The Joke of Contraception in Politics. A Plea.

I don't usually talk about politics because, honestly, I don't want to. Politics and religion are the two topics that no one on different sides will ever really be able to discuss rationally, everyone's too goddamned convinced that they're right and everyone else is wrong.

But today I'm going to go against my mini pledge. I'm going to talk about Politics. Just a little bit. Please don't run off scared, because this is important.

I've had the basic idea of John McCain's status on Abstinence Only Education (he's all for it) since I first did research on the elections in the spring. It made me dislike him. But after reading This Article, I started doing some more research into an accusation which seemed far more horrifying than just AOE.

My findings say this: John McCain is AGAINST Sex Education AND Contraception (including Condoms).

Let me say that again. John McCain is AGAINST CONTRACEPTION.
That includes birth control pills, Plan B pills, and CONDOMS!!

Contraception is one of the most important topics of today's society.
Condoms are vital in the prevention of HIV and teen pregnancy, and Birth Control is one of the most issues in Women's Health because it prevents pregnancy as well as aiding in other medical problems.
Contraception and Birth Control is a Basic Medical issue and a basic medical Right! It isn't just sexual health or reproductive rights, it is Women's Health.

But McCain's status on Condoms is that he "isn't sure they really prevent" pregnancy or STDs.
He has voted AGAINST allowing or paying for Contraception every single time he's gotten the chance to.

To a reporter in Iowa, when asked about contraception and HIV (talking mostly about condoms and AIDS in Africa), he said "I’m not informed enough on it."

What??? A Presidential Candidate not INFORMED about one of the most important social issues?
If he's lying to save his own ass, what a horrible way to do it. Just say your against contraception and take your stand. He's supposed to be a "straight talker" who will take on questions and accusations against his issues head on, but he stumbles over contraception??
If he's not lying, and really doesn't know (or care about) contraception, then why the hell would we want him as President?

And that's not the first time he's said that. So many times when asked about contraception issues, he responds with "I don't know...etc". Even going so far as to ask his press secretary what his stance on the issues were!
Do we want a President who doesn't know about these issues?

At another time, when asked about the fact that Viagra is paid for by insurance but birth control isn't (he'd recently voted against a bill that would have birth control paid for along WITH what it pays for now-Viagra), he responded "I certainly do not want to discuss that issue".

Once again, WHAT? He doesn't want to talk about it? How can a Presidential Candidate not want to talk about an important issue? Do we want a president who is uncomfortable with talking about these important issues? He then says that he "doesn't usually duck an issue, but I'll get back to you".
Well we've got more instances where he DID duck that very same issue!

In this case you'd think it'd make perfect sense for any insurance that covers Viagra to cover birth control as well. As if the two weren't completely related to each other.



Today I even discovered an article talking about the new "definition" of Pregnancy. The government has decided to THROW OUT the established MEDICAL definition of pregnancy as beginning at implantation (when an egg attaches to the Uterus lining), and instead adopt the religious PUBLIC OPINION that pregnancy starts at conception (the meeting of the egg and sperm) as the new DEFINITION. This is an attempt at defining any hormonal contraception as ABORTION, which it's NOT! This also goes on to propose a new rule that would allow government funded programs to DENY women BIRTH CONTROL, and any company that didn't hire someone who would REFUSE BIRTH CONTROL to patients would be threatened.

This is just one step closer to outlawing Contraception in the US. Can you believe it?
Abstinence Only is one thing, but these little bitty steps towards completely ANNIHILATING the RIGHTS of women and their HEALTH is getting ridiculous and, frankly, absolutely frightening.

I don't care if your republican, democrat, christian, pro-life, pro-choice, pro-abortion,or pro-abstinence only, you cannot support a complete lack of Contraception and Condoms!

I don't care who you usually vote for, who you're planning on voting for, or why, but PLEASE don't vote for McCain. If you care about health, sexuality, or just WOMEN, PLEASE don't vote for him!
A man who doesn't want to talk about vital health issues and doesn't know enough about contraception to simply answer a question should NOT be allowed to be our entire countries President!

