I’m running around like someone is after me with a broadsword, but here are three quick sentences.
I am both fascinated and infuriated by this book review.
I’m fascinated to the point that I now want to read the book; I’m infuriated because I know reading it is going to be bad for my blood pressure.
I think I might have to review it here, because we talk about romance, kink, S&M, gay rights, gay sex, More Stuff About Teh Ghey, and Hasselhoff. And while Hoff’s sexual rights are likely not hasseled, it’s not really a good day in my world unless I invoke some mention of Hofftasticness.
Cool. Can’t wait to read it. More stuff for my back pocket for when I start telling my kids about sex and why the sex they have in the future should be nobody’s business but their own.
It sounds interesting, but will it make a rat’s ass worth of difference? Probably not. The people who need to have their eyes opened to the abuses on our freedom won’t read it, and those of us who are being abused and know it, well, we already know it.
Or maybe I’m just having a curmudgeonly day. Anyway,I would read your review if you took the time to analyze this book and share with us.
Talking about this with my SO, we tend to agree with Darlene. On the other hand, information is power.
And perhaps, seeing how things keep leaning one way may help some of us become vocal about defending our rights—instead of remaining silent so as not to be labeled perverts, sluts, what have you.
The book sounds interesting—though I wish the author of the article had a better grasp of birth control methods:
Mifeprex (RU-486) and Plan B (the morning after pill) are not the same thing. Mifeprex is a prescription-only abortificant. Plan B is over the counter (to women 18 and over) emergency contraception. I’m sick of seeing this mistake made in print—especially by pro-birth control types who should know better.
So we’re not supposed to be having sex for pleasure according to that one guy? Damn. Hey, Honey? They want you to put away the handcuffs and rubber chicken now. No, I think the whipped cream can stay. If the sex police come (heh), we’ll just say we were having a snack.
Gawd….
But I agree with Darlene that the people who *should* be reading it won’t.
I’m sick of seeing this mistake made in print—especially by pro-birth control types who should know better.
Bettie, thank you for pointing that out. I just read it in the comments over there, too. I had no idea, and I’m actually really glad to know the difference. So one more person is educated—a good day! 🙂
Love me some trigger trippers!
Oh. I missed the comments on the other site.
I was glad to see the comments on the other site regarding the Plan B. I get so sick of people calling it “the abortion pill”. I USED plan B and still have a healthy 4 year old so obviously it doesn’t cause an abortion. The book sounds great, but agree with Sarah that it will infuriate me to no end. I’m sure the girls at work will appreciate my daily ranting until I’ve finished reading it!!
hmmm..child61…that’s cute…
http://www.alternet.org/story/70614/ This is a review written by Rachel Kramer Bussel of a (similar) book called Prude. Just reading the review made me think I would pop a vein. Thankfully, Kramer Bussel is a smart woman and the review made me snicker, which helped my bloodpressure.
I think that part of the value of books like this is that they get people stirred up enough to talk about the connections between what might be considered disparate news items.
I think it was “Justice Talking” that did a recent show on pornography and the First Amendment. There were articulate people talking about how the government in the laudable name of stopping child pornography was putting more and more restrains on sexual video makers, etc. My favorite was the artist part of whose income was erotic videos starring only himself who was complaining about the record keeping he was required to engage in just in case the FBI should happen to stop by—the record keeper is required to be on the premises 20 hours a week in case of that eventuality.
Anyway, here’s the url if anyone is interested: http://www.justicetalking.org/home.asp
And yes, I did say elsewhere I’m not interested in erotica, but I am hugely interested in maintaining our first amendment freedoms.
Thanks for mentioning the pill thing, bettie. That was precisely what I came to comment on.
I like the reviewer—the whole “that’s right. Dildoes” thing cracked me up.
…glad my parents didn’t ask me why.
(Ha! Confirmation word: property21. As in, I am over 21. My body is my property. Keep the fuck off the grass.)
