Remember the days when Tony Abbott spoke more freely on his views about the sinfulness of modern society? Sometimes I wonder if he misses those happier times when he was free to be “the mad monk”, deploring the “condom culture”.

Taking a pill is a piece of cake by comparison…

And his long lost opinions were just part of a chorus of conservative leaders and pro-life organisations who believe that easily accessible and effective contraception is ruining sex, as it means that couples don’t give themselves completely to each other.

But even the most cursory glances at history shows that contraception and sex have gone hand in hand since the earliest civilizations, long before the luxury and ease of hormonal and latex methods.

Here’s some of the clever ways that women controlled their fertility through the ages, from the beginnings of civilization to the arrival of the pill in the 20th century – forget the accusation of modern women trying to mess with God’s plan: Finding protection against STDs and pregnancy is part of human history.

Douching Syringe
Like a tiny shower for your cervix, these squirtable tubes were used by women in the 1800’s in the western world, with the intention of flushing out sperm from the cervix to avoid pregnancy or STDs. Even though the douche syringe has survived to this day it’s one of the far less effective ways, and always was, with doctors warning that in fact it can do damage by flushing bacteria around, risking infection. Incidentally the term “douche” originated in the 1960’s, making the modern-day insult feel a little old-fashioned.

The diaphragm
In the 19th Century the modern diaphragm with its fairly un-scary utilisation and friendly cap-like appearance was decades away, as was the hygienic and gentle rubber it would eventually end up being made of. “Womb veils”, as they were known, were made by pretty much anything would stay tucked into a cervix, including lemon halves and cedar resin. With the arrival of the modern diaphragm, acquiring the right sized diaphragm required the distinctly unsexy aid of a doctor, and was very hit or miss if you tried to work it out yourself.

The Sponge
A combination of a sponge and poison, vaginal sponges were about one inch square, and in the 19th century it was soaked in brandy as a spermicide before use, and had a silk cord or a twisted thread attached for easy removal, in ancient times before any official kind of spermicide was available women used natural spermicides like lemons – women used to soak a sponge in lemon juice, then apply it. You’d just want to hope that you hadn’t accidentally gotten any internal scratches recently.

The IUD
First used in 1909, the Intra-Uterine Device was another of those complicated forms of contraception that falls into the category of things that doctors had to spend a lot of time retrieving out of their patients. Even to this day, they remain the most effective non-hormonal contraception. These stringy bastards did a similar job to the diaphragm, except they plugged up the fallopian tubes. So this was sort of like letting the enemy in at the front gate, then trapping them in the foyer until they starved to death.

Pre-rubber condoms
Charles Goodyear invented the “vulcanization of rubber” in 1839, with the first rubber condom appearing in 1844, and beginning a slow progression to what is today still the most effective protection from pregnancy and birth control. But before this they were still using condoms made of animal intestines, leather and tortoise shell. During the 16th century, scientist Gabriele Falloppio recommended using cloth sheaths as contraceptives. The sheaths needed to be soaked in a chemical solution before being dried and worn during an intimate intercourse – a distinctly more pre-meditated style of condom than today’s luxurious product.

The contraceptive pill was not just a part of the Women’s Movement, it was a revolution in itself.

For a woman to be completely in control of her fertility was a major shift in the historical strata, and the incredible ease and luxury of using a distinctly un-terrifying looking condom was light years away from having to painstakingly wrap a penis in gauze for hours.

We live in a time where sex is distinctly less impeded than in the centuries proceeding us: perhaps it’s time to celebrate this.

Comments on this post close at the very sexy time of 8pm

Most commented

176 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • andrew says:

      05:16am | 28/02/13

      http://www.malecontraceptives.org/

      The only other form of contraceptive we need now is a male pill. Research has been done into possible compounds, however it seems that drug companies are not that interested in the commercial release of these products. It’s ridiculous that women have so many convenient options such as implanon or the pill but men only have condoms or otherwise rely on a partner’s word that she is taking effective contraception.

      Now if you’ll excuse me i’m off to soak in an unpleasantly warm bath for about 45 minutes wink

    • acotrel says:

      07:28am | 28/02/13

      You could always use the ‘glass of water’ method.  You don’t have it before or after - you have it instead.

    • O_O says:

      07:40am | 28/02/13

      +1

      Surely the male pill is something society could do with. You would think that feminists would be keen to even the balance of responsibilty in this area?

