Wednesday, March 14, 2012

What's Wrong With Sex

"What's wrong with sex?"

"Nothing, there's just other topics?"

"Oh Really, like what?"

Walking... walking... pen retrieved... writing in palm... pen returned... steps back with satisfied look

"But you wouldn't know anything about that now would you."

Nina Moseley and Darius Lovehall's exchange outside a fictional Chicago spoken word club set the stage for their fly by the seat of your pants romance where the sex was great, the love intense and the level of stupidity committed in their relationship just over the top. At the end of it all they had a great love story and even better sex. "The Jones" as it was called.

But now-a-days there's no love for "The Jones." Instead its all fire and brimstone and scarlet letters mistaken for "able" to ride raining down on women's heads like we just satisfy ourselves 100 percent of the time and leave our equally jonesin' lovers just hanging with a hand. For this perceived behavior of sexual selfishness we have been attacked. Called sluts, prostitutes, smeared in a debate over whether birth control should be covered by all employers -- devoutly and religiously against it or not -- and made to submit to unnecessary procedures that invade our privacy and may possibly increase humiliation, shame or angst. All of this has been thrown at women just seeking to live their lives as the sexual beings they were created to be without any of the human attachments that come from too many good nights of that great great. ( I mean baby-making needs to better than good? Right? Right.)

In Arizona, the state that never wastes a good controversy (immigration, racial profiling, birtherism), state legislators are considering a bill to allow all as in every employer to question a woman's use of contraception. I kid you not. This is in addition to the law on Arizona's books already allowing religious employers to deny contraceptive coverage for moral reasons.

Arizona House Bill 2625 says in part:

"Before enrollment in the plan, every religious employer that invokes this exemption must provide prospective subscribers a written notice that the religious employer refuses to cover all FDA-approved contraceptive methods for religious reasons. However this does not exclude coverage for prescription contraceptive methods ordered by a health care provider with prescriptive authority for medical indications other than to prevent an unintended pregnancy. A corporation may require the subscriber to first pay for the prescription and then submit a claim to the corporation along with evidence that the prescription is for a noncontraceptive purpose. A corporation may charge an administrative fee for handling these claims."

This bill proposal is ridiculous but knowing Arizona it will probably pass with flying colors. Imean it was introduced by a woman. (to your right) Even though she's married with three kids I'm fully confident in my assumption she's never had great sex in her life to ever warrant the need for birth control.

I mean say this bill passes. And a woman, say a woman as ignorant as I, must tell her employer why she wants a medical prescription for non-medical purposes.

What will employers do when that woman, as ignorant as I, answers "Because I like to fuck."

Call the answer rude and unruly if you like. It is crass, I'll admit, but so is this bill. What business is it of your boss to ask you why you want/need/desire birth control. Such a situation would inspire me to say the worst answers that come to mind. For instance, me to my boss, "I need it to sex you all night long and I don't want your wife to find out when I get pregnant because we messed up and did the do while I was ovulating."

This bill is the epitome of ridiculous and warrants all the ignorant answers women can think up. In fact I'd like to apply for a job in Arizona just so I can have my moment with HR filled with stellar retorts into inquiries into my sex life.

But ranting on Debbie Lesko and her intrusive bill aside, AZ HB 2625 is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to fallout over contraceptive coverage, abortion, women's health, and of course women just having sex in general.

The Guttmacher Institute, which tracks data on sexual and reproductive health worldwide, reports that in 2011 alone some 1,100 bills were introduced into legislatures in all 50 United States to limit a woman's access to abortion and contraception.

Some of those bills passed have left women at a critical disadvantage.

In Texas, 130,000 low income women will lose all access to health coverage because of a law to ban state funds from going to clinics that provide abortion services; Planned Parenthood. The law strips the Medicaid Women's Health Program of the majority of its funding, seeing as how 90 percent of the program's money came from the Federal government. The same Federal government that revokes funding if access to abortion is prevented, prohibited etc. Also in Texas, women must have an ultrasound before and abortion. The same law now exists in Virginia -- there it is no longer transvaginal -- and several other states.

