Skip to main content

View Diary: Democrats organize birth control hearing with a woman, GOP refuses to televise it (113 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Yeah, I was being a bit idealistic there... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cai

    You're quite right, this does have to be taken in historical context, and the realities of the current world. I realize having birth control that doesn't rely on men cooperating is very important, especially since we're not the ones who get pregnant; I wasn't trying to say otherwise.

    I know you weren't trying to vilify men in general; sorry if I implied that!

    I had absolutely no idea that marital rape is such a "new" concept. I grew up in the age of "no means no, under ANY circumstance." So I guess that even if you couldn't, say, legally beat your wife, it was just fine to rape her? Wow.

    Really, I think we can probably agree that "NOBODY should have any say over ANYONE's birth control." Again, I'm being idealistic here... :)

    •  Well, some states did and some states didn't. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      holeworm

      The doctrine of "implied consent" stated that once a woman chose to marry a man -- and her choice there was important -- she had basically agreed to have sex with him whenever he wanted for the rest of her life.

      This was first articulated centuries ago, but it was amazingly long-lasting and influential.

    •  Also relevant: Griswold v. Connecticut, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      holeworm

      which ruled Connecticut's ban on birth control use violated privacy rights, only happened in 1965.  And that law applied to married couples!

      The rights married couples gained in Griswold weren't extended to unmarried couples until Eisenstadt v. Baird in 1972.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site