Thirty-five years ago, cultural critic Ellen Willis wrote, “it is depressing to have to insist that sex is not an unnecessary, morally dubious self-indulgence but a basic human need, no less for women than for men”.
If it was depressing in 1979, it looks downright miserable today.
Because let’s be clear: While Monday’s US supreme court ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby was officially about religious freedom, the real issue at stake is sex – namely, if women should be able to have it as freely as men.
The court ruled – in a 5-4 decision in which all the female justices dissented – that a closely-held company does not have to cover contraception under the Affordable Care Act.
Nobody at all has said anything at all about whether women should have sex, be able to have sex, enjoy it when they do or anything else.
The decision was purely about who has to pay for the contraception that some men and women will desire to use when they do have sex.
And given the joy and pleasure that does come from sex, that private pleasure, it’s a bit arrogant to insist that someone else must pay the $30 a month necessary to make sure no pregnancy results from that joy and pleasure.
All of this being quite apart from the fact that insurance is an entirely insane manner to pay for a regular, routine and ongoing cost like contraception. It’s one of those things that should be out of pocket, not buried in an insurance contract.
All the shrieking obscures the fact that the provided package still covers the classic Pill and condoms — it’s just IUDs and morning-after pills that are excluded, as technical abortifacients.
Hang on, though.
When Elliot Rodger shot all those people, and made his video resenting women, the normal Guardianista feminists all lamented the male attitude of entitlement to sex.
The Stigler – Indeed. In fact, Jessica Valenti herself made that very claim, and also that pick up artists, mens rights advocates, and anybody else who criticises feminism made him do it. It didn’t gain much momentum though, because it was clearly bollocks.
So this week, the terrible injustice inflicted on helpless women by the dark forces of Patriarchy is the US Supreme Court telling the richest and most privileged women on earth that they can’t use existing laws to force their employers to pay for their abortifacients, which cost about $35 – $60, less than the price of getting their hair done.
Meanwhile, in Pakistan:
A young couple murdered in Pakistan barely a week after they had married for love were killed as a warning to other girls not to marry without the permission of their parents, according to witnesses.
Residents of Satrah, Punjab, said relatives of the bride slit their throats and forced children to watch as they bled to death.
“Meanwhile, in Pakistan”: you got sumfink against multiculturalism, then?
Dearieme – 🙂
There’s not much multiculturalism in Pakistan.
They’ll be wanting employers to buy their toilet roll next. Totally bizarre.
There are historical rasons why the American abortion debate is basically insane. Without getting into that, what’s really weird is the way the Left outside America feel obliged to parrot Democrat party lines even on subjects that make no sense outside the US. How many of the British lefties currently up in arms over this decision work for a company that buys their condoms for them? How many would even expect to?
Because let’s be clear: While Monday’s US supreme court ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby was officially about religious freedom, the real issue at stake is sex – namely, if women should be able to have it as freely as men.
Sorry but how does that follow? How does it follow from the claim that sex is a basic human need for all humans – men and women both – to claiming women should be able to have it as freely as men? Although of course they can as long as they don’t force others to pay for their abortion.
It is the basically stupid assumption that men and women should be equal in all things. Basic biology says otherwise. But if she wants to go down this road, sure. Men and women need to have sex. Basic human right. Women should be having as much sex as men. As often as they want, etc etc.
Except it is not men who are holding back is it? It is not men all over the country claiming to have a headache? Gay men show the sort of sex most men would like to be having. But can’t because women very rarely hang around public toilets offering free blow jobs. But if it is a basic human right, then they should, shouldn’t they? Because of Human Rights and all that.
So does this idiot think Cameron needs to pass a law to require women to put out more often so men can meet their basic human needs?
Let’s follow her logic:
If sex is a basic human NEED, and if employers (or the NHS here I suppose) should be required to pay the miscellaneous ancillary costs of that basic human NEED, then should single men all get a “hookers allowance” in their tax codes?
@Ironman – Yes and free condoms too.
Although the idea of sex with an NHS hooker doesn’t really do it for me….
Ironman – “should single men all get a “hookers allowance” in their tax codes?”
We talking rugby here or…?
The problem with this plan is that everything men do is disgusting and wrong and exploitative. Unless you’re Ryan Gosling or a famous rock star like Stedman from Five Star.
