There was a time when women wore corsets so tightly that they actually had ribs surgically removed. They compressed their organs to the point where they did internal damage to themselves. That's because society desired for them to have smaller waists than a normal woman is naturally given.
There was a time when women practiced breast-binding. They put themselves at further risk of breast-related diseases and medical conditions. They did this because society desired them to have smaller breasts than a normal woman is naturally given. The same has been done in Asian countries with women's feet, for the same reason, with similar dangers and results.
There was a time when women were basically expected to wear four-inch high heels all over the place, to everything and everywhere. The heels pushed their leg muscles up to an unnatural extent, gave them the illusion of greater height, and eventually malformed both feet and legs... raising the risk for back injury, shortening important calf tendons, and causing permanent damage to the feet. Society desired them to have a differently shaped leg and butt than the average woman is given by nature.
More recently, I've heard of all sorts of incredible stuff that women end up doing to themselves for the sake of society's flouting of nature. Women have botox injections on their face. Increasingly, I'm hearing of women having botox injections in their butt to make it bigger and plumper. Then we have breast implants and all their associated dangers. There seems to be no end to the number of things that women treat as essential, things that have one purpose... to alter a woman's natural body in such a way as to make it more 'acceptable' to society.
Now Obama insists that hormonal contraception pills are a woman's right and so must be provided by her employer for free, even at the cost of violating the employer's and/or other employees' faith.
What is the hormonal contraception pill? To be fair, for some women, it is a needed medication. However, the majority of women taking it are/were normal, healthy women who found, yet again, that society needed them to be something different from what women naturally are. To support society's current penchant for rampant sexual promiscuity, women must render themselves artificially infertile. The pill comes with its dangers, including an increased risk of breast cancer and potentially fatal blood clots. Then again, women's attempts to alter themselves for the latest fashion have almost always resulted in painful consequences.
Obama and his group (I cannot in good conscience say 'all Democrats' as many Democrats oppose this latest move) are spinning this horrendous new directive as "women's health", and many of the discussions surrounding it have focused on pitting "women's health" or "sexual freedom" against "religious liberty". But I'd like to take a moment and put a new spin on it, asking those of you who read this post to answer this simple question:
When will society favor the real, natural woman in all of her real, natural glory?
"The majority of women taking it are/were normal, healthy women who found, yet again, that society needed them to be something different from what women naturally are."
ReplyDeleteI disagree that it's a majority. I know *many* happily married women who only have sex with their husbands and who are willingly on birth control. I am one of them. In my case, it's because I've always wanted to adopt all of my kids, and so does my husband, and although a pregnancy would not be unwelcome, it is not remotely a desire of ours. So, we do what we can to prevent it. This is my choice, and has nothing to do with medical reasons or promiscuity. The other married women I know who use hormonal contraceptives choose it in order to have a reliable way to plan when to have children, and I personally see nothing at all wrong with that.
Every pill or medical procedure has potential problems. The benefits of birth control far outweigh the risks for me and most other women, just like taking NyQuil despite its potential serious side effects is worth it to me when I have a bad cold, and taking antibiotics despite their potential serious side effects are worth it to me when I have an infection.
I also disagree with the notion that altering oneself aesthetically (foot binding, Botox, etc.) is the same as taking a medication of any sort, even an elective one. An optional medication like birth control is still a medical thing, not a societal standard of youth or beauty. Nearly every medicine is optional, and all of them - even Tylenol - have potentially serious side effects.
That said, I do entirely agree that no one should be forced to provide anything they have a religious objection to, and Obama and his clowns need to truly get over it.
You are actually rarer than you think you are. :) As I remember it, you also enjoy wearing high heels now and then, and you're smart enough to limit the chances of them causing you physical harm and smart enough to know that you're doing it for yourself and not other people.
ReplyDeleteStatistics are slim, but one from about 10 years ago or so says that 70% of unmarried women in their late teens are on birth control pills. If 10% of them are taking it for medical purposes, that still leaves over 60% of women in that age group who are rendering their bodies artificially infertile because society expects it of them, not because they have made an informed decision based on their own unique lifestyle. In fact, it's very likely that most of them are still virgins!
My point in the article is not that simply taking a medicine is the same as altering yourself aesthetically. My point is that the women who are *expected* to be on The Pill so that they can engage in 'free sex' without getting pregnant are altering themselves medically and artificially in order to meet societal expectations rather than for their own well-researched reasons... they have no idea what they are doing, and they will hurt themselves in the process.