"You're not making an impact if you're not pissing someone off"

Tag Archives: Pregnancy

A message for dads: You can’t impress on teenage boys their responsibilities to prevent teen pregnancies in a culture where women are seen as mere objects of male sexual desire and sex education is deficient or non-existent.  

After writing my last piece on teen pregnancy that emanated from a new government study suggesting a lot of teenage girls are clueless about their chances of getting pregnant, I felt the need to discuss how boys are also often clueless in their attitudes towards the teen girls they get pregnant.

There is a mentality in our culture that presumes any young girl or woman who dresses “seductively” is asking to be raped.  This is a standard defense when a young man has been accused of rape in this country where two legal age individuals are involved.  There is also the notion that has been exaggerated by males who insist that when women say no, they really don’t mean it.  “They want it is as bad as we do” is the common refrain with young testosterone-energized males.  There’s an old tune popularized by Dean Martin in 1949 that may have helped create this perception with the men who fathered the baby boom generation.

You fooled me dear, now for a year

My heart you tantalize

But without a doubt 

I have found out

The secret in your eyes

Your lips tell me no, no

but there’s yes, yes in your eyes

I’ve been missin your kissin

just because I wasn’t wise

I’ll stop my scheming and dreaming 

Because I realize

Your lips tell me no, no

But there’s yes, yes in your eyes

Dino’s song was perhaps innocently enough referring to the seductive wiles we attribute to women but it was never meant to be anything more than a suggestion on how women communicate their attraction towards men.  To ascribe to it some implicit right for men to force themselves on women is an uncivilized response by the stronger sex who simply can’t control their sexual urges.

But if such suggestive lyrics led to misconceptions for young men at that time, today’s lyrics often heard in rap music and hip hop leave no doubt how women are viewed by some male teens.  Rap and hip hop is the music genre that evolved from that socio-economic culture where teen pregnancy rates are at their highest.

Psychologists said their findings from a three-year study presented a worrying picture of how popular music affected the attitudes of boys and girls to sex.

Rap music and hip hop, with their particular emphasis on sex and demeaning depictions of women, were blamed for encouraging early sexual behaviour, leading to the spread of disease and underage pregnancies.

Dr Steven Martino, who led the US study published in the latest edition of the journal ‘Pediatrics’, said that “sexually degrading lyrics” – many graphic and filled with obscenities – caused changes in adolescents’ sexual behaviour.

He said, “These lyrics depict men as sexually insatiable, women as sexual objects, and sexual intercourse as inconsequential. Other songs about sex don’t appear to influence youth the same way.  SOURCE 

In his NY Times opinion piece, “The Ways of Silencing”, Jason Stanley was describing how political operatives in today’s partisan charged environment “undermine the ability of a person or group … to employ a speech act by representing that person or group as insincere in their use of it.”   In doing this he used the findings of Jennifer Hornsby’s 1993 paper entitled “Speech Acts and Pornography” that addressed how “men are led to believe that when women refuse a sexual advance they don’t mean it.”

Women, then, will not be understood to be refusing, even when they are. If certain kinds of pornography lead men to think that women are not sincere when they utter the word “no,” and women are aware that men think this, those kinds of pornography would rob women of the ability to refuse. Using “no” to refuse a sexual advance is what is known as a speech act — a way of doing something by using words.

This is the environment that some teen boys find themselves in today.  Many have been raised without the proper training from their fathers or some other dominant male figure in their young life that teaches them to respect women.  Couple this with various forms of media that portray women as mere objects of male sexual desires and it’s not hard to imagine how males will often fail to meet traditional social expectations, taking advantage of those girls who want to please them and avoid spurning them.

Just saying no is not a preventive measure when aimed at a boy who thinks he knows you don’t mean it.  Sexual urges are strong human instincts that, according to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs,  disregards “maintaining a birth rate adequate to survival of the species”, but because civilized society revolves around family and community, restraint of these urges is required.  This restraint has to be impressed upon young males by those male authority figures early in their life.  Too often this expectation has fallen on the female and allowed boys to be seen as victims of a woman’s perceived body language;Your lips tell me no, no but there’s yes, yes in your eyes”.

