Today is February 15, 2012. I put 2012 in bold and italic because some of the recent headlines have got me thinking we’ve been transported back to the 1950s. The Komen Foundation reversed funding for Planned Parenthood, which many people believe was due to Planned Parenthood providing abortions (although they also provide several other services), the fury over the birth control mandate. Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum declaring that sex should only be for procreation purposes, even between married couples. Politicians campaigning against birth control coverage.
For the past few weeks I have been paying attention to the Republican primaries and I’ve noticed Santorum in particular has made social and culture issues his main focus as opposed to the others, who’ve been mostly stressing jobs and the economy. Why is he doing this? I have no idea, because I honestly think right now, in a country bouncing back from a recession, most people are more concerned with finding decent jobs than what two grown, consenting adults are doing in their bedroom. Santorum has stated that many of the problems in our culture are rooted in the moral decline of our country. This may be true but is turning back the clock 50 years the answer? Instead of trying to take things back to the way they used to be, we should try to adapt to the culture we have now because there have been too many advancements made to pretend they don’t exist.
The Komen Foundation was thrown into the fire after cutting off funding for Planned Parenthood. Their official reason was that the latter was under federal investigation and it violates their rules to provide funding when this occurs. However it is well known that many of the top operatives of the organization are vehemently pro-life. Pro-life or pro-choice that’s your decision but Planned Parenthood does more than provide abortions. They offer health care for women who don’t have insurance and can’t go to the doctor. Unfortunately that tidbit’s often swept under the carpet.
Last week, I wrote letters to USA Today and the New York Times because I’m infuriated by my body being used in a political and cultural tug-of-war. With the new birth control law, I understand that no religion shouldn’t be made to prescribe birth control if they are against it. But yet we have to accept that many Catholic women do use birth control, and that is their right. Opponents of the new law claim it is violating their right to practice their religion. My question is, how is that? How does a woman choosing to take birth control have anything to do with someone else? As I wrote in my letter, I think this goes beyond religion. I believe many don’t agree with birth control because they believe it allows women to engage in casual sex without consequence.
For whatever reason, perhaps its the puritanical history of our country, we connect morality with sexuality. Women are usually not encouraged to display their enjoyment of sex because then there’s the risk of being called a slut, a slore, or a woman with “loose morals”. Teen girls used to be advised to “keep their mouths closed and legs crossed” and if they didn’t and got pregnant, were sent away to a home for unwed mothers. What’s the lesson in all of this? That it’s not right to enjoy sex and if you do you’re bad. I always thought having morals was about knowing what’s right and what’s wrong. I didn’t know morals had anything to do with sexual feelings I may have and the choices I make when I’m intimate with someone. Glancing at the headlines in the past few weeks I think I was wrong.
Have you noticed the culture war brewing? Do you think, even in 2012, we connect morals and sex?
J
Tags: culture war, sexuality