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.
like im sure youve stuck to your little reactionary cloister, where anything goes so long as its at the expense of those damn dirty godless liberals, but in the internet at large people will call you on your bullshit.
fucking suck it up, or go back to your klavern.
On the contrary, darlings, I am a professional writer. I also respect the opinion of others when they can back it up with facts. Your opinions are valid insofar as they are YOUR opinions. When you foist your egalitarian fantasies on those of us who recognize male authority and shave our legs, that’s where we differ.
Before you go on the attack, just know that I raise my children without assistance from any other person, male or female- or Uncle Sam either. I live in the system of “equality” that my feminist fore runners created, I just feel that it is inferior to the patriarchy that you revile.
I respect 7man and CL for having the strength of character to let their voices be heard. Thoughtful remarks and honest, sincere discourse are the hallmarks of intelligence that you are dearly lacking.
You can try, but you’ll end up serving the powerful by default.
PUPPY POWER!!
I am a professional writer
Oh! You and Steele should have a playdate! You could teach him a thing or two.
So you built your own road to get to the store from your house? You grow your own food, spin your own cloth, sew your own clothes, drill your own cavities? Because, even if you pay for these, things, those are services other people help you with, and the roads are a government service.
You’ve got a well and a pump and hoses so you can put out your house if it catches on fire?
If someone breaks in and jacks your belongings, do you go all police procedural and find out who did it and bring them before a court, or do you call the police?
“Before you go on the attack, just know that I raise my children without assistance from any other person, male or female- or Uncle Sam either.”
Oh cool, so you never drive them on roads, and you live in an area with no police or fire protection, that isn’t defended by the US armed forces, and is full of smog and industrial waste because US environmental regulations don’t apply?
So, on the one hand we have us who are merely expressing opinions, not backed up by facts… And on the other, we have 7man and CL (who both just quote the bible) who are strong and brave for having their voices heard, are honest, thoughtful, sincere, and intelligent. You miiight be letting your bias show a tiny bit. XD
Gotta love when you just up and say that male authority and patriarchy are what you strive for. Go ahead, be as subservient as you want to men! Just don’t expect us to give you respect for your opinion.
(Where did the “professional writer” come in, anyway? To show that you are literate? Still doesn’t explain the absurd misunderstanding of Morkais’s post…)
For all the citations of the OT and the NT, it’s funny how I have yet to see on this thread a citation of the guy Christians are supposed to be all about: Jesus Christ himself. Funny how he seems to care so little about all the subjects Christians fundies of today are obsessed with.
However, he did say a few intriguing things on family:
Luke 14 26
Matthew 10 37
And I’m puzzled on why a Christian man would consider Bob Dylan a moral authority.
Hmm.. Not to say that women who want to be subservient are not worth respect for that view… I doubt anybody here would bemoan a willing female sub for her desires. When your opinion is that every woman should be that way though, that’d be a problem.
which is why your posts have totally not just been reams of sneery, passive-aggressive innuendo, right? it’s kind of counterproductive to lie when we can go back and read what you wrote.
see, this is how i know youre just here to cheerlead for team reactionary. because if you think that cowardly dodge showed ‘strength of character’ your either high, stupid, or both.
If you defecate in the morning and use toilet tissue that you didn’t manufacture does that also mean someone else shit for you?
Grammar, Spelling and Punctuation…apparently a lost art.
@Sharculese:
That’s second quote is so great.
7man: “IF EVOLUTION IS TRUE, HOW COME THERE ARE STILL MONKEYS?”*
Ladiesadie: SO BRAVE! :’D
*I know, not a direct quote, just an “argument” on the same level
I’m pretty sure Jesus doesn’t care if you shave your legs or not saddie.
” I live in the system of “equality” that my feminist fore runners created, I just feel that it is inferior to the patriarchy that you revile. ”
I’m also certain that your feelings don’t count as facts.
but seriously, go back to your klavern. it’s bad enough having to deal with the creeps who are willing to say what they mean without wannabe anita bryant slinging semi-literate potshots from the sidelines
@ladysadie:
If you defecate in the morning on a toilet and flush it away, you may have produced the shit yourself, but you didn’t clean it up on your own.
In non snarky terms, if you create a product and distribute it, you may have created the product itself, but you didn’t sell/distribute it on your own.
you have to be a special kind of not getting it to try to make an analogy between infrastructure and consumer products
you have to be an even specialer kind to make this bad a hash of it
CL: Erm… that was a polite request. There’s a difference between a polite request and telling someone what to do. You might want to look into it.
@CL
No, it’s not a small sacrifice, because the woman is expected to submit at all times, whereas the man only has to die if there is an actual deadly threat, which is a rarer occurrence, therefore, there is a great imbalance in expectations.
Plus, if the man is not around because he’s at work or out with his friends or what have you, the woman is defenceless. Unless you’re advocating that the man must be at the woman’s side at all times, with a weapon in hand just in case?
If women are given the same education and means as the men, they are far safer than if they are forced to rely on one man for their protection.
Anyway, you didn’t even produce the shit on your own. Your shit comes from eating food, and unless you grew all of your food from scratch on land you’ve tilled yourself, you relied on institutions and structures to produce your shit.
In less snarky terms, you recieved the education, training, and support to think of and create a product in the first place from people and institutions and structures (like schools) around you. Which was the whole point of the original metaphor: government provides the support that people need to innovate. Nobody truly works on their own.
Why are we talking about Obama’s “You didn’t make that” speech again?
… What? No, it means someone made the toilet paper for you, and so therefore you’re not raising your kids “without anybody’s help.” I fail to see how this statement you’ve made here makes any kind of argument. “NO U!!” isn’t going to get you anywhere.
Bless your dear heart, ladysadie1, “spelling” and “punctuation” aren’t proper nouns.
Sadie, sweetie, when you have a list of three things, you cannot refer to them as “a lost art” rather than “lost arts.” That makes no grammatical sense. There is no earthly reason to have an ellipses where you put it; a colon would make vastly more sense. A dash would also be tolerable. An ellipses is just plain wrong. There is also no good reason to capitalize “spelling” or “punctuation” in this context. An argument can be made that there should be commas both after “spelling” and “apparently,” although those at least are possible stylistic choices on your part. Last but not least, this isn’t even a complete sentence. “Apparently, grammar, spelling, and punctuation are lost arts,” would have been correct, and much more clear.
I know it’s a law of the internet that no one can whine about other people’s spelling and grammar without making at least one mistake of their own, but this is just sad.
@Myoo:
And why exactly must women be subservient to their husbands anyway? Ignoring the fact that not all women have husbands, wouldn’t it make more sense for both men and women to be subservient to god rather than introducing an extra step? The anology with god-christ-church doesn’t even work because men aren’t distinguished from women the same way that christ is distinguished from the church. Sounds like an ad-hoc rationalization for oppressing women to me…
because people like this get really pissed off about the fact that they live in a society, with other people who might be less super special and perfect than they think they are
OK, as far as infrastructure, if I pay for it but don’t personally participate in building it, that invalidates my self reliance also? Is there a point here? You didn’t build the transmission lines that allow you to disseminate your opinion, does that mean it was someone else’s opinion also?