Smart Bitches, Trashy Books

1. 

   Dread Pirate Rachel said on 02.27.13 at 03:15 AM • [link]

   What. The actual. Fuck.

   The first several points irritated me, but didn’t seem like anything particularly out of the ordinary for the anti-choice set. HOWEVER.

   Point 4 - Hero essentially LOCKS Heroine in this house/ removes her ability to leave the property for 72 hours because that’s how long she has to take the morning after pill.

   What the hell?!? This is supposed to be the hero??? We are seriously supposed to read this character as heroic? Because imprisoning a woman is all fine and dandy, as long as you’re doing it to keep her from making a decision about her own body!

   Flames. Flames, flames on the side of my face. Breathing… breathle… heaving breaths…

2. 

   Lia said on 02.27.13 at 04:36 AM • [link]

   You mean Sherrilyn Kenyon actually gets worse? I really tried with the Dark Hunter series. I waddled my way through Fantasy Lover, though the heroine thinking ‘o, he’s hot’ every single page got on my nerve. I was hoping that would improve with the second book in the series, but sadly it didn’t. When I found myself shouting at my e-reader “I get it, he’s hot!” I knew it was time to add this book to my DNF-pile. It’s probably me, most people like her Dark Hunter series a lot.

   As for this book, I will definitely give it a miss. There’s a fine line between being an Alpha and an A-hole, and it looks it has been crossed big time with this book. Not my cup of tea.

3. 

   GHN said on 02.27.13 at 04:39 AM • [link]

   Note to self: Don’t buy any books by this author. I wouldn’t want my e-reader to suffer a mishap.

4. 

   Frauke said on 02.27.13 at 06:03 AM • [link]

   A little off topic: Last December here in Germany TWO catholic hospitals refused to see to a RAPED woman, because part off the after-rape-treatment would be offering the morning-after-pill.

   Only after a big public uproar saw the diocese in question fit to apologize and to rewrite their instructions for their staff.

   Big note to self: never get raped in a utterly catholic region, because there may not be any non-catholic hospitals.

   (In Germany, the morning-after-pill is prescription only.)

5. 

   Shawny Jean said on 02.27.13 at 07:24 AM • [link]

   Kenyon’s were the first romances I ever read, so it made me sad when I realized that they’re basically formulaic crap. Still have a soft spot for Acheron though. But yeah, Leigh’s alphas, to quote Jerricho Barrons “drive me bug-fuck” since they’re not big on letting their heroines make actual choices. It’s one thing when the choices are “You will go to the salon and get a total body wax”, but another when it’s “I will lock you in a room until we find out if you’re pregnant.” There are a number of books out there in which the condom breaks/the hero forgets the condom in the height of passion and then he just quietly sits on that information hoping for the best, but confinement? Yeah, so not cool.

6. 

   LG said on 02.27.13 at 07:45 AM • [link]

   I remember disliking Fantasy Lover and rolling my eyes at the many, many sequel bate guys in the initial books in her Dark Hunters series, but, yeah, they were better than her newer ones. Although, since I quit at around Acheron (so very disappointed with that book, especially after all the anticipation Kenyon built up for it), I suppose I’m not really familiar with her most recent stuff.

7. 

   mctclover said on 02.27.13 at 08:34 AM • [link]

   No. Just. No. Fucking. Way.

8. 

   Liz H said on 02.27.13 at 08:49 AM • [link]

   So this book starts with a profound misunderstanding of basic physiology and reproductive health, escalates to a felony, and caps it off with a little stockholm syndrome. I am literally speechless in anger right now.

9. 

   BaileyJR said on 02.27.13 at 09:21 AM • [link]

   I was literally gaping while reading this. I would have thrown my e-reader too.

   That’s just . . . I can’t. . . words.  They’ve taken my words.

   Also the gif made me laugh.

10. 

    LadyRoy said on 02.27.13 at 09:40 AM • [link]

    The Hades gift just about says it all. Ugh. Yikes. and WTF???????

11. 

    LadyRhian said on 02.27.13 at 09:49 AM • [link]

    That’s horrible! Even worse than Sherrilyn Kenyon and the way her heroes become constestants in “worst childhood EVAR” competition. I am WAY too over that. But I haven’t read Leigh’s “Nauti” series but for one, and I am not likely to now.

12. 

    Patricia Eimer said on 02.27.13 at 10:01 AM • [link]

    No. Just No. But I totally love your GIF and it’s going on my computer.

13. 

    FutureLibrarian said on 02.27.13 at 10:23 AM • [link]

    ugh—agree with every other angry commenter. It bothers me to no end when books/movies/TV give false information about the morning after pill (I’m looking at you The Walking Dead on AMC). And obviously it bothers me more that imprisoning a person and preventing her from making choices about her body is considered romantic.

14. 

    Beccah W. said on 02.27.13 at 11:11 AM • [link]

    Wow - this just blew my mind. What is sexy about a man forcing children on a woman? This sounds more like a Stephan King novel about abusive relationships and treating women like reproductive machines or something.

    And the gif was awesome! Totally saving that for later use. ;)

15. 

    Beccah W. said on 02.27.13 at 11:14 AM • [link]

    Seriously though, I’ve never been this mad at fiction before - and it’s a book I didn’t even read! How can this be by women for women???

16. 

    Cinnamonntree said on 02.27.13 at 11:22 AM • [link]

    Wow. I am never reading another one of LL’s books again, not buying them, not informing the library when they’re missing a book in a series. Each of those points are awful by themselves and together they’re despicable.

    I imagine there was a point no.5 : after learning that the “hero” isn’t concerned about unplanned pregnancies, any self-respecting heroine—especially in tropes where she’s in favor of spontaneous sex—should have either dumped him or immediately gotten herself SOME form of birth control that isn’t dependent on a man. Preferably an IUD, seeing as this “hero” sounds like the kind of abusive a-hole who’d sabotage anything that he get his hands on, such as diaphragms or pills.

17. 

    Kim said on 02.27.13 at 11:29 AM • [link]

    What a sexist piece of garbage.  RUN away from any man that acts like this.  It is not conflict…it is abuse.

18. 

    azteclady said on 02.27.13 at 11:36 AM • [link]

    And the female protagonist still thinks this asshole is the love of her life? Holly shit.

19. 

    MaddBookish said on 02.27.13 at 11:51 AM • [link]

    I read the first run of the Nauti series and, really, those guys were pretty douchey. It was always “You’re too young, you’re too innocent, you’re too ...” whatever. They were always deciding what the woman needed or could handle and it only got worse when the main protagonists became the females of the Mackay family. I haven’t read the new one or the novellas and I’m honestly not interested.

20. 

    Angela Korra'ti said on 02.27.13 at 12:19 PM • [link]

    Jesus hopping Christ on a jump rope. I tend to avoid contemporary romances in general but this is an extreme example of exactly _why_: i.e., gender roles that are likely to make me want to set something on fire. And I am not doing that to a poor innocent _expensive_ ereader.

    I don’t have enough words to express how much NO there is here. And I’ve written _four novels_. I have a LOT of words!

21. 

    Laragrey said on 02.27.13 at 12:27 PM • [link]

    LL does have a tendency—much more so in the last couple of years—to have her hero/heroine relationships devolve into “Me big strong alpha male, you female! You worry about babies and my happiness!” No matter how tough her heroine starts out, she always eventually ends up pliant and happy and pregnant. I assume the multitudinous screaming orgasms and buttsex render her brain to mush.

    On a side note, is it just me, or have LL’s sex scenes become…less pleasant? I remember in the last book I read of hers (Navaro’s Promise), all the sex-adjectives were things like ‘screaming’ and ‘arching’ and ‘desperate’ and such. Orgasms were mind-blowing and copious, heroes were painfully rock-hard for their heroines’ aching wombs…very little pleasure in all that biological imperative. It’s part of what made me quit reading, and I used to *love* the Breed series.

22. 

    The Fairy Godmother said on 02.27.13 at 12:29 PM • [link]

    What the actual fuck!

23. 

    GhengisMom said on 02.27.13 at 12:32 PM • [link]

    And on top of all that, the title of the book makes all of this her fault because she was the “temptress” and a “nauti” one at that. (WTF does “nauti” mean? Does this series all take place on boats?)

24. 

    laj said on 02.27.13 at 12:39 PM • [link]

    Thank you for bringing this abomination to attention.  What troubles me most about this kind of misogyny coming from women writing romance: It’s becoming more and more prevalent in the books I pickup these days.
    It’s one thing for an author to share her values subtly, but please don’t shove it down my throat!

25. 

    GhengisMom said on 02.27.13 at 12:49 PM • [link]

    And what’s the morality message of the whole thing?! Manipulating and lying to a woman to take her virginity is morally a-ok?! Jesus says YES! to hot monkey sex out of wedlock without true informed consent, but gives a big NO-GO to taking birth control? How does this form of sexual morality work exactly?

26. 

    Emily A said on 02.27.13 at 12:57 PM • [link]

    I am surprised innocent virgin heroine knew so much about birth control. One of the things that annoyed me most about 50SoG was that heroine seemed to not understand/appreciate why they needed birth control. She was always mocking him for having condoms and she found it annoying he asked about her menstration. But I appreciated that he was concerned about birth control and tried to act what I considered responsibly. Of course I guess she wanted to have his baby, but she couldn’t tell him…
    I don’t know. Having baby to me, is a big deal one that hopefully is not entered into rashly especially by two people who aren’t married and are still getting to know each other.  Why can’t two people in books talk honestly about having a baby? Versus all this shady underground shit!
    Of course reading over the review again this isn’t underground. He is out-and-out forcing to have a baby. Jerk!

27. 

    Cbeta Fiberson said on 02.27.13 at 01:04 PM • [link]

    If I mention this part, and if someone reads it, then most likely I’ll be strung up a tree or something. But since I’m ignored, don’t have to worry about that. The book sounds similar to fifty shades and twilight series, at least the summaries that I read about them anyways.

28. 

    Cerulean said on 02.27.13 at 01:18 PM • [link]

    Thank you SO much for letting us know this WTFery. I’ll *definitely* stay away from this book. I’d liked her earlier Nauti books - despite the alphole males - and will not be returning to it. I know not all women are alike, but to have this book come out at the same time that women’s reproductive choices are being assailed is terrible.

29. 

    cayenne said on 02.27.13 at 01:28 PM • [link]

    Overall, I have to agree with all the rage at the growing douchey misogyny of LL’s “heroes” (hello, normal, independent-minded woman here, thank you), and note that the 72-hour-kidnapping thing seems like a bit of disturbing bandwagon jumping on her part. It seems increasingly trendy in some types of erotica - not even BDSM-type - to have captives falling in love with their kidnappers and calling it romance; I don’t get how Stockholm Syndrome is romantic, or how kidnapping rapists are hero material, but then again, I don’t get how some people fall in love with death row prisoners, so what do I know.

    @Dread Pirate Rachel - is that…are you quoting Clue? If so, you are my hero <3

30. 

    azteclady said on 02.27.13 at 01:31 PM • [link]

    oh my good lord, is this for real?????

31. 

    Marie said on 02.27.13 at 01:51 PM • [link]

    wow. Kudos to you for finishing the book (or, in the tradition of LL, did you have a guy force you to?).

    I stopped reading her books years ago because I started feel like the heroines were falling in love via a ‘Stockholm’ syndrome.

32. 

    Ellielu said on 02.27.13 at 02:24 PM • [link]

    OK— my Thinking Woman rage is battling with my not-so-recovering English Major rage to see which rage can be the ragiest.

    “Nauti”—what’s with the misspelling? It’s not hot or clever—it’s just stupid!!!! I’m developing the same rash that I get when I have to patronize car washes or corner markets with “Qwik” in their names.

    And human sexuality is politically incorrect. Most of us have at least a few impulses, fantasies, or outright bents that are not all about equality and sensitivity. And I think it’s perfectly fine when a piece of fiction acknowledges those primal cavepeople turn-ons.

    However, it’s entirely another matter to build an entire plot and a “hero” around someone whose, supposedly evolved, thought processes allow him to disregard another human being’s reproductive choices. I read romance and sci fi and fantasy and the newspaper, so I’m willing to suspend disbelief with no problem. But I’m with MoWeezy—there are some disbeliefs I’m not willing to suspend for a character who is presumably supposed to be sympathetic by the end of the book.

33. 

    GBL said on 02.27.13 at 02:26 PM • [link]

    While I can totally understand the rage, I have to agree with Cbeta.  This is pretty similar to 50 Shades in the way he is so over-the-top controlling, trying to make her do things for her own good, treating her like she has no brain etc. Granted, he wasn’t trying to control her reproduction in 50 Shades, but pretty damn close. Ive only read a few of Lora Leigh’s books, and that was enough for me. All all her “heroes” seemed over the top alpha to me. I like me some hot alpha, but they all seemed like jerky douches.

