The Murloc sent me an article the other day, asking me to tear it apart. So tear it apart I shall.
The article is called "Why I Want a Male Birth Control Pill", by Kyle Munkittrick and can be read
here.
The first paragraph is perhaps the most egregious, so we shall save it for last. Let's start with, this:
"Sex as we know it has two major biological problems: disease and unintended pregnancy."
It boggles my mind that one could look at the natural function of a biological process and call it either a problem or unintended. This is akin to saying "eating has two major problems: food poisoning and nourishment," or "breathing has two major problems: smoke inhalation and respiration."
Consider the phrases: "I intentionally at the entire cheesecake and accidentally gained weight." "I intentionally jumped off the roof and accidentally fell to the ground." "I intentionally had sex and accidentally got pregnant." The first two make the speaker sound like an idiot, but the third one, for some reason, is how people actually think.
Of course, this is just the
contraceptive mentality: the
delusion that sex is not for sexual reproduction, but rather for pleasure, and the reproductive aspects of it are an unintended side effect. It's a mindset I frequently see in the post-sexual revolution apocalypse. And one Mr. Munkittrick seems to be afflicted with.
Dave Barry (hardly a hero of the pro-chastity movement) even made a joke about this, with one of his book titles:
Babies and Other Hazards of Sex. Of course, the joke here is that we all
know that babies are what's
supposed to happen during sex. It's comical to pretend that they're a hazard, and not the natural end, of the act. It's like saying, "my wife and I took a plane trip to visit her mother but, unfortunately, it didn't crash." The joke is that what was supposed to happen, happened, but we didn't want it to happen. The joke is that we want the opposite of what we do.
But it's only humorous when intended, like Dave Barry's book title, as a joke. Mr. Munkittrick seems to think it seriously.
For men there are approximately four ways of dealing with these issues without the need for a partner’s help: abstinence, condoms, coitus interruptus, and vasectomies. Abstinence prevents everything, including sex itself, so it’s kind of like avoiding food poisoning and gaining weight via fasting: yes it works, but it isn’t exactly practical for most of us.
I assume when he says that abstinence isn't practical "for most of us" that he is referring to married men whose wives have a very active sex drive, and are required by their vows to love their wives as Christ loves his Church, and so must make the hard sacrifice of always being available to satisfy her. I have a hard time imagining in what other circumstances abstaining could be "impractical".
In his most recent book-length interview with journalist Peter Seewald,
Light of the World, Pope Benedict XVI said that robbing banks with an unloaded gun may be a first step for a criminal to being more responsible.... No, wait, he said that a prostitute using a condom may be the first step to being more responsible, a first step to realizing that not everything can be allowed. Of course, the pope can't say "condom" in an empty room without creating controversy, and there was much discussion in the media that the pope had said it was morally permissible to use condoms (he didn't) and whether this indicated a reversal of teaching of the Church (it doesn't). But lost in the controversy was, I think, a very wise, and very insightful statement by His Holiness that cut right to the core of everything from the abortion holocaust to the AIDS epidemic. The Holy Father says in part,
[T]he sheer fixation on the condom implies a banalization of sexuality, which, after all, is precisely the dangerous source of the attitude of no longer seeing sexuality as the expression of love, but only a sort of drug that people administer to themselves. This is why the fight against the banalization of sexuality is also a part of the struggle to ensure that sexuality is treated as a positive value and to enable it to have a positive effect on the whole of man’s being. (p. 119, emphasis mine)
After reading this quote, I began to be more aware of this attitude towards sex, that it is a drug to be administered. How often do we hear someone speak of a "need" for sex, or go to extreme or even dangerous lengths to get a fix? And indeed, even from a neuroscience viewpoint, sex does act like a drug on the brain, releasing chemicals that cause pleasure and can lead to addiction.
From this viewpoint, Mr. Munkittrick's statement makes sense. It is "impractical" for most men to abstain in the same sense that it is "impractical" for a junkie not to shoot up, or it is "impractical" for an alcoholic not to get drunk, or for a chronic gambler not to hit the slots; not in the sense that avoidance would be physically impossible or harmful, but rather in the sense that the addict lacks the willpower to stop.
Of course, the way one deals with a junkie or a drunk or a gambler who insists that it's impractical to avoid his vice is not to make sure that he has a steady supply of whatever it is he craves, but to teach him self-discipline, so he can avoid the destructive behavior. Society has a sexual addiction. We insist, like the addict, that it's "impractical" to end our addiction. But what is really needed is a 12-step program. We need to admit that we have a problem.
