Men should go sex-less
Patrick Beeman
Posted: 12/7/06
The Journal of the American Medical Association reports that a male contraceptive pill is nearly on the horizon. As you know, and this reputable journal admits as much, "Men … currently have just two contraceptive options - condoms and vasectomy." Contraception, in Latin, means "against conception."So what the JAMA is really saying is that as far as avoiding babies goes, men have but two options. I say this tongue-in-cheek for despite the astute medical journal's inability to understand this, men have actually more than two options. And, allow me to insist that it doesn't take a medical degree, a doctorate or hundreds of hours in an anatomy lab to figure this one out.
That is, one could refrain from sex. I'll admit, in marriage this would be ridiculous. But for the hoard of people out there who are in transitory relationships, sexual intimacy is often reduced to mere genital pleasure and, in my opinion, is at best a misguided attempt at love - a "sexual lie" in the estimation of Pope John Paul II.
What I mean specifically is that some sexual acts, their contexts or their execution are simply not perfective of the human person (i.e. they're not "good" in the Aristotelian sense).
At any rate so far as I know, the only time a person has gotten pregnant without sexual intercourse is the subject of our next holiday, and granted, that was rather a special case.
Abstinence is a sure-fire plan barring the occasional messenger of God, who, not unlike that giant Kool-Aid pitcher but with significantly greater finesse and authority, breaks into your home and greets you with the words, "Hail, full of Grace" (But I don't think that one's going to be repeated). Thus, while abandoning the pursuit of so-called "sexual freedom" is not a popular idea, I think it could work.
Men could avoid conceiving children by acting more like men - preferring their beloved to their libido and treating sexuality as a gift. So you can see that what the idea lacks in popularity it makes up for in being so revolutionary. Moreover, just because it's unpopular doesn't make it untrue. I'm sure it was rather cachet to be anti-Semitic in Nazi Germany, but nevertheless, we all rightfully agree that being pro-Jewish was the better, true and morally superior position.
The JAMA goes on to euphemistically assert that there are many men interested in "assuming responsibility for their own fertility." But that is precisely what a male-contraceptive pill would preclude: responsibility.
The patient who takes such a drug would be abandoning his fertility, not embracing it - let's not mince words.
In fine, the biological function of sexuality is inextricably linked to the bearing of children (to say nothing of its meaning). That's not the whole of it, but it is a big part. However, watch out for those scientists and editors at the JAMA who would have you think otherwise.
They slave their whole life trying to avoid the most precious and worthy thing in human life - children. All this while incessantly attempting to couch their pursuits in terms that are nice, acceptable and quite nonsensical, if you ask me. (And in a way, you did because you're reading my column).
It all just goes to show that being highly educated does not make one wise.
As G.K. Chesterton observed in the first half of the 20th century, "You can tell a sentimentalist by his weakness for euphemism. They say birth control; they mean less birth, and no control." Some things never change. Merry Christmas.
© Copyright 2007 Independent Collegian (www.independentcollegian.com)
No comments:
Post a Comment