34. 

    Lynnd said on 02.27.13 at 02:37 PM • [link]

    It seems to me that there are more and more of these regressive stories like this one being written in the romance genre lately and I’m finding that more books are hitting the proverbial wall as a result.  I am finding fewer and fewer romance books that I actually want to read or that I end of finishing.  I know that the book that shall not be named has probably contributed to this, but it seemed that the tide was turning in that direction even before that book came out. 

35. 

    Laura said on 02.27.13 at 02:46 PM • [link]

    Wow.  This is awful. 

36. 

    cayenne said on 02.27.13 at 03:01 PM • [link]

    “And human sexuality is politically incorrect. Most of us have at least a few impulses, fantasies, or outright bents that are not all about equality and sensitivity. And I think it’s perfectly fine when a piece of fiction acknowledges those primal cavepeople turn-ons.”

    This is true, and it’s supposed to be a liberating element in romance.  however, my sense of this book from this review is that it [along with a number of others, e.g. “Captive In The Dark”] goes beyond captive and rape fantasies that accept what they are and into romanticizing forcible confinement. There’s often the need to suspend disbelief in reading fiction, but in some of these stories, the need is sorely tested by alpholes who practise controlling, abusive, or felonious douchebaggery and are still called heroes.

37. 

    LSUReader said on 02.27.13 at 03:26 PM • [link]

    I’m sorry you had to read a book you found so insulting. I sure wouldn’t read it. It sounds like both the hero and heroine are absolutely irresponsible—and the hero criminally so. Personally, I still find the killing of babies beyond insulting. Anyone who doesn’t believe a three-month old fetus is a person should look at an ultrasound image. Murder of any sort is a bad choice. 

38. 

    Carrie Gwaltney said on 02.27.13 at 03:38 PM • [link]

    GhengisMom—That’s a quote from the book? I’m stunned. Completely stunned. Part of me want to get up and slap someone and part of me just wants to sit down and cry about how little attitudes have changed. One thing for sure, I will never buy a book by this author, or any others with such misguided misogynistic views.

39. 

    Spinster said on 02.27.13 at 03:40 PM • [link]

    That sounds like a whole economy-size bottle of crazysauce.

40. 

    Beccah W. said on 02.27.13 at 04:11 PM • [link]

    Wait - that’s seriously a quote? I actually want to go and punch some man right now. Angry feminist!!!

41. 

    Lucy Woodhull said on 02.27.13 at 04:23 PM • [link]

    I see quite a few readers here lament that more contemp romances are turning into “me Tarzan, you Jane” bullshit.  I will say that I tried to sell my first book to a major romance e-press and one of the notes I was given was to take out the “man bashing.”  Upon my rereading it (and my husband, too), the strongest thing I could find that was “anti-men” was the feminist heroine’s belief that men and women ought to be equal.  In the 25th century.  This was called “man bashing.”  I did not change this premise and sold it elsewhere, but damn, did that note make me shake my head.

    This Nauti book makes me cringe and want to cry.  Holy crapola.

42. 

    Dread Pirate Rachel said on 02.27.13 at 04:41 PM • [link]

    Why, yes. Yes I was quoting Clue. Madeline Kahn is my favorite.

43. 

    Dread Pirate Rachel said on 02.27.13 at 04:46 PM • [link]

    That… That… that is an actual quote? Like, for real? I don’t want to live on this planet any more.

44. 

    JenniferH said on 02.27.13 at 05:11 PM • [link]

    I took this book out of the library and didn’t even get as far as the scenes described before I returned it.  I have also given up on tbis author.

45. 

    Mary said on 02.27.13 at 07:06 PM • [link]

    I read a couple of the Breeds novels, and HATED the heroes. And even more, I hated the really kickass heroines suddenly deciding to become TSTL or doormats. It made me feel sad.
    And that quote from the book is just terrifying. I could understand some of his points, maybe, like that he has a dangerous job/is older and more experienced (although they are still very, very, very weak points for superiority) but I don’t really think having a ten inch dick makes you superior. If it did, the world would be ruled by male porn stars.

46. 

    katherinelynn_04 said on 02.27.13 at 07:29 PM • [link]

    You are not wrong. Reminds me of a series I read (by Susan Mallery? Fool’s Gold, I think) wherein the heroine of one of the books further in the series is left a friend’s fertilized embryos (the friend’s husband died in war and the friend from breast cancer). The entire town kept saying how she would ‘do the right thing’, which in their opinion was for a single woman with no plans for children was to have the eggs implanted in her and have the babies. I got super ragey at that particular book. I’m sorry, but if a friend of mine gave me her fertilized eggs I wouldn’t implant them, at least not until I was personally ready for children and perhaps had a significant other (though that’s obviously not a requirement). It was just that the whole town was shaming this poor girl into having babies that WEREN’T EVEN HERS.

47. 

    Bridget Baker said on 02.27.13 at 08:23 PM • [link]

    Why is this misogynistic crap considered romantic?

48. 

    GhengisMom said on 02.27.13 at 08:52 PM • [link]

    I have not actually read the book but multiple reviewers on Goodreads reference this quote, so I am assuming it is for real.

49. 

    GhengisMom said on 02.27.13 at 08:58 PM • [link]

    I haven’t read the book but multiple reviewers on Goodreads referenced it. I just Googled “and show me you’ve grown a ten-inch dick at some point” and the Scribd for this book popped up, so I’m assuming its legit.

50. 

    Marc said on 02.27.13 at 08:59 PM • [link]

    I stopped reading LL because of all the typos and missing sections that made it very confusing to read.  This sounds pretty standard for a LL hero, in this series, and very similar to Nauti Intentions from what is indicated in the rant.  As a side note if the quote is real I would pay money to see his response to her ten-inch dick, in which case she could take his virginity. 

51. 

    persnickety said on 02.27.13 at 09:25 PM • [link]

    Not to mention (I read that Fool’s Gold book too) that no fertility doctor in their right mind would actully insert (mind blank, there is a technical word) 3 embryos in a perfectly healthy woman anymore.
    And as an aside, as someone who has had to go through IVF, the thought of just leaving any frosties behind for someone to use or destroy at will- hugely ragey.  There are plenty of embyo donation options out there (I just wish I had access to them).  The amount of paperwork now connected to them- massivly understated.
    

52. 

    Enjb said on 02.27.13 at 09:55 PM • [link]

    As disturbing and icky as the imaginary abuse in this book is, I find it profoundly disturbing that the reviewer threw her ereader at her boyfriend.  This is an actual act of physical and emotional abuse.  Shame on Sarah for publishing this, and shame on all the rest of the commenters for not saying anything.  Both my boyfriend and I are freshly out of abusive relationships.  Men are abused by women in just this way all the time, but it tends to get shrugged off, whereas if a man throws something at a woman just because he is angry or frustrated he is called an abuser, and rightly so. 

    Again, shame on all of you.

53. 

    Tracy Faul said on 02.27.13 at 10:00 PM • [link]

    I just realized reading through this that if you take “Type As” and add an “-s” at the end you get “Type Ass.” Which, judging by this review (and the bit of LL I’ve read previously), is not actually incorrect.

54. 

    Laskiblue said on 02.27.13 at 11:56 PM • [link]

    Thank you for alerting me to an author whose books I will make sure to never, ever read.

55. 

    azteclady said on 02.28.13 at 01:13 AM • [link]

    I’m guessing that the winging of the ereader was written for emphasis rather than actual physical violence—notice, please, that she finished reading the book, which would be hard to do on a broken reader.

56. 

    azteclady said on 02.28.13 at 01:14 AM • [link]

    You do realize we are talking about the day after pill, right? the one that should be taken up to 72 hours after intercourse—when conception may not even have occurred yet—not a three month old fetus.

57. 

    Jo said on 02.28.13 at 02:42 AM • [link]

    I’m with you, Oh My Fu*&ing God. Jaw has well and truly HIT. THE. FLOOR.  I just….... there are no words for how pissed off I am right now.

58. 

    Zulma said on 02.28.13 at 06:41 AM • [link]

    Hurray for women who are addressing misogyny in romantic fiction! Great review.

59. 

    Flo_over said on 02.28.13 at 07:22 AM • [link]

    This makes folks rage but Twitlight and 50 shades we’re down with it?  Sure.  OK.

    This isn’t the first, it won’t be the last and maybe it doesn’t turn YOUR crank but maybe it is a fantasy of another.

60. 

    Pheebers said on 02.28.13 at 07:41 AM • [link]

    Thank goodness for SBTB reviews.  I have—had—Leigh on my price drop watch list, and I will never buy any of her books now. I get such a big squicky ewww when that sort of agenda is in a book I’m trying to enjoy.

61. 

    Jaelwye said on 02.28.13 at 08:10 AM • [link]

    Child porn turns some people’s crank too, Flo. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t call it out. Some things cross the line, and forced impregnation is one of them.

62. 

    SB Sarah said on 02.28.13 at 08:14 AM • [link]

    I read that line as comic exaggeration, and not a sign of abuse. I’m glad you got out of an abusive relationship and that you’re safe now.

63. 

    Beccah W. said on 02.28.13 at 08:23 AM • [link]

    And THAT is a Futurama quote if I ever saw one! :P Your comments and such are always the best - you rock!

64. 

    Dawn Roberto said on 02.28.13 at 08:23 AM • [link]

    Egads…I just got this book…I think it is going back to the library now. *shudders* This would have been my first time reading LL’s book and after reading this review, I won’t read her ever again.

65. 

    Beccah W. said on 02.28.13 at 08:27 AM • [link]

    Agreed - and if someone is into this kind of thing, maybe it belongs in a special category of abusive erotica or something, but not straight up Romance.

66. 

    sabbyATL said on 02.28.13 at 08:50 AM • [link]

    I love this, and you, for that last line, Mrs White.

67. 

    Carolina said on 02.28.13 at 09:02 AM • [link]

    I’m so glad to hear someone else say they’re angry about the watering down and generally sloppy and bad writing of aging series. In part, it’s the demands of publishers with deadlines and writers are forced to crank out books without allowing their creativity a rest. If they don’t crank them out on schedule, they lose their contract. The longer the writer writes, the more tired their books become. And the more tired a writer gets, the more their personal beliefs may take over to fill the gap. Next thing you know, you find out things about the writer you never wanted to know. Either that or they bore you to death. The boring nature and sameness of the books then lend evidence to the belief that romances are formulaic—not good.

68. 

    Melle said on 02.28.13 at 09:43 AM • [link]

    (Content note: mention of rape)

    So here’s a “fun” coincidence for you: last night’s L&O:SVU episode was about a serial rapist whose aim was to impregnate his victims. In the scene where the detectives figure this out, they mention the morning-after pill, and how it has to be taken within 72 hours, and oh, this explains why the perp stays with his victims for several days, he’s trying to increase the odds of his seed “taking.

    Protip: If your “hero” is reminiscent of a perp on L&O, consider that perhaps you might be DOIN IT RONG, as they say.

    D: D: D:

69. 

    SB Sarah said on 02.28.13 at 09:47 AM • [link]

    Holy. Shit.

70. 

    Melle said on 02.28.13 at 09:50 AM • [link]

    Right? I got to that part of the review and went “... This seems oddly familiar, somehow.”

    D:

71. 

    moweezy said on 02.28.13 at 09:51 AM • [link]

    This.

    Literally what my reaction was… “well ok, this isn’t my cup of tea, conservative viewpoint/incorrect medically…. WHAT THE EVERLOVING!1!!”
    

72. 

    moweezy said on 02.28.13 at 09:54 AM • [link]

    Jerricho Barrons! It didn’t help that I read this book immediately after reading Iced.

     

73. 

    moweezy said on 02.28.13 at 10:07 AM • [link]

    Original series does in fact take place predominately on houseboats!

    And yes, that quote was DEFINITELY the beginning of the end…

74. 

    moweezy said on 02.28.13 at 10:12 AM • [link]

    Anytime! It was just crazy that there was NO mention of this part of the book ANYWHERE on ANY review. The fact that my rant has had so many comments makes me feel better, I was worried that readership at large thought that this was normal!

    This is exactly how I felt, I felt like this book ruined the original ones that, while the “heros” are extremely alpha-y, they were at least enjoyable.

75. 

    Betty Fokker said on 02.28.13 at 10:40 AM • [link]

    Wait, he kidnapped (restraining someone’s freed to leave like that is prosecuted as kidnapping) the heroine to MAKE her pregnant if HE wanted ... but he is the “hero”?? Wow. I have finally found a book with a more abusive “hero” than the Twilight series. I am really impressed in between my bouts of vomiting.

76. 

    Betty Fokker said on 02.28.13 at 10:47 AM • [link]

    I am not trying to be continuous, but you should be made aware that the Morning After pill is not an abortfacient. It prevents/delays the egg from being released so there are few or no live sperm left to greet it. If you have already ovulated and the egg is fertilized and healthy enough for the body to accept implantation, pregnancy will occur.

