jump to navigation

The Problems With Natural Family Planning March 13, 2012

Posted by frrobins in Uncategorized.
Tags: , , ,
add a comment

Self-control. Self-restraint. Keep your legs closed. Abstinence. Those are things I hear from people who want women to shut up about getting easy, cheap access to birth control. As if every woman who wants to use birth control is some sort of nymphomaniac who simply cannot control herself.

I’ve seen Catholics advocate natural family planning, saying that abstaining for a week is good for the marriage and we should just exercise self control.

One of the many problems I have with this is that for most married couples, there is a problem with sexual activity, but it’s not too much. It’s too little.

Life is busy and stressful. Jobs, kids, housework, juggling friend and family. For a lot of married couples, sex becomes another chore. I’ve seen many married couples complain to me about the lack of sexual activity going on in their life and non who are complaining (or bragging) that they get too much. I’m sure one or two exists somewhere, but they are the exception to the rule.

So, suppose tired, overworked couples using Natural Family Planning and, in the mist of all of the day to day stress and hassles, becomes surprised to find that they are both in the mood at the same time. Until they realize it is during the wife’s fertile period. The next time they get around to fooling around could very well be next month. For couples who desperately need to reconnect or who are trying to work on improving their intimacy, this becomes a huge obstacle.

If hypothetical family wants to use NFP, that’s fine. The thing is, it is not a good solution for the majority of families. For one thing, it’s not something that only one partner can commit to. Both partners have to sign on. If the wife wants to use NFP but the husband doesn’t and neither want a pregnancy, well, hello strain to the relationship. It also ignores the reality that we still live in a culture where some people believe a wife does not have the right to refuse the sexual advances of her husband.

A lot of work also goes into NFP. When it was originally conceived, advocates believed that women were consistently fertile for only one week of the month. The problem is that this fertile period varies greatly. To track when the fertile period occurs requires daily monitoring of the bodies’ vitals. A lot of people don’t have the time. A lot of people don’t want to think about their fertility every day. And ask any couple going through infertility what constantly having to monitor their fertility does to their relationship. It causes a lot of strain.

I’m tired of the assumption that engaging in consensual sexual activity is somehow irresponsible or shows a lack of self control. I’m tired of people who are against birth control forgetting that married couples use birth control. And I’m tired of the idea that somehow taking steps to ensure that an unwanted pregnancy does not occur means that a woman is irresponsible.

Women who use birth control are not nymphomaniacs who need to reign in their lusts. They’re the women you and I know, struggling to juggle intimacy with everything else on their plates. For some, the cost of birth control is prohibitive. It won’t fix everything, but it will take another worry off her shoulders.

Advertisements

Those Darned Gays Ruined My Marriage November 23, 2009

Posted by Dindy in Current Events, Family Values, Gay marriage, Politics.
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

Thanks to homosexuals, I am no longer married to my husband of nearly thirty years. Nor is my daughter actually married to her husband of two years. In fact, she never was married, and Bill and I haven’t been married since 2005.

It all started with those blasted homosexuals who had the audacity to demand the same rights as everyone else in the US– to get married to a single partner of their choice in a mutual relationship in which both parties are of legal marriageable age. Why homosexuals want this right is simply beyond me– being allowed to go visit some sick person on their deathbed isn’t a piece of cake, after all, and anyone who has ever been without health insurance in this country KNOWS that we do a fantastic job of providing health care for those without it.

But for some silly reason homosexuals want to have the same rights as married people so they’ve been demanding the right to get married and have actually been successful in some hotbeds of liberalism such as Iowa and Vermont. Thank the god I don’t believe in that I live in the great state of Texas that doesn’t allow such tomfoolery.

In fact, Texans saw this push for gay marriage for what it was– an attempt to sneak the gay agenda in the back door and to force EVERYONE to marry someone with the same plumbing between the legs. Now Texans KNOW what is right, and one of the things we know is that if perverts are allowed to marry each other, then it’s going to ruin the marriages of all right thinking people.

