Warning: Some parts of this essay may be considered pornographic. (I sure hope so because I need another source of income.) It is mostly addressed to adult women but you should feel fee to read it whatever your sex, or sexual orientation ,or sexual orientations. If a young girl happens to read it, I am persuaded that it will do her more good than harm in the long run.
The leftist media have a new battle-horse: Republicans are waging “war on women,” they say. They claim that the Republican Party is using contraception denial to undermine women’s freedom. The other morning, I am laboring on the elliptical at the gym maintaining my three-pack. I am watching MSNBC (no choice, I live in Santa Cruz) when comes on an elegant, attractive Professor of Political Science. I don’t know from what university she is and I don’t care. It’s obvious she was invited because of her telegenic appeal. She is a light-skinned African-American woman, quite pretty, with an extremely neat hairdo of a hundred tight little tails.(What do you call those again?) Perfect!
The telegenic professor asserts calmly that the Republican Party is deliberately trying to limit the progress of women into the professions by denying them contraception.
Got it? “Copulate without protection. Become pregnant. Kiss law school good-bye! One less ho in a position of power or influence!”
I wouldn’t believe this enormous absurdity happened on television if I had not heard it myself. We are all more or less guilty for letting this kind of stuff be said without booing. Yes, I think booing is a moral obligation.
This liberal line of attack is another calculated distraction from this country’s real, important problems of course, a stagnating economy and a diminished stature in the world, inviting hostility. Nevertheless, I am going to get involved because no one else dares speak the truth, I mean the whole truth.
Sometimes, often, I lose track of the substantive reasons why I oppose liberals and leftists because I become so absorbed in the form of their delivery. In the case of the lady political scientist and of her prim MSNBC lady interviewer, it’s the monumentally grotesque quality of their position which I am not even sure is hypocrisy. Often, I spend so much energy rubbing my eyes and discretely scratching my nears, and pinching myself, that I have little left to argue calmly against a given position. This is one such time. Let me try anyway.
And, by the way, I can speak freely about the “war on women” and about contraception because this conservative (libertarian-leaning) man is quite willing to pay for the contraceptive needs of all kind of women in order to decrease the number of unwanted children born to ditsy women (otherwise known as “dingbats”) who insist on getting it on with biological males who have “loser” written all over their low, brutish foreheads. I only resent a little that my financing has to be done through the government, and by force .
I must continue this essay with what I think are three factual reminders:
First, I believe there is presently no Republican faction, club, commentator, politician, or elected representative that is trying to make contraception illegal. I think there is none, period. If I am wrong, please correct me. I want to know and I will be quick to publish the correction if it’s credible.
Second, it is not the case, it is far from the case, that in this country, there is more or less universal agreement that Peter’s health care must be paid for by Paul. or Mary’s care by Jane, or Mary’s care by Paul, etc. There are several national-level lawsuits right now largely to determine the constitutionality of forcing this on America.
Update Labor Day 2012: Since this essay was posted, the US Supreme Court struck a provision of he Obama/Pelosi requiring all American to buy health insurance. That provision was central to the final generalization of the practice of all paying for all in the the US.
Third, and ignoring the second point above, one could argue that contraception is a women’s health issue but it’s not a done deal. Not paying for another’s contraception is not equivalent to denying small-pox vaccination, for example, or the appropriate antibiotic in a case of acute infection. The main undesirable consequence of lack of contraception for women is unwanted pregnancy. As it turns out there is what I think is reasonable good evidence to the effect that not having been pregnant is a factor of breast cancer. I understand this is just a small part of the story and not an argument in favor of multiple pregnancies, for example. I am just pointing out that deciding that contraception is a health issue is not an open and shut case as the Left would have us believe.
Another argument could be made, a much more straightforward argument, that contraception is an entertainment expense. Of course, the two are not mutually exclusive: Buying rigid boots for skiing is both an entertainment expense and a health expense (in a preventive way, like contraceptives). I note with interest though that there are (still) few calls for me to pay for perfect strangers’ ski-boots. Right?
Here are my qualifications to discuss women and contraception. First, I have had a mother and two sisters, and two wives have had me. Second, I have known well several high-achieving female academics. Third, I watch the Lifetime channel occasionally. And no, this is not a disparaging joke. Someone must be supporting this very successful commercial venture. It must address someone’s interest and I just don’t believe gay guys can support it alone. This channel tells you something. And, incidentally this assertion does not imply broad contempt for female brains: The two journalists who have the most influence on me currently are both women. What else would I need to qualify? Honestly?
Moreover, I possess a superior ability to generalize about women that not a single woman in the world can claim: I have been the male lover of women. (This is not the time to brag about numbers. I have already told you that I have been married twice so, you may assume that I have been the live male sex toy of a woman more than once.) Of course, this experience is valuable because, as any observant male over twenty can tell you (and lesbians too maybe, I just don’t know), when you know a woman well vertically, you know absolutely nothing about her in any other position. Some quiet women turn out to be screamers; some animated personalities just lie there; some distinguished intellectual ladies yell out obscenities to make you blush at the crucial moment. Also, and I know I am going to be crucified or worse for saying this, but some strident feminists are demanding, scary masochists. And some loud feminists are even tender in bed, or so I am told.
