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.
you wan to spout a bunch of tedious lies about how women and gays and anyone else you feel like you can pick on is destroying society, cool go do that. but doing it by hiding behind religion is the intellectual equivalent of tossing on a 200 dollar pair of ray bans and simpering ‘you wouldnt hit a kid with glasses, now would you’
Good to know you feel slave-beating is still an acceptable practice.
“Good to know you feel slave-beating is still an acceptable practice.”
Where does the OT advocate the beating of slaves?
do you know the difference between advocacy and acceptance, or are you blisteringly stupid in addition to being a total creep?
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.
The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. “But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given.” Luke 12:47-48
It also supports selling your daughters as the slaves or concubines of other men!
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again.
Arguably, this is one of the OT’s lesser moral failings. It is also perfectly fine with murder, so long as you didn’t kill another Jew, f’rex. The ten commandments are an intra-tribal code of ethics, not an inter-tribal one. But as to the question asked…
You do know where Exodus is, right?
I guess, technically, the Luke one was NT, but you know how it goes.
oh lol, i didnt know it reached the point of straight up ‘beat those slaves’
Really, the best you can say for the Old Testament is that, after a girl is sold as a concubine to another man, and fails to please the man, if the man beats her to death, he will owe the state a few shekels. If he beats her within an inch of death, he won’t owe anything, but her father will have the legal option to buy her back at cost.
Still, not a terribly moral system to base a society on.
God grant us (both men and women) freewill, but you “Gotta Serve Somebody”
CHOOSE
Cool, I’mma stop making any effort towards persuading you my viewpoint’s valid and consistent, since you’re clearly not willing to show me the same sort of courtesy.
If I had to serve somebody, it would probably be someone who is OPPOSED to beating slaves. Who would even go so far as to say beating slaves should be punishable by law.
I think that’s a bar for our bosses that we can all agree on.
why?
i mean, maybe you have to serve somebody, but i’m capable of thinking for myself, so…
Sooo… can we choose to serve nobody? Or is this choice not covered under the notion of free will? And oh by the way, why is it that women must worship men, and men must worship god, rather than having both men and women worship god as equals? Is that also not covered under free will?
This free will god granted doesn’t sound so great… Especially since the cost of not choosing what god doesn’t want you to is him setencing you to eternal torture
What a depressing world view… Everyone and everything is compelled to perpetual slavery, but its all ok because at least you can choose your master. Guh.
Bob Dylan also said “Everyone must get stoned,” with about the same amount of authority.
@Ugh:
… Can I worship Bob Dylan? He sounds like a chill dude.
I mean, at least Bob Dylan exists/existed.
“Cool, I’mma stop making any effort towards persuading you my viewpoint’s valid and consistent, since you’re clearly not willing to show me the same sort of courtesy.”
Lib/Fem translation, “If you don’t agree with me, you are rude”?
Um, no. Read the bit I quoted. I asked a question, which I hoped would illuminate the thought processes behind which bits of the Old Testament are still applicable to modern life. I was straight-up refused an answer.
cl responded with a snotty little ‘youre not the boss of me’ to avoid answering an obvious question. does the asshole who accused people here of cheering for the deaths of women honestly not think that’s rude?
It’s more like “If you make flippant remarks instead of answering my questions, you are rude.” But keep telling yourself whatever bullshit you want. It’s only you that’s losing by it.
@ladysadie:
Umm…
“Courtesy” is referring to that effort of pursuading Morkais that the viewpoint is valid and consistent. In other words, CL isn’t bothering to justify hir own view, so Morkais won’t bother to justify hirs.
Just thought I’d let you know.
Are you illiterate?
@Rutee:
Maybe Ladysadie’s dictionary is missing a page or two.