77. 

    moweezy said on 02.28.13 at 10:48 AM • [link]

    Seriously?!

    Also, thanks to L&O:SVU for using the correct medical information.

    preach it stabler and benson

78. 

    Lynnd said on 02.28.13 at 10:48 AM • [link]

    This kind of misogynistic and badly written crap is the EXACTLY the reason that I DNF’d Twilight and refused to read 50 Shades (a.k.a. the book that shall not be named) and why I’m finding it increasingly hard to find books in the romance genre that I am even interested in reading since so many of them are going down this path. 

79. 

    Jody Wallace said on 02.28.13 at 12:00 PM • [link]

    You’re SUCH a basher, Lucy. I swan. I imagine if you had had this situation in one of your books, you’d have somehow had the heroine LITERALLY bash the hero in the family jewels, escape and head straight for the cops. Jeez. How could you get a 90K book out of a heroine acting like she had a brain??? (Though if you have published a SHORT STORY like that, please link to it. I’d like to read it.)

80. 

    GhengisMom said on 02.28.13 at 12:38 PM • [link]

    There are a lot of reviews on Goodreads that say the same thing, though less eloquently than you. Hope for the genre renewed.

81. 

    Faye said on 02.28.13 at 12:49 PM • [link]

    “I just Googled “and show me you’ve grown a ten-inch dick at some point” and the Scribd for this book popped up, so I’m assuming its legit.”

    This just made my day. Best googling ever.

82. 

    JaneL said on 02.28.13 at 01:31 PM • [link]

    Wow.  I guess I don’t take my reads as seriously as others. I read the book. Didn’t like it as well as the rest of the Nauti series but still gave it a decent review. What the reviewer here ranted about didn’t even register much with me when I read it.  It was just part of the story. It’s fiction. I may not agree with what the author has written but it is just a story. I don’t like every aspect of every book I’ve read but I’ve never thought “I don’t like how the author dealt with this subject!  I’ll never read her again and no one else should either!”  I just find that thought process excessive and slightly amusing.
    The book does have a 3.8 rating on Goodreads, so I’m not the only one, apparently, who thought it was a decent read.

83. 

    Kim said on 02.28.13 at 01:36 PM • [link]

    Well, if extremist agendas are realized and enforced, you might have the benefit of standing trial if you have a miscarriage.  If a fetus has the full rights as people wouldn’t that be a homicide case?  I mean, you might have had a secret abortion! 

84. 

    laj said on 02.28.13 at 01:39 PM • [link]

    Are you insane?

85. 

    The Other Susan said on 02.28.13 at 02:02 PM • [link]

    I want to read the scene where she takes his virginity - and frankly, I hope she isn’t gentle.

86. 

    Lucy Woodhull said on 02.28.13 at 02:18 PM • [link]

    Ha! Well, my two are novellas, so there’s that. It is obviously IMPOSSIBLE to have a feminist heroine for 90K. Around 80K she begins to melt from her wickedness, like the Nazi dude in “Raiders of the Lost Ark.”

87. 

    Calysc77 said on 02.28.13 at 02:19 PM • [link]

    lol
    Men should be like kleenex. Soft, strong and disposable

88. 

    ridiculousspider said on 02.28.13 at 03:55 PM • [link]

    OMG.  That quote would’ve caused severe rage in me.  Because being a big strong man with a ten inch dick (Why did he feel the need to measure it?  Inferiority issues?) is what determines whether or not you have the say in “ridding” a woman of her virginity?  Seriously? 

    She could’ve gone to a sex shop, gotten a nice long strap-on.  Been like “I have a big dick and IT never goes limp.  Beat that, asshole.” 

    Geez.  Just.  I can’t.

    It also makes me wonder…if the “hero” were bi or homosexual, would he use that line on other men who had smaller dicks or maybe couldn’t work ten hour days in the freezing rain? 

    Excuse me while I go back to reading John Green novels. 

89. 

    BrooklynShoeBabe said on 02.28.13 at 04:57 PM • [link]

    OMFG. That is the craziest thing I’ve ever read. If this was April 1st, I would swear this was a joke. What makes this even more upsetting, I just read an article about the increase in forced impregnation as a form of domestic abuse. Some men are going as far as tearing out a woman’s IUD. (Which made me holler because I have one.)

90. 

    GhengisMom said on 02.28.13 at 05:02 PM • [link]

    I’m waiting for my husband to discover it in the history.

91. 

    Bnbsrose said on 02.28.13 at 07:54 PM • [link]

    THIS is why I don’t have an e-reader! Paying to replace it everytime a book made me throw it at the wall would put me in the poor house. Spackle is much, much cheaper.

    And on a tangential note: PBS just ran a fabulous program on the history of the women’s movement. Check it out. For those of you too young to have lived it, it should be eye opening. For those of us who were there - I’d forgotten just how much I wanted to bitch slap Phyllis Schafley into the 20th century.

92. 

    LSUReader said on 02.28.13 at 08:18 PM • [link]

    Yes, I do understand that many comments are focused on the morning-after pill. I am responding to the reviewer’s general comments about the book, abortion and what she termed the heroine’s rights to reproductive choice.

93. 

    LSUReader said on 02.28.13 at 08:21 PM • [link]

    Kim,
    A miscarriage is the spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus; abortion is the forced expulsion or termination of a human fetus. If you fail to appreciate the difference, I suggest you speak with a woman who has suffered a miscarriage.

    Regarding legal rights, in many places, fetuses do have “rights as people.” Currently, 38 states have fetal homicide laws, to address the issue of fetuses killed by violent acts against pregnant women.  In international law, the American Convention on Human Rights of 1969 states that people have rights from the moment of conception. 
    

94. 

    Bridget Baker said on 02.28.13 at 08:23 PM • [link]

    “THIS is why I don’t have an e-reader! Paying to replace it everytime a book made me throw it at the wall would put me in the poor house. Spackle is much, much cheaper.”

    That’s why you keep a beat up paperback on hand, wall bang by proxy.

95. 

    azteclady said on 02.28.13 at 08:33 PM • [link]

    “what she termed the heroine’s rights to reproductive choice”

    Egads.

    Speechless over here.

    Actually, not quite.

    So, in your eyes, it’s okay to deprive someone of her freedom, just in case she decides she would rather not get pregnant? The rights of a hypothetical fetus completely obliterate the rights of the perfectly real woman?

    And (trying to keep this about the book instead of the very real world), please do keep in mind that this particular male protagonist didn’t have a clue whether the female protagonist would or would not want to get pregnant. Without taking the time to ask, he preemptively made the decision for her.

96. 

    LSUReader said on 02.28.13 at 08:34 PM • [link]

    Betty, I do know how the morning-after pill works and I was not suggesting it is an abortifacient. As I mentioned to AztecLady (above) I was addressing the general review. It gets difficult to consistently hear of women’s reproductive choices without also hearing of women’s reproductive responsibilities.

97. 

    LSUReader said on 02.28.13 at 08:51 PM • [link]

    My original comments refer to the hero’s criminally irresponsible behavior; so, no, I’m not suggesting there’s anything ok about his actions. But, back to the review, ” Point 3 - Hero has sex with Heroine again, and doesn’t use a condom and then she freaks afterwards.” 

    So the 24-year-old heroine CHOOSES to again have sex with this untrustworthy man after he locks her up, and she is SURPRISED at the lack of a condom? Really? Where is her sense of responsibility? Clearly, he doesn’t have one.

98. 

    azteclady said on 02.28.13 at 08:57 PM • [link]

    So if a woman has a one night stand, using a condom and the condom breaks, and she wants to take the morning after pill to avoid conception, she is irresponsible and therefore she should have the choice taken from her, leaving her to face the potentially life long consequences of a night of bad judgement.

    But if the guy has a one night stand, using a condom and the condom breaks, he is irresponsible and has to face no consequences.

    Gotcha.

99. 

    hapax said on 02.28.13 at 09:14 PM • [link]

    @LSUReader—first of all, I’m an adherent of consistent ethic of life, so I have some sympathies with your irritation at the heroine.

    But I think that you are reading things into this book—and this review—that are not there.

    Point the First:  “Hero has sex with heroine again” does not imply TO ME (especially in the context of his described domineering, abusive, and criminal behavior) necessarily that “the heroine CHOOSES to have sex” with OR without a condom; and since he used a condom at their first encounter, it seems a naive but not entirely unjustified assumption that he would take some responsibility in the future. 

    (Of course, if you have read the book and recall the passage where the heroine begs, “No, skip the latex and do me bareback, baby, I want to be pumped full of your virile love juice!”, I will defer to your greater knowledge.)

    Point the second:  the reviewer explicitly objects to the lack of “women having reproductive choices separate from what the men in their family would want.”  In other words, she also objects to PRECISELY the lack reproductive “responsibility” you wish to see.

    For when women are not deemed capable of making their own choices, they cannot be considered free to be “responsible” for their own bodies, let alone for any possible potential offspring.

    [In theological terms, if you like, without free will there is NEITHER sin NOR merit—nor possibility of grace.]

100. 

     azteclady said on 02.28.13 at 09:20 PM • [link]

     Or, what hapax just said.

101. 

     Unimaginative said on 02.28.13 at 09:33 PM • [link]

     I used to really enjoy Lora Leigh, until I read a book in which the heroine (some kind of spy) was tortured.  Actually tortured, as a plot device to give her some kind of cachet.  That was pretty much the end for me, and when the Breeds book came out with the missing and unedited scenes, I wasn’t interested enough anymore to try.

     This one sounds just appalling, and yet, sadly, not surprising.

     And it does illustrate that a lot of anti-abortion people are having a completely different conversation from pro-autonomy people.  They think it’s all about the rights of the potential baby, when it’s really about the right of a woman to bodily autonomy.

     If anti-abortion activists put as much energy as the use to shame women for having sex into increasing access to adequate sex education, birth control, and economic support for single parents, the incidents of abortion would go way, way down.  But they don’t, and they therefore have no credibility with me.

102. 

     LSUReader said on 02.28.13 at 10:27 PM • [link]

     I can’t tell if the way you are misquoting my comments is deliberate, or not. So, I’ll just say good night, AztecLady.

103. 

     LSUReader said on 02.28.13 at 10:30 PM • [link]

     Hapax, I have not read the book. After reading this review, I did visit the author website and Amazon, wondering if they would reveal anything redeeming about the heroine. I was disappointed.

     Point 1: Perhaps I am reading too much into these three sources, but I do not believe she was raped.  I stand by my view of her having made a choice.

     Point 2: You quoted the reviewer “explicitly objects to the lack of ‘women having reproductive choices separate from what the men in their family would want,’”  as a reviewer objection to a lack of reproductive responsibility.  I read “this hero’s hang ups with women having reproductive choices separate from what the men in their family would want…” as the reviewer stating these women do have their own reproductive choices and the hero isn’t happy with that idea. 

     Theologically, I agree we use free will to choose between good or evil. But I believe grace is a gift from God; it cannot be earned.
     

104. 

     azteclady said on 02.28.13 at 10:35 PM • [link]

     Your comments are there for everyone to read in their entirety—there’s a handy link to them in each of my replies, so there’s no risk of my “misquoting” them to deceive anyone reading the thread.

     What I am doing is vehemently disagreeing with what I read in your comments, and more and more so with each successive comment—much as, it seems to me, you do with mine.

     Good night to you.

105. 

     Ann Somerville said on 02.28.13 at 11:10 PM • [link]

     “It gets difficult to consistently hear of women’s reproductive choices without also hearing of women’s reproductive responsibilities. “

     And what would those be, pray? To stay pregnant even if you’re impregnated by force, poor judgement, mistake, or fraud? To bear an unwanted child so that you, LSUReader, can sleep smug and tight with the knowledge that Jesus loves all the little children, even if he doesn’t pay child maintenance?

     Perhaps our responsibility is biological destiny. I bleed, therefore I breed?

     Bollocks to all that. I had an abortion when I was 29 because I was - and remain - utterly unfit to raise a child, because my mother was utterly unfit to raise a child. I sure as hell wasn’t going to perpetuate the cycle of abuse and fucked up offspring because I had some ‘reproductive responsibility’ to something inside me which I didn’t want, didnt know it existed, didn’t care if I existed, and was, at that point, no more a person than my liver.

     If you’re so gung ho on responsibility and hating on abortion, then you make sure you don’t have one. The rest of us can make our own minds up.

106. 

     laj said on 02.28.13 at 11:24 PM • [link]

     Thank you Ann Somerville.

107. 