    • Iggy Crash says:

      07:41am | 28/02/13

      Bang on! (No pun intended) My hubby would kill for a male pill or implanom

    • bj says:

      08:36am | 28/02/13

      +1

      The emergence of the male pill will also be a fascinating social change. I wonder just how much the birth rate will fall. I wonder how some women will cope without the ability to tell men who leave them that she is pregnant.

    • Al says:

      09:30am | 28/02/13

      Wasn’t there an announcement not that long ago that they had come up with one?
      Of course if it is a matter of simply not wanting any kids there is always the snip.

    • lisadp says:

      09:32am | 28/02/13

      A reversible vasectomy (which is any vasectomy) might be useful to you. Women, on the other hand, are usually trying delay than completely avoid pregnancy.

      But I don’t disagree a male pill would be useful. As I understand it, leaving the testicles in warm water (uncomfortably so, as you put it) would have a precisely analogous effect for at least several days without the hormonal side effects.

    • Tubesteak says:

      09:44am | 28/02/13

      I agree. I find it strange that such a thing hasn’t entered the market. I entirely disagree that men wouldn’t want it or take it. If men can talk for hours about their protein shakes and body building regimes then surely we can stick to a simple pill.

    • Sanity says:

      10:15am | 28/02/13

      @andrew, there are more things to medication than just “possible compounds”. They also need to ensure that those same compounds aren’t going to cause major problems with other parts of the body (in fact, some medications have been withdrawn because they’ve caused liver problems or strokes). Yes, all medications do have side effects of some description, but when it gets to the point of killing people, you’d probably want to take it off the market.

      There is also a female condom for the record, but it’s not as commonly used or available. Still doesn’t prevent STI’s from memory, but then again, neither do any of the hormonal contraceptives.

    • andrew says:

      11:50am | 28/02/13

      Don’t worry about me guys, my wife and I more often than not combine the recommended 2 methods - hormonal and abstinence! :(

    • Greg A says:

      12:11pm | 28/02/13

      ‘otherwise rely on a partner’s word that she is taking effective contraception’ had a friend that trusted his ex girlfriend on that one. She has consequently finacially raped him (and continues too) and damaged a child by bringing it up by herself.

    • Modern Primtiive says:

      12:21pm | 28/02/13

      Joys of marraige, huh andrew?.

    • Kika says:

      01:23pm | 28/02/13

      I don’t think it;s been proven that a man could take it at the same time everyday…

    • Sue says:

      02:18pm | 28/02/13

      Greg A, your friend is not the first and will not be the last to have a woman try to entrap them into marriage by getting pregnant.

    • Jaqui says:

      02:19pm | 28/02/13

      @andrew: So its true then? Married men are the biggest wankers?

    • Modern Primitive says:

      02:34pm | 28/02/13

      Are you saying men aren’t as capable as women, kika?

    • Sickemrex says:

      02:36pm | 28/02/13

      I thought the main reason for the assortment of hormonal options for women rather than men was because it’s much easier to stop one egg a month than a million sperm per serve, rather than an anti-male conspiracy.

    • ByStealth says:

      06:03pm | 28/02/13

      Feminists have deliberately blocked development if the male contraceptive pill, ostensibly because men would lie about being on it to pressure women for condom free sex. Funny how society would respond if men used this argument to restrict access to the female pill to prevent ‘oops’ pregnancies by women wishing to trap men into relationships and collect child support.

      Don’t take my word for it though. Search for Dr Coutinho, feminists and male pill on YouTube and Google.

    • Mahhrat says:

      05:49am | 28/02/13

      Absolutely.  It freed women from a large part of the risk of pregnancy and that is always a great thing.

      Now it’s time to do the same for men.  We can talk condoms all we want, but they are more effective at preventing STDs than they are pregnancies.  The only true way for a man to ensure he doesn’t get his lady pregnant is not to have intercourse.  Given male sexuality, that’s probably unlikely to catch on smile

      Risug is a revolutionary treatment being trialled, and it amazes me that the drug has been about for at least two years but is getting ridiculously low media time.

      This would provide men with a reproductive control previously only provided by surgery - which, is dangerous if you ever decided to change your mind.

      Let’s get Risug working as well.  It’ll change the game.

    • gobsmack says:

      08:38am | 28/02/13

      Castration would be pretty effective (and popular with some feminists).

    • Modern Primitive says:

      10:39am | 28/02/13

      I’m quite attached to my balls, gobsmack. I’ll take the risug option thanks.

