"A Woman's Concern is persuaded that the crass commercialization and distribution of birth control is demeaning to women, degrading of human sexuality, and adverse to human health and happiness." -- policy statement of the pregnancy-counseling organization whose medical director was Dr. Erik Keroack, recently appointed to head the nation's family planning program
This is so sickening to me. I can't believe how easy it is to find ignorant people to fill important government jobs. If anything has been demeaning to women it has been the burden of having children that are not wanted. Until society has a way to provide a loving fsmily that can support every child, birth control is vital.
Just a guess, but I think it might be that it's supporting the idea of women as objects. Men no longer have the need to think of the responsibility of sex (children) only the benefit (sexual gratification). Therefore the women are nothing more than the guy having some help masturbating. That's all that I can think of.
Men have never had the same responsibility as women in the reproduction arena. Men who think birth control gives them the right to treat women in the fashion you describe have always existed and are the reason it was necessary in the first place.
[quote:f6d0c81cad="TamyraMcG"]Men have never had the same responsibility as women in the reproduction arena. Men who think birth control gives them the right to treat women in the fashion you describe have always existed and are the reason it was necessary in the first place.[/quote:f6d0c81cad] I don't agree that that is why it was necessary in the first place. I mean, it was created so that we could have control over whether we got pregnant or not. I don't think that saying that these guys who treat women wrong was the reason birth coontrol was created is true. Because what of all the loving couples out there that just don't want to have children. I think what you are saying gives power to these men who treat women (and birth control) iresponsibly.
Yes, I was being harsh in my reply to Redneck. I agree that it wasn't just because there have been irreponsible men that birth control was invented. I certainly don't want to give power to those men. I have heard too many stories of men being irresponsible, from a man who was angry his wife got pregnant when he didn't want her to, to a man who convinced his wife to give twin daughters up for adoption but allowed her to keep the son who was born later. My own existance is the result of being conceived before the availability of birth control, the reason my mom stopped at four is the result of its becoming available. It is an issue I have been thinking about for a long time, being infertile seems to have kept me focused on the issue. I just think people need to be more realistic about what life was really like in the pre-Pill, pre- Roe v. Wade days. I heard yesterday that 40% of births in the States were to unwed mothers, I don't deny that the availability of birth control may have something to do with that statistic, maybe in the way that the availability of welfare lead to the overuse of welfare. I worry that going the direction that Dr. Keroack seems to be leading is backward in too many definitions of the word.
[quote:38739c722d="TamyraMcG"]Yes, I was being harsh in my reply to Redneck. I agree that it wasn't just because there have been irreponsible men that birth control was invented. I certainly don't want to give power to those men. I have heard too many stories of men being irresponsible, from a man who was angry his wife got pregnant when he didn't want her to, to a man who convinced his wife to give twin daughters up for adoption but allowed her to keep the son who was born later. My own existance is the result of being conceived before the availability of birth control, the reason my mom stopped at four is the result of its becoming available. It is an issue I have been thinking about for a long time, being infertile seems to have kept me focused on the issue. I just think people need to be more realistic about what life was really like in the pre-Pill, pre- Roe v. Wade days. I heard yesterday that 40% of births in the States were to unwed mothers, I don't deny that the availability of birth control may have something to do with that statistic, maybe in the way that the availability of welfare lead to the overuse of welfare. I worry that going the direction that Dr. Keroack seems to be leading is backward in too many definitions of the word.[/quote:38739c722d] I agree. And I thought you might have been just being a tad harsh in that last post. And with good reason, it is upsetting to see this kind of thing happening all around us, especially in this country like you said. All my sisters are victims of that "birth control makes Jesus cry" mentality. And were unwed mothers very young in life (15-16 years old). However, I know that not one of them would ever give that up because they have beautiful children and have made good lives for themselves. However, not all teenage unwed mothers have the support system they did. My aunt had a child when she was 15 (this was in Alabama in the late 50's) and they made her give the kid up for adoption, she had a nervous breakdown and lost all her hair. She never was the same. What a cruel society we live in that we can forcibley take children away from thier mothers and destroy thier lives, all in the name of morality and christinaity. Arrrgghh.