Condoms are the best option men have, as they both protect quite well against disease, prevent accidental pregnancy and still allow, you know, sex.
This line doesn't sit well with me, and it took me a while to figure out why. I think it's because, to a large extent, it undermines the point of the rest of the article, particularly from a viewpoint on this side of the sexual revolution. He's arguing for a male birth control pill, and in the course of his argument, mentions that men already have a birth control method that also protects (to some extent) against disease. So what will happen if a male birth control pill is introduced? Well, we already know that.
I
read an article recently about a study by the UK government on the effects of their program to make Plan B freely available. Not only did it not impact teenage pregnancy rates, but it
increased rates of STIs. And it's easy to see why. "We don't need a condom; I'll just take Plan B tomorrow!" People, particularly teenagers, in the throes of passion are notoriously bad at making sound, objective judgments. Of course, the UK government, on discovering the utter failure of their £15 million program to bring about any good, did what any normal post-Christendom government would do: they increased the size of the program.
Women have a whole range of birth control options, including hormonal ones, for which there is no male analog: IUDs, sponges, cervical caps, the Pill, and Plan B. All of these options require planning ahead, going to the doctor, thinking about what sort of sex might happen and what to do if the birth control doesn’t work. Further, a woman is often required to think about all of these problems knowing her male partner is blissfully unaware and probably unconcerned with them. Guys just don’t have the same societal pressures or signals. Men don’t think about birth control or pregnancy as much. With a male pill, guys would be forced plan beyond just a condom in the wallet. [Why?] We would have to chat with our doctor, try different methods (ultrasound or hormones?) and get regular check-ups. Birth control would finally be on our collective male minds.
Birth control will never be on the promiscuous male mind as much as it is for women for the simple reason that
men can't get pregnant. We don't have to deal with the life-changing impact on our bodies and our lives in the same way as women. An unwanted pregnancy doesn't make us grapple with the decision to abort, and bear the scars and guilt of that for the rest of our lives, or carry to term and fear how our friends and relatives will judge our swelling belly. No pill will ever be able to make pregnancy as much of an issue for men as it is for women.
No, the way to get a man to think about pregnancy is for him to be in love, agape, with a woman; to make him swear a solemn vow before God and man that he will, henceforth, forsake all others and cherish his beloved unto death; that he will lay down his life for her and their children; to give him a solemn duty to her, and make him responsible for the care and upbringing of their love incarnate. That is what makes a man think about pregnancy, not giving him a pill and telling him "fornicate with as many women as you want! Just be sure to take this."
Women, particularly young women and teenagers, are often not just embarrassed to go on the pill, but are seen as promiscuous or easy for doing so. They are slut-shamed out of making responsible decisions.
Considering the concept of slut-shaming, I have only one thing to say, which is more of an aside and not connected to the point being discussed: anytime I read a defense of chastity, invariably a commenter will equate it with "slut shaming", that is to uncharitably mock the sinner, as if it is impossible to abhor the sin and yet love the sinner. The pro-sexual revolution types seem to argue that one simply cannot argue for sexual purity without putting down those who don't live to the ideal. This is a similar to the tendency I see that whenever one speaks out against homosexual acts, he is also labeled a "homophobe", again, as if it is impossible to say an action is wrong without hating those who commit it. I find this telling; one of the marks of a guilty conscience is that it is extremely sensitive to being called out for its sins. Perhaps the shame is inferred rather than implied.
Since I do not wish to be accused of arguing with a straw man, I point out that this is not in rebuttal to anything that Mr. Munkittrick has said. I don't know if he adopts this position, so my comment is not addressed at his words.
Many parents actively prohibit their daughters from going on the pill because they (falsely) believe that 1) fear of pregnancy will prevent early sex (it doesn’t) and that 2) the use of the pill will encourage their daughter to sleep around without other protections (it doesn’t).
Hm, perhaps I should just end this rebuttal right here. It is clear that I am completely unqualified to debate Mr. Munkittrick, since he quite clearly has met every single female on the face of the planet, and is familiar enough with each of them to know that not a single women would ever not engage in sexual intercourse out of fear that she would get pregnant.