    • Colin says:

      11:43am | 28/02/13

      @ Modern Primitive

      “I’m quite attached to my balls, gobsmack…”

      Indeed, you are; they seem to form either side of the frontal lobes of (what you would laughing call) your brain by all accounts… grin

    • Modern Primitive says:

      12:32pm | 28/02/13

      Me think you mean, Colina wink

    • Tubesteak says:

      02:35pm | 28/02/13

      * laughingly

      Fixed that for you, Colin. No need to thank me.

    • Trevor says:

      04:14pm | 28/02/13

      “The only true way for a man to ensure he doesn’t get his lady pregnant is not to have intercourse.”

      Everyone is ignoring the elephant in the room: anal sex.

      Remember the old ditty: ‘Up the bum no babies!’

    • Gregg says:

      05:53am | 28/02/13

      It is probably not just conservative leaders that might question the fullness of great sex for some women because of religious or even health grounds do not use the pill and so it is often going to be the use of other means which might even be a promise to not come until later!
      There will be the underlying worry and that can be inhibiting as compared to the times when it is to hell with it etc.

    • infamous16 says:

      06:07am | 28/02/13

      Oh Holly, you temptress:
      “We live in a time where sex is distinctly less impeded than in the centuries proceeding us: perhaps it’s time to celebrate this.”

    • Mahhrat says:

      08:33am | 28/02/13

      With…sex?

    • Sandra says:

      08:38am | 28/02/13

      That quote their show’s exactly why contraception is a sin. No longer is sex a sacred rite given to us by God so we may procreate and multiply, now contraception makes sex nothing more then the fulfilmant of our lustful urges. Today’s generation is made of fornicators who sin against God.  Sex is something the devil now uses to take people away from God people who forget why we where given the gift of sex and whose arrogance, pride and lust pushes them further from God.

    • acotrel says:

      08:44am | 28/02/13

      Someone once said ‘there is no such thing as bad sex’ - they were wrong ! If the relationship is wrong, sex will never make it right . The best sex you will ever have is with someone you really love as a person.

    • Jim Moriarty says:

      09:35am | 28/02/13

      @Sandra

      As a former Catholic, let me take the time to tell you all about the awesome lustful urges I have with my boyfriend. I am quite proud about it.

    • Mahhrat says:

      09:52am | 28/02/13

      @Sandra:  Happy to have God come down here and explain it any time God likes.  I’m free for a couple hours next Wednesday - does that work for God?

      I pity you for how much you must hate yourself and I hope you find true happiness on this Earth.  Any God that would deny you happiness at any point of your existence is a prick mate.  Just sayin’

    • Chris L says:

      09:57am | 28/02/13

      @Sandra - That’s because your god is a niggardly stick-in-the-mud and your devil is a fun, carefree party guy. (I refer to them as “your” guys because I seriously doubt either of them actually exist.)

    • Tim the Toolman says:

      10:00am | 28/02/13

      “No longer is sex a sacred rite given to us by God”

      Wait…you’re saying doing something that’s extremely fun and pleasurable and hurts no one, pushes me further away from your manipulative, genoicidal psychotic god?  Who would have thought sex could get better?!

    • Dixie says:

      10:06am | 28/02/13

      It’s a shame the gay agenda is about spreading hate.

    • KJ says:

      11:23am | 28/02/13

      Sandra
      “Today’s generation is made of fornicators who sin against God.”  you must be suggesting a new definition for the term ‘generation’ .  What did you have in mind.  5000, 10000, 20000 years.

    • Sandra says:

      11:53am | 28/02/13

      @chris - Their is no reason to be a racist in your response. Besides god is not one of them anyway. The black race comes from Noah’s son Ham, who was cursed because he saw his fathers nakedness.

    • Modern primitive says:

      12:03pm | 28/02/13

      Thank god I don’t believe in him, I don’t think I could handle the guilt.

    • Jim Moriarty says:

      12:15pm | 28/02/13

      @Dixie

      Yes, I represent and present the view of every gay man, that has ever been and ever will be.

    • Bruno says:

      12:30pm | 28/02/13

      actually Mahhrat I’d say Sandra could possibly be the happiest person anywhere. If she is in a loving relationship and has a family then she is much happier than all those who fornicate with someone different every friday and saturday night for regardless of what they say they are searching for what Sandra has. Or Sandra could simply be a troll.

    • James1 says:

      12:41pm | 28/02/13

      “@chris - Their is no reason to be a racist in your response. Besides god is not one of them anyway. The black race comes from Noah’s son Ham, who was cursed because he saw his fathers nakedness.”

      Sandra just went full retard.

