“Organic sex” my ass

A new website denouncing contraception has cropped up, touting itself as part of the Contra-Contraception Movement. But unlike the wacky folks that are “mischaracterized� in a recent NY Times mag piece, Contra-Contraception.com claims that they are a secular group simply pushing the benefits of “organic sex.�

Many women, in an effort to live healthily, who have turned to organic and unprocessed foods. They have come to also realized that artificial contraception isn’t very healthy either, and that its numerous side effects should be avoided. They believe that thee [sic] negative effects of artificial contraceptives should not be minimized for sake of convenience, and the truth should not be distorted for the sake of political ideology.
Organic foods have come of age, so isn’t it time that “organic sex” comes of age also? More and more couples believe so.
But what exactly is organic sex? Its sex without contraception — natural sex of course! Pregnancy can be avoided or achieved through the use of Natural Family Planning (NFP).

It’s the Age of Aquarius, didn’t ya know? Advocating natural family planning on this site wouldn’t bother me so much if it wasn’t completely disingenuous. Contra-Contraception isn’t some site run by organic-sex loving folks who are worried about the health implications of hormonal birth control–it’s actually a (very) thinly-veiled anti-choice site run by the same people who created No Room for Contraception. The language on Contra-Contraception is almost identical to that of No Room for Contraception, and all the “newsâ€? links lead there. Real slick.
If you don’t remember the No Room for Contraception campaign, it’s run by the extremely non-secular Mary Worthington who compared emergency contraception to assisted suicide and wrote an article, Did contraception lead to homosexuality? So yeah, no free love hippies there.
It never ceases to amaze me how easily anti-choicers–who claim to be in the moral right–will resort to lying and misrepresentation to push their agenda.

and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

35 Comments

  1. Posted May 30, 2006 at 10:27 am | Permalink

    Ick, ick, ick… I feel like I need a shower after reading that sleaze! Naturally, there’re no forums or commenting on their sites, despite the feature article being about how the evil contraceptors don’t want to hear opposing views. Now I’m sincerely curious, are there any pro-contraception sites? I’m tempted to start one, complete with testimonials of women who use contraceptives, debunking articles, and responses to that kind of smarm.

  2. TheTruth
    Posted May 30, 2006 at 11:09 am | Permalink

    *Yawn*. This is almost as silly as when the guys from wolf eyes started up M.O.M. or MOTHERS AGAINST NOISE. On their website, they listed radiohead as a “gateway band”.
    Heh.

  3. Mikey
    Posted May 30, 2006 at 1:27 pm | Permalink

    I’m all for a new style of organic eating to match the ‘organic’ ‘sex’ ‘craze’ (god, I can’t not use quote for a single one of those). As such, I think it is sinful and unnatural to use utensils or flatware. Eat with your hands, from the ground! And for the love of god, don’t rinse anything off.

  4. big annie
    Posted May 30, 2006 at 2:10 pm | Permalink

    Sheesh. These women are suffering ‘contraception grief’ for the loss of their unconceived children….
    While I pretty much am a live and let live type of person I find this disturbing because I know their real agenda is to limit birth control for ALL WOMEN.
    Every woman should be a virgin and every sex act should be a possible pregnancy.
    It’s getting really creepy living in the U.S.

  5. noname
    Posted May 30, 2006 at 4:13 pm | Permalink

    A little immature to refer to those who are “pro-life” as “anti-choice”, isn’t it?

  6. Jessica
    Posted May 30, 2006 at 4:15 pm | Permalink

    no, it’s accurate.

  7. TheTruth
    Posted May 30, 2006 at 4:20 pm | Permalink

    Then I guess it’s similarily ok to refer as pro-choicers as “Anti-Life” or “Pro-Death”? Because from their perspective, that is accurate as well.

  8. Jessica
    Posted May 30, 2006 at 4:25 pm | Permalink

    whatever floats your boat.
    i use the term anti-choice because folks who want to outlaw abortion generally also are against contraception and any kind of reproductive choices for women. i don’t really feel like getting into semantics and how people choose to frame their language about abortion. it’s a conversation that never really goes anywhere. if it’s really of interest i can recommend some links…let me know.