One of my arguments for erotica and, yes, pr0n, is that these areas are litmus tests. As Larry Flynt has pointed out, so long as we deviants are allowed to speak, write, or create freely, so is *everyone*. Looking at history, totalitarian regimes often get their foot in the door courtesy of censorship, targeting lifestyles, art, and literature deemed sexually offensive and demoralizing *first*, with works and movements that question politics and/or religion following soon after (and then usually on the basis that in addressing politics or religion, it has somehow violated moral codes.)
We are a contradictory lot here in the States, with roots in morally-suppressed Puritanism that championed ideals that eventually led to the formation of a country based on freedom of expression. I think as a nation, we’ve been trying to strike a compromise between those two since. Oh well, as long as someone can still write a book that discusses moral debate, and we can all talk about that book here on the Net, we’re still okay…for now.
Couple years ago I read a book called How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America, and among other things it made me realize that I believed a lot of not-true things about birth control. For instance, buried in my brain was the not-true idea that the pill prevents fertilized eggs from implanting. Even though when I actually thought about it, I knew that wasn’t true, if you had asked me if it was my first response would have been “yeah, so?”
The morning-after pill is another one of those lies, and it’s really, really, really common. It’s like there’s a terrible whisper campaign against birth control that has invaded every facet of media.
Personally I think the pill should be over-the-counter because so many young women (and older ones, for that matter) are shy about asking their doctors for it. Yes, even in this day and age. You don’t get many 16 year olds with the self-confidence to sit down across from 60 year-old Dr Jones and say, “Gimme the pill. I’m gonna fuck.” And since you can get arrested for giving out free condoms anywhere near places that teens hang out, girls get pregnant and STDs get traded like kids used to trade Pokemon cards. It pisses me off, it does.
I was an exception when I was in college—when I decided to jettison the virginity, I asked for the pill, then bought an ENORMOUS bag of condoms at the campus pharmacy when I picked ‘em up. It still cracks me up like damn when I remember that bag. They sold ‘em for $5 and there must’ve been 250 condoms in there, all different kinds—many colors, many flavors, some scented, some ribbed, some extra-large, some snug-fitting (or whatever the euphemism for “cute widdle rubbers for the wee dicklet” was at the time)… it was a veritable cornucopia of raincoats.
And I had fun working my way through the different selections, although I did give a lot of ‘em to my roommate who was too shy to get some for herself. Good thing I did, too. Honestly, if I’d have even come close to using them all, I’d probably STILL be limping.
I’ve got to say, it seems to me that these comments are pretty one-sided. That’s the problem, also, with the whole sex debate. It’s people who agree with each other talking about why they agree with each other.
I consider the morning after pill (when it prevents a fertilized egg from implanting, which is how it works some of the time) and RU-486 to be abortion and murder. If I were a pharmacist, I would be morally unable to give these to people. I would feel like I was selling a knife to a man I knew was going to use it to stab a child. I certainly think it’s fair to allow pharmacists to withhold these medications (I resisted the temptation to call them weapons.)
I especially liked this part of the review: “Is refusing to sell medicine to help someone have responsible sex any different than refusing to sell a black family a house in a white neighborhood? No. It’s discrimination pure and simple.”
What? I fail to see how those even relate, and I asked a friend who is very much pro-choice and pro-what she calls reproductive rights, and she thought that the comparison was a complete non sequitur. They are completely different. If anyone can explain how that statement makes sense please explain it to me!
Also, RU-486 and Plan B are normally for people who FAILED to have responsible sex in the first place. If they’d had really responsible sex, they wouldn’t need either of those things. An example of this is a friend of mine who regularly had to take Plan B, because she was having sex with her boyfriend with only condoms, (which are only 82%-90% effective) and they broke. FYI, condoms are a necessary part of safe sex, but they are NOT the only necessary part. And to claim you’re having responsible sex, you need a lot more than a condom or a sponge. And don’t even get me started on emotionally safe sex.
