Sex without consequence?
Posted by MathewMay 12
Last weekend, our very own Adam brought to our attention an article that was published in Australian’s Sydney Morning Herald on Wednesday 5 May. The author, Ms Nina Funnell, lamented that she believes women still do not have total authority over their own bodies. There is the Pill (which, I might add, recently became 50 years old) but yet there is still no widespread abortion-on-demand in Australia. On the latter, she is of course right: in Australia, only the State of Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory have decriminalized abortion. In all other states and territories, abortion remains illegal in just about all circumstances. As Ms Funnell points out in her article, a 19 year old woman and her boyfriend face a possible jail term of up to seven years for procuring an abortion in the state of Queensland. She doesn’t, however, provide any reason as to why this couple sought an abortion but we are expected to feel sorry for them, regardless.
To be brief, the tone of Ms Funnell’s article is that women ought to have every right to be able to shack up with any Tom, Dick or Harry and not have to worry about those pesky things that promiscuous sexual activity has a history of causing. You know, things like unwanted pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases, responsibility and accountability …?
To rid the world of this problem, and to allegedly give women total ownership over their own bodies, Ms Funnell promotes the widespread availability of:
- contraception, such as the Pill and condoms
- easy access to the morning-after pill
- abortion on demand
Well, two of these three have no guarantee of preventing unwanted pregnancies and the third only proves my point. For more than 50 years women have had access to the Pill and couples have had access to other types of contraceptives and yet society is still educating its youth about STDs and unwanted pregnancies with no reduction of either. Something’s broken and it seems to me that throwing condoms and medication at the situation is doing precious little to resolve the issue. In fact, using condoms seems more like a band-aid solution to a much larger issue: an unrestrained sexual appetite.
But it is precisely an unrestrained sexual appetite that Ms Funnell believes ought to be made available to young women as an innate right. As she says, University life “is often a time of sexual experimentation” and then believes it is an unethical practice for campus pharmacists to deny young women access to emergency contraception.
Hold up, Ms Funnell. How’s about the young lasses keep their gear on? There’s nothing in the books that says every student must get their kit off when they’re at Uni. I know personal responsibility and accountability can be viewed as old fashioned, but, y’know, when employed it would preclude any notion of the desire for emergency contraception altogether.
This brings me to the title of my post as what Ms Funnell is really pleading for is the “right” for women – actually, even men – to have the freedom to get jiggy with the happy-lappy dance. In other words, she wants to have sex without consequences.
… Sex without consequences … I can’t even imagine what that would begin to look like and shudder at the thought. In fact, I don’t think it is actually possible. Even if all contraceptive forms had a 100% guarantee to prevent pregnancy and the spread of STDs, there is still the physiological, emotional and social aspects that stem out of the sexual union. When sex is enjoyed under “restraint” (ie. Lifelong, committed and monogamous union, to the exclusion of all others) the aspects of pregnancy, emotion, physiology and social impacts seem to be most favorable, in my opionion.
I’m not all to sure that Ms Funnell at all knows what it is that she is truly asking for: a strictly mechanical activity? Where’s the fun in that?
Women don’t need a right to abortion on demand. Women need the respect and courage to put men back in their boxes and not give into wanton sexual desire at their own expense. (After all, men are typically the ones who get off scott-free when sexual encounters “go-wrong”.)
And, frankly, I believe the only way that can happen is to teach men to keep their zippers up and focus instead on growing up to actually become, y’know, responsible men.
Counter-culture stuff? Sure. But deep down, I’m sure that’s what most women want of their men, anyway. Am I right, ladies?





4 comments
Comment by allenjs on 13 May 2010 at 18:11
I dunno. It sure sounds like you're saying that the average abortion-seeker is a wanton libertine, or doesn't have the courage to stand up to men. Since the girl who hits the boy back *always* gets rewarded in school.
It's like telling the rape victim that she “wanted it”, or that she “didn't fight back hard enough”. Yeah, I know you wouldn't do that in the case of rape, but then you need to ask yourself why you're doing it in the case of the other high-pressure situations women get put into at college.
It's kind of telling that we have men writing blog posts about what women want, and then asking “Am I right, ladies?” Yeah, right, all the ladies who aren't wanton libertines and cowards will pipe right up. Personally, I would recommend finding a female who is speaking up about female issues and link to her, since it's just not credible in this form.
http://kateharding.net/2009/10/08/guest-blogger...
Comment by Mathew on 13 May 2010 at 23:14
Thanks, allen.
I'm sure you know enough to know that I'm not suggesting that all pro-choicers are “wanton libertines”. I am speculating, however, that an abortion culture, coupled hand in hand with the widespread use of contraceptives, makes it very easy for people to think that casual sex is the norm. Further more, that casual sex has no consequences because: 1) contraception lowers the probability of unwanted pregnancy/spread of STD/STIs, and; 2) abortion is there when things go wrong with plan A.
Hence, the title of my post “sex without consequences” was to reflect this type of mindset in culture – a kind of utopian goal.
While the widespread availability of the contraceptive pill in the 60s didn't start what we know as the sexual revolution, it is my view that it certainly contributed to its explosion from the mid to late 60s (after it became accessible to non-married women).
I would disagree that men can't write about such issues: consequences from sexual unions, whether you're female or male, do impact wider society – both by social impacts (i.e. teen pregnancies) and economical impacts (I think in 2000 the lifetime medical costs of 15-26 year olds to treat venereal diseases was estimated at $6.5 billion US). Men and women make up society – therefore either sex are entitled to discuss what impacts them.
There are of course positive consequences to sexual unions. My contention is that the positive consequences of sex are mostly found (as a general rule) within the safe guards of lifetime, committed monogamy while the negative consequences are found (as a general rule) in other forms of copulation.
Comment by allenjs on 14 May 2010 at 00:18
Thanks Mathew,
I happen to agree with you, regarding the safeguards of a lifetime committed monogamy. I've known too many people who claimed that polyamory, “open relationships”, etc. would work out fine, and only end up in a world of hurt.
And there is no prohibition on men writing about women's issues. But it's pretty unlikely that a woman would write a post like the above, and there are good reasons besides that “women are mistaken”.
To be honest, I don't think that women are all that interested in “sex without consequences”. That is a male fantasy. There is a reason that it's mainly men in the Church who have problems with lust, pornography addiction, and so on. And men already have sex without consequences. By stigmatizing the outcome, blaming it on “wanton” or “cowardly” women, they shift the blame to the weaker sex. It's a privilege of being powerful.
Most women in college are far more concerned about things that no man has to worry about. Like, how to avoid being date-raped, drugged with roofies, violently attacked by a rejected man, stalked, emotionally manipulated into doing things that aren't healthy, and so on.
We know that these unhealthy relationships are usually initiated by the males. So why don't the women stand up for themselves? Because we teach little girls that they have to be demure, quiet, submit to others, don't rock the boat. And we teach them that boys are permitted to be violent, boys can take what they want, fight. We teach them that a woman who wants to be alone is pathological, while a man who wants to be alone is just focused on his career. By the time they get to college, they have absolutely no practice at defending themselves. Lecturing them about being wanton or cowardly doesn't help; it just compounds the problem.
Comment by Mathew on 17 May 2010 at 08:05
I wonder, with regards to your closing sentence, if you believed I was “lecturing” young women? Surely not. While I admit the ranting (which was my intent) my focus was squarely on airing some opinions re Ms Funnell's belief that the contraception-abortion pairing was the bees-knees for women and that it provided them liberties that pre-1950s women did not have.
I think history shows us it's delivered only folly.