    • T says:

      12:42pm | 28/02/13

      Ohhh! Thank you Sandra, I have really bad tonsillitis today (I can’t shake it damn it! Must be the devils doin!) and this brightened up my day. Gave me a bit of extra spark to get through the day!

      Hilarious! I cannot fathom how you believe that rubbish! It is utter nonsense, so much hate! I wonder, if there was a god how sorry he must feel for you.

      Oh and Mahhrat you made me crack up so much I spilt my lunch all over myself! So funny, I’m also free next wendesday.

    • Brian says:

      12:55pm | 28/02/13

      From Wiktionary: Niggardly: (now rare) Withholding for the sake of meanness; stingy, miserly

      See this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niggardly

      Nothing to do with ‘nigger’, and in fact predates it significantly. Nice try though, Sandra.

    • marley says:

      01:05pm | 28/02/13

      Best set of exchanges I’ve seen in ages….“god is not one of them”  - priceless.

    • Chris L says:

      01:40pm | 28/02/13

      @James1 - I’ve only just stopped laughing, but it threatens to bubble right back to the surface!

    • Mahhrat says:

      02:09pm | 28/02/13

      @Bruno:  By what yardstick? 

      See, here is the problem with Sandra (and, it appears, you too…in which case, you have my pity also) - you’re measuring everyone’s happiness against what you approve people are allowed to be happy about.

      I have a wonderful family.  Mum’s catholic, but none of us are regular churchgoers.

      I know several people - men and women both - who love living the single life.

      More still are in committed relationships - including a couple gay relationships - and are blissfully happy living in what Sandra (and you, haven’t figured that bit out yet) would call “sin” and something to be ashamed of.

      The problem here isn’t what makes you happy - it’s the fact that you seem committed to everyone else agreeing with your approval of what happiness is and changing accordingly.

      You know what?  Rack off, the pair of you.  I’m too busy having a good life, living well, treating those around me as I wish to be treated (and before you start, that particularly piece of wisdom predates Christianity by at least 1000 years) and generally just enjoying stuff.

      You go do whatever makes you happy.  I sincerely doubt however, given the “sin” that poor Sandra must be forced to witness every day, that she is enjoying her life.

    • Tubesteak says:

      02:42pm | 28/02/13

      Sandra
      Sex is the greatest recreational activity in the known universe. Anyone that denies themselves that fun is a fool. They probably believe in sky-fairies and flying spaghetti monsters

      Bruno
      No, we are not. I have explained enough times why not in the past. No need for explanation here.

    • Bruno says:

      03:27pm | 28/02/13

      @mahhrat - I was not agreeing with Sandra’s views. I was questioning whether she is really as miserable and hateful and everyone is making her out to be. I also question everyone else’s declarations at how truly happy they are. Maybe Sandra seeks to help and “bring back to the path” those she sees as sinners. Perhaps she sees her salvation in attempting to salve others and even though she is doomed to fail more than succeed the attempt may bring her fulfillment. Or perhaps she just didn’t get any this morning I don’t know but I think its unfair to label her as hateful, retarded and a dinosaur. Her words may have been meant with complete humility and no judgement.

    • Sandra says:

      04:40pm | 28/02/13

      Thank you Bruno.

      It is certinly not my place to judge fornicators. God will do that when He casts them into hellfire.

    • Sickemrex says:

      05:13pm | 28/02/13

      @ Brune, “Today’s generation is made of fornicators who sin against God.

      Nah, not much judgement going on there…

    • marley says:

      05:56pm | 28/02/13

      @sandra - of course, if there is no god, we’ll all have had a lot of fun for the short space of our lives, and you won’t.  And if there is a god, I’m willing to bet he’d be happier with a bunch of us doing what he designed us to do, than with a few tut-tutters thinking he made a mistake.

    • Jay2 says:

      06:15am | 28/02/13

      Tony Abbott can irritate the hell out of me at times, but remind me again Holly, was this a sincere article about contraception or an excuse to “Abbott Abbott Abbott” before an inconvenient segue to a story?
      An otherwise interesting article spoilt a bit by the lack of willpower to resist an urge to have a personal dig..

    • acotrel says:

      08:38am | 28/02/13

      Abbott could become PM in a minute, perhaps his opinions are important ?

    • Chris L says:

      09:47am | 28/02/13

      Abbott is the most recent (or, at least, the most recent well-known) example of a politician getting themselves involved in other peoples’ sex lives.

