is between married folks or a single woman who is taking precautions against an unwanted pregnancy, a womans use of birth control is not just to have a regular menstrual cycle or to reduce ovarian cysts (arguments comfortably cited in the press under womens health). What we are uncomfortable stating is that a woman also uses birth control because she wants to have sex and enjoy it without becoming pregnant. As Haag states, birth control also benefits the man with whom she is engaging in this healthy and fulfilling act. Haag persuades quite well that our society and its views on womens sexual freedom have taken a turn back away from the second wave of feminism that Erica Jong exemplified in Fear of Flying.
I am a big fan of the writings of Jeffrey Eugenides and Jonathan Franzen. Most recently I read Eugenidess The Marriage Plot, and Franzens Freedom. I found the novels extremely well-written (even though Eugenides tends to over-write and obsess at times), and relevant in regard to contemporary life (marriage, environment, etc.). However, each novel had a sex scene between a male and female protagonist that gave me pause. It was as if the same man were writing the same scene in two different novels a scene about a woman and how she truly enjoys sex. The sexual encounter (without going into detail) went something like this: force and violence to the woman that led to her to total submission and her final realization that she needed a quasi-rape to transcend all of her personal inhibitions. While I am taking these out of context to a certain degree, my feelings on these scenes remain the same: misogynistic. Misleading. Projection of the male fantasy of dominion over the woman. Im no prude. Consensual sex between two adults is fine by me. But to portray that the only way a woman can come into her own sexual awakening is through force is not where I stand. These sex scenes only support a rather archaic view of sexual domination of the man to aid a woman in her own awakening. No thanks.
But compare these scenes, along with the side-stepping political discourse, to something as odd as a sitcom: Big Bang Theory. Here we have Penny, the non-academic girl next door who has complete freedom in her sexual choices. While the butt of a few jokes by platonic and bodily-fluid-scared Sheldon, she is open with her choices and still desired by 3 of the 4 protagonists in the show, along with a good number stock characters. No one looks down on her for her sexual freedom. Second example is an episode where a visiting female physicist not only beds Leonard, but manages to sleep with the entire gang, acting out all kinds of fantasies in the process. The tenor of the show is not that this woman is a slut, but that she is acting on her own choices. Thats what freedom to choose is about: choose with whom to share ones body and in what ways. And to do so responsibly the pill, condoms, or a combination of such (and/or other) methods.
..more..
liberal N proud
(60,332 posts)It is advertised and, it is coverd under insurance.
PDJane
(10,103 posts)that's a given, a right. Now, who this guy with an erection gets it on with is out of the equation.
It's a problem with the need to control women's actions; if there is no pregnancy, there is no reason to try to control a woman's sexual life, allowing her the same sexual freedom as a man. She can cheat on you, too! The virgin/whore thing still exists in the mind of men...and of the church.
G_j
(40,366 posts)is another matter..
liberal N proud
(60,332 posts)They had some women on there explaining that Birth Control is preventative and Viagra solves a medical issue.
It was twisted at best.
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)Before any doctor writes a script for Mr. Happy pills, the man in question must watch a 15-minute informational video about human overpopulation and its impact on the planet. Then he has to fill out a questionnaire, certifying under penalty of perjury that he is getting his boner-in-a-bottle prescription solely and strictly for procreative sexual relations with a woman. I'll leave some flexibility in the language of the law so that it covers both the legally married and those who are just shacking up. Then the man will have to provide proof of income, and take a battery of psychological evaluative tests to determine if he has the proper temperament to make a good father. At that point, he will need to bring in no fewer than three ex-girlfriends or wives to testify that they never went to bed with him only to wake up the next morning next to a note.
If the answer to all of this is a resounding yes, then and only then will the doctor prescribe one pill for the month to be used during the female partner's fertile period. Both parties must then certify that they engaged in sexual relations for the sole purpose of procreation, assisted by nothing but the man's prescription. Any couple found to have matching bathtubs or have listened to Barry White will be disqualified from further pills for a period of not less than one year.
I believe the current make-up of the Supreme Court will find none of these qualifications to be barriers to procreative sexual activity.
vankuria
(904 posts)if any man ever actually sought a Viagra prescription for "procreation". Probably no way to track this but I'd be willing to bet not a one! You'll never hear anything from the bishops or politicians on that one!
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)sexual pleasure- which has traditionally been a males-only area.
DCKit
(18,541 posts)lapislzi
(5,762 posts)"Lots of brains, and I like sex!"
There, I said it.
I'm smart. I love sex. I guess if you're a wealthy Republican male, those are two very good reasons to silence me however you can.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)Smart women like sex because they're smart enough to know that it feels good.
I'm in that boat, too!
yellowcanine
(35,694 posts)- after all, that just means more nookie for them. They just don't want any woman they can't personally have sex with to enjoy it.
yellowcanine
(35,694 posts)know why Catholic Bishops are opposed to birth control, because it allows non-procreative sex. But not so opposed, apparently, that they weren't willing to overlook non-procreational sex by priests.