13 Responses for "How Dare You Enjoy Screwing, Ladies!"

1. Natalie May 8th, 2006 at 3:51 am 1

   I read an article in “Glamour” recently on the war on contraception (yep – they actually do have articles on things other than “the best places to have spontaneous sex” and “what your man is really thinking.”) The overall point of the article was that the federal government no longer seems to make decisions based on science but rather is allowing the religious right to influence decisions about drug approval, etc. They talked about the fact that the morning after pill had been approved for over the counter use by a panel of doctors and scientists but suddenly the decision was reversed (due to lobbying from the religious right). They also mentioned that there are government websites spouting utter lies about contraception (condoms are not effective because they don’t protect against HPV, which leads to cancer) and abortions, so much so that many doctors no longer feel comfortable providing patients with information published by the government. It’s one thing for these crazys to harass women at Planned Parenthood offices, plaster those trucks with images of aborted fetuses and then drive around making everyone want to vomit, and just generally act like ignorant assholes; it is quite another for the federal government to buy into this crap.

2. Mrar May 8th, 2006 at 8:44 am 2

   FYI, it is true that condoms are NOT effective against HPV, which is a virus that DOES cause cancer…(This is why it’s important that all young women get the new vaccine that debuted recently), but condoms are effective against most sexually transmitted diseases including pregnancy of course, and that should NOT be down played.

3. Kables May 8th, 2006 at 8:52 am 3

   Pregnancy is a sexually transmitted disease?

4. Aaron May 8th, 2006 at 9:34 am 4

   And speaking of HPV: the scientists who developed the new vaccine, which is something like 98% effective, advocated for the vaccination of girls at the age of 12. They reasoned that, if this became standard practice, HPV could be wiped out in a generation or two.

   The Religious Right opposes widespread vaccination. Why? Because they’re afraid that it would increase promiscuity in teenage girls. Yep, that’s right. Our so-called “compassionate conservatives” would rather young girls be potentially exposed to cancer than engaging in pre-marital nookie.

5. D M May 8th, 2006 at 10:03 am 5

   There are also about 80 strains of HPV, and not all of them cause cancer. The point still stands, however, especially since the disease is very difficult to test for in men with any reliability.

   Couple this with the chapter in Freakonomics that says that the rise in abortion rights in the 70’s lead to an corresponding decrease in crime in the 90’s, and you’ve got some very interesting arguments for allowing women to have a say in what happens to their bodies.

   You know: freedom-which has benefits for everyone!

   Sigh. People have been having sex for so very long; who got it into their head that this could be controlled? But you only get the rights you’re willing to fight for, and it’s only been recently that I’ve seen people, especially women stand back up for their reproductive rights. (Men typically have less of a voice here) The Religious Right has been working this ground for 30 years, continually, which is why it’s so goddamn scary what might happen to all of us now.

6. Kables May 8th, 2006 at 10:05 am 6

   That Freakonomics chapter seemed rather suspect if you ask me — highly correlative and not at all causal. Just sayin’.

7. tonjaD May 8th, 2006 at 10:24 am 7

   Maybe the nutjobs could allow their kids to get the vaccine along with other shots and sign a waiver which allows them(crazy parents and or health care workers) to refer to it as the required vaccinations, thus leaving the 12 yr. olds in the dark about their “new license for promiscuity”.

8. Natalie May 8th, 2006 at 3:34 pm 8

   I wasn’t saying that condoms DO protect against HPV, but their argument for why they shouldn’t be used is that they don’t protect against HPV (no mention of all the STDs they do protect against, or pregnancy prevention). They also seriously overstate the rates of cervical cancer in women – if I recall correctly they cited it as number two behind breast cancer when in fact it is more like the 11th most common form of cancer in women. Nor do they mention that HPV does not lead to cervical cancer 100% of the time. So on both counts the information is seriously misrepresented. Sorry if that was unclear from my earlier post.

9. Melissa May 8th, 2006 at 7:04 pm 9

   On what a big bomb hole I should rant!

   I feel lucky that either I am of a generation of women, or that I, personally, am just a woman who finds the whole notion of sexual taboo to be quite backwards. Quite.

   And the one thing with which I will take issue is this:

   I’m all for adoption, but lets face it: Adoptive parents are picky, and a lot of kids don’t get decent homes.

   Modern adoption involves a whole fuckofa lot more than choosy adoptive parents. The amount of babies in the US that were not planned and that are adopted is almost negligable, compared to the amount that are either carried to term and kept by the birth parents or aborted. And to say that this is because adoptive parents are too picky is … disingenuous. Adoption requires an almost superhuman amount of emotional wherewithal on both sides of the equation – birth and adoptive parents – and most people, truly, cannot cope. I don’t have any “pet causes” but if I did, adoption would probably be it.

   And no, I’m not adopted.

10. TonjaD May 9th, 2006 at 11:07 am 10

    Adoption is a touchy subject. Sadly, I’ve had first hand experience with adoptive parents finding out the hard way over time that the infant they adopted is disabled. I’m not sure how picky I think adoptive parents are either. Sometimes I think they’re at the point that they’ll do anything for a baby, so they’d take anyone they can get. Adopting an older child seems to be where a lot of people draw the line and this is heartbreaking to me. For some reason we(U.S.)think babies have more appeal.(just look at all the older children in foster care and even all the older animals that are euthanized due to lack of interest in adopting them.)This is the area of adoption that I think is very unjust.

11. Natalie May 9th, 2006 at 4:38 pm 11

    I do think Johnny’s point about adoption is valid to the extent that he is referring to the anti-abortion / anti-contraception types not caring much for what happens to babies once they are born. This tends to be the same group of people who want to keep gay couples from adopting, for example. The adoption process is also incredibly long and expensive, a further hindrance to folks who may be interested but are just not up to it for one reason or another. This leaves a lot of children in the foster system their entire lives, which is not always a positive experience. So to say that those who oppose abortions and the use of contraception don’t necessarily care about the babies that come into this world unwanted as a result is not a huge stretch in my mind.

12. Erin May 10th, 2006 at 4:04 pm 12

    “I’ve always wondered why Anti-Choice types are so dead-set against things like the pill, emergency contraception, etc… Wouldn’t widespread use of these things REDUCE the number of abortions? Isn’t that the point?”

    O.k., now I’m not saying this because I agree AT ALL, but the reason that anti-choice types are dead set against the pill, emergency contraception, etc., is because most believe that life begins at conception, and are against ending the life of the embryo. And many are against contraception such as condoms because they believe that sex should only be used to procreate. Reducing the number of abortions is actually not the point to many on the religious right. Like I said, I in NO WAY agree with the religious right–in fact I think they are about as wrong-headed as is possible to produce–but I thought this should be pointed out.

13. Imtheman May 12th, 2006 at 9:50 pm 13

    twit