     Betty Fokker said on 03.01.13 at 12:36 AM • [link]

     I just cannot leave well enough alone. *sigh* There is always going to be a disconnect between LSUReader and the pro-choice people. For pro-choice folks the fetus (and still less the embryo) is not a person. LSUReader believes that it IS a person. There is no common ground for discourse, based solely on the rights of the individual we sure as tootin’ know to be a person, AKA the woman who is gravid, because LSUreader sees two people with equal rights there. Of course, the fact the US courts have ruled unequivocally that the gov cannot force anyone to have their bodily autonomy infringed upon (such as donate a kidney or even giving blood) even when the life of a child will be lost without that involuntary donation, would indicate that the primacy of the rights of the individual are set in stone unless that individual has a uterus, which is treating fertile women as inherently unequal before the law. That’s a bit unfair. However, I suspect LSUreader has a teleological reason for supposing the personhood of the embryo/fetus, using the belief of ensoulation at conception to equate the rights of the embryo/fetus to the rights to the mother. In which case I would like to point out that: “The Bible contains over 600 laws governing everything from fabrics to how to cut a beard yet contains no law prohibiting abortion. Jesus never mentioned it. As the Oxford Companion to the Bible notes: Biblical legislation, as in Leviticus 27:3-7, indicates that the lives of children as well as women were not valued as highly as those of adult men, while no value whatsoever was given to a child under the age of one month. There is no indication that a fetus had any status.” (Abortion article, page 4) http://fayfreethinkers.com/tra… Additionally, more than 800 of every 1000 fertilized eggs do not make it to the fetal stage (12 weeks). If those fertilized eggs have souls, what are the theological arguments behind such a radical number of “failed” people? It seems as if both legal and theological arguments in favor of the personhood of a fetus are built on a shaky ground of presumed and word of mouth “facts”.

108. 

     Ann Somerville said on 03.01.13 at 03:01 AM • [link]

     “There is always going to be a disconnect between LSUReader and the pro-choice people. For pro-choice folks the fetus (and still less the embryo) is not a person. LSUReader believes that it IS a person.”

     I will add to your evidence - or lack of evidence from the bible - with this link:

     http://www.patheos.com/blogs/s…

     “In 1979, McDonald’s introduced the Happy Meal.

     Sometime after that, it was decided that the Bible teaches that human life begins at conception.

     Ask any American evangelical, today, what the Bible says about abortion and they will insist that this is what it says. (Many don’t actually believe this, but they know it is the only answer that won’t get them in trouble.) They’ll be a little fuzzy on where, exactly, the Bible says this, but they’ll insist that it does.

     That’s new. If you had asked American evangelicals that same question the year I was born you would not have gotten the same answer.”

109. 

     Betty Fokker said on 03.01.13 at 10:26 AM • [link]

     I’m older than you and I have been “serious” about my religion from a very early age, thus I remember when the narrative started. The result was that 1) I eventually became Episcopalian and 2) I always go looking for the source material.

110. 

     Tamara Hogan said on 03.01.13 at 12:19 PM • [link]

     —> For those of us who were there - I’d forgotten just how much I wanted to bitch slap Phyllis Schafley into the 20th century.

     THIS.

111. 

     Ellielu said on 03.01.13 at 01:07 PM • [link]

     I make it a point not to discuss religion in public spaces, real or virtual. I like to hope that (on a good day!) my faith informs my words and actions, but I never want it to be a source of divisiveness or label that causes pre-conceived notions (negative or positive) about me. But religious beliefs are almost always at the heart of the Choice argument, so I don’t know that it can be ignored.

     I’m sure that I’m opening myself to getting picked apart from every angle. But this is one of the few online forums that I read because I’m always struck by the intelligence, thoughtfulness, and compassion of the members of the Bitchery. (And cuz it’s a hoot!)

     So here goes….

     Every single contributor to this thread is anti-abortion. If there is such a thing as an individual who is “pro-abortion”—I’ve never met this person. Abortion is invariably, without exception, a tragedy. No one dances in the street when a woman has an abortion. Planned Parenthood doesn’t put out signs cheerfully proclaiming “Over 20 Million Aborted”. No woman walks out of an abortion clinic exhilarated to have acted on her empowered reproductive choices.

     We can ALL agree that less abortion is a good thing, and the need for no abortions would be the best of all, however unrealistic that hope is.

     On a political level, I am a Christian who vehemently believes in the right to choice, as well as the separation of church and state. To be pro-choice means to accept that the state offers a freedom to its citizens to act in a way that may be unacceptable to me personally. It means being respectful of the beliefs (or lack thereof) of others, even if I don’t share those beliefs. I’m also grateful to live in a society that allows me to freely practice my faith, and to conduct my own reproductive life as I see fit.

     On a personal level, I believe that abortion is a sin. But I also believe it is a sin to not love my neighbor and a sin to impose my religious beliefs on others. The choice to have an abortion is between a woman and her conscience and her God. And if God has a problem with it s/he can take it up with that woman. But my faith also believes in the never-ending forgiveness of a loving God. A God who has compassion for us even when we have to make painful choices in a difficult world.

     Women have abortions for myriad reasons, ranging from non-consensual sex, medical issues, poverty, failed birth control, lack of access to birth control or accurate information about its use, adolescent impulsiveness, and a million more reasons, up to and including, the general lazy sluttiness that seems to be the stereotypical cause for all unwanted pregnancies.

     Each woman has her own line in the sand for when an abortion would be acceptable. For me, personally, it would be have to be an extreme medical situation that threatened my child. I’m not talking the abortion of a “less than perfect” child, but an abortion that would prevent my child from living a life filled with pain. If faced with that choice, I would hope that I had the strength to take what I believe to be a sin on my shoulders to prevent my child from suffering.

     Of the two dozen or so women that I personally know who’ve had abortions, most of them did not have abortions in situations that were even remotely close to my own personal line in the sand. But each one of those women still deserved my compassion and support. Some of these women are close friends who I supported directly throughout their experience. I gave them my full compassion and support, even when they made choices that would have been personally unacceptable for me.

     Those women have included other Christians, Jews, pagans, agnostics, and atheists. Each of them had regrets about this terrible choice, and struggled painfully to make that choice, but every single one of them believes that she made the only acceptable choice for herself and her situation.

     And that’s the point. I’m not going to pass judgment on a woman whose shoes I’ve never walked in. If I had had a child as a teenager, my child and I would have had the complete support of my parents, no matter how disappointed they were in my actions. Unlike teenaged friends of mine who were kicked out of their homes. And I’m fortunate that I’ve never had an unwanted pregnancy while in an abusive relationship. Unlike my best friend, whose child would have tied her to her abuser, who eventually attempted to act on threats to her life and the lives of her family. I’m so very fortunate that the one pregnancy I’ve had was not only wanted, but hoped and prayed for.

     And, as a Christian, I don’t believe that death is the worst possible state. My faith tells me that the life of the soul is far more important than the life of the body. I believe that embryos and fetuses have souls. And I believe that whether a child dies before or after death, their little soul returns to the peace and protection of the Divine. I fear more for the well-being of the children who are born into lives of abuse, neglect, or resentment.

     Abortion may be a cause for sadness, but it isn’t a cause for anger. We all need to come to a place of compassion for both the unborn and for their mothers (and fathers, for women are not always the only ones who suffer under this choice).

     We all have important work to do to prevent unnecessary abortions, but it has nothing to do with picketing clinics or shouting angry words across the ether. It has everything to do with helping to support knowledge of and access to birth control; protecting our girls and women from incest, rape, and abuse; teaching our sons and daughters to respect their own bodies and those of others; giving at-risk girls the knowledge of and access to other opportunities in life besides teenaged motherhood; becoming adoptive parents or supporting others who adopt; and an endless list of other positive ways in which we can reduce the need for abortion at the individual and societal level.

     In the argument about choice, there are many, many of us—atheists, agnostics, and people of various faiths—who see the shades of gray. Unfortunately, our voices seem to get drowned out because gray is a complicated shade, and doesn’t lend itself well to sound bites or posterboard slogans.
     

112. 

     Lori said on 03.01.13 at 03:31 PM • [link]

     Ellielu,

     you make a very wrong assumption: I am pro-abortion. I have worked at an abortion clinic, I do not believe that there is such a thing as a wrong abortion and I believe an unwanted child is a greater cause for sadness than a woman choosing not to have a child she doesn’t want.

     And I consider myself quite spiritual and God loving. I also would never deem “general lazy sluttiness” a reason women have abortions. So glad you don’t consider yourself judgmental.

113. 

     laj said on 03.01.13 at 03:37 PM • [link]

     THIS IS FEMINISM.

     Thank you for being so articulate on such an explosive issue.
     Namaste, ellielu

114. 

     Ann Somerville said on 03.01.13 at 05:34 PM • [link]

     “Every single contributor to this thread is anti-abortion.”

     Assuming you can read my mind, or anyone else’s, was your first mistake

     “If there is such a thing as an individual who is “pro-abortion”—I’ve never met this person.”

     Hi, I’m Ann, nice to meet you. Or not

     “Abortion is invariably, without exception, a tragedy.”

     Oh BULLSHIT. No, it’s not. For me, it was liberation. I’d make the same choice again, only faster. The only ‘trauma’ inflicted by it was beforehand as I tried to process 12 years of Catholic indoctrination, and my own screwed up feelings about possibly being a mother.

     Some abortions are sad. When a woman who desperately wants a child, finds out her foetus won’t survive, and she has to terminate to save her life and spare it suffering, that’s awful.

     And abortions performed in back alleys with coat hangers - yeah, that’s a tragedy.

     Safe, legal abortions in the first trimester? Perfectly fine, perfectly okay. Not a tragedy. Just a medical procedure and part of a woman’s ability to determine her own future.

     “No woman walks out of an abortion clinic exhilarated to have acted on her empowered reproductive choices.”

     You should have met me when I woke up after the surgery (no chemical abortions in my day, sadly). I felt like the weight of the world had come off my shoulders. I was *happy*.

     “We can ALL agree that less abortion is a good thing, and the need for no abortions would be the best of all, however unrealistic that hope is.”

     Stop speaking for anyone but yourself, you smug judgemental Christian. I can imagine what kind of support you offered women with your silent hatred of their ‘sin’. TRust me, you aren’t as clever or covert as you think you are.

     “our voices seem to get drowned out”

     Funny, I hear people like you all the time. Wish I didn’t because what you say is insulting, wrong, and frankly, disturbing.

     “THIS IS FEMINISM.”

     No, it’s propaganda. More of the same drivel forcefed into me as a kid.

115. 

     Ann Somerville said on 03.01.13 at 05:35 PM • [link]

     “I’m older than you”

     How do you know?

116. 

     Betty Fokker said on 03.01.13 at 06:25 PM • [link]

     I was born in 72 ... for some reason I thought you were born after that. My bad.

117. 

     Tamara said on 03.01.13 at 06:50 PM • [link]

     —> For those of us who were there - I’d forgotten just how much I wanted to bitch slap Phyllis Schafley into the 20th century.

     —>THIS.

     God, yes. Phyl was the purest definition of Selfish Hypocrite.

     Vile. Truly vile.
     

118. 

     Ann Somerville said on 03.01.13 at 06:55 PM • [link]

     Heh, no, I’m ten years older than you :)

119. 

     CG said on 03.01.13 at 07:11 PM • [link]

     I also would never deem “general lazy sluttiness” a reason women have abortions. So glad you don’t consider yourself judgmental.

     What I read in Ellielu’s comment was that she was speaking about stereotypes trotted out to shame women who might need or have an abortion, not that she thought women who have abortions are “lazy sluts”. As someone real tired of people who want to impose their religious beliefs on non-believers, I appreciate any Christian (or Muslim or Shintoist or…) who recognizes we don’t all believe in the same god(s) or even any god and we all have the right, under the law, to freedom of religion and freedom to choose to have an abortion. 

     I’m also pro-abortion and I think there are a lot more women who are not traumatized by the experience of having an abortion than are willing to come out and admit it publicly. I think this has a lot to do with the culture of shame surrounding abortion rather than actual regret. And while I’m glad I’ve never been in the position to need an abortion, I don’t think I would regret it or suffer devastating emotional consequences.
     

120. 

     Katie L Hummel said on 03.01.13 at 08:21 PM • [link]

     Let me tell you what I hope a real women indepedent women today would do. Once she figured out this man was locking her up, she would go and grab her pepper spray that looks like a lipstick (from her really cute bag that she paid for herself) walk over to this a-hole and get him strait in the eyes. After this she would proceed to leave to go to the police station or call the police. After filing a report she would decide if SHE wanted to take the morning after pill or not, and do whatever SHE considered right. Of course I have never read this book so I do not now if he had a gun or was violent. But, from what I have read about him he does not seem that violent or even clever.

121. 

     Valeria 2012 said on 03.01.13 at 09:25 PM • [link]

     “” if they feel as I do re: women’s reproductive rights, they should not waste their $9.99. Unless they want to yell and throw things.”