What redneck tried to sum up is indeed an old (as in: almost historical)* argument of the anti-birth-control leagues: "It degrades a woman" because if she can't conceive, due to using birth control measurement, a man will sleep with her for no other reason than just having sex, not treating her as the potential mother of his kids. That a woman might be glad to have sex for the sake of it ("because sex is always degrading to women, a "good" woman does not enjoy but endure it") without having to fear pregnancy, and that both people involved might still be a loving couple ("a loving couple would wait after all") was, at least when the pill was invented, not on those people's screen. All those arguments have been brought up in the history of birth control, but I was not aware they are still virulent. I don't know about the number of unwed mothers in the USA and their backgrounds, but here, the raising numbers of unmarried women don't even worry the mainstream too much; the reason for the rising numbers is, more than anything else, that unwed mothers are not looked down upon like they used to be anymore, and a lot of those women are in steady relationships, often marrying the child's father later or raising the child with him as long as the average married couple does. (We were such a case actually. Erhem.) *One of those political zombie viewpoints that actually shouldn't be walking around anymore, and are creepy to look at.
Dr. Erik is a real crackpot. Completely nuts. He's got this theory about oxytocin. He says: women bond to partners through touch and intimacy because of this chemical. The chemical has a finite supply. Therefore, he reasons, women who have relations with too many men before marriage limit their ability to bond to their husband! Right. This disregards the fact that men produce it too, it isn't finite, and it is also involved in mother-child bonding. So by his logic those huge Christian families mustn't have a lot of bonding going on. The mother must be having kid after kid in an attempt to reach earlier highs. Stupid theory. This sums it up nicely. Contraceptives are only demeaning to women insofar as you see being able to have sex without punishment in the form of pregnancy as demeaning. Or, maybe he just finds it demeaning that men no longer own their woman's uterus (in most states).
I think that everyone has pretty much said what Im thinking, that that kind of thinking is arcaic and pretty demeaning in itself. the one thing thats nagging at me though is that you brought unwed pregnancies into it. I don't understand why people should be concerned by a rise in unwed pregnancies, in recent years its obviouse that people don't view marrige as what people once did. Divorce rates have steadily risen over the years and there seems to be a lot more stigma (or certainly amongst teenagers and the young adults that I've talked to) surrounding marrige. From what i gather people seem to think that marrige sucks out the passion out of a relationship, now by no means is this true but if this is what people are thinking then surely it's no wonder unwed pregnancies are riseing. I may have misenterpreted what you were saying but I don't see why woman that have children without being married should/are looked down upon. It seems to be something only the older generations look down upon now-a-days but i still don't see where the problem is. I think its rather outdated to assume that one must be married before having children. A rise in Teen pregnancies i would worry about more, when your at that age you want to go out and explore the world which is a much more difficult thing to do when you have a child(ren). My mother had me a my brother when she was 20 and while she doesn't regret having us she does regret having children so young. at that age you aren't really able to give your child a good life without help, some teenagers do it just for that help. those people i would look down upon, they are cheapening life, but most teen pregnancies are accidental. surely in such circumstances birth controle is a good thing? obviously such choices should be down to the mother but at that age can't you expect the decision to be biased. unwed prednancies don't particualy worry me, teen pregnancies do. [/rant]
eerm... not to sure. When i read Tamyra's post about unwed pregnancies i kinda got all worked up... weird, I just got the impression that she thought of unwed pregnancies as a bad thing and started ranting. Shall think more before posting.
I can't believe anyone would think unwed pregnacies are an unqualified good thing. This is not meant to be a rant and I probably shouldn't have brought that statistic up when what I really wanted to say was that I resent people making decisions for other people they have no business making. I think it is somewhat of a good thing that people aren't as stigmatized by unwed births as in the past, I just don't think the problems faced by those families have been adequately solved. I have come to a personal conviction based on my own life that having very young parents isn't the best way to grow up. Nor do my personal observations lead me to believe that having much older then average parents is much better. Parents need to be at their prime to handle the demands of parenting. I'm watching my parents raise my grand nephew. At 23months he is getting to be easier to communicate with but he is a handful. I don't know if his parents will ever get married, or if they should, if they do I won't be unhappy about it but I won't stop worrying about them either. It has been nearly three long years watching them hurt each other. My advice to anyone who wants children is find someone you love and respect, who loves and respects you, and make the commitment to your family before the kids come along. If you can't do that I wish you strength, serenity, and wisdom, you will need them especially if you end up with kids. edited to correct a misspelled word and to add that I confess to being in an older generation
Nor would -or, after my opinion, should- anyone see them as an unqualified bad thing. Every pregnancy, out of wedlock or not, is an individual story, and wether it is a good thing or not depends more on the personalities involved than on their matrimonial status quo. What would really help me following this discussion, and getting the participants' actual viewpoints straight, was if the issues "single parent", "bad parent", "unwed parent", "very young parent", were defined and somewhat kept apart, instead of somwhat being used "in the sense of...". First, being an unwed mother is not necessarily tied to being an extremely young mother. Especially not these days. My sister was 19 and married, I was 26 and unmarried. I'd rather take my route again. (She's doing great as a mom, but is now divorced, and it was no nice divorce.) The younger parents are, the less likely it is they are married, true - but the reverse is not the case.* Second, the thing I was trying to point out with my last post is that today, at least in the society I live in, many people don't see marrying necessarily as a part of their commitment to each other and their family, and the data I know indicates these families without certificate work just as fine. Sure, there are points like the fact that, had something happened to my now-husband before our wedding, his parents would have had a bigger right to his life insurrancy payout than his daughter. But that says nothing about the family's functionality. Unwed parents do not necessarily equal young parents, and unwed mothers do not necessarily equal single mothers. Being a single parent is tough, no one denies that - but if that was the topic, well, then we should call it that to avoid confusion. Most single parents I know are divorced and never had an unwed pregnancy, actually. I have seen married parents hurt each other just as well as unmarried. Having a child will show you what kind of relationship you really have, because it will undermine and revolutionize all the little things that keep many of them going - if you can do without a lot of them for a while because you're on a strong fundament, you will make it as a couple. If you can't, you won't. Marriage certificate meant no benefit for us in that particular area - we did just as well before getting it. It did mean tax benefits, though, and jurisdical security. And sorry for the hijack... I guess so far (!) everyone here agreed upon the initial question...