    • Keith Hammersmith says:

      10:46am | 28/02/13

      In that case acotrel, is it relevant that JG isn’t married, doesn’t believe in god and has no children, or are personal choices/beliefs just that?

    • Jenny says:

      12:15pm | 28/02/13

      Is JG’s history with other women’s husbands also irrelavent, after all their was always a risk of .......

    • ZSRenn says:

      06:32am | 28/02/13

      An Abbott bash piece thinly disguised as a lesson in the history of contraception! When will Labor supporters get it? Australians are sick of being treated like fools by this government and its supporters!

      Patronizing at best I want my 5 minutes back

    • Joan says:

      09:49am | 28/02/13

      Yep - this is just an Abbott bash . If it were a real genuine article on women liberation and benefits of contraception , the childless Gillard would have been put under the spotlight.

    • Chris L says:

      10:14am | 28/02/13

      @Joan - Because Gillard is on record saying what about sex or contraception?

    • Alex says:

      06:34am | 28/02/13

      Funny… I know plenty of faithful couples who have prevented STDs without needing contraception. Pregnancy? I know plenty who have had big families, small families, whatever-sized families based on a faithful monogamous relationship and using natural and healthy methods.

      Contraception - don’t pretend everyone’s doin it.

    • Matt says:

      09:21am | 28/02/13

      Alex, what are these natural and healthy methods? I assume they have been tested and found to be as reliable as conventional contraception?

    • Jim Moriarty says:

      09:32am | 28/02/13

      So you routinley talk about contraception with your friends?

      Sounds… like a really awkward conversation.

    • marley says:

      09:56am | 28/02/13

      @Jim Moriarty - you know, I’ve been around for a lot of years and I don’t believe I’ve ever discussed with another couple how they manage the risk of STDs, whether they’re monogamous, and what contraception methods they use.  I just have a sneaking suspicion Alex is making a lot of assumptions about other peoples’ habits, based on his own.

    • Jim Moriarty says:

      10:34am | 28/02/13

      @Marley

      I’m inclined to agree.

      God, I don’t want to talk about contraceptives with friends. “Oh, well, I take the pill, and Kevin here is more into french ticklers.” Awkward.

    • Rebecca says:

      11:22am | 28/02/13

      @Jim… I do. But then again, I’m a 22 year old girl. I talk about everything with my close friends, in highly inappropriate detail. We don’t find it awkward.

      But I do think that unless you are financially and mentally ready to take on the responsibility of being a parent, contraception is non-negotiable (unless you’re not having sex).

    • Anne71 says:

      12:10pm | 28/02/13

      “Natural and healthy methods” - I’m assuming you’re referring to that method of contraception beloved of the Catholic Church, the “Rhythm Method”  - otherwise known as “Vatican Roulette”  wink

    • Jim Moriarty says:

      01:24pm | 28/02/13

      @Rebecca

      I have noticed the Gen Y’s are very open to each other about sex.

      I’m Gen X, so I prefer not to know about my friend’s sex lives and I wouldn’t want to talk to them about mine. I can’t imagine how awkward that conversation would be!

    • Rebecca says:

      03:07pm | 28/02/13

      @Jim: You’re right, it is a very ‘Gen Y’ thing to be so open about sex. In my circle of friends nobody is embarrassed. It’s just a part of life, and I like having a few people I trust to ask about literally anything without judgement - of course, those conversations remain with my closer friends only.

      But I completely understand that it’s not for everyone - it would definitely be an awkward topic for a lot of people and I get why.

    • Direct says:

      06:36am | 28/02/13

      There is nothing to celebrate until there is a male pill.

    • Jim Moriarty says:

      09:30am | 28/02/13

      I dunno, I celebrate the condom.

    • Modern Primitive says:

      10:43am | 28/02/13

      The male pill will bring about true equality. Both partners/ or just the man can be responsible for contraception, instead of having the burden on women all the time. I imagine this would be good for women who don’t respond all that well to hormonal birth control and men who don’t like condoms.

      Can’t wait.

    • acotrel says:

      06:37am | 28/02/13

      Abbott is a man of the fifties, I lived through that era and I don’t want t o go back there. A lot of our modern day relationship problems come from weird religous-based attitudes to sex.  Attempts at prohibition simply make it much more attractive.  If our kids were properly educated in life skills they might move beyond ‘greasy kid’s stuff’ and look for their soul mate instead of simply seeking short term gratification. In the olden days we had ballroom dances where people could meet their partners, and you had to sign a ladies card to get a dance .  The weirdo attitude to sex which existed back then gave rise to strange motives .  People seemed to often marry simply to get laid, and we haven’t moved much further forward these days.  Sex is great, however a relationship based solely on that won’t last for long.