Sarcasm aside, he may have a point. Jennifer Fulwiler mentions that:
On multiple occasions when I was a young teen I recall hearing girls make the comment that they would readily risk dangerous back-alley abortions or even consider suicide if they were to face unplanned pregnancies and abortion wasn’t legal. Though I was not sexually active, it sounded perfectly reasonable to me —that is how much we desired not to have babies before we were ready. Yet the concept of just not having sex if we weren’t ready to have babies was never discussed. It’s not that we had considered the idea and rejected it; it simply never occurred to us.
She describes the effects of the contraceptive mentality. When the idea that we have a
right to enjoy sex without consequences becomes ingrained firmly enough in our mindset, it is possible that people will no longer even consider the consequences of sex. Of course, the solution to this is not to
further entrench this simple madness, but rather to ingrain that pregnancy is the nature of sex.
Concerning his point that the pill encourages sleeping around, or discourages other protections, 1) see previous point about Plan B and STIs (I have read that The Pill has a similar effect), and 2) anecdotally, my mother once told me a story about a friend she had in college, whose mother, being the progressive and caring person she was, gave her daughter The Pill before she went off to college, as protection. My mother said that her friend had not been planning on sleeping around, but her mother's lowered expectations affected the friends attitude. "I have the pills," she said. "I might as well use them." And in a larger view, there is evidence to suggest that the contraceptive mentality changes the way people approach sex.
The enormous problem here is that while girls are forced to contemplate STDs and pregnancy early, boys are largely unconcerned until they have sex for the first time. In many cases, it will be the girl who asks about a condom or says “I’m on the pill, it’s ok” or something else responsible. If the two do have sex without any protection, the girl is forced to deal with the consequences, be it Plan B, abortion, or pregnancy. A male pill would dramatically alter some consciousnesses. [How?] Both sexes would be having discussions about preventing pregnancy as well as preventing diseases in sex-ed. The burden of responsibility would be equalized early on.
Mr. Munkittrick keeps insisting that a male pill would change the way men think about birth control, without ever really explaining the mechanism. Considering he has already conceded that men already have a form of birth control (the condom), how would providing another method make them think about it more than they already do? What magic properties would this pill have that would force men to focus on it so much? Why would they not just treat it as another condom? And if this new male birth control method required so much more planning and foresight than just a condom in the wallet, wouldn't most men just say "screw it" and grab a condom? People tend to take the path of least resistance. One of the criticisms I've heard of NFP is that it requires planning and foresight, as opposed to the pill, which you just take without thinking.
Another major perceived problem is, of course, is that taking the pill will be emasculating. I emphasize “perceived” because I’ve always found this argument baffling. I don’t know why anyone thinks being responsible is emasculating.
Well, it would be emasculating, almost by definition. The sexes are defined in relation to each other, particularly in the sex act. Males beget children, females nurture them. For a man to sterilize himself goes directly against his masculinity; it removes one of the primary distinctions of his sex, and moves him towards androgyny.
You know all those “man up” and “be a man” and “this looks like a job for a man” slogans? Well, they imply repsonsibility. A man takes care of things. Why can’t one of those things be his fertility? [Doesn't he mean "virility"? I was taught that women are fertile; men are virile.] I don’t want to have a kid right now, so I nullify my fertility with a pill. That sounds pretty manly to me. But the male pill isn’t just about me. I want the men around me to start taking responsibility.
Responsibility. He keeps using that word. I do not think it means what he thinks it means.
"Responsibility" means taking account for one's actions, and not shirking one's duty. It does not mean doing whatever one wishes, trying to pretend the consequences don't exist, then being surprised or caught off guard when they happen anyways. Responsibility means preparing for the outcome of ones actions, and not engaging in an act if one is not prepared for the results. Responsibility means swearing fealty to a woman before bedding her, so that should she get pregnant, both she and the child will be cared for.
That's what I learned when I meditated on the pictures of
Damien and
Anthony in the womb.
Responsibility, I knew,
means never putting my desires before their needs.
The male pill is something that men are going to talk about. “Are you on it?” “Feel any different?” Suddenly birth control isn’t something you think about right before or right after sex, but daily, in the locker room and at the office and every day when you take the pill. There will be ads on TV (no more footballs through the tire swing, please) [Please], your doctor will ask if you want it, and it’ll come up in entertainment.
Yes, me and my boyfriends, when we go to the bathroom in groups, as we always do, will talk about the pill and share our feelings about it.
Sheesh.
