Secondary Abstinence. Never heard of that before. I'm not even good at primary abstinence.
IMO we are suffering from a labeling glut. Of course, labels help us communicate complex ideas, and we need them, but there is a compromise for the efficiency gained, which has become under-appreciated. People are defined by their actions, but as a society, we seem to be very concerned about our ability to discuss what people's actions mean in relation to some sort of cultural taxonomy, as if the process of classification revealed some sort of cultural terra firma. I believe that process can be dehumanizing. It might be because we communicate by text more than ever, and as a result, obsess about the meanings of our words to such an extent that we confuse them for the things we intend for them to represent. On top of that, we are expected to take a position on everything. Having a poorly founded opinion is seemingly more excusable than not having one. The author is not having sex. We can discuss her situation which we know little about, and we can reflect upon the similarities and differences between her situation and ours. IMO the latter is far more valuable. Maybe it makes sense from her doctor's perspective to label her as practicing secondary abstinence. But that doesn't mean that the term is useful to describe her from her own perspective, or ours.
I was thinking about this, I think there's an issue with decision-thresholds. When we say that something is the 'Secondary' cause or reason, we are implying that the 'Primary' argument is enough on it's own to cause us to make a choice. Also, I think that there's another implication that while the 'Secondary' argument can be supporting evidence for the 'Primary,' it's not sufficient of itself to cause us to make the same choice as the 'Primary' argument. Also labeling glut, which I am definitely guilty of. I love boxes, hierarchies, categorization. Not sure what it all helps, but I enjoy it.
For starters, the woman who hasn't had sex in two years and doesn't exactly see sex happening any time might consider going off birth control pills. They might be causing depression. What's she on them for anyway? Maybe they keep her skin clear?
I would stay on them to keep my cycle regular even if I wasn't having sex. Also, it's a pain to go on them and off them - every time you want them you have to go into the doctor, if you've let the prescription lapse. Who wants that bother? And better safe than sorry - you never know when you're going to have sex again, and I'd prefer to have sex while on birth control than not. I think it's pretty possible that she feels if she goes off birth control she will be "giving up" on any illusions that she may be getting laid any time soon. I certainly would.
maybe so -- but don't people now normally use protection with new friends until you both get tested and make some kind of safe sex commitment (i.e. safe with others, but not with you) or monogamy. Given the situation... she'd meet somebody, spend 8-10 weeks (or, um, 8 to 10 days) falling in love, get tested... and besides, what's the magic of a regular cycle? The moon may wax and wane every 28 days, but how many women do normally... maybe The Pill these days is not as toxic as they used to be, except maybe YAZ.
If better safe than sorry, why not better more safe, (less) sorry? Contraception is the responsibility of both parties, to be sure, but just because I believe I'll use a condom without failure every time I have sex doesn't mean using hormonal birth control is unwise or unnecessary. I hate the entire experience of getting my period. As an adult I've still had occasions where it came unexpectedly or unusually heavily and at least once ruined my jeans while in a public place because of that. Embarrassing, inconvenient, and not to mention losing the jeans - not very economic. I also used to get hormonal migraines as a PMS. symptom and my BC helps mitigate those. There's lots of reasons to be on birth control even if you're certain you'll use a condom every time. I think it's more responsible for both partners to own and manage their BC and I see hormonal BC as my way of doing that. If you have a bad reaction to the medication or in general are anti-medicine then don't take it - but if you would agree with taking daily medicine for other reasons, then how's BC different?
So I'm bad at safe sex for sure. It hasn't been an issue yet but it's a matter of time probably. I had sex with a girl on the first date like three weeks ago. As long as you don't get anything that starts with an H (HIV, Hepatitis, Herpes) it's nothing penicillin won't clear up.
One of the things that pisses me off about the pharmacists demanding "conscience" objections. 14% from the Guttmacher Institute study. Second link with charts here I've seen a study that was 1/3 of all women on hormonal BC were using it for reasons not related to contraception, but cannot find the study to link.
It's definitely a little sanctimonious. I actually don't even like the article, just the one little phrase at the top, 'secondary abstinence'. To quote Dennis Reynolds, "I hate listening to people's dreams. It's like flipping through a stack of photographs. If I'm not in any of them, and nobody's having sex, I just... don't care." I extend that to people's pissy little problems that they don't care enough about to fix. I don't know her, I don't identify with her in any way, so it doesn't resonate with me. rjw is a man who would disagree and that's awesome because it proves she wrote something which could affect someone, which to me is the goal of writing. But I just don't care that an intelligent, attractive woman with a good job can't get laid. Why would I?
yeah I don't think it is really worthy of much sympathy or a big deal at all! but that does not preclude someone (me) identifying with it or it resonating. it's just... a small amount of resonance lol. my problems are all pretty pissy as well. it's like if someone made a pop song about how their parents wouldn't buy them the latest Xbox. somebody, somewhere is probably going to respond to that, regardless of the problem's actual magnitude so yeah! there's no reason to care, but there might be a reason to point at it and go "hey, me too"
Her friends are cunts. They shouldn't be shaming her for not having sex, or saying it has something to do with her that she isn't having sex. And the whole: “You have to stop refusing to sleep with people just because you don’t immediately want to marry them.” "have to"? Why? Why is it considered weird for people to not be having sex, honestly? Why is it anyone else's business? I'm thinking about consciously abstaining just to spite these turdbuckets. I haven't had sex in about eight years or so and life is fantastic. Why does everyone define their life on how much sex they are having? Oh, THAT'S why there are so many people I work with that don't do anything. They are too busy trying to figure out who they are going to bang next or when their wives are going to fuck them next to actually do their fucking job. Why is America in such bad shape? Everyone is applying their whole brain to when they will next get laid and not actually attempting to make their country a better place. (To be fair, there are plenty of people who don't spend their time worrying about this crap and are having regular sex, and to them, I say kudos!)
I didn't read it that way. Sometimes only friends can ask you the questions you don't want to be asked. My friends and I will often ask each other questions that are actually probing, but would be judgmental if they weren't coming from friends. If you trust her ability to vet her friends, then it might not be shaming, but just friendly sound-boarding and advice. If I had a friend that wanted to have sex but wasn't because she hadn't yet met someone she wanted to marry, I'd definitely tell her to consider to dropping the 'marriage material' requirement if having sex was that important to her. But I do agree, we obsess about sex far too much.Her friends are cunts. They shouldn't be shaming her for not having sex, or saying it has something to do with her that she isn't having sex.
I guess I'm just basing it off of what I've experienced and assumed she's experiencing the same. I've never heard those phrases meant constructively, even from what I would have called "friends", and it makes you feel really bad when you hear it. It's usually said with the implication that if you aren't having sex you must be miserable and depressed, and I've definitely heard these words quoted in the article: As if you are doing something inhuman or so depressing to them that they don't want to think about it. Usually they even go as far as to say you aren't experiencing the whole of human existence. "lower your standards" and such is also quite silly considering many women love being around me, and if I so desired I could easily go down that path with them I just don't want to. Sex is never "just sex", as people put it, with sex always comes waves and waves of drama that I just don't want to deal with, and being mentally ill I have plenty of drama in my head already without others adding to it. I now only keep friends that don't ask those questions at all and mind their own business. Most of what I currently have as friends don't even really know for sure what sexual orientation I am and that's the way I like it. Maybe her friends didn't mean it that way, but it's definitely received that way usually.“How can you go so long?” they ask. “I can’t imagine.”