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.
CL: The thing is, a lot of you seem to want us to STFU and can’t stand that we state our opinions.
Bullshit. We aren’t telling you to shut the fuck up. We are responding to what you say. You donh’t like it… not my problem. You want a lack of feedback, move to a theocracy which agrees with you; and never use the internet.
Meanwhile, a few of you have come and posted previously on our blog completely unbidden and then complained that you were put in moderation once you’d stated your piece.
Were you planning to invite us? No, you weren’t. And it’s not as if there was no cause… sunshinemary was misrepresenting her treatment here, and we (as you have come here) responded.
If you are moderated here, for merely “stating your piece”, I’ll be shocked. Dave tolerates dissent. It takes a lot to be moderated, and even at that, moderation is a delay not an edit, or refusal to publish.
Dave, and by extension us, accept dissent.
Can you honestly say the same?
ladysadie1: Call me out as you will, but, after much research…fail…when you have had you life on the line, not your academic “principles”, get back to me.
Been there, done that. Also… been the guy with the gun who was keeping someone from doing that.
OH. sorry, Shade… exactly how many have a contract on their head?
I had one, open contract, for my principles; it was part and parcel of being an interrogator for the US Army. It might still be open, but I’m not in that country anymore. I’ve also had death threats passed along for warning people that someone was known to me to be abusive. Since I know the person sending them was carrying a .45, I took them more than a little seriously.
I’ve also known someone whose husband had her killed, because he didn’t like the way the divorce was going.
So no, you can’t play the high and mighty with me on that either.
Y’all keep saying women deserve to die if they don’t lay down to get fucked at random
Citation fucking needed
Bingo! If you read our blog, this is exactly what we advocate. We have never advocated Master/slave
Ever been in the Army, or the Navy? Because the Captain/First Officer model isn’t what you are advocating.
The Captain is the boss, he can order the death of the first officer. Under certain circumstances the executive officer can replace the commander, but that’s almost as hard as getting a divorce in 1530, when you are the King of England.
That she’s a woman. You know, I thought that sociologists decreed that it’s impossible to be racist against white people, but that still meant that people of color can be racist against other people of color. Then I found out that some argue that people of color cannot be racist at all. By analogy, women cannot be misogynist at all.
I find abstinence only education to be a violation of my moral code. At the moment, I still have to fund it.
I find invading other countries for no reason to be a violation of my moral code. And yet I have been subsidizing that for years with my taxes.
I find it abhorrent to my moral code to have to fund with my taxes plenty of things the US government and the local governments do.
Yet I am forced to do so and sometimes I find I have to begrudgingly fund it through gritted teeth because I am not the entire US and sometimes other citizens have ideas/wants/needs that should be subsidized by me as their right since they are citizens.
Maybe women can’t be misogynistic, but they could internalize or perpetuate misogyny? Is it possible to truly and sincerely oppress/hate oneself, or only to encourage/support/obey one’s oppressors?
I have read all of ladysadie1’s comments twice, and still don’t have any idea what her argument is.
It’s “feminists bad”.
Also “alcohol good”, it sounds like.
Possibly with an additional touch of “I can randomly be offensive!” I have no idea what else the point of that whole “no one but me has ever been abused” thing was supposed to be.
But, but, but, why would Christian God create superior and inferior souls? I can understand how that fits in when you have reincarnation, but Christians only get one go, don’t they?
(I only have a Sunday School child’s understanding of religion, though.)
@ Magpie
Equal but different – 4 quarters are equal in value to a dollar bill, but you can’t use a dollar bill in a parking metre, you can’t use quarters in ticket machines that only accept bills. The worth is the same, the uses different but overlapping in places. Note that analogies are imperfect but illustrative.
Not really particularly illustrative, since the dollar bill doesn’t get to tell the quarters what to do, nor are the quarters required to get permission from the dollar bill before doinganything in public.
So why do the quarters have to get the dollar bill’s permission to post on a blog? (Or vice versa?)
Cassandra, you ninja!
@CL Thank you for replying, and for trying to keep it in simple terms – could you explain it with different words? I didn’t really follow that analogy, for the same reason as Cassandra and Cloudiah, above.
@ Magpie
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.
You asked whether souls are of different worth, and the answer is no. Souls are equal in value in God’s eyes, but men and women serve different functions in a broader sense, both in society as a whole and in relation to each other. I hope that explains it a little further but I’m not sure I can draw a clearer analogy of ‘equal worth, different function’.
What you’re being asked to explain, CL, is why one group of people should be in authority over the other group of people. Given that some of the people you’re talking to are atheists, and others are religious but don’t follow your religion, “because God said so” is not an acceptable answer.
Some people are in femdom D/s relationships. I’m just sayin’.
Either way, I think it’s really dangerous to think that your D/s orientation is natural or set in stone. It’s an agreement the two of you decided works for you–and despite what you may roleplay about, ultimately it’s an agreement either of you can end.
When people doing D/s start saying that they literally can’t disobey an order or avoid a punishment, and literally can’t leave, that’s at best a total reality/fantasy failure–more often it’s just straight up abuse.
Yes, it’s the unequal authority, and the idea that you are under someone else’s authority all you life that I am having trouble with. I can understand babies and small children being under adult authority, but they grow into adults and assume control over themselves.
It’s my (Sunday school) understanding that “souls are equal in God’s eyes”, as CL says. This is the way I came to understand that all people are of equal worth – even though I am an atheist. I can see how different people would complement each other, but not how one has to be the boss of the other.
@ Cassandra
You needn’t accept it if you don’t want to, but I was asked directly about “a Christian God”, so that is the question I answered.
FWIW, I have arrived at my opinions through a lifetime of being a secular agnostic/atheist/heathen. My conclusions as far as they went at the time of my conversion just happened to match up pretty closely with Catholic thought on these matters and have since evolved into what they are now. Take it or leave it.
ahahah I like that she included heathen in what an atheist is. XDXD
She just couldn’t resist. XDXDXD
You should talk to the happiest married couple I’ve ever met, they’d set you straight when they finished laughing at you.
That sounds like an apt name, not a misnomer, you lackwit.
No, no she is in fact not.
Do you think contraception prevents the penis from entering the vagina, or did you mean ‘receive his seed’. Also, it is still pleasurable for both parties if there is birth control, and *also*, the woman is only lying if she was, get this, lying. Not for taking birth control.
Blast, blockquotes. *Shakes fist*
Lie more convincingly.
Ooo, ooo, I know this one!