When I think about contraception, my thoughts generally run to things like this:
“Is this condom on inside-out? Oh, crap.”
“I guess IUD’s aren’t necessarily a good idea for some women unless they like bleeding from their vagina every day for six months.”
“Has anyone ever actually used a female condom?”
Over on Complementarian Loners, an MRA-adjacent “relationship” blog written by a couple of Catholic converts, the bitter divorced dude who calls himself 7man has some more, well, advanced ideas about contraception. By “advanced” I mean, of course, “odd and terrible.”
He starts off with this proposition:
A man and a woman cannot develop a great relationship if contraception is part of it or if they met while she was using hormonal artificial birth control. REAL committed, trusting, exclusive sexual intercourse is essential.
Oh, it gets weirder from there:
Birth Control is a misnomer since this is her speaking through her body saying, “I control when I will give birth, not God, not a man.” It doesn’t require any respect for fertility since fertility is subverted. This puts the woman in the dominant position and she then determines when and under what conditions she will ACQUIRE his seed rather than being open to RECEIVE. (Is woman not a vessel?)
I’m pretty sure a woman is a person, dude.
Usually the contraception is done by the woman, it messes with her body; she blocks the ability to receive and the whole exercise becomes taking pleasure from the other. Of course, she can always lie about taking it or not taking it. This is in essence lying with the body. A man can lie too if he withholds his gift by vasectomy or by condom.
In his profile on the blog, 7man refers to his ex-wife as “BatShitCrazy” (apparently that’s just one word now), but I think she demonstrated some pretty clearheaded and rational thinking in getting herself away from a guy who can refer to his semen as a “gift” without giggling.
[I]t is women acting as succubi. And so the ultimate end of a failed attempt to block PROCREATION is abortion. After all, God surely did not do his part and create a soul for the life that she did not intend to receive, right? Does her hamster prevent God from fulfilling his part of creation? Not likely! …
I am left with the impression that subverting fertility may be just as much an abomination to God as is divorce.
I hope you mention that right up top in your Match.com profile, dude, because that’s the sort of shit women need to know right off the bat before they send you any misguided “winks.”
Oh, and apparently men and women can’t have good sex unless the man controls everything and the woman cannot leave:
Can men and women have what they so deeply desire (in a relationship) while withholding the central gift of self? Have Christians stopped to consider the word PROCREATION? We participate in the CREATION of God in our act of sexual intercourse. We assist in CREATION of a body, but God provides the soul. CREATION is intended to occur in conjunction with a COVENANT. Can intercourse be unitive if this element is totally removed from the act of marriage, in the one-flesh-union?
A COVENANT is an OATH, a BINDING and a COMMITMENT. This is more than a contract or a whim. The sublime pleasure of sexual intercourse cannot happen when such aspects are blocked. The kind of fulfilling sex that every person longs for and rarely experiences is also precluded when the woman endeavors to control the relationship. In order for her to feel the fullness of the union, she must be claimed in a COVENANT to one man PERMANENTLY.
I can only imagine Mr. 7man explaining all this very earnestly to his date as they munch on breadsticks at the local Olive Garden, after which the unfortunate woman excuses herself to go to the ladies room and, as soon as she is out of his eyesight, slips out the back door of the restaurant and literally runs the entire way home.
7man closes with this little puzzler:
[S]uccumbing to passionate desire is easier without the risk of pregnancy and therefore commitment is not essential prior to the parting of thighs. Does this ever turn out for the good?
Yes. Yes it does.
does it matter why she’s getting off? it’s the justification, not the behavior itself.
Not really!
(As in doesn’t really matter.)
@Polliwog
To me, it’s one of the saddest. She can’t own her spanking fetish because she believes that it is unacceptable as a fetish, so she’ll dress it up as a Christian woman properly submitting to the righteous, God-given authority of her Christian husband, and that makes it acceptable.
It also pisses me off that they conflate D/s lifestyle with Christian doctrine, and intimate (if not outrightly express) that those who do not subscribe to that lifestyle are non-Christians.
From Pam’s link:
A maintenance spanking will also give your wife the much needed stress relief that has built up since her last punishment spanking, allowing her tears to flow hence relieving her stress.
Is someone stressed? Hurt them until they cry! That will totally help!
more like ‘when all you are is an ass, everything looks like a paddle’
I may have to cede my internet to Sharculese.
I’m looking to exploit this from the other side of it, to be precise… XD
Complementarian Loners now have An Answer to Manboobz
Katz: A maintenance spanking will also give your wife the much needed stress relief that has built up since her last punishment spanking, allowing her tears to flow hence relieving her stress.
It also says the regimen in their house is once a day. What is building up that much stress?
Our biggest detractors seem to be unable to challenge the preconceived ideas that they have been taught to believe.
Haha.. *snort*
Does that response actually respond to anything that our own “Ms. Manboobz” David wrote? Cause I’m having trouble seeing exactly how the “criticisms” they respond to relate to anything…
Well they might have picked out a few comments out of what followed from the post I guess.
And since we’re all David Futrelle in disguise, that counts, right?
What really sickens me is the way they’re using their Christian beliefs to cover over their personal sexual kinks and then to say every marriage (or motos relationship) should be like that.
It especially bothers me the way they frame it in their religious beliefs. I assume adults can decide if they want to be in dom/sub relationships (or whatever the terminology), but when (some) Christians are claiming that it’s God-directed, how free of coercion is the decision then? To force that as the desired state of marriage, all to absolve them of any guilt for their sexual kinks. It just gives me the creeps.
Hey, 7Man, did you confess to using your holy book in a sketchy and inappropriate way in order to justify a sexual fetish rather than just accepting your fetish and finding a way to incorporate it into your life in a happy consensual way with a willing partner like a responsible adult? That’s great, and we’re all very impressed. Now commit that sin again, or we’ll have to perform a maintenance mocking.
Now commit that sin again, or we’ll have to perform a maintenance mocking.
I think it needs to be a daily regimen.
And the Pope just undercut this entire line of sophistic garbage:
After decades of fierce opposition to the use of all contraception, the Pontiff has ended the Church’s absolute ban on the use of condoms.
Benedict said it wasn’t a reversal on BC; because it’s a prophylaxis against HIV, but left in this loophole one can drive a truck through (esp. if one recall that the ban isn’t all that absolute, and individual conscience is involved): in some circumstances it was better for a condom to be used if it protected human life.
So, nothing in that requires it to be HIV that one is protecting the human life against, it could be any life threatening/altering risk from sex, which includes pregnancy.
The fuck is this, the MRA version of Time Cube?
Also, “Gift” is German for “poison”, which is what I consider this man (and any man who thinks like this)’s skeet to be