Whereas in the past my needs in a dating partner consisted primarily of respiration1, juxtaposition and discretion there is now a whole checklist complete with annotations, footnotes and an extensive bibilography. This means that getting to know me is exponentially harder than once it was and that my poor vagina is unfucked more often than not but it’s better — far better — to have a lonely vagina than to have one that’s stuffed with anger, manipulation and lies.
Er, right?
A few years ago disagreements in the political arena would not have bothered me. I’d hardly have noticed. I never asked! But after spending some naked time with members of the religious-right anti-choice set I realized that no matter how well they might cause the blood to flow panty-ward they also made it flow to my temple — to that vein, the one that twitches and swells when right bullshit is spread out beneath my nose. And that is just no fun.
I’d like to think I could find some common ground with that crowd. I’m open minded, right? I want them to be accepting toward people whose orientations, gender presentations and reproductive decisions are different from their own, so why do I fail at accepting them? I feel like a failure of openmindedness until I remember that while they love only those who by choice or accident of birth are straight, cisgendered, and reproducing-under-all-circumstances, I will hear you out no matter how you came from the womb or what you will allow to grow in it. I fully support your right to be married in a church to someone who will reproduce with you ’til you’re both spent. I don’t support your right to make this essentially religious belief the law of the land — and it’s just too uncomfortable for me to be with someone who if he could would make his decisions MY decisions.
So I try to discern from profiles, emails and IMs if the man at the other end is likely to make my temple twitch and my legs snap shut. It’s harder than it looks. I don’t want to be bitchy but I also don’t want to spend valuable coffee-datin’ time with someone I couldn’t bear to be naked with, and who, were he to look past the raging nature of his hard-on, would no doubt feel the same toward me.
My successes (if they can be called that) in this quest have come when I’ve brought up current news items. How do you feel about conscience clauses, I ask a man who I’ve just learned works in the medical field, and his answer determines whether it’s worth it to ask on. What do you think about the bill to defund Planned Parenthood that passed the House, I ask another, and when he tells me that “those women” should just “stop having sex” if they can’t get birth control there, and that even pregnancies begun in assault have “the right not to be murdered,” then I know it’s time to cut him loose.
It boils down to this: If you do not support my right to control my own reproduction then I cannot risk engaging in reproductive activities with you. Not condensed enough? Here it is again, short enough for a bumper sticker: No Choice? No Cunt.
Is this reasonable that anti-choice or any other hard-right belief is a boner-killer for me? Is it logical to make it a litmus test? I don’t know.
Perhaps you can advise?
——————-
Please take a moment to use this handy tool which will tell you in an instant how your representative voted on the Planned Parenthood issue, then WRITE WRITE WRITE to express your feelings. Please.
- Yes please!! [↩]
I certainly think that things like this are appropriate questions/requirements. It basically all comes down to the argument that people of this type adhere to: “Being intolerant of bigotry is bigoted.” That’s one argument that I’ve been on the receiving end of many times, and when it begins to come up these days, I just walk away. I’ve lost friends who were otherwise good people, but we couldn’t agree on basic human rights, and they tried to use that argument in their defense to condemn me.
The screener question for me on dating sites is this one:
How do you feel about same-sex relationships?
I’m amazed at the number of guys who choose the answer:
Girl-on-girl is OK but guy-on-guy is wrong.
or otherwise indicate that they are not cool with homosexuality, when it says in my profile I’m bisexual.
I finally saved this as a cut-and-paste (saves time!)
“Thanks for getting in touch, but I’m not the girl for you. In my profile, I’m listed as bisexual. That does not mean I randomly make out with women for a man’s entertainment, it means I genuinely seek and enjoy same-gender relationships. I’m unlikely to enjoy dating anyone who thinks homosexuality is wrong in any form.”
I know it’s a bucket in the sea, but I hope if enough guys hear from enough girls that their prejudice is enough to rule them out of the getting-laid sweepstakes, maybe it will make a bit of difference.
“I know it’s a bucket in the sea, but I hope if enough guys hear from enough girls that their prejudice is enough to rule them out of the getting-laid sweepstakes, maybe it will make a bit of difference.”
I hope this is true.
And I really hope that their beliefs aren’t so shallow that they could be changed merely to get laid more often. Whether I agree with them or not, I could at least respect them for having the courage of their convictions.
Sticking by a BAD decision is no sign of moral character.
