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.
I use kryptonite condoms.
I read it as pet hamster; essentially a “Wild animals don’t subvert God’s will so how dare humans be so arrogant!” kind of argument.
Problem is, MRAs have to obfuscate their arguments with this kind of BS because they realize saying “Women shouldn’t use birt control because women shouldn’t have a say in whether or not they get pregnant” isn’t going to go over very well.
Just make sure it’s not red kryptonite.
You mean you guys haven’t heard of the Hamster Gospels? They’re hidden away in a vault in the Vatican.
I’d just like to point out that if a hamster gets pregnant and doesn’t want to be a mother, she will eat or abandon her babies once they are born. Would 7man be okay with my doing that?
Infanticide! The all-natural hormone free alternative to birth control!(tm)
Somehow, I doubt it.
Somehow, some part of me thinks that the MRAs would be fine with having this as the only birth control option, if it means they get another stick to beat women and feminists with.
aworldanonymous: Only if the baby in question is male!
Also, I always get a kick out of the Super Special Sperm argument, because every time it gets wheeled out there has to be more than a few people out there who immediately mount a counter-wank in protest.
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.
This is crypto-speak for, “she doesn’t dare to have an affair, because she might get pregnant and give the game away.”
[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?
So… the 30-40 percent of fertilisations that don’t implant/miscarry… God gave them souls so they could be killed off before birth, and end up in Limbo for all eternity (I say this because this asshat’s flavor of stupid based on aspects of Roman Catholic Theology; which is confused on the issue of contraception).
Per his Argument, the Pill is Ok, and condoms, so are spermicides, and diaphragms, but not IUDs: at least in terms of the putative soul of the blastocyst.
I think (in the realms of TMI)… I don’t want to know this fulfilling sex he says I’ve not had. Because if it’s that much better than the really good sex I have had… the Real Deal is likely to kill me.
(Is woman not a vessel?)
Nope, women are not “vessels”. That’s your entire problem dude. You keep seeing women as less than men. That, BTW, is something you should take up with your confessor (I recommend either a Jesuit, or a Franciscan, the latter will be more severe, but either will set you straight on role of women, and of marriage, and of how sex works. The Jesuit it more likely to be clear on the actual church doctrines on contraception. Knowing that would make your life so much easier).
stlivingcolor: Oy Catholics. All this lofty language about COMMUNION and COMMITMENT and what it really amounts to is women having kids they can’t afford (or have any energy for) until it kills them. What a beautiful celebration of love!
Not Catholics, per se. Some Catholics, as some Baptists, and some Lutherans, and some Muslims, and some Jews, and some Anglicans, and some….
It’s extremism, and stupid, but neither is it exclusive, nor monolithic in those faiths.
I’ve seen Libertarians arguing for this shit too.
It’s a type of, sadly not uncommon, human stupidity.
Remind me not to send you out to get a vessel.
(Goddammit! This is no help at all! [/mad scientist])
DAD:
There are Jews in the world.
There are Buddhists.
There are Hindus and Mormons, and then
There are those that follow Mohammed, but
I’ve never been one of them.
I’m a Roman Catholic,
And have been since before I was born,
And the one thing they say about Catholics is:
They’ll take you as soon as you’re warm.
You don’t have to be a six-footer.
You don’t have to have a great brain.
You don’t have to have any clothes on. You’re
A Catholic the moment Dad came,
Because
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.
FOALS:
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.
FILLY:
Let the heathen spill theirs
On the dusty ground.
God shall make them pay for
Each sperm that can’t be found.
FOALS:
Every sperm is wanted.
Every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed
In your neighbourhood.
MUM:
Hindu, Taoist, Mormon,
Spill theirs just anywhere,
But God loves those who treat their
Semen with more care.
STALLIONS:
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
MARES:
If a sperm is wasted,…
FOALS:
…God get quite irate.
PRIEST:
Every sperm is sacred.
BRIDE and GROOM:
Every sperm is good.