  9. TheTruth
    Posted May 30, 2006 at 4:31 pm | Permalink

    No need to Jessica, I simply disagree with your use of language. As we are both well aware, it is the desire of almost any group in society to have the power of controlling what they are called…
    Perhaps, you (and I) disagree with the pro-life movement, but I think it is irresponsible and kind of underhanded for you to decide to call them a different name. Perhaps you have the ability and desire to, but I really think you would wish take the high road on this one and at least refer to the group by the name they wish to be called. That is all.
    I’m not trying to start a debate, because it most likely won’t go anywhere (I know you aren’t going to change my mind :) .
    But, I did want to air my opinion.

  10. David Thompson
    Posted May 30, 2006 at 5:47 pm | Permalink

    the Contra-Contraception Movement
    Wouldn’t that just be the “Ception Movement”?
    Anyway, there is something to be said for the notion that chronically doping your reproductive organs may not be such a good idea.

  11. David Thompson
    Posted May 30, 2006 at 5:50 pm | Permalink

    Also, ass sex is organic and involves no contraceptive potions or devices.

  12. Posted May 30, 2006 at 5:52 pm | Permalink

    TheTruth, it’s pretty silly to call pro-choice activists “anti-life” or “pro-death,” though. Those things aren’t true. I personally would settle for “pro-abortion” if they want to get all excited. “Pro-life” folk do make their position against the right to choose abortion pretty clear, though. “Pro-life” is a pretty meaningless term, when you think about it.

  13. Posted May 30, 2006 at 6:01 pm | Permalink

    “Choice” in such a context refers to letting someone make their own decision in terms of abortion (though they certainly tend to want to control other aspects of reproductive rights). You can choose to have one, or not.
    If someone is against a woman making a choice on whether or not she wants to have an abortion, it is indeed accurate to call the person “anti-choice.” You’re not making any judgment call as to whether or not there is a “life” involved, but rather the procedure itself.
    Terms such as “pro-life” or “anti-life” are of the opinion of others. It really all depends on what you consider “life.”
    If I refer to this group as “pro-life,” I am stating that I believe life begins at conception (and I don’t). This term might also lead others to believe that every person who wants to outlaw abortion truly cares about ALL life. ;)

  14. Jenna
    Posted May 30, 2006 at 6:08 pm | Permalink

    Well, since the “pro-life” people aren’t campaigning for all lives, just for something specific that they believe to be a life, despite scientific opinion, I’d say their use of the term is pretty disingenuious. Anti-choice is better, but doesn’t say which choice they want to limit.
    My name for them? The pro-forced-birth movement. It exactly defines their position from any viewpoint, isn’t phrased in a negative, and doesn’t cloud the issue. Happy?

  15. Posted May 30, 2006 at 6:12 pm | Permalink

    David, does this mean your lady plunders you nightly with a strap-on? Or are you one of those dudes who inexplicably thinks of ass sex as a “woman’s doodie” only (in a hetero relationship)?
    And out of curiosity, do you go to the doctor for medication when you’re sick, or do you pray to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and hope for the best? It’s not as if humans having been “chronically doping” themselves up due to other medical issues…for a while now I think?

  16. noname
    Posted May 30, 2006 at 7:09 pm | Permalink

    “i use the term anti-choice because folks who want to outlaw abortion generally also are against contraception and any kind of reproductive choices for women.”
    An inaccurate generalization. While I’d call myself pro-life, I’m all for the use of contraception. I don’t really understand why anyone would oppose it. And to the best of my knowledge, all of my friends who are also pro-life feel the same. But I don’t want to speak for anyone other than myself.
    And as for Jenna, I’d say that “pro-forced-birth movement” is in fact phrased in the negative, because I’m not sure of any circumstances in which “forced” may be considered positive. And so, I’d just stick with “pro-life”.

  17. noname
    Posted May 30, 2006 at 7:27 pm | Permalink

    Please note that the “noname” who has posted to this thread twice already is not, in fact, me. That’s right, some asshole is once again using my name (or noname) to write things that I don’t believe. Most importantly, I AM PRO-CHOICE. Get your own name and stop associating mine with your politics, asshole!

  18. noname
    Posted May 30, 2006 at 7:31 pm | Permalink

    Sorry for the profanity, BTW. I just can’t deal with someone pretending I am pro-life.