Agreed. But I wasn’t talking about the inconsistent moron who thinks woman-on-woman is hot but is repulsed by man-on-man (nor was my initial comment). If someone has a conviction arrived at through a process of reason then I respect that they’ve thought it through and have the right to their opinion.
I don’t have to agree, nor would it make me want to spend time with them. But I respect their right to their beliefs and I reiterate (restating maybe more clearly what I was trying to say) – anyone who would change their opinions to get laid had no real convictions in the first place and isn’t someone I would want to spend any time with, much less have sex with.
Noted – conviction is important. However.
1) Generally, anyone who has in their profile that homosexual sex is wrong, and then contacts a girl whose profile says “bisexual” has not thought out their beliefs particularly carefully.
2) Anyone who is really, really hardcore on “homosexual sex is wrong” is probably meeting women at their church, or when dating online is also screening for religion and/or politics, and thus not contacting me.
3) I think “arrived at through a process of reason” may be the overstatement of the comment thread. Many people who dislike homosexuality believe that they’ve never met a homosexual. My experiences in an arts field in two very conservative areas of the country have included seeing more than one family change their deeply-held, religiously-based convictions about homosexuality. It wasn’t a snap decision, and it didn’t make their entire belief system wrong or lightly held, but it really did take meeting someone in person and going, “wow, some of the stuff I’ve been told is incorrect” to change their minds. Like, it took seeing homosexual men backstage around local children to understand that no-one is “recruiting” and gay guys aren’t randomly making out in front of everyone.
So I’m going to keep carrying that bucket.
>> No Choice? No Cunt.
This seems perfectly reasonable, especially when considering that you are basically engaging in a “procreational” activity, minus the intent. Let’s skip the lawsuits in case of an accident along with the migraines that come with conversation.
You are being totally reasonable. If any guy who was anti-choice, homophobic, racist, generally a typical Daily Mail reader (I’m not sure that reference translates across the pond but it’s a horrible bigoted newspaper that basically claims immigrants are the reasons for *all* the world’s problems) they would not be getting anywhere near me. At Pride last year someone gave me a sticker that said ‘Never Kissed A Tory’, and I think it’s fair to say I haven’t and probably never will. Sex is mostly in the mind anyway and I couldn’t bear to be friends with people with such right-wing views, let alone let them anywhere near my ladyparts. What if you’d told that guy that you got birth control at PP? He’s kinda shooting himself in the foot there if he’s telling women he wants to sleep with that!
I think it’s reasonable to let stuff like that be deal breakers. (I’m lucky that I live in Sweden where I pretty much get free birth control and STI-testing ’till I turn 23 and everyone thinks that’s fair. I’m lucky that the closest contact I have with crazy pro-lifers is on the internet.)
Although I was a moderate Republican due to my fiscally conservative viewpoints most of my adult life, within the last 3 or 4 years I have developed more Libertarian views and even voted that way in the last election.
I support PP since I think it provides a valuable service to those less fortunate that don’t have adequate access to birth control and abortion counseling.
My problem though, and this stems from my Libertarian leanings, is that I resent people, both men and women, who continually “work the system” and create a societal burden over and over again by having children they cannot support or who have no intention of supporting. It goes to the Libertarian aspect of “personal responsibility”. Don’t force me, though my tax dollars, to support and manage your irresponsibility. Its simply not fair. Feel free to exercise your reproductive rights all you want, but do it responsibly. Is that too much to ask?
I can only imagine the abject terror that a young woman must go through when dealing with an unwanted pregnancy. And for that, PP is a wonderful organization, but don’t abuse the privilege over and over again.
Which privilege is that, exactly? Abortion? Patronage of Planned Parenthood in general?
The first two abortions are FREE.
In subsequent cases, the pregnancy is punishment. The child must be raised by an unprepared, unwilling mother as the sins of the parent are passed down unto perpetuity.
Didn’t you know this? :-\
I just find it amusing that nobody seems to be irritated by the lack of personal responsibility that “welfare queens” exhibit. And by “privilege”, I meant the privilege of having society take care of you over and over again, not specifically abortions but adoptions, free medical care,etc..simply because you are too irresponsible to go on birth control if you intend to have unprotected sex and not willing to deal with the possible consequences.
I forgot that the readers of this excellent blog will excuse and rationalize the behaviors and opinions of everyone except those with a conservative viewpoint. My bad.