Viktor Frankl, in his book, Man’s Search for Meaning, directs us to what he feels gives true meaning to life – purpose.  Without a purpose, life is pretty much meaningless and will determine how honorably we will behave under stressful conditions.  This was something that became pronounced for Frankl during his own imprisonment and torture in Nazi concentration camps.  He overcame the brutality of this existence and lived to talk about it because he gave purpose to every effort he used to defeat the inhumane treatment he experienced.  At the base of this drive to find purpose was a spiritual and moral belief that held all humans in respect.

It could be understood and forgiven if Frankl failed to live up to this virtue, which there were times when he did.  The urge to violate every character strength he had been raised with was tested under the worst possible conditions.  The strain of such life and death situations however are not what young boys in our society face today but many do lack an empathetic, dominant male figure to help mold and enhance a moral set of values by which to guide their interaction with the so-called weaker sex.

It’s  a shame that some boys are raised without a father due to divorce, abandonment or death of the father.  But it is a greater shame where there are fathers who raise their son’s with the dysfunctional notion that getting laid is more important to their son’s value than teaching them how to respect women and create a loving relationship where sex is much more fulfilling than simply “getting your rocks off”.

As a society we would hope our adolescent children would abstain from sexual intercourse until they were older and married or at least had a meaningful relationship where they were willing and able to take on the responsibilities of having a child that results from their natural urges.  This simply isn’t going to happen and time has shown us that all the threats of religious taboos and promotion of abstinence-only programs have had little influence on teenage sex.  We will continue to experience unnecessary rates of teenage pregnancies unless we couple our efforts to develop principled kids with the information they need to prevent a life altering event they are unprepared for.

Sons will mimic their fathers. Make sure they don’t get the wrong message.


Using common sense and “fighting sin” or the oil and water equivalents in legislative efforts to reduce incidences of abortion

There’s a bill making its way through the legislative process in the House of Representatives entitled H.R.3 — No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.  The efforts to pass it by some while ignoring more encompassing efforts to reduce incidences of abortion that are less punitive is another example of individual wills taking precedence over common sense.

HR-3  is something of a redundant bill offered by conservatives to apparently appease the religious right concerning abortions.  Among other things it seeks to prohibit federal funds from being used for any health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion.  Current law under the Hyde amendment already prevents the use of tax payer money to be used for abortion services and states that any federal health plans that receive federal funds must keep that money segregated from any used for abortion services.

But this bill goes deeper in that it seeks to cut off any conceivable source that might aid in abortions for unwanted pregnancies by intending to limit exclusions only for those rapes where the “female was the subject of an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest; or in the case where the pregnant female suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the pregnant female in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself” according to section 309 0f the bill.

This consideration is compassionate when compared to more stringent anti-abortionists views like former Republican Senatorial candidate for Nevada Sharon Angle who felt that “a 13 year-old child who has been raped by her father” should not be allowed to have an abortion because, as she stated there is “a plan and a purpose, a value to every life no matter what it’s location, age, gender or disability … two wrongs don’t make a right.

Angle expressed that the 13-year-old should have to endure the pregnancy and “look for some alternatives” that would turn this “lemon situation into lemonade.”  because a “master plan” often doesn’t come as ready-mixed for instant results.   Clearly Ms. Angle feels God uses such brutal and traumatic methods to give greater meaning to a young girl’s concept of romantic love.

However, through omission, section 309 could be interpreted to disallow abortions with federal funds if rapes were the result of the more euphemistic term, “date rapes”; forcible sex with females of all ages between two people who already know each other and may have even had consensual sex at an earlier time.  A sympathetic judge and jury who hold strong “pro-life” views may be inclined to rule against a victim of date rape mistakenly feeling that she brought it upon herself.

