Letters to the Editor
-
It's important that we stamp out sex
Except for U.S. Senators in bathrooms.
-
gotta love the catholics
I know I do.
We can all sing along now (with our requisite 14 children each)
Every sperm is sacred
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted
God gets quite irate
We need to stamp out unnecessary sex. Except for the wealthy. They can have as much as they like. But the working underclass needs to be working, dammit, not doing icky things in their bedrooms. If they'd just BEHAVE themselves, they wouldn't NEED birth control!
Harumph.
-
If only
If only there were something like Heifer.org but for birth control, so instead of buying some poor family a llama or a flock of geese, I could buy them birth control for a year.
-
Catholic Bashing!
YAAAAAAY!
-
@ Lola
Are you being sarcastic, or are you honestly excited about the Catholic bashing?
Why should Catholics not be bashed?
-
Can someone explain what the problem is?
I often hear women here and at Feministing and Feministe and Pandagon tell me that men have a choice: they can either have sex or keep it in their pants, but if they choose to have sex, they should deal with the consequences.
So it seems that the ban, although certainly illegal, and ugly, and punitive, and harmful, well it seems reasonable...?
What's the issue?
-
@ ♀♀♂♀♀!
What the hell are you talking about? Are you drunk?
-
Hmmmm.....
Save Tiger Stadium
where is tiger stadium? Are there tigers there?
I was feeling a little goofy, especially after reading all the posts on Tyson and how pissed everyone got.
So I guess both, it's entertaining to see how people are so bigoted towards certain religions in an ironic sort of way, and I also feel it is misdirected.
The problem is not the Devout Roman Catholics it's the fact that their government is swayed by religious dogmas that do not fit everyone.
It's scary! Sometimes I imagine the fundies taking over our country: suddenly I have to pray at school, at work, and the moral police are telling me I need to wear only skirts, and only below the knee, and I can't ever cut my hair, and I can't dance anymore anywhere (That might Kill me), and then they are rounding up all my gay friends and imprisoning them and the women that get abortions are put in stockades and marched around the square with the letter A on there bellies! OY!
But I still don't hate the fundies, they let me be, I let them be.
Seperation of church and state Baby!
-
Great humanitarians
We fail to appreciate that Lito and his Christianist fundamentalist ilk, whether fish-eaters or not (our U.S. fundamentalists would probably predict he's going to hell anyway, since only they have Jesus in their pocket), are doing humanity a great service.
We H. sapiens seems committed to a race these last couple of centuries to demonstrate the human carrying capacity of the earth by crashing past it. To the extent that Lito and the fundamentalists accelerate the accumulation of unwanted humans unable to feed themselves, there will be less of us when the time comes to crash over the cliff, and not so many of us committed to the die-off.
Isn't that a great service?
-
okay, a serious answer to a troll question
For one thing, you're asking married women and men to live together in sexless marriages--not to keep it zipped when one or the other doesn't feel like it, but basically never to have sex at all, because they can't afford more children. Note that one of the repercussions of the ban is "abstinence leading to troubled marriages and divorces"; the couples having the unwanted pregnancies are probably trying their best not to, but without fancy thermometers and whatnot try getting any success at all out of the rhythm method.
Just a little bit different from asking a guy not to date-rape or even to coerce a reluctant woman, when you're talking about couples that want to remain couples in the ways couples do.
-
@save tiger stadium
I think I answered your question here:
http://letters.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2008/01/31/sex_of_surgeon/permalink/ef62f2dad4dc52c7fcb188fae4ff7469.html
To anonymous, I see no trolls here. I see people having a conversation and that set of people consisting of a plurality of opinions. If you cannot be civil and refrain from insulting others, I shall have to ask you to leave. (And it's well known that name calling "troll" is the first refuge of those that have run out of argument.)
However, I am not talking about rape or date rape. It is quite common at Broadsheet and other feminists rags to hear feminists tell men that they are to have no sexual encounters if they are unwilling to bear responsibility for an unwanted child. The context is the discussion of "Roe V. Wade for Men" and in that context, Broadsheet Feminists constantly make the case that men should have no sexual contact with women unless they are willing to pay for 18 or more years of child support. Men are told they cannot either a) demand an abortion or b) severe their parental responsibility within the first trimester. Men are told their decision consists solely of a) sex and support any children or b) no sex.
So it seems pretty identical to me.
If you don't want people to argue that the sole choice available to the women of Manila should be either sex with children or no sex, then please stop arguing that that should be the sole choice of men in the United States.
K? Thanks.
-
@ Lola
Who is Lola Faire? Is she fair?
You're right. Being a devout Catholic has nothing to do with the problem. It's not as though the church tells people to avoid contraception use. Wait a minute.
It's a dumb religion that tells people they are sinning when they have sex for any other purpose other than procreation. Is it difficult to understand why this is a problem?
-
huh?
Gee anon, you had me till the whole date rape or coercion part.
Jackass man in the middle isn't talking about date rape. He's talking about men who want financial abortions and some illogical women retort well a man can just wear a condom or not have sex! As generally these men want financial abortions from the result of a child from casual sex, or because they made it clear they didn't want kids and their wife or girlfriend gets pregnant and won't abort.
Basically they want the anyone else but them to pay for a child, the state, the woman, her family, just not them because a woman dares to not have an abortion when he wants her too. So they point their fingers and say some other dude lucked out his girl had an abortion, I want an abortion too, a financial one! They act like they can be forced to be parents, no one can be forced to be a parent, all they can be forced to do is wrtie a check every month and there are ways around that too.
They just want to whine about how in this one aspect of life, biology gives the woman control before and after conception and this drive them absolutely batshit, because they only have control before.
Which is totally and completely different than married or commited couples who can't even afford to buy condoms let alone another child, or don't want to have to stop having sex with their spouses, but the catholic government basically says well if you are poor, you're gonna have to because to have sex is to create a child , who gives a shit if you die and leave 5 kids motherless? You have to give birth and overrun the earth with children? Didn't you know us fundamentalist religionists are morons incabably of critical thinking that the planet can only sustain so many people? Who cares, the bible says be fruitful and multiply and the only good way to not multiply is to not have sex with your spouse or be so diligent about monitoring your tempurature and vaginal mucous! Not condoms or birth control, that's practically murder!