When an accidental pregnancy happens, suddenly it won’t just be “did you use a condom?” but “why weren’t you on the pill?” It’s easy to forget a condom in the heat of the moment, it’s hard to explain why you weren’t on the pill.
I can easily see this argument being reversed. "It's easy to explain why you weren't on the pill, because of the hassle, or because you're not sexually active, but hard to explain why you didn't just use a condom. That's easy."
[O]ne of the major benefits that goes ignored is that a male pill would destigmatize the female use of the pill. Currently, birth control is a single sex issue. The pill is a women’s rights issue, a “special interest group” issue, an identity politics issue, a liberal issue. Male birth control is not, because male issues are not often labeled “special interest group” issues (which is another problem and discussion all together).
[...]
Now for the real kicker: once the male pill is readily available, it will normalize birth control. Even conservative parents will want their sons to have birth control pills, because conservative parents know “boys will be boys.” Male sexuality and virility is a point of pride for the Fox News father. Might as well make sure the boy doesn’t cause too much trouble while he’s sowing his wild oats, right?
The fact that Mr. Munkittrick even makes this argument betrays how fundamentally he misunderstands conservatives. I suppose he must be one of those who thinks that if men got pregnant, abortion would be sacred.
This is a straw man, plain and simple. Misrepresent your opponents views (create a "straw man") and knock them down easily, because they are only an absurd facsimile of the original, and can't stand on their own. Even better, make unwarranted and unprovable assumptions about the secret inner reasons for your opponent's position. This takes the form "you're only saying that because...." E.g., "You're only opposed to birth control because you're a man and it doesn't affect you."
The opposition to contraception has nothing to do with it being a "women's issue". If it was purely a matter of women's rights, then the opposition would, by and large, be men. And yet, the fiercest proponents of chastity I know are, surprise, women. And of course this is so. As pointed out before, they're the ones that get pregnant, so they have the most to lose in a society that indulges the contraceptive mentality.
And for those with a fragile male self image, just consider the increased male responsibility, normalization of birth control and reduced accidental pregnancies as fringe benefits.
Ah, I see. So those who oppose male birth control have a fragile self image. See "straw man argument" as discussed above, with a generous helping of
argumentum ad hominem.
Finally, the male pill will put a real dent in abortion rates.... The combined impact of increased male responsibility, birth control normalization, and male pill usage would probably reduce accidental pregnancy by an order of magnitude.
I think one of the greatest lies of the post-sexual revolution apocalypse is that contraceptives reduce unwanted pregnancy. It makes sense, right? You're more likely to get pregnant if you have unprotected sex than if you have protected sex, right? But that begs the question that sex is inevitable, and ignores the influence of contraceptives on one's mentality.
Consider the city of New York. I read an article from a woman who had researched the city's approach to sex education. According to her research, New York has one of the most comprehensive "safe" sex education programs. Each year, they have spent more and more on sex education, even adjusting for inflation. Birth control is available like candy, in the city. The New York Metro had a promotional program, recently, where you could get condoms decorated with the Metro's colors. And yet, their abortion rate is 41% (60% among blacks), or nearly twice the national average.
A
survey of Spanish women ages 15-49 from 1997 to 2007 found that over that ten-year period, contraceptive use increased from 49.1% to 79.9%. Over that same period, the abortion rate
also increased, from 5.52 per 1000 women, to 11.49.
According to the Guttmacher institute, about half of the 3 million annual unintended pregnancies in the US happen to couples who use contraceptives in the month they become pregnant.
Citing a non-pregnancy-related statistic, the only country in Africa to post declining AIDS infection rates in recent years was Uganda, which also had the strongest abstinence program. The countries that received the most international money for contraception programs, such as South Africa, had among the highest.
And yet, the sexual revolutionaries keep crying for more contraceptives to cure the scourge of unwanted pregnancy. And yet it's contraception that gives us the concept of unwanted pregnancy. If sex is approached from the viewpoint that pregnancy is the natural consequence, and people behave responsibly, then the only pregnancies that occur will be wanted. Pregnancy only becomes unwanted when they think they can have sex without it.
I don’t want my only birth control options to be a condom, vasectomy, or trusting her.
"Trusting her." Because he doesn't want to have to trust the person he's sleeping with. See
sexuality, dehumanization of.