So when a man hires a prossie – exploitation!
When a man looks at Page 3 – objectification!
When a man flirts with pretty girls – harrassment!
When a man asks a woman to marry him – patriarchal oppressor!
And yet, ever met a male feminist? Women hate those dweebs.
Feminism is a war against men’s normal sexual desires.
Devil’s Advocate and all that but in this country, at least, there is a sound practical argument for providing free contraception; it’s cheaper than paying to raise the unwanted child. Which is the alternative, the way things are.
This in no way engages with the moral debate above, I realise.
sam,
> in this country, at least, there is a sound practical argument for providing free contraception; it’s cheaper than paying to raise the unwanted child.
Agreed, if the same entity would pay for both. In the US, it would be the state who’d pay for the unwanted child and it’s employers who are being asked to pay for contraception.
Sam – I see your point, but I understand free contraception – or at worst, very cheap contraception – isn’t hard to come by in the US.
The sort of people who have unexpected pregnancies generally aren’t getting knocked up because nobody’s throwing free rubber johnnies at them.
The sort of people who have unexpected pregnancies generally aren’t getting knocked up because nobody’s throwing free rubber johnnies at them.
Back in the heyday of the Winston Smith blog, he mentioned that one of the Herberts who used to reside in his hostel was forever getting chav teenagers knocked up. He refused to wear the free condoms he was issued because “he didn’t like wearing them”.
MC – the NHS hookers are alright, its the form-filling and 18 week wait that turns me off.
S2:
The costs of raising the potential child won’t be paid by the insurance company. But the costs of delivering it (which average about $50k per pregnancy in the US) will be. Any insurance company in its right mind would minimise costs by maximising the availability of contraception to its customers.
(which means that Hobby Lobby should be free to ban contraception from the plans it offers, but the insurance company it uses should charge it a higher rate for doing so…)
@john b
That would be perfectly fair, yes.
Of course, most US health insurance pregnancy plans require some form of co-payment or deductible, the cost of which is likely to be vastly greater than a morning after pill…
If it’s a basic human need, and a right, which seems to be what she’s saying here, what does that mean for married with reluctant spouses (of both sexes, yes, women suffer from frigid husbands too)? Are their rights being infringed? Can they sue? Should the state provide alternative relief?
What of the unhappily single? How do we satisfy their entitlement? And is this a right to sex with *somebody*, or sex with somebody you find attractive? If your spouse’s beer and/or cake habit has made rendered them incapable of arousing you, are you entitled to an alternative? The implications are quite boggling.
Stigler- the funny thing I thought about all that wordy analysis of why he did the shooting was that not once did anyone use the obvious word, “jealousy”. Maybe that’s just too simple, these days.
“If it’s a basic human need, and a right, which seems to be what she’s saying here, what does that mean for married with reluctant spouses (of both sexes, yes, women suffer from frigid husbands too)? Are their rights being infringed? Can they sue? Should the state provide alternative relief?”
A good example of how the left abuse the language of rights. Why they do still do this I’m not sure, because nobody is seriously using that language any more, apart from them, so they could call it anything they like really. Maybe they think it sounds good or something. To me it sounds like a moron getting confused, but whatever.
sam – “Devil’s Advocate and all that but in this country, at least, there is a sound practical argument for providing free contraception; it’s cheaper than paying to raise the unwanted child. Which is the alternative, the way things are.”
Except it is not an alternative. Providing free condoms does not to control “unwanted” births. We have tried this. Either you come from a tradition where men step up to their responsibilities, and so don’t take them on before they can afford it, or you don’t. If you don’t, it doesn’t really matter. Births are not a problem for the Baby Daddies and the Baby Mommas get welfare anyway.
It is the same with HIV. Handing out free condoms has done precisely nothing to prevent the spread of the disease. Changing behaviour has.
sam, your age-old argument that contraception prevents illegitimate children is 180 degrees opposite to the truth.
http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/1996/08/childrenfamilies-akerlof
All the hoo-hah is just an attempt to gin up the Democrats’ base so they’re not annihilated in November.
@BiCR it amazes me, but it will probably work, too. The low concentration age is definitely helping the left, in the US in particular.