Sexual relationships are public property

[Effie]

I have noticed the last couple of weeks topics here about slut-shaming and so on. I think I'm starting to understand why people engage in slut-shaming. This sentence, written by one of our most delusional fundies, really says it all: “Sexual relationships, while enacted privately, are public property.†People actually believe this!

See more here: dangerousintersection.org/2010/05/20/its-the-women-stupidredux/

[kpmom]

Oh my. I don't even know where to begin.

This was just awful;

"Contraception, now the status quo, also puts the burden of disclosure on the tragically infertile. They are forced to openly deny contraceptive use to prove their faithfulness. The involuntarily childless must actively solicit the sympathy of friends and the prayers of the Church, giving painful birth only to words that express their sorrow."

So the Church busybodies automatically assume if there are no children forthcoming someone has been unfaithful? And the couple has to come clean about being infertile so no one in the Church thinks there is infidelity, or worse, contraception, going on?

Wow. Just wow

And this;

"This is also why the Church perceives discord in the decision of a newly married couple to take a few years to “enjoy being married†before ending marital enjoyment with children. Apparently, we are expected to take them at their word that they are fulfilling the vows made before us, although they refuse to tender the token."

Newlyweds, are you really having sex like you promised us you would, or is there marital discord? You need to let us know so we'll know how best to gossip about you. (Tender the token?? Is she serious??)

And;

"Outside of marriage, contraception permits sexual sin without public consequence. The public, for the most part, no longer cares, but the Church certainly must. Those who accept contraception as legitimate within marriage set up their children to succumb not only to lust, but also to guile. Fornication super-enabled by contraception leads the young away from marriage and into a life of secret sin behind closed doors on which no one has a right to knock."

Damn that contraception. Now we can't knock those who screw around outside of marriage as we've been able to do in the past.

Unbelievable.

[dairyfreelife]

I dunno, just an idea, but maybe she ought to stop worrying what other couples are doing and focus on her own relationship and family? Maybe consider getting a job while she's at it because she clearly has way too much time on her hands worrying about everyone else's sexual lives and child-bearing decisions. :cray-cray:

[2xx1xy1JD]

Wow, just wow. I wanted my kids for many reasons, but proving to the world that my husband and I were having sex was not one of them.

Yes, I know what it's like to have people wrongly assume that a lack of children is intentional. Never in a million years would it occur to me to blame contraception for the stupid remarks of others. Instead, I've become quite militant about insisting that it is never, ever ok to ask about childbearing plans, unless you are the person's spouse or health care provider.

There are places where it's common to check brides for virginity before the wedding, and/or produce bloody sheets immediately after. Maybe that's the direction she'd like to go?

[slh12280]

Ok, so she wants to know that people are having sex after they get married by having children? She needs proof? Why is this? And contraception makes her mad because she can't tell who is having sex? This is all very strange. She is probably one of those people that thinks having contraception available makes people have sex. That's not true, of course, but that is her line of thinking. I can see her being one of those: "let me see the sheets!" I swear, one of these days, some fundie is going to want to bring that back.

I was thinking about the fundie attitude toward sexuality the other day. I think they are so scared of sex because they view anything that is ever beyond their conscious control as bad. I think they are so afraid of losing control of their sexual urges whereas other people accept them as normal. Other people know they have control over how they act but they don't stress if they are attracted to someone. I think fundies view being attracted to someone as being out of control and it scares them.

[Effie]

Ok, so she wants to know that people are having sex after they get married by having children? She needs proof? Why is this? And contraception makes her mad because she can't tell who is having sex? This is all very strange. She is probably one of those people that thinks having contraception available makes people have sex. That's not true, of course, but that is her line of thinking. I can see her being one of those: "let me see the sheets!" I swear, one of these days, some fundie is going to want to bring that back.

I was thinking about the fundie attitude toward sexuality the other day. I think they are so scared of sex because they view anything that is ever beyond their conscious control as bad. I think they are so afraid of losing control of their sexual urges whereas other people accept them as normal. Other people know they have control over how they act but they don't stress if they are attracted to someone. I think fundies view being attracted to someone as being out of control and it scares them.

Yes, she is. This:

But I think the concept of 'safe sex' only encourages premarital sex... Why not have sex, if it is safe? This is why, in my opinion, kids should not be taught to have safe sex, but instead they should be taught to not want sex until they are married.