But when he asks for a male birth control pill, he's asking women to trust
him. This undermines his previous point about reducing the unwanted pregnancy rate. A male birth control pill will just provide men with another way of seducing women. "It's OK," Don Juan says, "I'm on the pill." Of course, Don Juan doesn't care if she gets pregnant, as he won't see her after tomorrow morning.
How many women will be left in tears, sitting in the bathroom, holding the pregnancy test? "He told me it was OK." No, even from a pro-revolutionary perspective, its best if she who bears the consequences maintains the safeguard.
And, as I promised, the first paragraph last:
The 50th Anniversary of the Pill was last year. Lots and lots of people mentioned how good, bad, unimportant, or essential the Pill has been. Our society changed the way it thought about sex, about reproduction, even about love and relationships.
Yes, it did. Now, sex is merely for pleasure. Reproduction is like getting struck by lightning—an accident that happens for no good reason, and love and relationships are disposable.
Women being able to take control of their reproductive abilities is one of the greatest advancements in the history of modern human biology.
The Murloc laughed at this line. The Murloc—who has never touched a Pill, IUD, patch, diaphragm, sponge, cervical cap, or injection, and has gotten pregnant exactly twice, exactly when she wanted—laughs at the insinuation that a pill is necessary for her to control her reproductive abilities.
That aside, really, Mr Munkittrick? Greatest advancement in the history of modern human biology? Greater than the polio vaccine? The rabies vaccine? Early detection and treatment for cancer? NICUs? Insulin injections? X-rays? MRIs? Anesthetics?
Antibiotics? All these methods that have saved perhaps billions of lives, and one of the
greatest he can come up with is something that allows him to get his jollies with no consequences?
What a tool.
Even if it isn’t universally beloved, the Pill is worth defending and improving. It makes the world a better place. Female hormonal birth control is an exemplary form of human enhancement.
We now present the closing arguments in the trial of the contraceptive mentality, and the effect it has had on the world. Speaking for the defense is Roosh, a professional Pick-Up Artist:
Sleeping with a ton of women has some mental consequences that aren’t ususally talked about. Here are four things that I have noticed:
- Inability to view women as equal human beings. My default opinion of any girl I meet is “worthless dirty whore until proven otherwise.” When so many girls have opened their legs up for me so quickly and easily, it’s hard for me to respect them (and their opinions or ideas) like I would a family member or close friend. I think this is leaking out into other areas of life as someone pointed out to me that I seem to read books written only by men.
- Decreasing ability to sympathize and empathize with the female condition. Because I learned early on that talking to a girl about her problems or issues is the fastest way out of her pants, it’s become habit for me to simply nod or say “That sucks” when a girl has a genuine problem, even one that I can help solve. I have no desire to help a girl out with her life, and I don’t care if she falls flat on her face.
- Decreasing patience to work things out. I don’t give a girl more than one chance to act “right” because it’s so easy to find a new whore at the bar. My ability to stay in a long-term relationship, putting up with its natural ups and downs, is evaporating as I adopt the mentality of a dictator, with my bitch the subservient who must attend to my needs without making any mistakes. Over the years my temper has greatly shortened.
- Decreasing view of sex as a beautiful act of love. Sex is a mechanical means for me to relieve the pressure building up in my sack and nothing more, one small step above jerking off with my tight-gripped hand. I do not feel any closer to a girl when I pump her, and most of the time I respect her less because my opinion of her as a worthless dirty whore who probably likes being choked was proven correct.
The only way I see to reverse these consequences is to step out of the game completely and go through a massive cold streak that makes me value a woman again, to see her as something important that I need. Since I don’t see this happening, the odds that I will meet a new girl who I genuinely care for and maybe even love will be about the same as me winning the grand prize of a scratch ticket lottery game. And I’m fine with that. For now. ("The Dark Side of Game")
Speaking for the prosecution is Pope Paul VI:
Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection. (Humanae Vitae, 17)
The defense and prosecution are in agreement, it seems.
I've said it before, but I'll say it again, because it bears repeating: a society in which everyone strives for the ideal of chastity, where women are held as sacred, sex is not sought except within marriage, and even then it is always open to life, is a society where families stay together, children have two loving parents, divorce and domestic violence are rare, unwanted pregnancy is unheard of, and abortion and STIs are unknown. The society where chastity is unheard of is... well, we all know that society. We live in it.
Unwanted pregnancy, AIDS, sexual abuse, divorce and broken families, fatherless children, and abortion are the prices of turning away from chastity. Are they really worth a few fleeting moments of pleasure?