Something is missing in the discussion regarding the alleged war on women in particular and the government forced subsidization of contraception in general. There is an elephant in the room that neither liberals nor conservatives wish to acknowledge because both sides are surprisingly prudish. Or rather, it’s not a whole elephant, actually, it’s only the big, long, hard, tumescent trunk of the elephant. Let me explain.
I acknowledge that I share the unspoken assumption of liberals in general, and even of feminists, that Mother Nature would rather you had orgasms than not. I don’t even know if Mother Nature has strong preferences in this respect. I just think I have observed that women who have frequent orgasms are more relaxed, sleep better, talk more kindly, show more tolerance than those who don’t. Of course, this is only anecdotal evidence. It’s possible that serious scientific research involving careful enumeration and based on appropriate statistical sampling would show that the reverse is true, that women who experience lots of organisms are real bitchy insomniacs. (Tech. note: In my neck of the woods, “bitch” is gender neutral, as in: “John, you finished all the beer, you bitch!)
I said that even feminists share the assumption. I am going a bit out on a limb on this one. Some feminists are a little ambivalent. That’s because one famous feminist writer whose name I have forgotten, praise the Goddess, once declared that all heterosexual coitus is really rape for the woman. (Would I make this up? Do I have the talent, the inventiveness?)
So, anyway I was trying to get to the fundamental point that contraception is not protection from the consequences of sex in general but from the consequences of a narrowly defined kind of sex. Just about the only sex act that may result in pregnancy is the insertion of a penis in a vagina followed (must be followed) by the ejaculation of abundant, healthy, viable sperm-bearing semen directly into the vagina.
That’s it, folks. Don’t do this and you will not have to suffer unwanted pregnancy. I realize that there are always lurid tales out there about various indirect means of insemination. They are just that, tales, told by libidinous high-school girls and by adulterous wives. They don’t affect the mainstream of my argument.
So, it follows from the reminder above that if you never, never do what I describe, you have no need at all for contraception, none, ever. And if you don’t have such a need for contraception, then we need not discuss either who is going to foot the bill for your pregnancy prevention (except for modest soap and mouthwash expenditures). And then, we can go back to urgent, serious business.
I do not at all suggest that you should go without. Instead, I urge you to consider that Mother Nature does not usually do things half-way. She gave you a large number of areas that can be pleasantly stimulated until you experience relief. And, if penetration is the issue, she has provided more than one orifice that may suffer intrusion and that may be tricked to a climax of relaxation and even of fulfillment when properly coaxed, positioned and garnished. Moreover, Mother Nature, a good Mom part of the time, gave both you and the male of the species, in addition to his erectile penis, ten fingers, a mouth of extraordinary strength and sensitivity that includes a tongue, teeth, and some specialized publications would add, ten toes as well.
Listen to me, I am a doctor, by the way.
The birth control strategy I am proposing is not unrealistic nor is it new, of course. When I was a young teenager in France, a long time ago, there were no unwanted pregnancies in my social class (and, I want to add, STDs were unknown in the same social class). Yet, middle-class French girls were joyously orgasmic from an early age and even for a long time because they married late. I can hear some female readers thinking sarcastically from where I sit: “Poor deluded old man.” Well, it turns out, that I took the trouble to check with my oldest friend, a French woman who is a psychiatrist and who was 12 on a certain beach when I was 11 on the same beach, and we were both there for the seven summers following. She agrees with my description of those days in every way.
Let me repeat before you choke on your own anger that, should you reject my advice, I have already offered to help with the costs of your artificial contraception, for reasons I have already given. So, don’t hesitate, send me the bill. And, one more thing: I do think that three times a day seven days a week is a little excessive but it could easily be retrospective envy talking.
And, by way of conclusion: Let’s be clear: I , a conservative, do not claim that having contraceptives at their disposal will make women perverts. I argue instead that if they were more female perverts, the battle of who shall pay for contraceptives would decrease in intensity.
A footnote to finish: Sandra Fluke, the 30-year old law student and activist who fought with her sharp little elbows for a chance to give her ludicrous testimony before Congress, a political act if there ever was one, soon began to whine that she had been called names as a result. Just like a girl!
2/6/12 Update: Someone asked me orally (yes!) why I called Ms Fluke’s testimony “ludicrous.” Good question! She testified that one-year’s worth of contraception could cost up to $3,000 each year. Walmart and Target pharmacies provide generic pill for about $120 per year. That’s cheaper than the most moderate coffee habit. If money is the issue, you should have protected sex rather than a latte. So, I should correct myself: Ms Fluke is more likely to be a liar than ludicrous. And no, that still does not make her a prostitute. What Limbaugh said was unforgivably insulting to honest prostitutes who provide a service for an agreed upon fee and who rarely lie about it.
And there is a long discursive article in “Above the Law” (on-line) by someone named Zaretsky that is headed by a lying title about what Rush Limbaugh said about Ms. Fluke. Title alleges that Limbaugh called a woman a prostitute and a slut for using contraceptives. That’s a bald lie, of course. Liberals lie even when there is no need to. They lie out of habit. It’s part of their group culture.