How would you solve the problem, Mike?
Force those children to be raised by unwilling mothers (it’s always the mothers, isn’t it?)? Who get punished then? And how much MORE would it cost to deal with the repercussions of that?
Also, I don’t *excuse* crappy behavior at any level. I do believe we need to find the most rational, cost-effective way to address it — and I don’t think that forcing birth or parenthood is that way.
I know I am a little late to the conversation. Nevertheless, Mike, I care so little about “societal burden,” as you explain, in comparison to how much I care about the babies who DO NOT get to choose their parents.
Being born to “unwilling mothers” (yes, it always seems to be the mothers, aag!) with little or no access to education, decent medical care, and parental support, whether or not they squandered opportunities presented to them, is “simply not fair” to the children.
I always wonder if all those so-called pro-lifers would be willing to save the children if they had to pay for the lives they have saved from abortion. I think, rather vindictively, that they should have their wages garnished for the murders they have thwarted: pay for health care until the child is a legal adult, music lessons, tutoring for SAT tests, braces, bicycles, polka-dotted tights . . .
Oh, I’m sorry, the problem is “personal responsibility.” I guess we should start lecturing all the newborns, or “consequences,” as you describe them, as they emerge from the womb since their parents, especially their “welfare queen” Mommy, let them be “a societal burden . . . by having children they cannot support or . . . have no intention of supporting.”
I’m glad you support PP, and I know you did not call yourself pro-life. Yes, I have anger, frustration, and deep sadness when I consider my family members, let alone fellow citizens, who have had unwanted children.
It’s not fair that my life is inconvenienced due to the irresponsibility of others. However, I would rather our country embrace and support well publicized, de-stigmatized, comprehensive reproductive/sex education despite those who take advantage because I am hopeful that if these services are more accessible, more people would be STI free and fewer children would be born to a bleak future.
Please read the book “The Myth of the Welfare Queen” and educate yourself on the myth of system scammers. It really happens a lot less than you believe. And for that 1/10 of 1 cent extra you pay in taxes to possibly cover scams, are you tired of buying clothes at exorbitant rates because some people shop lift and so you’ve stopped shopping? Or stopped buying food for the same reason? Can’t we just live and let live? And hope that someday when you need something some one will cut you some slack?
Please bear in mind, abortion is an extremely small percentage of PP’s services.
I have recurring cervical cancer. I can’t get insurance. PP is the only place I can afford to be treated. I pay for each visit on a sliding scale based on my income.
My ENTIRE health care experience is a yearly pap smear, sometimes followed by a cone biopsy. I do not get any other type of services – no check-ups, no mammograms, no “gee I feel sick so I’ll go to the doctor”.
I can assure you, the cost of sending me to the emergency room to die of advanced-stage cervical cancer (in case you are unaware, the first symptom of cervical cancer is a bad pap smear; the second symptom is death) would far exceed the taxpayers’ share of my checkups.
Can you indicate to me what aspect of checking on my health yearly so I don’t die is irresponsible? Or what aspect of college kids lining up to get condoms is gaming the system?
You indicate that not going on birth control is irresponsible – Guess what? THAT’S WHAT PLANNED PARENTHOOD DOES. They pass out birth control like it’s going out of style. That’s what “PLANNED” means.
Great, you don’t like women signing up for welfare with multiple children – that’s not Planned Parenthood’s fault. That’s the welfare system. Planned Parenthood assists women (and men) in finding ways to NOT have unwanted children. And if you dislike paying for them on welfare, it costs a lot more than paying for their abortion, which in turn costs more than condoms. Taking away family planning and access to birth control does not sound like a solution to the problem you care most about.
Your questions:
1. Is this reasonable that [...] hard-right belief is a boner-killer for me?
2. Is it logical to make it a litmus test?
Some answers:
1. No. Reason is carried out by the cerebral cortex, while sexual arousal is mediated by the brain stem, under control of (mostly) hard-wired inputs. There is very little reason involved in sexual arousal.
2. Yes. It is logical to seek cold water from the cold tap, hot water from the hot tap, and arousal from (wait for it…) people who arouse you.
Points to consider:
1. The hard-wiring in our brains does reflect a kind of reasoning: the mindless, glacial reasoning of natural selection and evolution, as–over thousands of generations–humans with certain hard-wiring survived and reproduced at incrementally greater rates than others.