*deep breath*
I can deal with abortion being illegal or Abstinence Only taking over the schools, but if Contraception is banned in the US, or made legally ridiculously hard to get, I'm moving to Canada or England. And for the first time, I'm completely serious.

I can't support a country that doesn't support basic Civil and Women's Health Rights.



(PS: all the hyper linked phrases lead to blogs or news articles explaining the phrase)

Sin on News

Some news stories today that BUG me:



Shakopee heeds parents' concerns on sex-ed course

Okay. No. There is no - and I mean NO- logical reason for kids not to learn about sex. Seriously. The time for sexual morality is OVER. Sex is biology. Sex is nature. Sex is going to happen whether we like it or not. Parents can't normally opt their kids out of Biology, or let them skip European History, so their friggin body's sexual DEVELOPMENT class should also be REQUIRED. There is no LOGICAL reason why it shouldn't. People should know their bodies, and that's that.
The fact that they're segregating the sex ed classes is just a laughable after thought for me. Separating boys and girls in a sixth grade class only perpetuates the idea that boys and girls are unequal and sex is something dirty and secret. And I think it's just silly.

Next.

Pharmacies Should Be Allowed To Refuse Contraception...

Nothing so wrong with this post. But it revealed the fact that some Pharmacies refuse to fill contraception orders. Wait, what? No, really, WHAT? Okay, what they say about upholding their own morals without pushing them on other people is great, really, but not filling contraceptions? Not holding condoms? What if they're the only Pharmacy in town? Ick. I don't like this. But yet...it's not all bad. I guess.

Secrets in the Suburbs: I'm a Dominatrix

This...is awesome.
That's all I have to say.
Go you, Mrs. Dom-Mommy.


Oh! And did I mention that Gay Marriage is legal in California? Finally!


W is currently trying to get me to "make research", being that I haven't posted a Position of the Week in for-fucking-ever. (I'm saying fuck a lot tonight; sorry, I'm just in that -fucking- mood.) So I'll go. For science. Yeah, right.

Before I go, four things I realized today.

1. Simba and Nala had sex in the Lion King.

I know, I know; either What the Fuck? or Duh... but for some reason this never occurred to me, but dawned on me suddenly at work as Can You Feel the Love Tonight played.

2. I haven't done a post here about books yet, so I really should. ASAP.

3. The new Doctor Who episodes are better than sex. Period. Seriously. Way better than any sex you could possible have. Unless...no, never mind.

4. I haven't written anything of worth lately. I really do feel bad, I swear. But I'm back from my sad excuse for a "va-kay" and don't work again till Wednesday. So I have three days to force myself! And by force myself I mean be completely lazy until someone actually tells me I should do a new post so I feel like anyone cares. ....... .....

Untitled Paper on Homosexuality

Currently Reading: THE FURTHER ADVENTURES OF A LONDON CALL GIRL by Belle De Jour
(Click the title to view Amazon's information page)

For my Human Sexuality course, I was told to write a paper on homosexuality. Not really any parameters, just to write it. This is what I ended up turning in. I just wanted to share.

A homosexual, by social definition, is a person who is sexually or romantically attracted to someone of the same sex. Homosexuality has pretty much been around in one way or another since the dawn of man. But yet, for a very very very long time it has been considered a huge controversy. Especially in patriarchy-based societies that have history of monotheistic, “God” based religions. And especially in today's society where much of the common sense filled world wishes to, god forbid!, give them rights just like every other human being.

A lot of the controversy lies in the basis that god doesn't want people to be gay. That gay people go to hell. And while, personally, I think if someone's going to hell it's their business and no one else's, many of these religions insist on bugging those people about the fact that they're going to hell. As if it were their job to speak for “God”.