NANNIES:
Every sperm is needed…
CARDINALS:
…In your neighbourhood!
FOALS:
Every sperm is useful.
Every sperm is fine.
FUNERAL CORTEGE:
God needs everypony’s.
MOURNER #1:
Mine!
MOURNER #2:
And mine!
CORPSE:
And mine!
NUN:
Let the Pagan spill theirs
O’er mountain, hill, and plain.
HOLY STATUES:
God shall strike them down for
Each sperm that’s spilt in vain.
EVERYPONY:
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed
In your neighbourhood.
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite iraaaaaate!
Guys, I’m so glad I can take a little pill every day instead of threatening storks with umbrellas. I have enough stuff to carry around.
Re: female condoms – there was a letter to Savage Love a year or so ago, from a guy who was going to have an MFF threesome, and he was asking Dan if it was really necessary to put on a new condom every time he went from one woman to the other. Dan was pretty stern with him about that, but I thought, why not try female condoms? Each woman can have one, and then he can pop back and forth to his heart’s content. (Not that I’m all that interested in helping to improve the sex life of a guy who feels that keeping his partners safe is some kind of burden.)
So there you go, purpose for a female condom! I also recall someone telling me that they can be useful if a guy has a hard time maintaining an erection while wearing a standard condom. And I can see the appeal if a woman wants to retain control over the condom use for whatever reason.
Everybody sing along!
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.”
I, uh…
Whatever you think of who ought to be doing the controlling, dude, if the thing that is being done controls the event of birth, “birth control” is a totally appropriate name.
…why that was the main thing that bugged me about this little screed, I have no idea.
Oh, I promise you it can. 😉
They say that like it’s a bad thing. I think everyone should be in control of the conditions and timing under which they acquire semen. 🙂
This is a weird bit. I think they’re saying that abortion is wrong because fetuses have souls, but read another way, it’s saying that God can see the future, so he doesn’t put souls in the fetuses that are fated to be aborted.
Hey! Awesome! That fixes up the moral dilemma right quick!
Contraception geek to the rescue!
If it’s been a number of years since you’ve used a female condom, they’ve made some changes that supposedly have improved it. If you thought it was okay and close but needed to be better, it might be time to revisit it.
I agree that they’re less great than male condoms for most condom use situations, but they are good for certain situations:
*They’re made of nitrile and not latex, so they’re great for people with latex allergies. They’re far more effective than sheepskin.
*I *think* they may offer a little more protection for STDs that can be passed on the outside, like herpes, since they cover more area. If you’re in a herpes discordant relationship, it might give you a little more peace of mind.
*Most importantly, they’re considered superior for anal sex. Male condoms can’t take as much of a beating, but if you stick one in your butt and go from there, it’s apparently safer and works better.
Too funny, as I was scrolling through the comments it occurred to me that Monty Python already had the perfect response….and I got to the bottom and there it was. #salute
Ew. Vessel? The vessel in the pestle? The brew that is true? I’d rather be the flagon with the dragon.
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CetQrxFp4XI&w=560&h=315%5D
Nuts, embedding fail. Danny Kaye FTW.
@burgundy: I think Savage answered a similar question in the same way! I remember reading it because I was like, “WTF is a female condom?”
Seriously, no one should be allowed to pontificate on Christian Values unless they have read the Bible cover to cover in its original languages, and studied the context in which it was written. From a literary point of view it is one of the most ambiguous and problematic texts in the world. Why anyone would use it as a basis for a system of philosophy is beyond me. There is a brilliant lecture by an academic called Dale B Martin at Yale, where he talks about the editorial process for the Bible – basically it was cobbled together from a canon of writing, and in the early church there were several different versions. It’s also riddled with continuity problems.
Having said that, the Book of Revelation is always and entertaining read. And Christ’s views on non-violence are highly admirable (though they may have been borrowed from earlier Hindu / Buddhist traditions which look suspiciously similar).