A breakdown courtesy of the Guttmacher Institute:

  • 11 States require women seeking an abortion be given information on accessing ultrasound services, either written, verbal or both (GA, IN, KS, MI, MO, NE, NC, OK, SC, UT, WI)

  • Only Texas requires women seeking an abortion to receive an ultrasound, see the sonogram, and hear it described

  • 6 States require an ultrasound where a woman must be offered an opportunity to view the sonogram (AL, AZ, FL, KS, LA, MS)

  • 9 States require abortion providers to offer a woman an opportunity to view the sonogram if that is part of routine abortion preparation (AR, GA, ID, MI, NE, OH, SC, UT, WV)

  • 5 States require an ultrasound be offered by the abortion provider to the woman (IN, MO, ND, SD, UT)

These bills are brought forth and passed in an attempt to inspire a pro-choice group to file a lawsuit so these cases go before the Supreme Court so the decision on Roe v. Wade is reversed. So far that hasn't happened. What also hasn't happened is a backlash by women toward men. That is until now.

Three female lawmakers in three different states have introduced bills to limit men's access to Viagra and other erectile dysfunction drugs. It is in direct response to the limits placed on women's health as aforementioned.
Illinois state Rep. Kelly Cassidy introduced an amendment to a bill requiring women receive ultrasounds before abortions that requires men seeking Viagra watch a graphic video about the drug's potential side effects. Cassidy says, "If [men] are serious about us not being able to make our own health care decisions, then I'm just as serious about them not being able to make theirs." Likewise, Virginia state Sen. Janet Howell in response to that state's ultrasound bill introduced an amendment, which failed, that all men seeking Viagra would have to first get a rectal exam. And now Ohio state Sen. Nina Turner's bill says men cannot get a prescription for an erectile dysfunction drug without a signed affidavit by their sex partner. Men seeking Viagra, Cialis, Levitra etc. would also have to sit down with a sex therapist to determine if the issue is medical or psychological and be screened for underlying health issues.

Of her bill Turner says:

"It is patently unfair in this country that we simply only focus in on women's reproductive health. We have to show men we care about them too. And for far too long female legislators have abdicated their responsibility to tell men what they need do with their bodies."

These bills by women limiting access to ED drugs are in addition to bills in Missouri and Georgia to limit men's access to vasectomies.

But that's not all women are doing to interrupt men's sexual health lives as much as they're interrupting women's. The group Liberal Ladies Who Lunch have simply called for a sex strike. No more yoni, punani, va-jay-jay for men until "congress and insurance agencies agree to cover contraception."

While a sex strike did end a war in a village in the Philippines last year, I highly doubt it will get the United States anywhere but to see an economic boom in Vegas where men will flock because prostitution is legal. We like to "party" (Cathouse anyone)

Beyond that women will be stuck fighting on their ownsome against laws at the local state and federal levels that seek to belt their lady parts in the name of preventing crimes against humanity like orgasms in addition to abortions.

Right now there are 92 new abortion restricting laws on the books in this country. The debate over contraception coverage has diminished women, blazoning them from the bottom up, but cutting of their heads because obviously we are all body and no brains. This is despite the fact 50 point eight percent of this country is female. But I guess with only 93 women serving in the U.S. Congress (17 in the Senate, 73 in the House) out of 541 total members (figure includes states, territories, and D.C.) the fact that this is a man's world is more evident than ever. And unlike James Brown, these men -- legislatively -- are everything without a woman by their side.

I wanted to end this piece by saying, "Relax. It's just sex." But clearly it is so much more than that. To answer the question of my rhetorical title: "What's wrong with sex?" In a word, everything. For men it is powerful, it is forceful, it is a beautiful release. But for women it is obviously a reminder of everything we are not and cannot do because some man said so. Hester Prynne we will forever be instead of Adam's equal.


For all this grief you can have your rib back...

Signed Sincerely,

A pissed off daughter of Eve.

I don't have any questions. Just sound off. Like Really What's Wrong with Sex?

blog comments powered by Disqus