     I am offended by your opinion, because this too biased. If I believe that the decision to abort or not,  is has to be taken as a couple and not just women. I am a misogynous , for believe that?
     obviously I have not read the book, but his opinion, this review , is not objective irritates me.

122. 

     azteclady said on 03.01.13 at 09:35 PM • [link]

     While I take exception with some of the assumptions you make, I believe you make them in good faith and striving not to be judgemental—thank you.

123. 

     azteclady said on 03.01.13 at 09:37 PM • [link]

     A review does not have to be objective to be valid—it’s the point of view of the reviewer, nothing more nothing less.

     Now a book report…

124. 

     Unimaginative said on 03.01.13 at 10:16 PM • [link]

     obviously I have not read the book, but his opinion, this review , is not objective irritates me.

      

     I don’t understand what you mean by this.

125. 

     Ellielu said on 03.02.13 at 01:08 AM • [link]

     Thank you to those of you who understood why I chose to be so open, even if you don’t agree with my particulars. I didn’t share my personal belief system in an effort to impose it on anyone else, but simply to point out that each one of us has complicated opinions on this topic—each based on our own beliefs and experiences. I knew that know matter how articulate I tried to be, I was never going to nail it, but I did my best to address the theological elephant in the room.

     I could spend the next month trying to clarify my statments and fruitlessly address everyone’s comments. The one item that I will comment on is the semantics of the term “pro-abortion”. In the United States, where abortion is a much more polarized and political topic than in many other parts of the industrialized world, the group that believes that there should be strict legal restrictions on abortion identifies itself as “Pro-Life”, while the group that does not believe in strict legal restrictions is labeled as “Pro-Choice.”

     The “Pro-Life” label has always bothered me because it somehow implies that those of us who support choice are somehow “Anti-Life”. And from some conservative quarters, there also seems to be a supposition that if you support a woman’s right to choose then you are somehow part of some nebulous Abortion Agenda. And there is also a stereotype that the women who choose abortion do so with no deliberation or consideration whatsoever. Members of the “Pro-Life” movement sometimes use the term “Pro-Abortion” to imply that individuals who support choice promote abortion with some bizarre level of zeal or glee.

     So I actually agreed with the opinions of most of the posters who identify as “pro-abortion”, even though I used the term “pro-choice”. Just because it’s an option that I might not choose for myself, it doesn’t mean that I don’t believe in the right of all women to have access to safe abortions on demand and free from stigma. If that is your definition of being “pro-abortion”, then I am also pro-abortion.

126. 

     EvieM said on 03.02.13 at 10:38 AM • [link]

     I agree with many of the things Ellielu (and others) said, and I don’t think she deserves the backlash she received for sharing an honest opinion. I do not believe abortion is a sin, but I do believe it is tragic in many ways and should never be treated lightly. Abortion, in my opinion, should be a last resort after all other options have been exhausted.

     Before I make my next point I should make it clear that I am 100% in support of a woman’s right to choose and hold no stigma against women who get abortions for medically necessary reasons, or due to rape or incest, or even birth control malfunction. But if a woman gets pregnant because she was “playing russian roulette” and not being responsible by using birth control, I think she deserves to carry the baby to term. That said, no one should raise a child they didn’t want and were not prepared for financially or emotionally, because that is damaging to both the child and the parent. But have the baby and then give it up for adoption. You should not snuff out the beginnings of life because you were irresponsible. Again, this is JUST MY OPINION and I wouldn’t dream of imposing it on anyone through law or coercion. 

     Also, there is at least one instance in which no one can argue that abortion is not morally wrong: In many countries, female fetuses are aborted because of a “traditional” preference for male children. This is not OK, especially because many of the women are coerced into getting an abortion (this actually happened to the mother of a friend of mine HERE in the United States). In this case, a medically advanced and forward-thinking procedure is being used to support a backward belief system.

     Bottom line: I am completely in support of a woman’s right to choose. I am just stating my opinions, which should not be used to prevent any woman from making her own choices. But abortion is a complicated and difficult topic and no matter how pro-life or pro-choice you are, there are always exceptions. Which is why I think a little more open-mindedness and tolerance is in order from both sides of the debate.

127. 

     azteclady said on 03.02.13 at 05:05 PM • [link]

     But if a woman gets pregnant because she was “playing russian roulette” and not being responsible by using birth control, I think she deserves to carry the baby to term.

     Seriously? And does the innocent baby deserve to be the punishment for the woman’s behaviour? Does that baby deserve to be born unwanted? And while there are plenty of people willing to adopt, there are also many more children who are never adopted.

      

     So frankly, call me narrow minded if you wish, but I call bullshit there—I don’t see a lot of caring for that innocent life, when the argument is that the woman deserves to be punished, by carrying that baby to term, for getting pregnant.

128. 

     Ann Somerville said on 03.02.13 at 06:21 PM • [link]

     “But if a woman gets pregnant because she was “playing russian roulette” and not being responsible by using birth control, I think she deserves to carry the baby to term. “

     Okay. Not only is this profoundly evil, it’s profoundly ignorant. You can’t get pregnant from Russian Roulette. Gun, head, dead. Gun,vagina, dead. Not pregnant.

     Secondly, I imagine Jesus on his cloud is going “Oy gevalt! Again with the abortion thing? I talk about loving your neighbour, about not casting the first stone, forgiving your prodigal kid, about charity and Samatitans, but what are they always talking about? Abortion! Abortion! Abortion! What do I know from abortion? Mum was a virgin, Dad was a runaway parent, you think I’m going to care about who gets pregnant and how? I didn’t even mention abortion! And Dad, don’t get him started or he’s going to demand you sacrifice your first-born to him!

     Seriously, people, can you go back and look at what I said? I made it as simple as possible. I even used small words. Love, charity, forgiveness. No A.B.O.R.T.I.O.N. Ever.”

     “But have the baby and then give it up for adoption.”

     Yeah, white Christians love this option because of the chronic shortage of healthy *white* babies available for childless rich women to adopt. Also, it’s more painful and dangerous for the woman, so it’s a much better punishment for those goddamn sluts.

     “You should not snuff out the beginnings of life because you were irresponsible.”

     “*you*”? A woman gets pregnant on her own? No man with a broken condom, no man forcing or talking her into sex without protection? No ignorant Catholic girls deliberately kept ignorant by her parents, school, and state so she hasn’t got a clue about contraception (that would be me by the way)?

     Just irresponsible sluts, pushing their vaginas onto completely innocent men’s hapless erections, stealing their sperm, and having abortions because they’re fun!

     “Again, this is JUST MY OPINION and I wouldn’t dream of imposing it on anyone through law or coercion. “

     Of course not. Butter wouldn’t melt in your mouth. With a mind that cold and frozen, I reckon you could store fish there for six months without difficulty.

     You’re a uncharitable, judgemental slut shamer. You wouldn’t know “open-mindedness and tolerance” if they sat on your face.

129. 

     sabbyATL said on 03.02.13 at 06:40 PM • [link]

     You’re a nasty piece of work, you know that?

     You’re not capable of a reasonable discussion on this matter.  At all.  You’re just jumping this woman’s shit left and right, nothing but hostility coming out of you. 

     Not only name calling, but guilty of the personality crimes you’re accusing her of - judgemental, uncharitable, narrow-minded.

     I say this as an atheist woman who works, for a living, protecting women’s reproductive rights.  So, before I get slammed for anything I just want anyone who cares to know it can’t be because I have certain beliefs or because I am “pro-life”.  What stupid terms - pro-life and pro-choice and pro-abortion!  They do nothing for the conversation we need, as women, to have.

     Do ME a favor, okay?  Since I go to work every day and do my best to make sure all of us here get the best access to WHATEVER medical and health care we need, as women, without impediment, do me a favor and stop contributing to the problem WITH YOUR NASTY MOUTH.

     Grow the fuck up.  I don’t CARE what you’ve been through.  If you’re a warrior, then harden up like one and do what you need to do to move things forward.

     What you’re doing here is NOT it.

130. 

     sabbyATL said on 03.02.13 at 06:47 PM • [link]

     Oh, yeah, and I did do a little name calling.  But, that’s because I am one annoyed cranky fuck right now.

131. 

     Ann Somerville said on 03.02.13 at 06:55 PM • [link]

     “You’re not capable of a reasonable discussion on this matter”

     Oh I am, with reasonable people who don’t talk about punishing women for ‘Russian Roulette’ with the wombs. I just don’t see the point of trying to reason with people so twisted they would rather put a woman through a life-threatening situation, rather than remove a piece of non-vaiable tissue incapable of sentience.

     ” because I am one annoyed cranky fuck right now. “

     So…it’s okay for you to call me names and get angry when someone pisses you off, but not for anyone else?

     I guess for you, the golden rule is ‘Do unto others…then split’.

     I’m so glad that you are the one deciding who gets to say what and in what way about a subject that may or may not be personal to them. That’s definitely what this debate needs - another tone monitor.

132. 

     sabbyATL said on 03.02.13 at 07:06 PM • [link]

     Look, Ann, I didn’t split.  This isn’t a chat room.  It’s a forum.  I can only wait for you to respond.  And here I am.

     And, no, you’re completely wrong.  This woman you’re taking a shit on, EvieM, is attempting to have an actual conversation about the topic.  But, you object to certain aspects to her vernacular and explode your drama all over her, losing your cool in the process.

     This does nothing to convince her, or anyone, that you’re anything other than totally crazy.  You sound like an angry, ugly, mean person.

     You may NOT be, but you are spitting fire.  WHY would ANYONE on THAT side of the conversation ever want to actually talk to you?  Hell, I hardly do and I agree with your side.

     I talk about this for a living.  I write about it for a living, in the form of research.  The only way to move this forward for the benefit of all women, including women who don’t agree with us, is to take the nasty out of it, no matter what they say.  Even if it reminds you of the pain you went through.  You stuff it and carry on.

     Learn to recognize when someone is trying to talk to you.  It’s an opportunity you’re missing by fighting.

133. 

     Ann Somerville said on 03.02.13 at 07:15 PM • [link]

     ” WHY would ANYONE on THAT side of the conversation ever want to actually talk to you?”

     None of the people on THAT side of conversation are EVER going to listen to people like me. They made their minds up about women like me a long time ago.

     Just like you have.

     “I talk about this for a living”

     Good for you. I don’t make a living out of my experiences and my beliefs, I just live with them. I was raised by people with the mindset you are so desperate to coddle. I don’t actually care if they change their minds. I do care about challenging the idea that we should ‘tolerate’ attitudes which lead to active harm. Same as I challenge homophobia, racism, or ableism.

     I don’t care what you think, and I certainly am not going to listen to you blasting me and telling me to keep quiet. I am a woman with a dog in this fight, and if you don’t like the dog or me, that’s too bad.

     I am absolutely horrified by some of the things I’ve read on this thread, and I am going to say so in the strongest way I can because the only weapon I have is words. You no like? Too fucking bad.

134. 

     SB Sarah said on 03.02.13 at 07:28 PM • [link]

     Evie: You cannot call for open-mindedness and tolerance after two paragraphs of passing judgment on other women. It’s hypocritical.

135. 

     sabbyATL said on 03.02.13 at 07:32 PM • [link]

     So, if they’re not going to listen to you, then you’re shouting your anger into a void, aren’t you?  Is that what you’re saying?

     I don’t buy for one minute that you don’t care what I have to say to you, or that that you really think people’s minds are made up.

     Why do I think that?  Because if you really felt that way you wouldn’t bother typing a word.  You wouldn’t feel such anger and outrage - horrified?  Like you haven’t heard this before.  Have you been living under a log?  If you didn’t care you wouldn’t keep talking.

     What I am saying is since you obviously do care about this, as you say you have a dog in this fight, then fight smart.  I also have a dog in this fight. I may not have had an abortion, but I am a woman who works for the rights of women.  And I have a son I am raising to believe the same as you and I do.  In addition, in the field I work I see the actual health policy implications of this fight.  So, I really really really know how the fight is going.

     I am not telling you to shut up. I am telling you to stop being counterproductive and start talking and writing in ways that actually help.

     You’re right.  You don’t have to listen to me.  But it’s frustrating to me to see you be so damaging to the cause.  Strength of words don’t go in one direction.

      

136. 

     SB Sarah said on 03.02.13 at 07:35 PM • [link]

     Time out, y’all.

     For awhile, this was a heated but civil discussion. Usually we can have conversations about topics like this that are divided but don’t descend into screaming.  Unfortunately with issues like abortion, it gets uncivil in a hurry. Dammit.

     1. Whether you’re talking about romance novels, abortion, healthcare, or shopping for shoes, no one woman speaks for all other women- not accurately. It’s not possible.

     2. I’d learn a lot more from people who hold views in opposition to mine if they didn’t attack me for having views that oppose their own.