When it comes to homosexuals, I think that any love is great love, and any (safe and consensual) sex can be great (safe and consensual) sex. I think what helps that positive view on homosexuality is the fact that I am often attracted to girls. I've never had a girlfriend, and enjoy men and sex with them, I don't think I would ever be against having a girlfriend. My current boyfriend and I even had a discussion once about having a threesome. Not to spice up our sex life or so to fulfill some fantasy of his, he actually was uncomfortable with it. The idea was to have it for me, so I could see what it was like to be with a girl, without really going outside the relationship, so we could share the experience. May sound odd, but it made sense at the time. It never happened, but we still talk about it sometimes.

But really, I think I want to tell one story. It will probably take up a lot of space/time. But I like this story, and the theory that I came up with because of it, so I'll stick to it.

I once called this “Comparing lesbians to vegetables? What kind of Feminist am I?”

After moving to North Carolina as a kid, I grew up in one of those places where “gay” is either an insult or an whispered word. And if it's actually true, it isn't talked about. I didn't know what a homosexual person was until middle school. Even then, you didn't talk about it. What's more taboo than sex in a Bible Belt town that probably unanimously protested the civil rights movement and Roe v. Wade? Gay sex, of course.

In debates and arguments in my high school I was constantly on the opposite side of just about everybody else. We had, probably, about one token gay guy every three or four years, and I was pretty much the only budding atheist out of all the people I knew until my senior year. During this particular argument on homosexuality, this guy insisted that gay people choose to be gay. Hm. The example I gave the boy was a comparison of food. Hence my paper's title.

If you don't like broccoli, you can't help it. You didn't just wake up one day and say “You know what, broccoli sucks. I'm sticking to carrots. Broccoli's stupid. I hate broccoli.” You simply try broccoli for the first time, and think it's gross, and don't like it. You didn't choose to not like it. In the future, your tastes might change, but typically, the dislike lasts. As an adult you may choose to eat broccoli anyways, but that doesn't mean you like it. In some cases, you might have a reason to or to not like broccoli. Maybe your mother made it every single day and you grew to hate it even though you didn't before. Or maybe a kid stuck a piece up your nose and you had to go to the ER and so you could never eat broccoli again. Either way, your feelings did change, but you still didn't have a choice in the matter. No matter the situation, your genes, breeding, circumstance, and taste buds did all the deciding for you.

In my opinion, homosexuality can be something like that. There are very definite parallels in the ideas. It is highly unlikely that one day a person wakes up and says “From now on I'm going to be gay. Yes, that sounds nifty.” It doesn't happen. People don't choose to like men instead of women, or vise versa. Like with veggies, someone may choose to act on their homosexual- or heterosexual, for that matter- emotions or attractions, but they didn't choose for those attractions to be there in the first place. And in some cases the way a child is brought up can affect their sexual attractions in the future, but that isn't the case very often. Though they are currently looking into the idea of a “gay gene”, all that would do is further prove that people don't choose to be gay, it's just the way they are.

One of the things this boy was trying to also push along with the idea of gay people choosing to be gay, was the idea that straight people choose to be straight. Now this, this was just silly. My quick, annoyed, angry response was something along the lines of “You only want to think that you choose to be straight because you are a young, white, christian male who wants to believe that you are choosing to live by your religion's ideals.” Although, being my state at the time and my lack of conversation skills, it was probably a bit less eloquent than that.

Either way, the argument got me nowhere, and the ingrained propaganda my classmates lived by remained the same. The sad, horrifying fact is that people rarely really bother to try to understand the things they fear or are taught are wrong. They don't try to understand them, or even accept them in many cases. The military's "don't ask don't tell" policy is one that is followed by so much of our society. It's sad and it's unfair. I was simply the one who argued all the time. I hate being that person. But sometimes, that's just who I am. I'm an intelligent, pro-choice, anti-Abstinence Only, possibly bi-sexual, semi-atheist feminist who argues a lot. And I compare gay people to vegetables. ...Hi.

Related Posts: The Sex Taboo