    • Ged says:

      08:42am | 28/02/13

      It’s more than obvious you still live in the fifties.

    • wakeuppls says:

      08:51am | 28/02/13

      “A lot of our modern day relationship problems come from weird religous-based attitudes to sex”

      No, they don’t. They come from the divorce industry. Showing sexual restraint is a healthy trait as is fosters the family structure. Or are you now so deluded that you think the family is a bad conservative right-wing thing as well?

    • Chris L says:

      10:03am | 28/02/13

      @wakeuppls - the construct of the “family structure” is part of the problem. Trying to squeeze everyone into a single shape or structure never works. The raising of children used to involve much more than just mum and dad (hence the expression “it takes a village”) and I don’t see why people try to limit families to the current, rigid model.

    • wakeuppls says:

      10:23am | 28/02/13

      Chris L

      It hasn’t been a problem for millennia so I really don’t know what you’re talking about, considering the restructure of the family in the past 30 years has had clear and irreversible effects on children. You only have to look at the correlations between single motherhood and crime to realise reality.

    • Modern Primitive says:

      10:45am | 28/02/13

      @ Chris L, it’s shown that children raised in a two parent household exhibit better outcomes in life than those raised in a one parent household.

    • James1 says:

      12:36pm | 28/02/13

      Chris L’s point is that the nuclear family structure you seem to think is “millennia” old is actually quite recent.  Extended family structure is the historical norm, and the shift to nuclear family structures came about quite recently, largely as a result of the increased prosperity of the last 100 years.

      The reason you don’t know what he is talking about is because once again your knowledge of history is both limited and based on assertions of what you think should be true, rather than what the historical record indicates.

    • HC says:

      01:03pm | 28/02/13

      @wakeuppls

      Correlation does not equal causality.  And sexual restraint only creates perverts of the weirdest and most boring kind, kids fumbling in the dark and getting each other pregnant because they don’t know what the hell they’re doing, people who force abstinence on others and refuse to accept the consequences of the freaks they create, paranoid people whining about ‘agendas’, people who find politics ‘fascinating’ (seriously spend more time getting laid you dumb pundits!).

      All human accomplishments to date, from art to music, plays to phallic shaped buildings, only occurred because of people trying to get in to other people’s pants.  Sexual restraint holds this creativity back.

      @acotrel

      Actually it’s more an English prudishness based on Victorian ideals that shapes our weird attitudes towards sex these days more than religious ideals.  Religion has merely attached itself to it because it’s convenient.

    • wakeuppls says:

      01:16pm | 28/02/13

      James1

      Where did I say nuclear family? You’re just so full of your desire for socialist rhetoric that you invent strawmen. Romans and Greeks had a father-headed household (i.e the father has been present in families for millennia, unlike today) but you’d already know the exact history of the family and how, you know, national governments have such a history of managing one of the basic building blocks of society.

      If you really want to get fancy, the State becoming the father is such a fundamental shift from traditional family that that fact alone is enough to warrant serious criticism of society’s direction.

      By the way, you’re simply wrong even about the nuclear family. It existed pre-industrial revolution and was the reason for its success, not the other way around. Talk about not knowing history.

    • Chris L says:

      01:53pm | 28/02/13

      Thanks James1, I mustn’t have explained my point clearly enough if people think I was promoting single parenthood as being the best model.

    • wakeuppls says:

      02:10pm | 28/02/13

      HC

      Next you’ll be telling me the plague of teen mothers is a good thing. After all, telling teens to go at it because you get a baby bonus and welfare is so much better than the alternative of kids with mothers and fathers of mature age.

    • Modern Primitive says:

      02:36pm | 28/02/13

      >- the construct of the “family structure” is part of the problem.

      If you weren’t, you seem to have been heavily implying it Chris L.

    • HC says:

      02:47pm | 28/02/13

      @wakeuppls

      Nope teen mothers are not ok and doing it for welfare cheques is the height of stupidity nor did I allude to that.  In fact studies show that kids who have easy access to contraceptives and who are thoroughly educated about sex and sexuality actually wait longer to have their first sexual experience, have far fewer ‘accidents’, fewer sexual partners and are far less likely to become teenage parents.

      My point is you can’t stop teens from going at it.  You can’t restrain people’s urges so don’t bother trying (we are just mildly intelligent animals afterall), just arm them with all the information, give them a choice and trust them to make the right decision.  9 times out of 10 they’ll make the right choice.