2. Functions of the brain that are candidates for hard-wiring are those
- where the best answer doesn’t change over many generations
- that are vitally important
Points 1 and 2 lead to advice:
- listen to your body
- trust your body
3. All evidence is that human sexual orientation and philias are fixed at an early age and immutable thereafter. Yet yours seem to have changed over time. If you are inclined to introspection, it might be interesting to think about
- what exactly has changed
- why it might have changed
“All evidence is that human sexual orientation and philias are fixed at an early age and immutable thereafter. Yet yours seem to have changed over time. ”
What’s changed? I knew I was at least a little bit bi when I was 9 or 10. I don’t think asssex really occurred to me ’til later, but I never *didn’t* like the idea of it.
I meant that (by your own account) your politics seem to now be wired into your sexuality in a way that they weren’t in the past.
Oh! That makes sense.
I avoided politics for years. Now I’m interested. :)
Do these men not see the irony in seeking to get laid while they insist that poor women “stop having sex”?
At least some of what you are talking about speaks to an attitude about women in general that is decidely not sexy.
I’m with you.
“Do these men not see the irony in seeking to get laid while they insist that poor women “stop having sex”?”
My experience with this type of authoritarian minded person is that this contradiction is among the least egregious one to which they adhere.
I think the argument would be that he does own the system, in the sense that “my tax dollars pay for it!”
This isn’t entirely without merit – after all, I’m pretty pissed that my taxes went to blowing up civilians in a war that never should have happened in Iraq – but it’s beside the point. If you read any right-wingers – and that includes many libertarians – you’ll quickly learn that one of their driving obsessions is the terrible fear and anger that someone undeserving is getting away with something, somehow, somewhere. Cutting rich people’s taxes and arranging no-bid contracts for political patrons is okay, because that’s good for business and lets hard-working people keep more of their hard-earned money. But if some “welfare queen” gets a few extra bucks per month, that’s a sign you need to scrap the whole system so those lazy parasites can’t be a drag on society anymore.
In the same way, you can’t allow abortion to become a way for dirty, irresponsible sluts to avoid The Consequences of Their Actions. If it was just good, hard-working, God-fearing women (like you or your sister or your daughter, but certainly not your wife – at least not without your permission) having their totally necessary abortions, that would be one thing, But since there are terrible, irresponsible women out there, having one abortion after another, apparently for the fun of it (some at 39 and a half weeks!), the whole system has to be scrapped. You didn’t play nice with your toy, and now you’ve lost it.
That last was in reply to Sunshine at 12:12
And not sure if this was written in jest, tongue in cheek or thumb up your ass?
Just describing the right-wing mindset as I’ve seen it. Regardless of the topic, be it reproductive rights or public assistance, it’s the politics of resentment, fear, punishment and spite.
…and also to point out that they have an answer for “Do you own the system”, but your post doesn’t seem to say that anymore. Did you edit it somehow, or is my memory completely faulty?
I had issues with duplicate comments and comments in general yesterday. :(
I’ll chime in, you aren’t just reasonable, but rational.
I’ve never slept with anyone I haven’t respected. Also we’d have to agree on abortion if there was a condom failure, so that conversation happens beforehand. Being open-minded to understand others viewpoints does NOT mean embracing them (all meanings intended), or even appreciating them.
I remember once making a poll on a forum that asked a gender question, and the options I included were male, female, and transgendered, not so much because it suited the question (it remotely did) but to make the point to everyone reading it that there are more than two genders (because I’m educated enough to have learned this, but am aware many aren’t).
So I agree with Mandy Muse, not only do I rationally discriminate, but I also am willing to go a step beyond and potentially educate.
Just yesterday I saw Monday’s Daily Show, with Lisa Ling interviewed for her new show, covering a religious guy who was taught all sorts of categories of people were bad, only to become a father to a transgendered child himself! It radically changed his viewpoint on certain things he’d taken as given, and he now raises his six-year-old with different pronouns.
Having standards and wanting to be with someone that shares those standards and beliefs is rational and your right.
(I sent the letter to my idiot representative.)
“It boils down to this: If you do not support my right to control my own reproduction then I cannot risk engaging in reproductive activities with you. Not condensed enough? Here it is again, short enough for a bumper sticker: No Choice? No Cunt.”
This. Yes. Very much, exactly. Thanks for the condensed version :)