[quote:2dae648f0c="Garner"]"A Woman's Concern is persuaded that the crass commercialization and distribution of birth control is demeaning to women, degrading of human sexuality, and adverse to human health and happiness." -- policy statement of the pregnancy-counseling organization whose medical director was Dr. Erik Keroack, recently appointed to head the nation's family planning program[/quote:2dae648f0c] Beyond this statement and the arguments about pregancy, birth control and it role in relationship I'm just going to highlight the scariest thing for me... This man is now in charge of an ENTIRE COUNTRY'S policies and procedure around reproduction. *shivers* **Crosses hands over my womb protectively**
My personal opinion is that all children are a blessing, they come when they are supposed to come to whom they are supposed to come. Some are just more or less lucky. There is a little girl in foster care right now, who was lucky enough to have been found by a farmer left along side a rural road in a carseat, with a duffle bag and a blanket, before she died of exposure. She was estmated to have been between three and fourteen days old. The BCI is trying to find fingerprints or DNA to try to identify the parents. As long as there are parents driven to do things like that I have to assume we haven't come so far from the bad old days. My family was affected by my great-grand parents divorce, it tore the family apart. We lost contact with our cousins in Belgium and in Detroit, Michigan because of it and because so many of them died young leaving single parents to toil on alone, we even lost one cousin to England when his family refugeed there during WWI. One great uncle married his wife in the hospital after he saw his daughter was really his. His son had a child he chose not to be involved with, now 32 years later they get together for deer hunting and he enjoys being a grandfather. His decision kept his father and my dad and grandfather apart for most of the last decade of the brothers lives. My folks were highschool seniors when they conceived me, I counted the months between their wedding (the day after they graduated) and my birthday, and it turns out I was an uncommonly vigorous newborn for being two months "premature", being able to lift my head up and weighing over 7 lbs. My dad says he has been scratching a poor man's ass ever since but I am also aware that he has loved us all the way. I mentioned that they are raising their great grandson. This is because they want to keep the boy in his father's life as much as possible. If they weren't able to give him a home there would be no telling what would happen to him. My nephew and his parents have a troubled relationship. It is hard for me to imagine my brother and his wife making room in their home for their grandson, even if I do hope if worse comes to worse that is exactly what I think should happen. That won't be up to me. I'll never know if my parents and my brother and his son might have had an easier time of raising their kids if they had a bit more maturity, but I'll always wonder. As for my self it has been a while since I resigned myself to being childless, even if people seem to keep asking me why I don't have kids. I think it was when I turned 42, nearly 5 years ago, that I stopped wishing on the first star and including the desire for a child in every prayer. I seldom get that yearning to hold a downy headed baby of my own any more and I haven't cried about it in the longest time. I know what it is like to want children and now I know what it is like to be even a little glad that I haven't any. I'm not sure my marriage would have survived as long as it has if we had had children, I might have been driven to remove my kids from the influence of my husbands family long ago.
I dont' worry about the statistics for "unwed" pregnacies, what has weddings got to do with anything? Many couples live wonderful lives with kids without ever getting married. What worries me is that amount of teenage- and unwanted preganancies. There's some interesting statistics about the correlation between high numbers of teenage and unwanted pregancies and whether the country/state has sex-ed in schools or not. Sex-ed is not a total failsafe but it works to some degree and that's better than nothing. Another good reason for condoms, at least, is the lessening of the chance of recieving STD's. In the west a depressingly large amount of people get infected by HIV by his or her permanent partner. But it's a scary example of what a human's mind can cook up to justfy itself and to condemn others, it's very easy for men to say that birthcontrol and abortions shouldn't exist/be used. Unfortunately many women listen to the men who say this to the point where they believe it too.