      The only thing sexual repression or restraint leads to is a bunch of miserable idiots who overcompensate for their lack of sex by making others as miserable as humanly possible.

    • James1 says:

      03:34pm | 28/02/13

      Now you are just inventing things, wakeuppls.  Sure, the nuclear family existed before the industrial revolution (I never said it didn’t exist, I said extended families were the norm, but nice strawman attempt), but the majority of families by far lived in an extended family situation.  It was exceedingly rare for a father, mother and children to live alone without other relatives, outside the upper classes.  Indeed, globally, it is still fairly rare outside western countries.  It was the industrial revolution that caused the shift away from extended family situations, as prosperity increased, the number of individuals living in particular households decreased.  Once again, just because you want something to be true, doesn’t mean it is.  You clearly don’t know much about pre-industrial peasant and serf societies, or about early-industrial workers and their living conditions if you think that most houses contained mum, dad and the kids and no other relatives.

      Likewise in ancient Roman households. For plebians - the majority of citizens - the extended family household was again by far the most common family structure.  You are thinking of the patrician household, again a tiny minority in Roman society.

      I actually agree that families have taken a beating the last 30-50 years, and that something needs to change for this to be reversed.  I don’t think you will find too many reasonable people who would disagree with that proposition.  I just don’t like the way you invent history to suit the narrative you present on these pages.  I also don’t like the way you deliberately mischaracterise people’s arguments so as to argue against propositions they didn’t make - it is highly intellectually dishonest.

    • Chris L says:

      03:36pm | 28/02/13

      @Modern Primitive - I was referring to the attitude that families must confirm to a specific set of prerequisites in order to be considered a good or healthy family. I’m happy, however, to acknowledge that this could have been communicated better (as mentioned in my previous comment).

      @Wakeuppls - You’re calling James a socialist? Is that just a reflex action whenever anyone doesn’t agree with you?

      You may not have specifically said “nuclear family” but as Modern Primitive (who does agree with you and therefore must not be a socialist) would say, you seem to have been heavily implying it.

    • James1 says:

      03:42pm | 28/02/13

      “It hasn’t been a problem for millennia so I really don’t know what you’re talking about, considering the restructure of the family in the past 30 years has had clear and irreversible effects on children.”

      If you don’t see how this states that the family structure of 30 years ago (that is, the nuclear family) is “millennia” old, then you really need to work on your English expression, as you don’t understand the meaning of the words you use.

    • Stained says:

      03:55pm | 28/02/13

      I’d love to know how Acotrel knows more about Abbott’s sex life than his wife.

      How come you nothing about your dear leader’s sex life Aco?  Or are you not interested in M/F sex?

    • wakeuppls says:

      07:02am | 28/02/13

      And now women have complete control of not only their fertility but also whether or not a man’s child sees the light of day. You go systas!

    • NSS says:

      10:05am | 28/02/13

      A man’s child? Funny, I thought it was the joining of sperm and ovum which becomes an embryo/foetus foetus which is effectively part of the mother’s body until viability and birth. Woman’s body, woman’s choice. When men can gestate then they can choose.

    • Modern primitive says:

      11:05am | 28/02/13

      Why should a man not have any choice in whether he becomes a father or not?

    • Jax says:

      11:09am | 28/02/13

      @NSS - “When a man can gestate then they can choose” - what, choose to pay for a child for the next 18 years because a woman said ‘yeah, I am on the pill’ - followed with ‘no I am not going to terminate the pregnancy’ - this is the choice they should have.

    • Markus says:

      12:27pm | 28/02/13

      @NSS, should a man be able to demand a return of his property in the event of such a disagreement over a pregnancy?
      A refusal to return it could then be considered theft.
      Man’s genetic material, man’s choice.

    • NSS says:

      12:30pm | 28/02/13

      @ Modern primitive. Did I say a man had no say in procreation full stop? He has the right to offer an opinion, he does not have the right to impose that opinion in any way on a pregnant woman ie re abortion, which wakeuppls comment appears to suggest.

      Also, since women have to gestate and then give birth, deciding whether they wish to do so is entirely reasonable. If the woman you’d like to have a child with does not, then find someone else to be the mother of “your child”.

      @Jax I do not countenance lying about being on the pill. However, I woman can easily mess up taking the pill (ie vomiting and not retaking it; missing it for a couple of days)and become pregnant. It does not mean she lied necessarily. However, since it takes both a man and a woman to create it, the child when born is both parents responsibility. If men wish for more protection from an unwanted pregnancy, perhaps they shouldn’t insist on not using a condom so often.

