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.
It is easier for you to believe that I am a liar than it is for you to question your own assumptions. This “you have to tip toe around others’ beliefs while we insult and denigrate yours (on a post dedicated to this activity, no less), mmmK?” is transparent.
Satan also detested truth. The only way to find the truth is to question your own assumptions. What if I am not a liar? What are the implications for you? This is more important for you than it is for me – it won’t affect me either way.
So you can choose to continue the juvenile mocking, or you can try to be rational adults interested in another point of view from which you might gain some understanding.
The Tolerant will not Tolerate the Intolerant
CL, the question that keeps not being answered is why is it ok for one group of people to be in charge of another. And bear in mind that so far as I’m concerned if you all want to have a D/s relationship go for it, but why the totalizing of the rest of us? Why is it “the way” instead of “a way” that couples can bond.
CL: As I said, analogies are imperfect. The one I offered only illustrates equal worth with different functions, not the entire relationship, which is obviously a lot more complex than a simple analogy involving inanimate objects could cover.
No, that’s not what it illustrates. It illustrates bad design on the part of the makers of parking meters, etc. I don’t think the idea of differing magesteria bears up under scrutiny, in part because you can’t find any good analogies, in no small part because people aren’t inanimate objects, and I’ve yet to see one of these justifications that wasn’t, “my understanding of “x holy work” says so”, or that can’t be applied to some group other than men/women.
Having a testis doesn’t make one better than having ovaries.
Me neither. The only way to do that is either set up your own country, or live in an anarchy.
I am against funding abistinence only sex ed. I’m against funding prayers before gov’t meetings (I have a mixed opinion on chaplains in the Military, but I’m not against funding them).
I”m against subsidising oil exploration, and bailing out banks, “too big to fail”. I’m against the privatising of the Post Office, etc.
But I belong to a community, and I put up with some of it, the rest I militate against. I militate against the one’s that impose someone else’s restrictive moral codes on other people.
Christian Dominionism, and Whabbism are the same in my book.
and now I really have to leave. I’ll keep catching up when I get home/unwind.
Pecunium:
Uhm, no. Anarchism isn’t just “YAAAAY NO RULEZ LET’S LET EVERYONE DO WHAT THEY WANT AND BREAK SHIT”. It’s a political system in which there is no ruling class, not no rules. It’s a non-heirarchical democratic system (usually based on consensus method), whereby people get together to make decisions about their lives/resources/etc. based on discussion, whereby everyone’s opinion is valid. Of course there are societal rules, just like in any non-governmental space (like Manboobz), and of course not everyone would get their own way all the time. It only works if people co-operate and everyone is given equal worth, instead of using the current system of nepotism and privilege to create an ‘elite’ who exist to move subjects like pawns in their quest for even more power.
If you are interested in our reasons for this, I suggest you read our blog. The bottom line at this point is that we follow the Bible, which I gather is an unacceptable response on this forum – so be it – but this isn’t necessarily how we came to our conclusions.
By all means, live as you choose, but we are entitled to our views as much as anyone else and Futrelle has decided to put up this post, which is an invitation of sorts is it not? That said, we do give him credit for at least trying to present an argument rather than simply saying “you’re weird” as most of our critics have done.
We believe that men and women are different and that, in general, are better suited to particular tasks. That’s not to say a wife can’t manage the finances if she is better at it than her husband, but that the traditional model works best for keeping families intact.
It is more involved that I can articulate in a short comment though, which is why I suggest that if you are genuinely interested, you can always take some time to read what we’ve posted on the topic.
@ pecunium
I am against any sex ed in schools and believe that is something that should be up to parents to teach their children. My views on government schools go further than that, but that is another discussion for another time.
above comment was @ Julie Gillis
I am against any sex ed in schools and believe that is something that should be up to parents to teach their children.
Because that’s worked so well so far, huh?
/sarcasm
Abstinence only should be right up your street then, since it’s education only in name.
Well, it is when you contradict yourself neatly.
God’s Prosecuting Attorney hated truth, or God’s Evil Deity Nemesis hated truth? Be specific.
Then you’re a fool.
None.
I think you’ve already demonstrated which of us is the rational adult, and it isn’t the folks who denigrate half the human population, who employ obvious special pleading fallacies, and who expect others to fall for this ‘equal but different’ bullshit.
Cute words, from the person who seems to think gays don’t exist, among many other flaws.
You haven’t addressed any part of my argument, which is an attack on your premises.
You can’t even demonstrate that your definition of this is a thing that is valuable…
sticking your fingers in your ear wont make sex go away. if you want to wreck your kids by denying them access to knowledge about their own health, well that makes you a fuckhead. trying to bully other people’s kids into be stuck with the same disability? that makes you straight up garbage.
so glad weve got another thin-skinned bully who whines about oppression when people won’t let him use his faith as a bludgeon against anyone he doesnt like. we were running short on those.
What the everloving fuck is this shit?
fwiw its worth i dont think your a liar. i think your 100 percent serious about this mean-spirited cowardice you call a philosophy
you dont get to be taken seriously until you prove you deserve to be, and from what i can see ridicule is pretty much all youve proven yourself to deserve. so buck up and stop being a fucking baby about it.
Wait, someone here said that women deserve to die if we don’t fuck random strangers? I must have REALLY missed something! Or, you know, obvious asshat is obvious…
Pretty sure we’ve had several people here pointing out that you’re being inconsistent with the Bible.
(Using the Old Testament while Christian is extremely dubious given the new covenant from Christ; the selection of which bits to follow is also interesting. What are your feelings on wearing mixed cloth and what food is acceptable to eat?)
One of my favorite picture on the internet:
http://technoccult.zippykidcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/leviticus-tattoo.jpg
For the people playing along at home: http://bible.cc/leviticus/19-28.htm
Last I checked, Ephesians, Peter, Colossians, Titus, etc. were New Testament books.
1 Peter 3:1-6 Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, when they see your respectful and pure conduct.
Ephesians 5:22-33 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.
Colossians 3:18 Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.
Titus 2:5 To be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled.
Remember too though, that husbands are instructed to love their wives as Christ loved the Church. He is not to be a tyrant, but to sacrifice, even to the point of death, for her. If he is willing to die for her, isn’t her submission a comparatively small sacrifice? I think so.
As for the Old Testament, there is a progression of revelation and the OT God is the same God as in the NT. The OT prefigures the NT and is parallel to it; typeology links them since the themes in the OT and are drawn upon as a foundation built upon in the NT.
The NT rules are not contrary to the OT rules. The differnce is that Christ came, died, and made the sacrifice of redemption. The gift has been given and the gates of heaven were opened, and all of the old ‘saints’ that existed in the bosom of Abraham were invited into heaven.
Please answer my specific question as regards your views on food and the wearing of mixed cloths.
@ MorkaisChosen
Oy vey. Wait, am I allowed to use that expression under the new covenant? I don’t serve you, so stop dictating what I should do.
this is exactly sort of craven shit that costs you the right to be taken seriously fyi. you dont want to work out the implications of your little screed, fine. but dont whine when people call you on it.
Exodus 21:20-21 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.
I don’t know why we’re even talking about how feminists want equal relationships, when leftists have for three hundred years been advocating against the Biblical practice of slave beating.
Still not recognizing the authority of a bunch of dudes who were forced at swordpoint to create a single religion out of their disparate, similar cults, nor of your deity.