     I’m hoping someday soon that anything that brings up a woman’s reproductive decisions for her own body won’t degenerate into screaming and anger but clearly that day isn’t today.

137. 

     Unimaginative said on 03.02.13 at 10:07 PM • [link]

     But if a woman gets pregnant because she was “playing russian roulette” and not being responsible by using birth control, I think she deserves to carry the baby to term.

      

     This pretty much says it all.  It’s not about saving the precious unborn, it’s about punishing women for having sex in a manner that you don’t approve of.

     You might want to take some time to consider the implications of equating pregnancy and childbirth with punishment.

      

     Again, this is JUST MY OPINION and I wouldn’t dream of imposing it on anyone through law or coercion.

      

     So how do you address the first statement?  If a woman having irresponsible sex gets pregnant, and therefore DESERVES to have the baby, how do you make that happen?  Who’s going to monitor her pregnancy to make sure she doesn’t end it?  Who decides which people are pregnant through allowable actions and who are pregnant because of their irresponsibility?  How do they decide it?  What kind of evidence do you consider?  How long is this decision process going to take, and what kind of resources will it consume?

     This is why there is really no valid reason to create blocks and impediments to prevent women getting abortions.  Setting up a system to examine and judge ALL abortions in order to prevent the infinitesimally small number of “frivolous” abortions is wasteful, insulting, and stupid.
     

138. 

     EvieM said on 03.03.13 at 08:26 AM • [link]

     I am truly sorry if I offended anyone with my previous statements. My word choice was poor in some areas. I do not, under any circumstances, believe a woman should be punished for an unwanted pregnancy. But I also don’t appreciate being attacked for stating an opinion, especially since I thought I made it very clear that I would never try to impose my personal views on someone else. I strongly believe women should be completely free to make their own choices when it comes to abortion, and should have access to safe, legal abortion for any reason.

     The point I was trying to get across was that both sides of this debate have more in common than they think and should work harder to find common ground instead of becoming more polarized. I thought that by giving examples of situations in which I think abortion should not happen, I could show that I had some common ground with the pro-life side, even though I am pro-choice. Similarly, many pro-lifers believe in making exceptions in cases of rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is in danger.  This is the common ground they have with us.

     Ann: It would take me hours to reply to everything you’ve accused me of, so I will just say this: I am truly sorry for offending you, but viciously attacking someone for having an opinion different than one’s own is counter-productive and is one of the major reasons why the abortion debate has become so polarized.  Also, for the record, I am 100% pro-choice and don’t believe in any exceptions (as long as the abortion is being performed under the woman’s own free will). We are on the same side. I would fight for any woman’s right to an abortion, no matter her reasons. My personal beliefs are my own, and unlike some, I don’t believe my personal views should dictate how others live their lives.

     Unimaginative: I must apologize for the poor word choice in my original post. It was early in the morning and I wasn’t fully awake yet. I don’t think any woman deserves to be punished for having sex in a manner someone else doesn’t approve of. I just think that abortion should not be a substitute for birth control, but rather the next step to take if contraception fails.

     “This is why there is really no valid reason to create blocks and impediments to prevent women getting abortions. Setting up a system to examine and judge ALL abortions in order to prevent the infinitesimally small number of “frivolous” abortions is wasteful, insulting, and stupid.”

     I don’t believe there should be any blocks or impediments for abortion. The decision to get an abortion, for ANY reason, should lie solely with the woman in question. I tried to make it clear that I would never use my own views to prevent anyone else’s personal decision. I shared my views not for their own sake, but to make the point that both sides of the abortion debate could benefit from finding common ground.

     SabbyATL: Thank you for your statements in my defense. You made some very good points and I applaud your work to protect women’s reproductive rights.

     Sarah: I should have re-read what I wrote before posting, because then I would have realized that it did, indeed, sound very judgmental. I hope you, and everyone, understand that that was never my intent.
     

139. 

     Ann Somerville said on 03.03.13 at 11:43 AM • [link]

     ” but viciously attacking someone for having an opinion different than one’s own is counter-productive and is one of the major reasons why the abortion debate has become so polarized.”

     The abortion debate is polarised for one reason, Evie - because women have become the right wing’s political football. Do not run around slut shaming and then get cranky because one of the sluts fights back against your hate filled screed. Nothing I said was as vile, as literally evil, as the idea that women need to be punished for becoming accidentally pregnant by being forced to give birth and go through the trauma of adoption. That statement of yours was and is so distressing that I was upset all day yesterday over it, and is the reason I’m up at 2.30 in the morning writing this. I am still in shock that in the 21st century, a woman can come onto a blog like this and casually mention she holds that kind of opinion, apparently expecting to be applauded for being such a liberal because she doesn’t *actually* tie women down for nine months to make them give birth to the ‘innocent life’.

     “We are on the same side. “

     No, we’re bloody not.

     We won’t be on the same side until you examine what makes you think your opinion on this is fit to be aired in polite company. I won’t stop attacking your opinion and opinions like them until women can mention their terminations as casually as they do root canals and mammagrams, and people like you are not just ashamed to say stupid shit like ‘women who play russian roulette should be forced to give birth’, they’re actually too ashamed to even *think* it.

     “I just think that abortion should not be a substitute for birth control, but rather the next step to take if contraception fails. “

     You need to stop and think very carefully why this statement is full of crap. You need to examine why you exempt men entirely from any responsibility in the baby making process.

     “I had some common ground with the pro-life side”

     No, you are *on* the pro-life side in heart and mind. You’ve swallowed their logic hook line and sinker. You believe a foetus incapable of independent existence or thought is an ‘innocent life’. You believe women are sluts if they don’t use BC. You don’t believe men have any agency (or condoms.) You believe adoption is better than abortion.

     Now maybe you believe those things because you were raised like I was. I completely understand how difficult it is to overcome intensive childhood indoctrination. Maybe you really do believe you’re 100% on the ‘choice’ side. But while you can say things like “if a woman gets pregnant because she was “playing russian roulette” and not being responsible by using birth control, I think she deserves to carry the baby to term” then you’ve completely misunderstood what pro-choice means. It’s not about grudgingly allowing women to get rid of the consequences of being irresponsible sluts - it’s about accepting that women have complete autonomy over their bodies, whether they’re carrying a foetus or not, and that until that foetus is capable of breathing on its own outside her body, then no one other than the woman has any say or any right to an opinion on its existence. A foetus is not as valuable as a woman’s life. Pregnancy is not a moral issue, and neither is sex with consenting adults.

     Only when you can take your moralising out of your internal - and voiced - arguments, can you claim to be 100% pro choice.

     Until then, this slut won’t shut up.

140. 

     Ann Somerville said on 03.03.13 at 11:45 AM • [link]

     “Strength of words don’t go in one direction.”

     Yeah. You use your words to give comfort to those who hold opinions which lead to active harm. Well done.

     So basically you can take your advice and stick it where the sun doesn’t shine.

141. 

     SB Sarah said on 03.03.13 at 12:12 PM • [link]

     EvieM: no worries at all. I don’t think some of us are that far apart in our points of view, but this is a difficult issue to talk about. Thanks for coming back to clarify.

142. 

     Unimaginative said on 03.03.13 at 01:28 PM • [link]

     It’s not about grudgingly allowing women to get rid of the consequences of being irresponsible sluts - it’s about accepting that women have complete autonomy over their bodies, whether they’re carrying a foetus or not, and that until that foetus is capable of breathing on its own outside her body, then no one other than the woman has any say or any right to an opinion on its existence. A foetus is not as valuable as a woman’s life.

      

     QFT

143. 

     CarrieS said on 03.03.13 at 02:02 PM • [link]

     I think that somewhere along the line we have started having two separate conversations that are being blended together to the detriment of the thread. 

     Here’s the issues I hear being debated:

     1.  A women should have the legal right to choose an abortion, yes or no?

     2.  A women should or should not use birth control/be abstinent/follow some particular kind of sexual behavior, yes or no?.

     I would like to suggest that a person can personally believe that women should be a chaste as nuns and yet POLITICALLY be pro-choice (they can legitimately say “yes” to both issue number one and issue number two).  They may feel as personally judgemental as all hell about another’s behavior but genuinely and passionately believe that this debate is NOT the business of law or government. 

     What I hear EvieM saying is that although she has personal opinions about what women’s sexual and reproductive behavior should ideally be, she does not believe that the law has any right to dictate or enforce any behavior.  There’s nothing inconsistent about that. 

     What I hear Ann and Unimaginative saying is that they object to being judged for their sexual behavior, whatever that may be, and they feel that a culture that judges women for how they behave sexually is a culture that is inherently sexual repressive even if legal access to abortion exists.

     Am I interpreting your statements accurately? 

144. 

     Bnbsrose said on 03.03.13 at 05:18 PM • [link]

     Bless you Carrie for trying to be the voice of reason. Oh, the civil debate, where you share ideas and information without inferring things that aren’t being said, or yelling louder when someone disagrees with you, how I miss you.

      

145. 

     Ann Somerville said on 03.03.13 at 07:30 PM • [link]

     “Am I interpreting your statements accurately? “

     I believe so. But with the added point that personal opinions like Evie’s are the root cause of restrictions on abortion, contraception access, and sex education - which are only symptoms of an attitude to women that we are all too childlike and irresponsible to handle something as important as our own fertility.

     This is why I was so angry at Ellielu as well, because the basic mentality is what needs to be changed. Evie and Ellielu are victims of patriarchal oppression too -they’ve been spoon fed this crap by their churches, male politicians, even by well meaning mothers and female relatives who want to save their daughters from the awful fate that befalls those sluts.

     Until we recognise that the horrendous infantilisation of women and the demonisation of their sexuality is completely artificial, imposed by male driven agendas, and has nothing whatsoever to do with genuine ethics or morality, we will be fighting for women’s right to choose for the rest of this century and likely into the next millenium, if our species lasts that long.

     I’m tired. I thought we’d be done with this crap by now. Seeing it pop up so fresh and invigorated and apparently undamaged by so many decades, so many women fighting for our basic rights, is incredibly depressing.

     And on that point, Bnbsrose, if your acceptance of a group’s basic human rights depends on whether they’re been sufficiently polite and/or deferential to your feelings, then there’s something deeply screwed up with your moral sense. We live in a world where it’s apparently okay for male politicians to pass bills forcing women to undergo state sanctioned rape before they are allowed to terminate their pregnancies, but female politicians *discussing* the body parts intruded on by unnecessary, shaming vaginal ultrasounds, are officially silenced for being vulgar.

     I’m sure those male politicians were perfectly polite as they stripped away the dignity of women needing to get on with their lives. I’m on the side of those rude, brave women who challenged them.

146. 

     Unimaginative said on 03.03.13 at 08:05 PM • [link]

     What I hear Ann and Unimaginative saying is that they object to being judged for their sexual behavior, whatever that may be, and they feel that a culture that judges women for how they behave sexually is a culture that is inherently sexual repressive even if legal access to abortion exists.

      

     That’s pretty close, but it’s bigger than that.  The things that MoWeezy listed as issues in this book, to the point where she screamed and yelled and threw her Kindle, are really, really disturbing to me.

     The HERO of a romance novel had sex with the heroine without a condom, without telling her, and then locked her up so she couldn’t take steps to prevent pregnancy (apparently STDs don’t exist in Nauti-land).  The heroine then (apparently) took offence NOT because he had confined her (a more serious crime than rape in many jurisdictions) and tried to force her to get pregnant (and then presumably carry the baby to term, because why would he balk at that?), but because HOW DARE HE presume that she would want to prevent pregnancy!

     To put this into context, while Roe v Wade has established that abortions are legal in the US, there have been hundreds of bills introduced in every state in the US over the last couple of years designed to restrict access to abortion.  There are now at least two states where the single clinic in the entire state at which women can get an abortion is in danger of closing due to new legislation designed to force them to close.  There are almost continual threats of violence against doctors and staff and patients at abortion clinics (and why this violence isn’t classified as domestic terrorism is beyond me).  There has been a string of proposed legislation that requires doctors to lie to women about the safety and risks of abortion.  There has been a string of proposed legislation to restrict access to contraception.

     If you cannot access a legal service, then whether it’s legal or not is moot.  It’s not available to you.  If a woman who needs to have an abortion cannot get one, then things will happen for which there are very few good outcomes (which is a whole separate rant).

     I’ve come to believe that the two sides of the abortion “debate” are not having the same conversation, and do not have common ground.  I doubt that they ever will.  No one will ever convince me that my right to say whether something grows within and and using the materials of my own body ranks less than the right of a zygote to grow in my body without my permission.  And, from what I’ve observed, nothing anyone can say will convince a hard-core pro-lifer that abortion isn’t murder (until they need an abortion themselves, but that’s another whole separate rant).

     But I think it’s important to speak up when someone’s unacceptable behaviour is being treated as okay, because silence is generally considered to be agreement.  The behaviour of the hero in this book is NOT okay.

