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.
Cliff: Those souls can’t go to heaven, because they were never baptised, and so are not free of original sin.
It’s the fundamental problem (theologically) with the, “life begins at conception” argument, because there are a lot of miscarriages.
If God is so loving that we were redeemed, then why is God putting so many souls into limbo? God’s omniscience is such that it’s not as if the miscarriages aren’t obvious, in advance (and the entire realm of questions about omniscience, and God’s relationship to time… forget the angels on a pin shit, that’s real headtwisty stuff).
So arguing that God puts “life and soul” into the being at the moment of conception, is horrific.
If it’s true, than limbo is false, Original Sin is false, or God isn’t really omnibenevolent.
At which point the only reason to obey is because of Pascal’s wager. Of course, if God is that twisted, then why should we believe the things we are told? What makes Satan wrong, and hateful, and all that jazz?
Hell has some serious philosophical problems too; since it’s either Satan’s dominion; in which case why do those whom God is angry with suffer, or it’s God’s. If it’s God’s dominion, how comes it that Satan has any power over mankind?
So who is Satan working for?
These are all resolvable, but not with 7man, or sunshinemary’s theologies.
What’s the difference between “abortifacent” and “non-abortifacent” forms of birth control, really, anyways? (BTW, birth control pills fall under “non-abortifacent.”)
If the embryo that gets “aborted” is sixteen cells, well, fuck, I’m not too worried that I’m causing pain to those sixteen cells, or cutting off their consciousness. It’s not like they have nerves.
If your problem is not with the idea of sixteen cells suffering, but with the human they could have been–well, there’s near-infinite humans who could have been. I don’t think there’s a real difference between a potential human being lost because of super-early “abortion” and a potential human being lost because two people didn’t have sex. Creating all possible humans is not a sensible or worthwhile goal.
And if the problem is with the embryo’s soul, all I can say is that you ought to take comfort in the fact that it’s sixteen cells up in Heaven right now.
Should you be speaking for all Christians? Isn’t that a sin to presume so much?
Um.. I guess it needs pointing out to the Loner that even in his ideal world, women can choose not to marry, which means she’s still in control of when she “aquires” sperm.
What is so wrong with men and women being able to say “okay, NOW I’m ready to welcome a baby and care for it to the best of my ability”
@Sara
“Btw, what is “hamster” referring to?”
It is woman logic. Here’s an example, with manboobz own, Holly. Also known as, Cliff Pervocracy. Say a woman has an abortion in hamster logic, Holly would say, “Shouldn’t those souls go to Heaven, then, and the women be lauded for saving them from sin?.”
The abortion could be days before delivery, who cares? So the death of the unborn child is now a good thing. Saved from sin the child was. Therefore, the woman is great for killing that child. Killing has now become a good thing, and woman is good for killing. That’s hamster logic.
———
Although a man, pecunium is fully vested in the feminist faith as his moral guide. His reinterpretation of all text is best known as the gospel according to, Saint pecunium. It’s a cross between, Greer, Steinem, Morgan, Valenti, with a bit of Rosin tossed in. The first edition of the bible according the Saint pecunium is quite progressive. Normally dispensing with old timey morals, Saint pecunium gently engages the reader into a more progressive style of worship by acknowledging women for their obvious perfection, while generously allowing men to redeem themselves for their failings through women. It’s most enlightening.
At least no-one has advocated for rape survivors to be married off to the rapist. That, thankfully, is too low for even the most serious of fundamentalists.
@Pecunium, you said
and
I read recently that the Pope said that unbaptized babies can go to heaven after all, not limbo, at Yahoo news
Now I don’t know if him saying that would make it the official church position or not. I am not a Catholic. I am an atheist who went to a pentecostal church when I was a kid, so take this all with a grain of salt.
As for what sunshine mary said, that’s the official Quiverfull view, that radical right wing Christians can gain a lot of political power in the US by having more babies than anyone else. While they can have more children, the challenge is for them to keep their children from leaving after they get old enough to question everything.
Oops, I guess the Pope’s statement wasn’t that recent. That was five years ago, I just lose track of time.
That a 50 years old virgin like david flabtrelle is unable to tell which way to put on a condom is a SHOCKING revelation that will undoubtedly shake the Manosphere to its very core.
Freitag: I’ve seen it, in the past couple of years.
Okay, I’m not a Christian but this has always confused me. Christ supposedly died to cleanse humanity of sin, right? Then how come there is still original sin, shouldn’t it have become irrelevant?