And I’ve got to say, watching Janet bare herself in front of millions of children was pretty disturbing. I think it justifies a lot of the fears that people have about television and the OBSESSION with any and all kinds of sex in our country.
So my point is this, and it’s very much related to Darlene’s point: Having Klein
write this book and have people who agree with him read it and discuss it and pat each other on the back is not as important or productive as having lots of people read it and discuss it, including people who disagree with it. I’ll read it and I’d love to discuss it with those who disagree with me. And while we’re at it, I think everyone should read “A Return to Modesty” and “Girls Gone Mild” by Wendy Shalit (sorry, I don’t know how to italicize), about how our culture actually promotes sex to a disgusting degree, trivializing and taking all the fun out of it. I actually haven’t gotten to “Girls Gone Mild” yet, but “A Return to Modesty” changed my life. Sarah, please review one of those books!
A really productive forum would be between Klein and Shalit, and supporters of both books, rather than each group refusing to speak with the other, and only ruminating on their revelations with each other.
So that’s my two cents.
One point that we don’t make often enough is educating our sons about their responsibilities. I don’t have daughters, but my two sons still joke about how I sent them to sleepaway camp with condoms when they were teens.
“Better you should have it and not need it, than need it and not have it,” I’d say.
Sure enough, when one of them went back to camp as a counselor (with mom’s lovingly purchased condoms from Target in his bag), he ended up giving some of them to other counselors who were all set to go off and have unprotected sex with each other (I should add, on days off, not in front of the kiddies.).
He said to me afterwards, “You wouldn’t believe how dumb some people are about stuff like that!”
“Yes I would. Which is why I insisted you pack the condoms.”
Hi Alice,
Your questions are asked honestly, and deserve a forthright response. I will endeavor to keep this as dispassionate as I can.
Let me start toward the end of your post, because we have a point of agreement there, and it’s easier to show why I disagree with your other points if I can say “here is where our opinions diverge.”
I, too, think that our culture has become obsessed with sex. I think that the Girls Gone Wild videos are horrific, I think that Bratz dolls are an abomination, and I think that teenagers should be discouraged from having sex until they understand the emotional side of it.
However, I think that these things occur (GGW, Bratz, teen sex) precisely because there are so many taboos and restrictions ingrained in our culture. American culture doesn’t have a healthy outlook on sex. People who don’t learn to be comfortable with sexual expression will end up expressing it in unhealthy ways.
If we had a normal relationship with sexual expression in this country, the Janet Jackson thing wouldn’t have happened. Not because Janet wouldn’t have wanted to do something shocking, but because a woman’s breast on television wouldn’t be shocking. That event was only shocking because we place an inordinate amount of attention on morals such as “women’s breasts are sexual/dirty and should be hidden.” In cultures that don’t have such beliefs, Janet Jackson’s nipple would garner a shrug at most.
Here we start to move into greater divergence in our opinions (I am inferring some of yours; please enlighten me if I misunderstand). You said:
“Also, RU-486 and Plan B are normally for people who FAILED to have responsible sex in the first place. If they’d had really responsible sex, they wouldn’t need either of those things.”
I infer from this that you only believe sex is responsible if it’s well planned?
Some people have spontaneous sex. Yes, even with their wives or husbands. Many women aren’t candidates for birth control pills/patches/implants, due to age, other medications, or family history. Similar restrictions may apply even to condoms or sponges (though you don’t consider those fully “responsible”). Beyond those options, I don’t know what you recommend. If you believe morning-after pills are evil, surely you don’t believe in IUDs. I don’t imagine you advocate surgery (vasectomy or tubal ligation).
Which leaves me with the impression that you believe the only form of “responsible” birth control is abstinence. I’m sorry, but I must call shenanigans on you at this point. You are free to follow your own beliefs, but you are not free to impose them on others.