147. 

     Unimaginative said on 03.03.13 at 08:07 PM • [link]

     Or, you know, what Ann said.

148. 

     EvieM said on 03.03.13 at 09:58 PM • [link]

     “What I hear EvieM saying is that although she has personal opinions about what women’s sexual and reproductive behavior should ideally be, she does not believe that the law has any right to dictate or enforce any behavior. There’s nothing inconsistent about that.”

     YES. Thank you so much. This is exactly what I believe. Thank you for being the voice of reason.

     Ann: You’ve already made up your mind about me, which is sad because, whether you choose to believe it or not, I’m actually your ally in the abortion debate. Refusing to accept an ally because their views aren’t exactly the same as your own is silly. If everyone did that, no fight would ever be resolved.

     The reason I am still here defending myself is because everything I’ve been accused of is completely at odds with how I feel and act in real life. My earlier “russian roulette” statement was thoughtless and badly worded, and if it makes you feel better I will take it back in its entirety. What I should have said is that I don’t believe abortion should be used an excuse to forego birth control (for the female OR male partner). If someone is educated and has access to birth control and refuses to use it because “Oh I can get an abortion”, then I see that as plain stupidity. Why would they risk putting themselves through all that when they could have easily avoided it in the first place? But I also realize that real life is a lot more complicated than that, which is why I would never be in favor of a system that tries to put conditions on the availability of abortion. I’ve always been and always will be pro-choice, without any exceptions. The reason I feel so strongly about this one PERSONAL exception (which has no sway on my political views) is because I know people who operate with that attitude, and it frustrates me.

     I also know someone who was pressured into having an abortion against her will because her baby was a girl, which is something that happens all too frequently in countries where male children are prized over female children. I think this is why I personally see the fetus as something more than just a bundle of cells: because of all the baby girls that are denied life due to sex-selective abortion in patriarchal societies. Those women’s right to keep their babies is just as important as their right to safe, legal, judgment-free abortion. 

     Anyway, I hope we can put this to rest now and return to civil discussion, because I never meant to start a fight. The reason I read this post in the first place was because I was disgusted, as you all were, by the actions of the hero in this book. I hope we can use that, at least, as a way to find common ground.

149. 

     Ann Somerville said on 03.03.13 at 10:09 PM • [link]

     “if someone is educated and has access to birth control and refuses to use it because “Oh I can get an abortion”“

150. 

     azteclady said on 03.03.13 at 11:09 PM • [link]

     I disagree, deeply, with the moral judgement inherent in comparing a woman’s sexuality with playing (conception) roulette, or in believing that there are women who consider abortion a substitute for birth control.

     However, I’ve been witness to more than one sexually active young woman biting her fingernails to see whether or not she got pregnant that “one” time she/he/they were careless.

     And then there are the cases when, despite not being careless, people get pregnant when there are not ready for it, or when they definitely do not want to be pregnant—even when they mere idea of having children is revolting to them.

     In either case, the decision to terminate the pregnancy or to carry to term should be the woman/the couple (because yes, if the male partner is willing to take responsibility for the child later on, I believe she should at least hear him out—she did not get pregnant all by herself, after all).

     In that sense, I agree with you, and I appreciate that you are willing to express your views despite becoming a target of utter vitriol.

     As CarrieS said,

     I would like to suggest that a person can personally believe that women should be a chaste as nuns and yet POLITICALLY be pro-choice (they can legitimately say “yes” to both issue number one and issue number two). They may feel as personally judgemental as all hell about another’s behavior but genuinely and passionately believe that this debate is NOT the business of law or government.

      

     What I hear EvieM saying is that although she has personal opinions about what women’s sexual and reproductive behavior should ideally be, she does not believe that the law has any right to dictate or enforce any behavior. There’s nothing inconsistent about that.

     Personally, I not only see nothing inconsistent there, but I also believe that there is personal courage in wanting other people to be able to exercise liberties that go against our own personal beliefs—whatever those beliefs might be.

      

151. 

     azteclady said on 03.03.13 at 11:12 PM • [link]

     We won’t be on the same side until you examine what makes you think your opinion on this is fit to be aired in polite company. I won’t stop attacking your opinion and opinions like them until women can mention their terminations as casually as they do root canals and mammagrams, and people like you are not just ashamed to say stupid shit like ‘women who play russian roulette should be forced to give birth’, they’re actually too ashamed to even *think* it.

     People like you.

      

     Ashamed of their own thoughts.

     Does this sound familiar to anyone here?

     Way to champion the rights of all women.

152. 

     Polydegmon said on 03.03.13 at 11:28 PM • [link]

     Oh FFS, I don’t think the rights of women are undermined by someone who has had a medical procedure wanting a day to come where people are unable to even think of shaming them over it. There actually are thoughts not worth having. If what another woman does with her body is important enough that it takes you multiple paragraphs to express your reluctant willingness for them to make their own medical choices then perhaps the issue is internal.

     - Meoskop

153. 

     Ann Somerville said on 03.04.13 at 01:03 AM • [link]

     “Does this sound familiar to anyone here?”

     No, it’s only you and the voices in your head, AL. You do know it’s okay not to participate in a conversation when you don’t understand it and have nothing useful to contribute, right?

     Let me posit some other thoughts I think people should be ashamed to have:

     “Black people are all lazy, stupid thieves”
     “Gay men are perverts and paedophiles”
     “Disabled people would be better off dead”
     “Women are too childish to be allowed to vote”

     People can think whatever they want. Doesn’t mean the thoughts they have don’t come from a bad place, and need to be challenged.

     After all, if a woman internalises the belief that some women are just sluts and need to be punished out of their slutty ways, that’s not good for *her*. Self-hatred is a terrible thing.

154. 

     librarygrrl64 said on 03.04.13 at 03:48 PM • [link]

     So…..tell me again why people read her books? Sweet baby Jesus, that is effed up.

155. 

     librarygrrl64 said on 03.04.13 at 03:51 PM • [link]

     Yowza. And I assume most of the people you were pitching to were women? If so, that’s even more disheartening.

156. 

     librarygrrl64 said on 03.04.13 at 04:01 PM • [link]

     I pretty much stopped reading contemporary unless it’s by a trusted author (like Jen Crusie) for this reason. Seems like most of the heroes that I’ve been reading in well-written historicals are more evolved and enlightened than these contemporary “gentlemen.” :-/

157. 

     librarygrrl64 said on 03.04.13 at 04:11 PM • [link]

     While I don’t agree with certain phrases in your comment (wow, “lazy sluttiness?” really???), I do thank you for trying to delineate pro-choice vs. “pro-abortion.” I know many people who are the former, myself included. I know no one who is the latter, myself included. For most, perhaps all, it’s a last resort, not a form of birth control.
     

158. 

     librarygrrl64 said on 03.04.13 at 04:16 PM • [link]

     “So I actually agreed with the opinions of most of the posters who identify as “pro-abortion”, even though I used the term “pro-choice”. Just because it’s an option that I might not choose for myself, it doesn’t mean that I don’t believe in the right of all women to have access to safe abortions on demand and free from stigma. If that is your definition of being “pro-abortion”, then I am also pro-abortion.”

     This.

159. 

     librarygrrl64 said on 03.04.13 at 04:17 PM • [link]

     Agreed 100%.

160. 

     CG said on 03.04.13 at 05:37 PM • [link]

     “if someone is educated and has access to birth control and refuses to use it because “Oh I can get an abortion”“

     Nobody says this, Evie. The fact you consider this remotely likely, tells me how deeply you believe the right wing lies about women.

     No one in their right mind would choose abortion over contraception. For one, it’s not easy or quick to obtain one even where abortion is legal and cheap (the abortion pills may have changed all that but so far as I know most places only offer them under prescription). And in many places, particularly in America, they’re not cheap or even available a lot of the time.

     Uh, yeah, actually I know of at least one couple who have done this on more than one occasion. There were condoms in several rooms in the house, they were in the moment and took and chance and guess what happened.  Four abortions later (two were from failed birth control) someone finally invented the Morning After Pill. Sometimes both educated and uneducated people who have incredibly convenient access to birth control make stupid decisions that have consequences.

     I won’t stop attacking your opinion and opinions like them …

     You didn’t limit your attack to her opinion, you also attacked her.

     Of course not. Butter wouldn’t melt in your mouth. With a mind that cold and frozen, I reckon you could store fish there for six months without difficulty.

     You’re a uncharitable, judgemental slut shamer. You wouldn’t know “open-mindedness and tolerance” if they sat on your face.

     At least EvieM owns her shit and apologizes. 

      

161. 

     Lucy Woodhull said on 03.04.13 at 06:41 PM • [link]

     Yes, they were. Just not a good fit for me. And I hope not a trend.

162. 

     Ann Somerville said on 03.04.13 at 06:48 PM • [link]

     “I know of at least one couple who have done this on more than one occasion. “

     Well, is it one couple or more than one couple? If you know this couple well enough to know their intimate lives, you surely know how many couples are involved. You’ve also said they had preparations for BC even if they forgot to use it - are you claiming that they made a decision to use abortion instead of BC?  When they had BC and were in fact using it most of the time?

     I think this anecdote stinks of “friend of a friend”. The real world data shows what Evie describes is not what happens.

     “At least EvieM owns her shit and apologizes. “

     Some apology which repeats the offence and adds personal attacks.

     She may own her shit but she can’t see what shit it is. Nor can you.

     She was attacked because she’s the holder of offensive and wrong-headed opinions, which she’s repeated. You can’t separate someone from their opinions. Judgemental is as judgemental does, you know.

163. 

     Ann Somerville said on 03.04.13 at 06:58 PM • [link]

     Also, what shit have I not owned? Have I not signed all my comments with my professional name (for which I will undoubtedly get caned?)

     I think someone participating in a conversation with just initials has a nerve implying that I’m somehow not ‘owning my shit’.

     You’re just a damn troll.

164. 

     azteclady said on 03.04.13 at 09:31 PM • [link]

     Consider me irrelevant, as Ann does, but here’s the thing, Meoskop: who gets to decide which thoughts are worth having?

     You? Ann S? only those select people who are “right”?

     Isn’t that exactly the problem? That people who think they are right keep stepping on those considered to be wrong?

     So how is it better for women at large, and for humanity as a whole, if the end—the rights of women—is used as an excuse to silence those we disagree with?

     I know not all countries have the right to speak their minds enshrined in their constitutions, and I know that in the US that freedoms is challenged all the freaking time, but seriously, why should we condone Ann S screeching rants, insults, derision, etc. and yet demand silence—and even mindless compliance—from women who agree we all should have the right to choose what the fuck to do with our own bodies, simply because a) their own choices would be different and b) their religious beliefs tell them that abortion is not a decision made lightly or that it is always a tragedy.

     If those same women will ask their representatives to sign laws and then will vote for those laws, granting women the right to do with their bodies as they see fit, regardless of what the fuck they may think about women choosing to terminate pregnancies by whichever means.

     If those same women stand on the same side of the trench as you do, working to break those walls that make all women second class humans, why the fuck should their thoughts matter?

     Why is our speech more important/superior than that of other women?

165. 

     azteclady said on 03.04.13 at 09:33 PM • [link]

     Oh snap.

166. 

     CG said on 03.04.13 at 09:38 PM • [link]

     Well, is it one couple or more than one couple? If you know this couple well enough to know their intimate lives, you surely know how many couples are involved. You’ve also said they had preparations for BC even if they forgot to use it - are you claiming that they made a decision to use abortion instead of BC? When they had BC and were in fact using it most of the time?

     A couple, as in a man and a woman who are together as a couple. I know the intimate details of this situation because the woman was one of my roommates. Our other roommate worked at Planned Parenthood and brought home bags of condoms on a regular basis because we were superfreak slutty like that. So yes, on more than one occasion this couple (my roommate and her boyfriend who was not a roommate) made a decision in the heat of the moment to have sex without birth control when it was readily available, got pregnant and had an abortion. Twice. Sorry if this messes with your world view. The other two times she got pregnant was due to failed birth control.

     The real world data shows what Evie describes is not what happens. What real world data are you talking about? If there is any actual data that makes the assertion this never happens, I will find the flaw in the data collection for you, because this does happen. Maybe not frequently, but it does. Shit happens, people do stupid things.

     Also, what shit have I not owned? Have I not signed all my comments with my professional name (for which I will undoubtedly get caned?) When you call someone on their shit it means pointing out problematic behavior, it has nothing to do with how you sign your name. And I think you know that. The shit you have not owned is resorting to a personal attack. I have no problem with attacking someone’s statements or opinion, what I do have a problem with is a personal attack, which you resorted to. Own it and apologize, if you’re capable of that amount of critical self-examination.

     Some apology which repeats the offence and adds personal attacks. Deflection to avoid having to acknowledge and apologize for your own bad behavior and nowhere did she personally attack you, please point it out if I missed it.