Changing the subject a little, in the latest issue of mental_floss they have an artical called "The Future of Birth Control - How the Male Pill Will Work" (pp. 32-33, volume 5, issue 6) . There are several companies and universities trying to find a way to make it possible for the males to carry some of the weight for contraception. It is still a few years away from any of the proposed ideas from being marketed though. The downside: "In the meantime, health experts worry that a male birth control will lull single guys into a false sense of securtiy, leading them to stop using condoms. If that happens, cases of sexually transmitted diseases could increase dramatically." Edited because "helath" and "health" aren't quite the same thing. Not that it means that helath is actually a word, but if it was one, it probably wouldn't mean the same thing as health.
[quote:f2b015cbbc="redneck"]"In the meantime, health experts worry that a male birth control will lull single guys into a false sense of securtiy, leading them to stop using condoms. If that happens, cases of sexually transmitted diseases could increase dramatically."[/quote:f2b015cbbc] Wouldn't that be true for the pill as well?
Yeah, not seeing much difference there. Good point CY. Main problem most women have with the "male pill" is that if he forgets they end up with the pregnancy...
I think who controls contraception only really becomes an issue outside the context of a healthy relationship. In that case, the female pill is always still available. I don't see any disadvantage. Also, as Andalusian pointed out to me, it doesn't replace the condom or the female pill. It just adds another barrier.
[quote:309c88fce1="Cynical_Youth"][quote:309c88fce1="redneck"]"In the meantime, health experts worry that a male birth control will lull single guys into a false sense of securtiy, leading them to stop using condoms. If that happens, cases of sexually transmitted diseases could increase dramatically."[/quote:309c88fce1] Wouldn't that be true for the pill as well?[/quote:309c88fce1] A one night stand between two strangers. The male might not know if the woman is on the pill, so he takes precaution into account. If he's on the pill, then he feels more secure in the idea that there will be no pregnancy and would be more apt to not use a condom. It probably wouldn't make a large difference between regular partners though.
[quote:c70856f470="redneck"]A one night stand between two strangers. The male might not know if the woman is on the pill, so he takes precaution into account. If he's on the pill, then he feels more secure in the idea that there will be no pregnancy and would be more apt to not use a condom. It probably wouldn't make a large difference between regular partners though.[/quote:c70856f470] A one night stand between two strangers. The female might not know if the man is on the pill, so she takes precaution into account. If she's on the pill, then she feels more secure in the idea that there will be no pregnancy and would be more likely not to use a condom. In other words, same situation but with role reversal.
In other words, when not in a tried and true relationship, always use a condom. No Martini, no party.
Newer WHO research shows, that one of the reasons HIV is spreading still so rapidly is that in many societies, a married woman has far more difficulties to ask her husband to use a condom than a single one, and the most new infections happen inner marriage, from husband to wife. You can explain about HIV as much as you want, a wife -and often not only a wife- that asks for a condom is said to be cheating. In some areas, that can be just as fatal as AIDS.
I've heard that one of the population groups that is experiencing the fastest growing incidence of HIV infection is senior citizens. Having grown up in an era that saw the first reliable treatments for VD, then having the advent of the pill, and now feeling old enough to outlive the effects of the usually long dormant virus, they are being just as or more reckless then any other group. It gives a whole new meaning to the name, dirty old man.
Those retirement villages are a cesspit of sex and vice... My boyfriend's grandmother has a new man friend* everytime we see her, ie she keeps out living them or causes it with the dancing and lord knows what else... She's a mans-lady and enjoying herself immensely and i say more power to her but if she is in danger then its hard to say to an 80+ woman she should curb her activities... *originally this was typoed as fried and no she doesn't cook her men.
[quote:9f16ec0e5d="spiky"] *originally this was typoed as fried and no she doesn't cook her men.[/quote:9f16ec0e5d] ... That WOULD have explained why she has a new man every time you come over!
I've heard that if the door is shut in the nursing home you don't want to open it without knocking, seriouly you don't.
The following is more in relation to the starting post not the current talk on unwed/wed pregnancies and old folk relations.... The cold cynical bastard part of my mind has this to offer: Opposition in goverments to birth control may not only be based on the religious and/or narrow-minded views of those elected to office. It is also a numbers game (as goverment officials are notorious bean counters). Without birth control there will be a greater number of children born in the family unit. This leads to a greater total population and higher tax revenue in subsequent generations. ... I may be giving the bean counters to much credit though.