:serious:

[2xx1xy1JD]

Wonder what she would think of this:

http://muslimmatters.org/2008/07/14/sex ... -a-virgin/

[Turtle]

Yes, she is. This:

:serious:

What a genius. Teach them to not want sex. What could go wrong with that?

[ILoveJellybeans]

No, sexual relationships belong to the people taking part in them. As long as they arent having sex in public places or doing anything illegal, its none of anyone elses businesses.

You cant teach a kid not to want sex, it is a perfectly natural urge that 99% of the population has. You cant train it out of your kids, as even if you dont teach them how sex works, they will discover it-its not like animals need the sex talk, its instinct. And if you teach them not to want sex, and it works....how is the world going to continue. Sex is supposed to be something fun, and if you want grandchildren, youd better not put your children off sex forever.

[docmom]

"Contraception, now the status quo, also puts the burden of disclosure on the tragically infertile. They are forced to openly deny contraceptive use to prove their faithfulness. The involuntarily childless must actively solicit the sympathy of friends and the prayers of the Church, giving painful birth only to words that express their sorrow."

Why? Why do they have to disclose anything? If they are involuntarily childless and need sympathy why can't they just count on getting that sympathy from their friends? You know, out here in the big bad real world, it's fine to have children, to not have children, to cry with a friend if you want children and can't have them. And you know what? No one cares what sort of sex life you have. I also have an inkling that your god, busy as he must be with everything else in the world, doesn't care much either. If he did, I think Jesus' message might have been a little different.

[Jinger Jar]

GenerationCedar and her ilk are very often the same people who say that we (societal we, not FJ we) have no right to tell them to vaccinate their children or limit the number or kinds of guns they possess or to hold them accountable for how they educate their kids. But they truly think they're entitled to be privy to everyone's family planning decisions or to limit access to reproductive information and choices.

Irony - it's lost on fundies.

[Hane]

Oh my. I don't even know where to begin.

This was just awful;

"Contraception, now the status quo, also puts the burden of disclosure on the tragically infertile. They are forced to openly deny contraceptive use to prove their faithfulness. The involuntarily childless must actively solicit the sympathy of friends and the prayers of the Church, giving painful birth only to words that express their sorrow."

So the Church busybodies automatically assume if there are no children forthcoming someone has been unfaithful? And the couple has to come clean about being infertile so no one in the Church thinks there is infidelity, or worse, contraception, going on?

Wow. Just wow

And this;

"This is also why the Church perceives discord in the decision of a newly married couple to take a few years to “enjoy being married†before ending marital enjoyment with children. Apparently, we are expected to take them at their word that they are fulfilling the vows made before us, although they refuse to tender the token."

Newlyweds, are you really having sex like you promised us you would, or is there marital discord? You need to let us know so we'll know how best to gossip about you. (Tender the token?? Is she serious??)

And;

"Outside of marriage, contraception permits sexual sin without public consequence. The public, for the most part, no longer cares, but the Church certainly must. Those who accept contraception as legitimate within marriage set up their children to succumb not only to lust, but also to guile. Fornication super-enabled by contraception leads the young away from marriage and into a life of secret sin behind closed doors on which no one has a right to knock."

Damn that contraception. Now we can't knock those who screw around outside of marriage as we've been able to do in the past.

Unbelievable.

kpmom, by "proof of faithfulness," I think the writer means "faithfulness to church teachings," not marital fidelity.

The nosiness level she advocates is appalling. When my mom was a newlywed (late '40s, early '50s), one of the old biddies in the neighborhood demanded, "Why don't you have any children yet? Are you lazy?" And my mom had, by that point, had three miscarriages--something nobody mentioned in public in those days.

[2xx1xy1JD]

The nosiness level she advocates is appalling. When my mom was a newlywed (late '40s, early '50s), one of the old biddies in the neighborhood demanded, "Why don't you have any children yet? Are you lazy?" And my mom had, by that point, had three miscarriages--something nobody mentioned in public in those days.

I have to assume that Kelly knows nothing about what it is like to experience infertility or pregnancy loss.

