1 August 2011


One of my pet peeves is referring to not using contraception as having unprotected sex.  Unprotected?  Let's think about that.  From what or whom do we need to protect ourselves?

If we need to protect ourselves from our significant others, why are with them?  This actually reminds me of when my husband and I went to open a bank account and asked for a joint account.  The bank teller incredulously asked us if we trusted each other, to which we responded that we wouldn't be married if we didn't.  But surely something is amiss if we feel the need to "protect" ourselves from the very people to whom we're giving ourselves, right?

Or maybe the protection refers to protecting ourselves from diseases.  Again, why are we with that person if we have to protect ourselves?  Many people go out of their way to avoid, say, the flu, through vaccines, through face masks, through avoiding crowds and those who have the flu, but when it comes to STDs we seem to have a very different view.  Interesting.

Perhaps the protection is instead referring to the chance of pregnancy.  This one really angers me.  Pregnancy is not a disease, a child is not someone to be feared or from whom we need to be protected.  Unfortunately I think it speaks volumes about our attitudes if we do feel we need to be protected from the possibility of having a child.  I think this attitude is following its logical course with the child-free movement, too.

No comments:

Post a Comment