Daily Archives: March 2, 2012

If it looks like a Prostitute and acts like a Prostitute. . . .

Some poorly educated Georgetown Law Student named Sandra Fluke has decided to make herself the poster girl for forcing the Catholic Church to not only condone but provide birth control but pay for it.  Actually, she enrolled in Georgetown precisely to force the university to provide birth control.

Rush Limbaugh called her a “slut” and a “prostitute,” and now he’s being condemned for his “abhorrent” comments.  Baby-Killer in Chief Barack Obama called Fluke to offer his support

First, since when is “slut” offensive?  1980s sitcoms like _The Golden Girls_ and _Cheers_ used in practically every episode.

It shows how poorly educated this Fluke person is that she doesn’t know that St. Augustine said any woman who uses birth control is a prostitute.

It’s like the famous story of G. B. Shaw asking the actress, “Would you sleep with me for a milllion pounds?”
Actress: “My goodness!  Well, I’d certainly think about it.”
Shaw: “Would you sleep with me for a pound?”
Actress: “Certainly not!  What kind of woman do you think I am?!”
Shaw: “Madam, we’ve already established that. Now we are haggling about the price.”

Our society is full of prostitutes.  The fact that they provide men with sexual favors in return for a few free drinks or dinner and a movie doesn’t make them any less prostitutes than the ones who do it for cash: it’s just a question of the price.

I was recently having a fairly respectful exchange with a secular feminist woman on a thread started by a FB friend who’s a convert.  My friend told me she hoped the conversation would stay civil, and she was focusing on birth control from a purely scientific perspective and was worried one of her Catholic friends might come off as too judgemental.  So I pulled some punches, and it was a very interesting conversation.

I pointed out that it baffles me how the people who tell us not to eat at McDonald’s, not to smoke, not to drive without seatbelts, etc., suddenly start protesting about personal choice regarding sex, that the people who talk about the brainwashing techniques used by corporate advertisers won’t acknowledge that the same brainwashing techniques are used by Planned Parenthood, that the people who expect people to use self control in all those other issues say self-control is impossible regarding sex.
“Well, the difference is that McDonald’s isn’t healthy for you, but sex is healthy.  It’s a great form of exercise and promotes emotional health.”
I replied that that’s true of monogamy, but promiscuity is extremely unhealthy because of STD’s, and of course birth control pills don’t protect against STDs, so promoting birth control pills is promoting unhealthy behavior.

“Well, you can never be certain that your spouse is faithful to you, so being married and monogamous is no safer than being promiscuous.”

What a sad world so many people like this lady live in.

I read a story on FB a few years ago; I don’t know if it’s a true story or just a parable.  A Catholic mother was at a public school parent-teacher conference on “sex education.” She asked about including abstinence in the curriculum, and everyone, including the teacher, laughed at her.  The teacher insisted that abstinence didn’t work.  Angered, the woman didn’t say anything else and sat back, praying for guidance about what to say or do.

They broke up for social time, and the teacher said they’d close with a little exercise.  The Catholic mother refrained from social time since she was mad at everyone.  The teacher had all the parents take a slip of paper from a bowl before they began mixing.  After the social time, she asked everyone to return to their desks.  She said, “Pull out your paper.  One of you has a slip of paper with an “X”.  Please raise your hand.”  One father raised his hand.
The teacher said, “That ‘X’ represents an STD.   Let’s say that shaking hands represents sex.  Who shook hands with Mr. __?”
All those people raised their hands.
“OK, now: who shook hands with *them*?”
By now, all but the one lady were raising their hands.
“This shows that you can never be sure who has an STD, and any time you have sex, you’re putting yourself at risk of an STD.”
The Catholic lady shook her head and said, “I can be sure.”
The teacher, indignant, said, “Oh, yeah, why?”
“Because I abstained.”

In one sense, I’d agree  that “abstinence’ education doesn’t work, because you can’t teach morality from a purely secular standpoint.  But if we taught *chastity*, and especially theology of the body, then that’s a whole different matter.  That’s not to say people won’t sin.  That’s not to say that people who are genuinely in love can’t get overwhelmed by passion.  But it’s certainly better to have a situation where people follow the old fashioned rules about shame and honor, and sometimes make mistakes (and then own up to those mistakes with commitment) than to have the current situation where people treat what should be the most honored human activity as a cheap form of self-destructive recreation, completely ignoring its import or its emotional impact while insisting on how “great” it is.

“Keeping to one woman is a small price for so much as seeing one woman.”
–G. K. Chesterton