I know a number of women in religious communities who have had issues, and in those communities, people assume that lack of babies is not voluntary. Most of them absolutely dread the well-meaning advice and none-of-your-business questions from the busy bodies, and the sense that people are looking at their flat bellies, doing the math and figuring out that there's a problem.

When I was going through this, I didn't want sympathy from random people. I wanted the ability to choose whether or not to tell people what I was going through, and I learned to be selective because not everyone was supportive in the way that I needed them to be. My first loss happened relatively late, so everyone knew about it, and I absolutely dreaded having people asking me about "trying again". It was just so invasive, and I didn't really want anyone keeping track of just how I was failing to produce a baby on schedule.

[Marianne]

I can't access to the site. It shows me this :

http://imagesup.org/images11/1367260521-catpure1.png

[Effie]

I can't access to the site. It shows me this :

http://imagesup.org/images11/1367260521-catpure1.png

It still shows up for me. http:// dangerousintersection.org/2010/05/20/its-the-women-stupidredux/

Otherwise you can read the not so rational original here: generationcedar.com/main/2010/03/contradeception-the-public-nature-of-marital-privacies.html

[Marian the Librarian]

I see Kelly-Two-Chicken-Breasts' head is still firmly and irrevocably planted in her ass.

What a loathesome, nosy twit.

[Maggie Mae]

I giggled at the phrase "Ex utero kids"

[treehugger]

Dear Kelly,

F. U.

It took 2 years for my husband and me to conceive (after marriage ;) ). In those two years we endured every humiliating comment under the sun. My sex life is NONE of your (or anyone else's) FUCKING business. No one should have to explain why they can't or don't want to conceive any more than anyone should have to explain why they are pregnant. If my sex life was any of your damn business we would have it in the street. We don't. And it isn't.

[Marianne]

It still shows up for me. http:// dangerousintersection.org/2010/05/20/its-the-women-stupidredux/

Otherwise you can read the not so rational original here: generationcedar.com/main/2010/03/contradeception-the-public-nature-of-marital-privacies.html

Thank you !

I should not have read this article. I'll be upset all night

[alba]

When I read things like this I can't help wondering how high the rate of vaginismus is amongst newly married fundie women. They spend their whole adolescence and adulthood being told lies about sex and being made to fear it, and then one day, they have a little church ceremony, and they're meant to have PIV sex that very same evening. Maybe that's why some of them don't have babies after marrying; not because they're putting them off, but because they're struggling with the babymaking process.

[snuggles911]

I've noticed that a lot of Protestants have gotten on the "birth control is an evil tool of Staten" bandwagon. It used to be mostly a Catholic doctrine.

[Mice]

I can see it now. Let's say Kelly gets what she wants and she can easily tell who is having sex so that she can be sure that people around her are as holy as she wants them to be. I'm pretty sure we can write an app for that. Because other people's sex lives should clearly be about Kelly's need to be a nosy, intrusive, twatwaffle.

Then it will be her job to tell people howto have sex: Who is on top? Stop that smiling! You should be praying as you are plowed! Why can't you clean the house while you give that blow job? When you have sex you should be thinking about meeee! And how I need to know all about your sex life!

And then she'll be all sad and bloggy that the people around her aren't having sex the way she wants them to. Just think about what Monty Python could have done with material like that!

Because we all know that Kelly is the voice on high - it is her job to know everything about everyone around her including their sexual and reproductive decisions. It distracts her from her children's cries of hunger.

[Effie]

Because we all know that Kelly is the voice on high - it is her job to know everything about everyone around her including their sexual and reproductive decisions. It distracts her from her children's cries of hunger.

THIS :chi-yes:

[jenny_islander]

GenerationCedar and her ilk are very often the same people who say that we (societal we, not FJ we) have no right to tell them to vaccinate their children or limit the number or kinds of guns they possess or to hold them accountable for how they educate their kids. But they truly think they're entitled to be privy to everyone's family planning decisions or to limit access to reproductive information and choices.

Irony - it's lost on fundies.

Another forum I frequent just had somebody post that we should be perfectly okay with employers controlling (female) employees' access to contraceptives because after all we libruls are okay with background checks for gun ownership.

So a person's own body is just like somebody's gun cabinet. Or something.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Ways to view your children:

Me: Precious little souls entrusted to my care.

Kelly: "Tokens" to prove that she's having sex with her husband like she vowed to do.