Nothing like a paradox around a socially explosive subject matter. Especially with the mid-term elections upon us.
Recently Gabrielle Blair Published a book titled “Ejaculate Responsibly.” She’s a mom to six, a Mormon and explains how best to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Though evident, she shines the universal truth on the elephant in the room. A surprisingly absent fact in the argument is that women can’t get pregnant without sperm.
Women are typically left cleaning up the mess and crucified for it in the matter of abortion. Gabrielle’s suggestion is for men not to start the mess—flipping the discussion upside down for those who don’t believe women have the right to an abortion. Women can’t get pregnant without baby batter. That’s science. Those Olympic swimming champs are mandatory to the equation, aiming to latch on to the gorgeous internal Fabergeisque egg.
Women think about pregnancy all the time; men don’t. It’s lacking in their construct, whereas Gabrielle explains that a women’s association is ingrained in that realization “Because there are zero consequences for men who cause unwanted pregnancies.” That’s part of the problem and needs to change immediately instead of all this nonsense banning women’s rights around their bodies. Put the responsibility where it belongs,” With men. If a woman shares that she is pregnant, the closest thing to a consequence is possibly child support.
Meanwhile, the whole child support institution is a joke. In the US, 61% who are legally required to pay don’t, with little to no repercussions, and their credit isn’t affected. So they continue with irresponsible ejaculations, not thinking twice.
Her suggestions revolve around accountability. Men don’t know or think to ask if they’ve caused a pregnancy. They don’t associate sex with babies because there have been zero consequences for men who cause unwanted pregnancies. Further, the awareness isn’t as fine-tuned as it is for women. It’s not how we as a society think about it, and that’s where change needs to show up. Instead, those consequences roll out to the women to contend with when technically, it’s not their problem.
Suppose a woman decides to go through with the pregnancy placing the baby up for adoption or keeping it. In that case, the guy is unaware a child is walking around with his DNA. All because of irresponsibly shooting his wad. When abortion comes up, many men and women think it’s terrible. Still, they never once considered that the MEN caused the unwanted pregnancy. How can the fundamental and most crucial fact be removed from the conversation? If you care about unwanted pregnancies, then go to the source and hold men responsible for their actions. The issue isn’t about shaming women or protesting. It’s about capturing the little semen and ensuring they don’t find an egg to conquer.
Let’s remember something; men love their testicles. If irresponsible ejaculations were to compromise their family jewels, they would stop being irresponsible. Gabrielle suggests castration, aware it sounds like cruel and unusual punishment, but so are illegal abortions. Put that argument in front of men and see how abhorred they are even to consider it. You can examine castration and have those men irresponsibly ejaculating bank their sperm before it happens so they can have kids someday and responsibly. But an entitlement exists to pass the buck onto a woman. Having them pursue the resolution has turned into the norm, associating it as a woman’s issue when it’s not. It’s theirs.
Gabrielle speaks about what real and immediate consequences would look like for men who cause unwanted pregnancies. Should it be harsh, painful, nauseating, scarring, expensive, risky and life-altering? Should it be like forcing a woman to go through a nine-month unwanted pregnancy or an illegal abortion? Hmmm. Is that worse than forcing half a million women a year to puke daily for a month, gain weight and rip their bodies apart in childbirth? Perhaps a handful of castrations isn’t as bad as women dying during forced pregnancy and birth?
Gabrielle suggests putting castration on the books, implementing the law and letting the media tell the story. In less than three months, miraculously, abortion will have virtually disappeared without even having to outlaw them. Those who consider abortion murder may contemplate having a handful of men castrated, preventing half a million murders yearly. If not, is that because they are okay with pricing women’s bodies, values and sexuality rather than reducing or eliminating abortions?
The thing is, people can’t wrap their heads around the physical punishment of men. However, they seem perfectly fine with physical punishment for women. Then how about the prevention idea of requiring vasectomies for all males at puberty? They’re safe, reversible and as invasive as a doctor’s exam when a woman takes a birth control prescription. There is mild soreness afterwards for about 24 hours, but that’s it for side effects. And better than the pill, which millions of women take with serious and well-known side effects, including stroke.
The vasectomy can be reversed when the male becomes a responsible adult—finding a mate and wishing to reproduce. Each male can bank their sperm before the vasectomy, just in case. Not a wild idea, given that 80% of males are already circumcised, most as babies, which is not reversible. The argument does bring clarity and lightens the notion that slipping on a condom isn’t so bad.
If you don’t like these suggestions, Gabrielle says, no problem, then come up with your own. But stop focusing on women. It’s not their problem. Focus on men if you want to stop abortions because irresponsible ejaculations cause 100% of unwanted pregnancies. The pro-life politicians have happily elected not to include that vital point in their arguments. Instead, putting forth a debate that has its foundation based on myth, void of solid scientific evidence.
If you are a man, what consequences do you need before you stop ejaculating irresponsibly? Would a loss of rights or freedoms do it? How about making it money-related? Physical pain? What would it take to value your sexual partner more than your temporary pleasure or convenience?
Gabrielle makes the comparison to food. Think of your favourite meal. You discover that you risk causing significant physical pain to someone you care for every time you indulge in it. It might not be a pain, but it’s a real risk. You probably wouldn’t partake in that again, as it’s not worth the chance. Then, you discover something simple you can do before you eat, eliminating the risk of causing pain to this person. The simple thing you do makes the experience pleasurable for both of you. Would you consider doing that simple something and eliminate the risk of causing pain every time you eat your favourite food, feeling satiated and pleased without bringing any discomfort to anyone?
Condoms and not pulling the goalie doesn’t put women at risk. In fact, after everything else that’s been suggested, it is even more inviting to go that route. Maximizing one’s pleasure at the risk of causing an unwanted pregnancy is not okay.
Gabrielle’s perspective might sound extreme, but so too is the entire procedure of having an abortion, not to mention nine months of pregnancy. Women are subsidizing what isn’t theirs to carry. The onus needs to be put where it belongs. It’s laughable to be wronging women for wanting to rectify a situation they participated in but didn’t commit. The canaries in the cave are dressed as little minions. Women may house the cave, but they never extended an invitation to the millions of minions uninvited to the party. We need to look at this not through a biblical, political or reactiveness lens and most certainly not through one that wrongs or denies women the right to their bodies but simply through fact.
This is one of those unique times when it’s best to avoid pulling the goalie and to aim outside the net. And make sure your joystick is wearing a raincoat. Anything less isn’t her problem; it’s yours.