@pecunium, really?!?111 That’s twisted. I don’t remember even Rick Santorum, who thinks that children conceived by rape are a “gift” advocating forced marriage to the rapist. Sick. Very, very sick and very, very misogynistic.
@CL
Y’all are free to do whatever you like on your own time. It’s when you advocate for forcing women to follow whatever the hell your dumb rules are, and support those rules by presuming that women are vessels instead of actual persons that there’s a problem.
Also, if you come into our space to advocate that your personal ethics should be universal, you should expect that we’ll challenge that behavior.
anon: That a dude with no history, and no link to any outside presence is brave enough to beard the feminist lion in its den to trot out a shopworn insult like that one… weak.
I mean it is possible to put them on backwards. I’ve done it. I’ve seen others do it. Perhaps you aren’t as familiar with condoms as Dave is?
I assume “abortifacient” means a form of birth control that causes an abortion, in which case mifepristone (medical abortion pill) is an abortifacient, along with surgical forms of abortion.
If they mean “contragestive” – prevents a fertilized embryo from implanting – that’s not an abortifacient because you can’t be pregnant without implantation. IUDs are contragestive in that they will prevent fertilized eggs from implanting at a higher rate than fertilized eggs in a uterus without an IUD – although the primary effect of IUDs is spermicidal so you will wind up with less unimplanted, fertilized eggs in a uterus with an IUD than in a uterus without an IUD, so if you are really concerned about the loss of embryos you should promote IUDs over unprotected sex.
Birth control pills, both the daily type and the morning-after pill, don’t prevent fertilized embryos from implanting, they prevent ova from being released into the uterus to begin with. They have no effect on fertilized embryos.
Oh CL… motes and beams.
No one here is saying you can’t follow your bliss. We are opposed to you imposing your bliss.
I don’t think you are a pervert (whatever that means). I think you are morally wrong when you aver that men and women are fundamentally different and should be treated as such.
I think you a coward when you use a passive-aggressive comment to a fellow traveller to impugn the entirety of the commentariat here, so as to avoid having to address any specific arguments.
heiropants: I know what I mean when I say “abortifacient”. I want to know what sunshinemary means.
Because for some women, receiving such ‘blessings’ and ‘rewards’ could end up killing us?
Noticing a condom is inside out requires some knowledge of them. It’s easier to put them on wrong than to notice that.
It’s not that no one accepts what works for you. It’s that no one accepts the thing that works for you being made a legal imperative for people for whom it does not work.
. . . . . . . . . you’re joking, right?
Slavey, I get that you think that Cliff Pervocracy and Pecunium are wrong. But why, exactly, do you think they are wrong? You know, telling us the reasons that you think they’re wrong would be a lot more convincing than yelling “Nuh-uh! Rationalization hamster goddess worship wharblgarbl!”
Not that I really expect you to have reasons. It’s just that you’ve been rather boring as of late and I’m hoping that your attempts to explain why Cliff and Pecunium are wrong might be somewhat more inventive that your usual shtick.
Something tells me that sunshinemary has never heard of the phrase “too much of a good thing.”. One hamburger can be good. ALL of the hamburgers will distend your belly and make you feel ill. Some sun can be good for your body and naturally help you make vitamin d. Too much sun and you will develop melanoma. I have never understood people who seem to think that hoarding as many things possible= a happy life. Sure, my children are blessings for me (I was told that I was infertile and was able to get pregnant without resorting to IVF) but they are blessings because I have the resources, home environment and time to care for them properly. I love my daughter and hope for a safe birth for my second child but I refuse to turn my vagina into a clown car and my husband agrees that two children is enough. He plans on getting a vasectomy after child 2 is born. How’s that for “taking one’s reproductive self in hand”?
Also, we are not religious. So please keep your beliefs off my body and out of my personal space.
Hurhurhur.
This message sponsored by the Committee for the Organisation of Childish Knobjokes.
What are you all fighting about? Personal decisions whether of not to take advantage of birth control or women’s “rights” to whore around? I am so confused…must be stupid… I thought you all here were about ensuring people’s rights to freedom of expression. Silly me, I use birth control, because I am unclaimed and lack control…CL and 7man are guiding the pathway to all of use who aspire to please a higher power and remove barriers that have been artificially been constructed between man and woman…Wow, a spectacular displayt of intolerance!!!
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. 🙂
Honestly, it’s really bloody depressing that anyone would need to have that explained to them. MRA’s only value agency and consent when it’s that of a Manly Man’s Man of Mannish Manliness TM
It’s also pretty damn sad that these men won’t know how fulfilling and enriching it can be to have a partner, instead of just a warm body to use as a jerk-off toy.