Which leads me to the bit about refusing to sell medicine being like refusing to sell a house to a black man. Replace “black” in that sentence with “Muslim.” That would be refusing to sell a house to a person on the basis of one’s religious differences.
A pharmacist who doesn’t believe in the morning-after pill cannot refuse to sell a pill to a person on the basis of a religious difference. Their personal morals should not be my problem. Today they might refuse to sell me the medication that I have determined is right for me, and tomorrow they might tell me what clothes to wear.
I work for a large publisher. It is my job to give equal attention to all books we publish. I have every sort of book cross my desk, from steamy erotic novels to right-wing pundit editorials. It is not my job to pass judgment on these books, no matter how much some of them make me want to hurl.
And it is not the job of a pharmacist to make judgements on what their customers choose to purchase. If a pharmacist has moral objections to doing their job, they should look into another line of work. A pharmacist’s job is to dispense the medications requested by a legal prescription. The End. When they are standing behind the counter in the drugstore, pharmacists are not priests, ministers, rabbis, imams, gurus, or lamas. They do not get a say in a patient’s moral options.
On their free time a pharmacist can do all the lobbying, protesting, and editorializing they like. But when they’re behind that counter, they should do their goddamn job, which does not include deciding morals for others.
Thank you, E. Alice’s comments had me beyond furious with her idea that somehow “freedom” means “freedom to be just like me, or you are scum of the earth”.
And yes, that is how it reads to me.
Okay, E. I would definitely like to explain my view, because I did not wish to get people angry! I suppose that I failed to explain myself fully, because I never want to write too much.
On the pharmacist dilemma, to which you devoted the bulk of your time, I will concur with you on one point. A person who has a moral objection to selling Plan B or RU-486 should not become a pharmacist. That is fair. That said, there are plenty of pharmacists who chose their occupation and received their training before RU-486 was even an option. They cannot choose another occupation, because the bulk of their experience is in pharmacology. Would you demand that they give up their jobs because the laws have changed? So from now on, I’ll talk about those people, (and I’ll refer to the pharmacist as “he†because it makes the pronouns less confusing. Originally I used “she†but it just became a mess.)
You seem to think that when a pharmacist refuses to sell these drugs, his aim is to impose his religious beliefs on the woman. That is not the case. First of all, the opposition to abortion is not a religious belief. It may stem from religious beliefs, but it is not an exclusively religious tenet. I have been against abortion for ten years, but I was a stalwart atheist for seven of those years. Although people’s opposition to abortion may be based in their religion, it is not, in itself, a religious belief.
Next, I think I should clarify what a pharmacist might be thinking when he refuses to sell these drugs to women. He is likely not thinking about imposing his beliefs on her. The decision, I believe, actually has nothing to do to with her. He thinks that the conceptus inside of her is a person, and when he refuses to sell her medication, it is because of that “person.†He has a relationship with the “person,†and to give that woman those drugs is the moral equivalent of selling poison to someone who tells him it is to murder her baby. I understand that his beliefs may not be the same as yours, but try to put yourself in his shoes for a minute. I often, when considering abortion, have to imagine what it is like to think that a blastocyst or an embryo is not a person. This makes me understand the argument better. Because of it, I can understand why a woman, fighting against the clock, would be dismayed or panicked when she finds she cannot purchase the medicine at this pharmacy. But I think that the feelings of the pharmacist trump in this case, and I’m explaining why.
If he sells the drugs, he will feel that he has helped perpetrate a murder. That is not a feeling any person (and certainly not the government!) should make anyone else feel, which is why “conscientious objection†is an option during drafts.
A pharmacist refusing to sell a woman a drug is not acting as a priest or anything like that. He is merely trying to do right by his own conscience. I don’t think anyone could argue that when you go to work, you should leave your conscience behind! You say that you have to ignore your political beliefs when you publish. However, if you came across a book, that you knew would (if released) cause harm to or kill someone, I should hope you would refuse to publish it! It would be yelling fire in a crowded theater. It is the same situation with the pharmacist. If he sells those drugs, he feels that he is killing someone. The government cannot ask him to do that. He’s not demanding that the woman think like he does (he’s certainly not chaining her to a wall until her time is up and she ca no longer legally abort), he is just refusing to take part.