Fortunately, for the time being, it appears this part of the bill has been removed after pressure was applied from opponents like the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, National Council of Jewish Women, Planned Parenthood, NARAL Pro-Choice America and the American Civil Liberties Union.  These activists are now trying to diminish other aspects of the bill that appear to be aimed at low-income women, the most vulnerable population to fall victims of rape, by:

  1. Prohibiting the inclusion of abortion in any health care service furnished by a federal health care facility or by any physician or other individual employed by the federal government.
  2. Enhances the legal capabilities of the courts to go after suspected violators of federal limitations to abortion funding through the use of injunctions or preventing the disbursement of all or a portion of federal financial assistance until the prohibited conduct has ceased.
  3. Bolsters the HHS Office for Civil Rights of the Department to receive, investigate, and refer to the appropriate federal agency complaints alleging a violation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) abortion provisions.
  4. Deny any tax credits or benefits for private insurers’ policies that includes coverage of abortion, including any medical deduction for such amounts or any credit for such an employer-sponsored plan.

Among the 173 congressional delegates that support the bill, including 8 Democrats, are the American Family Association, National Right to Life Committee, Susan B. Anthony List, the Family Research Council, Priests for Life and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

The American Family Association (AFA) sent out a legislative action alert expressing the belief that “If this bill is signed into law, you will never again be troubled by the thought that some of the money you send to the IRS is being siphoned off to kill babies in the womb.”

Opponents like the AFA oppose funding for abortions from the moment of conception as well as any tax payer funded efforts of contraception. Unlike the Roman Catholic Church(a partner in their opposition to HR 3) who think contraception is immoral, Bryan Fischer with the AFA says they are not, at least with married couples, but implies as much in a comment of his that says “We want married couples to have more children, not fewer. Our problem is not that married couples are having too many kids, our problem is that they aren’t having enough.” Fischer even goes as far as recommending that “the American standard ought to be a minimum of three children per married couple.”

The view taken by those on the right that links any and all federal funding to abortion often overlooks efforts by Democrats who consider themselves pro-life that seek ways to prevent abortion by educating young women not only about contraception but how to cope and deal with carrying unwanted and unexpected pregnancies to full term.  In 2006 Democrat Lincoln Davis of Tennessee proposed an initiative known as “95-10” that sought to reduce the number of abortions in the U.S. by 95 percent over the course of 10 years.  With the aid of his Senate counterpart, Bob Casey (D-Pa), the initiative was generated in both Houses in 2009 under the title of the Pregnant Women Support Act.

The “Democrats for LIfe” website support this bill as a means of assisting “pregnant women who wish to carry their pregnancies to term but because of lack of resources believe abortion is their only option.” The intent is to use federal resources to avoid abortion, not by narrowing women’s access to quality health resources, but to encourage them to carry their pregnancy to full term and then choose to either keep the child or put it up for adoption.  Many poor women avoid this objective often because they lack the financial and private support means to carry such an option through.

The bill was stalled in Congress and never became law.  The last known action to re-introduce this legislation was in June, 2010 when it was referred to the House Agriculture’s Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, Nutrition and Forestry.  It has not progressed beyond that point.

It hasn’t been revealed why this sensible bill never saw the light of day in Congress.  Doubt and suspicion too often surfaces with members of Congress that align themselves with entrenched supporters of their separate views on the issue of abortion.   Those who claim to want what’s best for the mother and her unborn child seem never willing to concede territory that they suspect will lead to further abuses and deprivations of choice.

In an era of political gridlock one more attempt to improve the health and welfare of the least empowered of citizens becomes a cause-celebre for so-called principled stands.  The result seems to be putting women at risk along with the life they carry inside them.  The right’s attempt to prevent healthy outlets that allow poor pregnant women to avert abortions is stuck in a mode of thought that seems bent on condemning their actions for getting pregnant more than it aims to save the life of the unborn.

 

RELATED ARTICLE:  Bill Redefining Rape to Prevent Abortions is ‘A Violent Act Against Women



Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 81 other followers