     She may own her shit but she can’t see what shit it is. Nor can you. More deflection.

     You can’t separate someone from their opinions. Judgemental is as judgemental does, you know. The irony is killing me.

     I think someone participating in a conversation with just initials has a nerve implying that I’m somehow not ‘owning my shit’ And yet more deflection. 

     You’re just a damn troll. *Rolls eyes* 

     
     

167. 

     Ann Somerville said on 03.04.13 at 09:47 PM • [link]

     Use up all your crayons drafting that one, AL?

168. 

     azteclady said on 03.04.13 at 09:53 PM • [link]

     Indeed, dearie.

169. 

     Ann Somerville said on 03.04.13 at 10:21 PM • [link]

     “So yes, on more than one occasion this couple (my roommate and her boyfriend who was not a roommate) made a decision in the heat of the moment to have sex without birth control when it was readily available, got pregnant and had an abortion”

     That is *not* the same as deciding to choose abortion over BC. Jesus Fucking Christ. Evie claimed that ‘educated’ women deliberately eschew BC in favour of abortion. Your anecdote doesn’t disprove that at all.

     “The shit you have not owned is resorting to a personal attack.”

     Bullshit. You want me to *apologise* for what I’ve said? Well I ain’t gonna. Evie offended me personally, called women like me slutty baby murderers in not so many words, and wants women like me to be punished for that. No fucking way.

     I own what I said. I’m not sorry for a word of it. Just because you want me to be, doesn’t mean it’s going to happen. Evie makes a faux apology and suddenly she’s the one everyone’s pandering too. Wake up and smell the horseshit. Evie hasn’t had an epiphany - she’s just sorry she’s been called out. The problem with her mindset - and yours, and others here - remains, and that is the REAL problem.

     Yeah, you’re still a troll. And a judgemental bitch. Why do you give a shit what contraceptive choices other women make? Why does it matter that your roommate had 4 abortions, or a hundred? Why is abortion so very different? It’s not. It’s just one of a suite of options which should be free, safe and legal for all women.

     The absolute volume of stupidity and slut shaming on this thread is horrifying.

170. 

     CarrieS said on 03.04.13 at 10:31 PM • [link]

     Here’s two statements.

     Statement Number One:  I disagree with you vehemently.  Your statements are offensive and damaging to women.

     Statement Number Two:  I disagree with you vehemently.  Your statements are offensive and damaging to women, you stupid crazy meanie.

     See the difference?  Statement number one does not provide solace to the oppressors.  It doesn’t sugar coat anything.  It is passionate and clear.  It simply leaves out name calling.  If you, Ann, or anyone else, is incapable of stating an opinion without name-calling and personally insulting the women who are trying to have a conversation with you, then congratulations.  You’ve just handed over a whole ton of ammo to the patriarchy.  Why should men bother to tell women they disagree with to sit down and shut up when you are so eager to do it for them?  I hope that none of us on this site, including Ann, and including the people who I disagree with most deeply, ever sits down and shuts up.  Ann, you have opinions that we need to hear and a story that needs to be told.  And you sure as hell have a right to your rage.  In this world, even the most privileged woman is attacked in body and mind a million different ways a day.  We should be angry.  But there is no reason to add a personal insult to every post you make.  If you can’t have a conversation without telling the people on the thread that they are crazy, or mean, or stupid, then maybe you’re the one who has a few too many legacies from patriarchy running around her head, because that’s what women are always told when we pose conflict and I, for one, am fucking sick of it, no matter who is doing it or why.

171. 

     Ridley said on 03.04.13 at 10:45 PM • [link]

     I don’t really want to get involved with this brouhaha, but “the truth is somewhere in the middle” is a logical fallacy. It is possible that one side, and only one side, is correct. It’s incumbent upon everyone in an argument to make their case for validity. No one is required to humor anyone else’s argument.

172. 

     Ridley said on 03.04.13 at 10:52 PM • [link]

     Honestly, if someone is judging me, I hope they sit down and shut up. And if they think some women “deserve” to carry a child to term, they’re judging me.

     Doesn’t that make sense? Why should I tolerate an insult?

173. 

     CarrieS said on 03.04.13 at 11:05 PM • [link]

     You don’t have to tolerate an insult.  Replying with something like statement one (“I vehemently disagree and consider your opinions to be insulting and damaging and here’s why”) is not tolerating an insult.  It’s standing up for yourself, as well you should, but by expressing your feelings and making an argument to support your case or to explain your position.  Replying to said insult by calling someone, as Ann just did, “a judgemental bitch” is both ironic, considering what site we’re on and that using bitch as an insult is hardly a feminist moment, and counter-productive.  You can call someone cold, a troll, say they are too stupid to understand what’s going on, but that’s just flinging venom around in the air.  Ann has made some fantastic points to bolster her case in defense against perceived or actual insults, as have others, and they were most convincing when they were clear, thought out, passionate, and not name-calling.  There is a real argument here that deserves to be had.  “Bitch”  is not an argument.  It’s noise.

174. 

     azteclady said on 03.04.13 at 11:14 PM • [link]

     Refraining from screeching like a banshee when someone disagrees with you hardly equals humoring their arguments.

175. 

     Meoskop said on 03.04.13 at 11:40 PM • [link]

     If all views are equal, I imagine you find the comment threads of news articles worthy reading.

     I look forward to the day when this slut shaming rhetoric is as shocking as race conversation from the 1950’s. Today’s reasoned stance is tomorrow’s jaw dropping hate.

     Tolerance is not acceptance. I do not stand on the same side as those who tolerate bodily autonomy nor will assumptions about shared chromosomes compel me to pretend otherwise.

176. 

     Ridley said on 03.04.13 at 11:50 PM • [link]

     If you’ve insulted me, why do I have to sit your ass down politely?

     You’re making a tone troll argument here.

177. 

     CarrieS said on 03.05.13 at 12:36 AM • [link]

     You don’t have to do anything.  I don’t have any power to control the tone here.  What I WANT you to do is consider what you are trying to accomplish and how best to get it.  Screaming epithets at people is usually not productive.  Are you trying to make people who disagree with you change their minds?  Are you trying to reach others?  Are you trying to bully your opponent into shutting up, because you think free speech only applies to you? 

     I think that a lot of people like this site because we treat each other with respect even when we disagree.  If saying that makes me a tone troll, I don’t have a problem with that.

     I don’t think I have anything to add to this conversation beyond my post in which I compared the assertive statement to the insulting one.  I won’t try to influence the discussion beyond this point because, you, know, free speech, but I wasn’t willing to stay silent in the face of the multiple ad hominem attacks that have been carried out.  I think I’ve made my case as well as I can.

178. 

     CG said on 03.05.13 at 11:21 AM • [link]

     “So yes, on more than one occasion this couple (my roommate and her boyfriend who was not a roommate) made a decision in the heat of the moment to have sex without birth control when it was readily available, got pregnant and had an abortion”
     That is *not* the same as deciding to choose abortion over BC. Jesus Fucking Christ. Evie claimed that ‘educated’ women deliberately eschew BC in favour of abortion. Your anecdote doesn’t disprove that at all.

     Uhm, nooo, let’s get it straight, what she said was, “I don’t believe abortion should be used an excuse to forego birth control (for the female OR male partner). If someone is educated and has access to birth control and refuses to use it because “Oh I can get an abortion”, then I see that as plain stupidity. You said this doesn’t happen, Nobody says this, Evie. The fact you consider this remotely likely, tells me how deeply you believe the right wing lies about women.  I pointed out that it does happen. On two separate occasions, my former roommate and her boyfriend had easy access to condoms, chose not to use them knowing they could get an abortion if she got pregnant. You chose not to believe me rather than face the fact that there are women (and men) who forgo BC, risking pregnancy, knowing they can have an abortion. You may not like my anecdata, but there it is. And here’s even more, I texted that other roommate who worked at Planned Parenthood for appx 15 years, at 4 different locations (3 in low-income communities, 1 in an affluent community) in 2 different states, here’s her anecdata. In her personal experience, there are some women who have easy and affordable access to traditional birth control methods and, for whatever personal reason, may choose not to use it and if they become pregnant, choose to have an elective abortion because abortion is not viewed as this terrible thing, but rather a valid and acceptable form of BC. You may still wish to continue to deny and erase these women’s choices and experiences because it doesn’t conform to your idea of how a woman should or would behave, but that doesn’t change or invalidate their choices. 

     I own what I said. I’m not sorry for a word of it. Just because you want me to be, doesn’t mean it’s going to happen. Evie makes a faux apology and suddenly she’s the one everyone’s pandering too. No one’s pandering to her, everyone called her out. I would have, too, but she owned her mistake and apologized by the time I read her post. I get you don’t see it that way. But I will defend anyone I see being attacked like that no matter how wrong-headed their views because it’s fucked up and it derails the conversation. I had hoped you’d be willing to recognize when your own behavior is problematic.

     The problem with her mindset - and yours, and others here - remains, and that is the REAL problem.  You don’t know my mindset.

     Yeah, you’re still a troll. And a judgemental bitch. Why do you give a shit what contraceptive choices other women make?  Actually, I don’t and I never said that I did. I was simply refuting a statement you made, that doesn’t make me a troll, judgmental or a bitch; it makes me someone who is pointing out where you’ve made a false statement.

     Why does it matter that your roommate had 4 abortions, or a hundred? Why is abortion so very different? It’s not. It’s just one of a suite of options which should be free, safe and legal for all women. Again, I never said it matters, I happen to believe every woman is in charge of their own body, no exceptions, and nowhere did I say different, if you’ll actually read what I wrote without bringing your preconceived notions of who I am into it, you’d see I, a) refuted a statement you made and b) called you out for resorting to a personal attack. That’s it.
     

179. 

     Ridley said on 03.05.13 at 11:41 AM • [link]

     “You don’t have to do anything. I don’t have any power to control the tone here. What I WANT you to do is consider what you are trying to accomplish and how best to get it.”

     I’ve tried to go back and read this thread a few times, and I still don’t see the problem. Some posters engaged in some pretty heavy slut shaming and other posters called them out on it. Are you arguing that calling someone a “judgmental bitch” is a worse offense than judging women who have had abortions as irresponsible and/or immoral?

180. 

     MaddBookish said on 03.05.13 at 01:09 PM • [link]

     If I’m having a discussion and someone says “I feel you are judging me” or felt that something I stated was judgmental, I’d look at what I wrote or go over what I said and ask myself what it might look like from their side of it. Maybe I am being judgmental and don’t realize it, maybe I’ve got to do searching in myself. You call me a judgmental bitch and the first thought in my head is “Screw you! You don’t know a damn thing about me!” There is no thinking over your point or trying to see it from your side, because now you’ve taken it from a discussion on views and ideas, in which I’m perfectly willing to try to see your side of the argument, to a personal attack against me, where I could not possibly give a shit less about what you have to say. It is no longer a discussion, it is a fight, and I won’t concede an inch. It’s pointless and it either incites other people to join in the fight or alienates people who might have otherwise agreed with either side because all they see is crazy people yelling at each other over the internet. It creates a hostile environment, accomplishes nothing and makes people think less of those involved in the end.

     Honestly, I think you’re still missing the point CarrieS is trying to make. She’s not talking about who is right and who is wrong. She’s simply trying to point out that attacking people isn’t getting your point across to anyone. She’s saying that you have to look at what your goal is in the discussion and whether calling people names is is going to get you what you want. If your goal is to get get some anger off your chest, then by all means, foam at the mouth and rant away, but if you’re hoping to make someone really think about what you have to say, then maybe calling them names and purposely antagonizing them is not the way to go. Personally, I find that personal attacks tend to close lines of communication rather than open minds.

181. 

     Ridley said on 03.05.13 at 01:19 PM • [link]

     Well, Ann did say that she wasn’t trying to change the opinion-holders’ minds so much as to just call shit out for being wrong.

182. 

     Las said on 03.05.13 at 10:20 PM • [link]

     I’d like to know who in the history of humanity has anyone ever changed their mind on abortion and sexuality because someone contradicted their opinions politely.

     And can we please stop with the “free speech” nonsense? Because unless people are seriously suggesting that others be jailed for their words, free speech is not an issue. You say what you want. Someone replies how they want. Your right to free speech isn’t threatened because someone tells you they think your opinion is shit.

183. 

     Anna von Stromberg said on 03.07.13 at 09:26 PM • [link]

     Well, this whole convo devolved pretty quickly into utter crap.

184. 

     OG-san said on 03.21.13 at 11:52 AM • [link]

     “when you can work a ten-hour day in the freezing rain, take down four drug-crazed dealers intent on having your head” hahaha what does this man DO for a living? Professional Airport Fiction Protagonist?

Care to comment?

Comments are now closed for this post.

Subscribe to These Comments