Let me explain something further about what it means to “impose morals on others.†Making someone go to a different pharmacy is not imposing morals. Here’s what imposing morals means. Imposing morals is demanding that a pharmacist sell you a drug that is against his moral values because it is not against yours. He’s not the one taking it, but there is such a thing as an accomplice, and he will feel like an accomplice. Imposing morals is when the government mandates that you sell something that is against your moral convictions. In fact, legally requiring all pharmacists to sell all drugs is imposing morals on those pharmacists.
You say that “Today they might refuse to sell me the medication that I have determined is right for me, and tomorrow they might tell me what clothes to wear.†Actually, people are trying to tell you what to wear, and what to eat, too! Anti-fur vendors sell non-fur clothing, and they refuse to sell fur. If I am in the mood for fur, I will find another store. Furthermore, people that are against non-organic food can refuse to sell non-organic food in their store. Pharmacists may not be the same as clothes vendors or grocers, but the principle remains the same. And in the case of the pharmacists, it is a human life they are worried about.
The government should not and cannot demand that anybody do something that is morally reprehensible to them. Nobody should do that. In fact, if you’ve got examples where they do, let me know! Obstetricians can refuse to provide abortions, and pharmacists can refuse to sell abortions. There is little that would be a more blatant case of “imposing morals†than demanding that a pharmacist sell what he thinks is a murder weapon to someone he considers a murderer. And if the government mandates that he does, it is acting as his priest, and telling him to do something that he thinks will send him to hell.
I hope that makes sense to you. If not, let me know! I am interested in your opinion.
Furthermore, on what you said about how “these things occur (GGW, Bratz, teen sex) precisely because there are so many taboos and restrictions ingrained in our culture,†I have to chuckle. That is just not true! People have been saying that for years, but I must disagree. For centuries, there were 10 times the restrictions and taboos as there are now, and guess what: GGW, Bratz, and such would never have been allowed! (Teen sex is another matter. Some teenagers are gonna have sex. Period. The issue is not that some are, but how to reduce the numbers.) C S Lewis wrote about the subject, and though I’m on vacation and can’t find the exact quote, I remember the gist. He said that for years, people have been saying that sex will cease to be a problem when people stop trying to hush everyone up about it, but for years people have been talking about it and talking about it and talking about it and it’s even more of a problem! His words are even more relevant decades after he wrote them. People thought that by talking about sex and eliminating taboos, and talking about how sex and sexuality is exclusively wonderful, we’d solve the problems. (Three words: Brave New World) Guess what! We ended up with Girls Gone Wild, Bratz, and sex even more of a problem. Plus, your comment about a breast earning only a shrug makes me beg you to read “A Return to Modesty.†Breasts should not only warrant a shrug! They are wonderful and to only earn a shrug would cheapen them! I don’t think any girl would want to finally take that big step to take off her shirt in front of her boyfriend and earn only a shrug. Okay, if that were the case, I understand that to remove a shirt would not be a big step, but do we want to deny people that sense of intimacy by saying that intimacy is not a big deal? I’d rather have fewer breasts floating around on TV, and have them be very special. I don’t want to live in a culture where a breast warrants only a shrug. Heck, I’d love to live in a culture where my ankle earns a second glance for being risqué. Because then my ankle would feel pretty special, and Girls Gone Wild would certainly not be accepted (although Ankles Exposed might.) But Wendy Shalit says it better. Read the book!
Alright, I’ve talked forever, which I hate to do, but I really did want to clear up my opinion. I’ve got more to say, too, if you’d care to hear, and I’d love to hear more from you!