  19. noname
    Posted May 30, 2006 at 7:37 pm | Permalink

    No need to resort to namecalling, noname. I find it a little ridiculous for someone to be making such a big deal out of something as trivial as someone using the same internet identity as you. Especially when your “name” isn’t linked with any site. For all we know, “you” could be a number of individuals. Nobody has any way of linking you with a person. But in the name of peace, since I’m a generally nice lady, I’ll post as “noname ii” from now on. You may now continue on in your anonymous internet existence.

  20. noname
    Posted May 30, 2006 at 7:51 pm | Permalink

    Noname ii – If you are not the same person that did this exact same thing a number of times last week, than I apologize for over-reacting.

  21. Posted May 30, 2006 at 8:04 pm | Permalink

    To oppose interference at any point after conception is certainly to oppose life, as it is to demonstrate a profound ignorance of the process by which a zygote becomes a baby. When 50% of blastocysts fail to implant and as many as 25% of all blastocysts miscarry prior to delivery, “pro-life” is to place a woman’s life, health, and autonomy in thrall to a mere possibility. When so many determined little blastocysts are trisomy ridden, doomed by Downs induced cardiac malformations, or frankly anencephalic, but you’d still refuse a woman a late term abortion when delivery is demonstrably more liable to kill her than an abortion. Because to some people a slim, flawed possibility is more important than an independent woman. I, for one, am not so sentimental as to be moved to violate the autonomy of another over a potential anything.
    You cannot compell a woman to submit to a blood transfusion to save her child’s life after delivery, by what right can she be compelled to donate her blood, body, and the function of her organs to save her child’s life before delivery? Whereas a man can never be lawfully compelled to donate blood or organs under any circumstances. Several pro-life denominations also oppose donating or receiving blood, yet hypocritically require a woman to do just that.

  22. TheTruth
    Posted May 30, 2006 at 9:35 pm | Permalink

    Like I said before party people, I wasn’t trying to start a debate… but I will address your points. From the pro-lifers point of view (of which I do not consider MY point of view), they ARE pro-choice. They believe that by having sex you in fact HAVE chosen to have a baby. I do not in fact know many pro-lifers who are anti-contraception, hell I don’t even know many catholics who are. But the fact remains, that they believe that if you go through the actions that could conceive a child you have made a conscious decision to possibly produce an offspring. Perhaps you don’t agree with their point of view, but they do not in fact believe that they are anti-choice. In the same way that many of us don’t believe that we are anti-life or pro-death. I just found the name calling to be low-class and counterproductive, and in fact not applicable. Regardless of how your personal politics lie, you would have to be either naive or misguided to believe that the majority of pro-lifers are ANTI-CHOICE. I think most of them have higher ideals than simply enslaving the common woman. (At least I would like to think so…perhaps I am the naive one :)

  23. David Thompson
    Posted May 30, 2006 at 9:55 pm | Permalink

    David, does this mean your lady plunders you nightly with a strap-on? Or are you one of those dudes who inexplicably thinks of ass sex as a “woman’s doodie” only (in a hetero relationship)?
    You’re trying to say something here, but it’s not completing the journey. It appears to involve some sort of fecal fetish, which I would invite you to not share further.
    And out of curiosity, do you go to the doctor for medication when you’re sick, or do you pray to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and hope for the best?
    The Flying Spaghetti Monster does not answer my prayers, so I pray to Crom. If he does not hear me, then to hell with him.
    It’s not as if humans having been “chronically doping” themselves up due to other medical issues…for a while now I think?
    I believe you are the first person I’ve seen refer to ovulation as a medical condition requiring pharmaceutical intervention.

