Thursday, November 28, 2013

is contraception really about gender battle?

I am really bugged by how people speak of contraception as if it is a "woman's issue."

The thing is, if a woman conceives a child, a man becomes a father.
If a woman does not conceive a child, neither has the man with whom she was involved fathered a child.
Conception, parenthood, contraception, all of these involve two people. (three, actually, if we include the child.)

The assumption in debates regarding contraception repeatedly seems to be that "men" are the ones that don't want women to use contraceptives. If someone is against contraception, then people who are for it are like "Oh, you think her body should be owned by her husband." Where did this assumption that the husband (or boyfriend) of the woman in question wants her to become pregnant?
Why forget that some women might want to become pregnant?

There are men who want to be fathers, and women who want to be mothers. There are men who do not want to father a child, and women who do not want to conceive a child.
There are couples who agree that they do not want children (or more children, or do not want children yet), there are couples who agree that they want children, there are also instances where the man wants a child and the woman does not, there are instances where the woman wants a child and the man does not.
There could be cases where a husband pressures his wife to refrain from contraceptives. (I don't know of instances of this, but it is a possibility)
There could just as easily be cases where a husband is the one who pressures his wife to keep using contraceptives.

(there are polls that show a lot of women have lied or would lie, saying they were "on the Pill" in order to get pregnant.)

Acting as if anti-contraception is taking the side of the man against the woman, is drastically over simplifying things.

Sunday, November 24, 2013

Sunday, April 7, 2013

Gay Marriage? Wrong Question?

There is a lot of talk about same-sex marriage (a better term than "gay marriage." I just used the former for its search phrase value.) People argue about whether same sex marriage is licit, is okay. But we should be asking a slightly different, more basic question: Is sex between persons of the same sex (confusing sentence) okay?

I read an article (I forget the name) by someone about whether the purpose of marriage is procreation. But the first question to ask is, Is the purpose of sex procreation? Everyone knows yes, that is it's biological purpose. Procreation is the reason humans have sexual instincts in the first place.
That being said, Is it ethical to engage in non-procreative sex? More specifically, is it ethical to engage in sexual-type action with someone of your own gender? This is sex that is not geared towards procreation at all. One could question whether it should be given the same name. Sex between persons of opposite gender who are infertile is not the same.

I am not presenting an argument as to what is moral or immoral. I am simply presenting the correct questions that should be asked. I have my views, but this article is not about them.

If you determine that same-sex sex is licit, is moral, okay things are simple for you. If you are uncertain, or think it is not moral, there is still another question.

The next question is: What is the relation of sexual actions to marriage? Are sexual actions intrinsic to marriage? Essential to marriage, I should say. Or rather, is the morality of possible sexual actions essential to marriage? This last question means that, even if the couple does not actually engage in sexual actions, is it necessary that it would be morally okay for them to do so? Is the moral correctness of the potential (even if not carried out) sexual actions between them necessary for marriage?
Strangely, I have never heard anyone raise this question.

I am not referring to whether sex is essential or is the most important part of the emotional relationship between the spouses. Many married couples say that it is not the most essential part of their relationship. But it is presumed that it is normally there, or at least the potential for it.

Everyone seems, however, to already agree that the sexual act  is so essential to the definition of marriage, that in the case of marriage between two persons between whom sex is unthinkable, marriage is also unthinkable. For instance, marriage between brother and sister, marriage between an adult and child, etc. We're not forcing spouses to have sex with each other. However, no one may marry if sex between them is absolutely wrong and immoral.
Everyone seems implicitly to agree on this. However, I am surprised at never having heard it discussed.

If sexual intercourse is essential to the nature of marriage, than the question of the licitness of same-sex marriage depends on the licitness of same-sex intercourse.

Saturday, January 26, 2013

Only Person

There is only one person around whom I live in the moment. Around whom I LISTEN to what he is saying, hanging on his every word, without the noise of my own thoughts in the background. And he listens to me. He doesn't say a lot; just a few words; he listens. And I listen to his silence, to his few words, to his sounds when he understands. And I sense everything he is feeling.

Super Short Post About Nothing Important

Good News,
Based on perusal of other blogs, this one will keep getting better and better as the months go by.
Actually, this should have happened already.   :(   


I am now 99.9% sure I have Aspergers.
I didn't believe the people who told me so. I scored NT (neurotypical) on the online test I took.
Then I found this site:
And I recognised myself in basically everything she wrote. Actually, it explains a lot about my life. Maybe I will write more about this later.