So in 2005, Texans passes an amendment to make darned sure that any gays wouldn’t go doing some end runs to try to get their sicko practices through the back door so to speak. We banned gay marriage and said that not only would we not do it in Texas, but we wouldn’t recognize it if some queers got married in another state and then tried to come here and say they were married. Uh-uh, no sir. We don’t care what those liberals in Iowa do, they ain’t gonna do it here in Texas.

Except now Barbara Ann Radnofsky, a Houston lawyer and Democratic candidate for attorney general says that Texas went a little overboard and in our zeal to ban gay marriage, Texans managed to ban all marriages in the state.  The problem, Radnofsky says, is this tiny little clause in Subsection B of the amendment which states, “This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.”

Um.

Texas cannot recognize any legal status identical to or similar to marriage? Um. I’m not a lawyer, nor do I even play one on TV, but I can see some fancy schmancy attorney getting up before a judge and saying, “Judge, if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck and since Texas says we can’t have anything that looks, talks or acts like a duck in this state, we can’t have ducks here.”

So there you have it folks. The red necks were right after all– if we start allowing gays to get married it WILL ruin the institution of marriage. They certainly ruined mine.

Love Moments September 12, 2009

Posted by Dindy in Audio Books, Books, Memories, Mystery Books, Personal.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

I’m listening to Step on a Crack by James Patterson on audio. I’m enjoying the book- I almost always enjoy James Patterson. It’s a pretty good thriller about a group of celebrities that are taken hostage and held for ransom in a New York church a couple of days before Christmas. The main character is New York City Detective Michael Bennett, who unwittingly finds himself cast as the Hostage Negotiator at a time when he is dealing with his own personal tragedy- his wife and the mother of his ten children is in the hospital dying of cancer.

It is the scenes of Bennett with his wife and children that I find the most compelling as he tries to grasp the reality that his wife is dying and that he will soon have to face life without her. Her death is not some distant specter in the future- it is here. It is now, and any time he leaves her it is entirely too possible that he may never see her again.

As he is thinking about his life with her, his memory returns not to the milestone moments such as their wedding or when he proposed to her, but to the memories of times they spent together doing what were, to them ordinary things, but were done in such a way as to define their relationship with each other.

(Oh man, I started this blog intending to write about one thing, but I see it is heading somewhere else. Okay, Guess I’ll see what happens with it- but I’ll probably have to change the title.)

Bennett remembers how, in the early days of their marriage, he and Maeve would go on junk food runs to the grocery store and would come home and watch old movies and eat junk food. He reminds his wife of this when he smuggles a cheeseburger into her hospital room and they sit and watch an old movie.

When Bill and I were first married, I was still in school and we had no money. (Of course, we have no money now, even though we’ve been married almost 30 years, however I’m not in school anymore. ) Since we only had one car, he would run home at lunch, pick me up and drop me off at my workplace, then come back at the end of the day and hang around waiting for me to get off work so we could ride home together.  On the way home we would stop at McDonald’s and go through the drive through and buy ice cream cones. At the time, McDonald’s sold them for five cents each so for ten cents, Bill and I would have our dessert– and depending how close to payday it was, our evening meal.

Those are love moments– times that a couple shares together that are special to them and that would not have the same meaning for anybody else.  Most couples have lots of love moments because those are what build the framework of the relationship. When we were dating, Bill and I used to go to the Denny’s by my apartment and order french fries and a chocolate shake. We had the same waitress every time, and she always thought that was the weirdest thing to order, but it made perfect sense to us (and still does actually!)

So I can really identify with the Bennett character in Patterson’s book because I can see that Patterson, too, understands the concept of love moments. Occasionally Bill and I relive those love moments by running through the drive through at McDonald’s and ordering ice cream cones. Although they cost more than a nickel now, they are still a pretty good bargain– and nowadays they come dipped in chocolate too!