  24. Ruben
    Posted May 31, 2006 at 1:35 am | Permalink

    Jessica,
    >> they are a secular group simply pushing the benefits of “organic sex.�
    LOL! This is simply one article. This website isn’t only about “organic sex”. And it is in development, so it is not finished.
    It is indeed a sister site of the NoRoomforContraception.com website. No secret there — as you point out, just look at the links.
    The reason for this article on “organic sex” is that in talking with women about the negative effects of contraception, I found some who stopped using the pill in order to lead a healthier life.
    These women had already moved to organic foods, toilet paper, etc, and so NFP was just a natural extension of this lifestyle, much to your dissapointment.
    Instead of admitting that there is something to be said about using NFP instead of drugs, you simply claim we are misrepresenting things and lying. Take off your abortion blinders and open your mind a bit…
    Ruben

  25. Jane Minty
    Posted May 31, 2006 at 4:15 am | Permalink

    Like I said before party people, I wasn’t trying to start a debate… but I will address your points. From the pro-lifers point of view (of which I do not consider MY point of view), they ARE pro-choice. They believe that by having sex you in fact HAVE chosen to have a baby.
    To reiterate, you’re either pro-choice or anti-choice in terms of the abortion itself. I could choose to have it, or not. That makes me pro-choice. People who are anti-choice not only don’t want me to have this surgical procedure, they don’t want me to have a choice in the matter. It may sound petty, but as restrictive laws are passed I like my topic to be very specific. What if I argued that choosing to wear LaPerla got me laid and pregnant? Where does choice begin?
    David, if you had bothered to read the period comments, you’d see it’s definitely a medical condition for some of us…and I do believe you were the one who mentioned “ass sex” out of the blue. You also didn’t answer my question, if she gets equal time.

  26. David Thompson
    Posted May 31, 2006 at 7:02 am | Permalink

    David, if you had bothered to read the period comments, you’d see it’s definitely a medical condition for some of us…
    Menstruation yes, but ovulation? “Organic sex” as outlined herein in directed towards the latter.
    and I do believe you were the one who mentioned “ass sex” out of the blue.
    Take a look at the title of this post.
    You also didn’t answer my question, if she gets equal time.
    Your question is based on several false premises.

  27. chem fem
    Posted May 31, 2006 at 8:27 am | Permalink

    I guess that rules out genetically modified sex then…………

  28. Ledasmom
    Posted May 31, 2006 at 8:34 am | Permalink

    I’m a little puzzled as to what the possible complications could be from our chosen method of birth control.
    My husband had a vasectomy, and I haven’t had any nasty side effects yet.

  29. TheTruth
    Posted May 31, 2006 at 10:10 am | Permalink

    Ok, obviously Jane, you aren’t going to be chivalrous in the name department.
    Let’s just say that pro-lifers are actually “anti-abortion” and that pro-choicers are actually “pro-abortion”. Using the word “choice” is vague and misleading. Pro-lifers, as I’ve stated before aren’t against free will, they are in fact against abortions.

  30. chem fem
    Posted May 31, 2006 at 10:49 am | Permalink

    the truth…
    The problem with what you are saying is that under the ‘pro-life’ umbrella of thought no one can have abortions. But if you are pro-choice, then rather than wanting everyone to have abortions (which like ‘pro-abortion’ is presumably the oppposite of the anti-abortion stance) you want people to have the right to be for or against. One encompasses the other, but not vice versa. You can still be against having an abortion in my pro-choice eutopia, but I can’t have one in you anti-abortion one.

  31. Raging Moderate
    Posted May 31, 2006 at 12:52 pm | Permalink

    Wouldn’t pro-abortion and anti-abortion be more accurate (I describe myself as pro-abortion)?

  32. TheTruth
    Posted May 31, 2006 at 1:01 pm | Permalink

    Raging moderate, that’s exactly what I said.

  33. chem fem
    Posted June 1, 2006 at 7:25 am | Permalink

    Well I’ve already written why this is the case, if you would like to address my points then perhaps we can go on from here.
    if you have a problem with being anti-choice maybe you should address your own beliefs first…

  34. TheTruth
    Posted June 1, 2006 at 7:59 am | Permalink

    Rrrriiiigghhhhttt.
    I’m not anti-choice, you’re pro-abortion! :)

  35. chem fem
    Posted June 1, 2006 at 10:51 am | Permalink

    I’m anti-banging my head against a bick wall…
    sometimes I really hate this medium, I’d much rather have this argument face to face so I can understand people a bit better. I really don’t see how you can miss how I am pro-choice from what I’ve said.

Feministing In Your Inbox

Sign up for our Newsletter to stay in touch with Feministing
and receive regular updates and exclusive content.

184 queries. 0.600 seconds