    • T says:

      12:48pm | 28/02/13

      although I don’t agree with NSS comment, it should be decided between both parties not just one.

      But @Jax, that isn’t an excuse, if you don’t want a kid or an STI you should have worn a condom instead of relying on somebody else to pick up the slack. Take responsibilty for your actions.

    • Modern Primitive says:

      01:29pm | 28/02/13

      >He has the right to offer an opinion, he does not have the right to impose that opinion in any way on a pregnant woman ie re abortion, which wakeuppls comment appears to suggest.

      That’s fine, as long as he isn’t required to pay for it if someone accidentally got pregnant.

    • Kika says:

      01:37pm | 28/02/13

      A man’s child? Isn’t it ‘their child’?

      1) If you aren’t ready to be a father, wear a condom.. or better yet… abstain.
      2) If you are, and your girlfriend/wife isn’t, then you need to discuss this
      3) If she is, and you aren’t, wear a condom.

      Take charge of the situation yourselves instead of blaming the woman all the time. It’s very easy to do.

      I’m pregnant right now and although the baby is me and my husband’s child, it’s very much ‘within my dominion’. I’m the one making sure I eat healthy, drink water, sleep, go to my antenatal appointments, follow up with my midwife for any concerns. It’s my job at the moment. As soon as that baby is born, it will be ‘our job’. 

      Wakeupppls - There’s a lot of blokes who don’t want to be fathers. A lot of women have abortions for the sake of their boyfriends and end up very messed up about it just the same.

    • NSS says:

      01:53pm | 28/02/13

      @ Markus. Maybe the man should have been a tad more careful about where said “genetic material” was deposited in the first place? Theft. ha! Nice semantic contortion.

    • NSS says:

      02:28pm | 28/02/13

      @modern primitive. You do realise that it took two people to make that unwanted pregnancy don’t you? If the woman has to go through an abortion, the least the guy can do is offer to pay for it. I guess it depends on his manners and sense of honour.

    • Modern Primitive says:

      02:41pm | 28/02/13

      NSS, I meant pay for the child in case the women doesn’t want an abortion and the man does. Men have no rights in this area.

      Plenty of men have been tangled up by “oops” pregnancies, I think that if a father doesn’t want a child and has made that clear before pursuing relations with a women then he shouldn’t be held accountable for it.

      Sadly, this isn’t the way the world works, so bring on the male pill and we’ll all be happy.

    • ifm says:

      07:05am | 28/02/13

      Just couldnt help yourself Holy abbott abbott abbott, how sad ruined a good article with politics!

    • acotrel says:

      08:41am | 28/02/13

      Abbott must be a worry t o you LNP supporters ?

    • v says:

      01:36pm | 28/02/13

      keep living your dream acotrel. Only31% of the population live on your planet.

    • Tim says:

      07:13am | 28/02/13

      Yep contraception is great.

      It’s allowed us to sleep with heaps of women without any commitment to them or the chance of unwanted spawn from a one night stand.

      Awesome.

    • Levi says:

      07:15am | 28/02/13

      Keep pushing the “Abbott is a misogynist pro-lifer” all you like. Just because it is the Labor party official line doesn’t make it true, you know.

    • Anne71 says:

      12:52pm | 28/02/13

      Levi - the “misogynist” part may be open to debate, but the “pro-lifer” bit certainly isn’t.

    • GregE says:

      07:26am | 28/02/13

      What a stupid thing to try to link Tony Abbott too! I think we’ve heard it all now. Just rediculous.

      If you vote or support the LNP, clearly you’re against condoms and all forms of contraception. What a completely laughable suggestion! We must be in an election year.

      So now we all understand the political motivation of this piece. Apart from that??? Thanks for the history lesson.

    • Joan Bennett says:

      07:41am | 28/02/13

      andrew, you forget that men can have vasectomies which are reversible if they want to have children later.  I think many men forget that as they always seem to get annoyed when they impregnate a woman (like they had nothing to do with it).  My friend got pregnant twice on the pill and ended up having a major surgery to stop it happening again because her husband refused to have the simpler procedure.  Needless to say, they are no longer together.

      It always amazes me how men bring children into the world that they don’t really want when they just need to visit their GP.  No wonder there are so many messed up people in the world…

    • Markus says:

      10:43am | 28/02/13

      I don’t think many men forget that at all, they just keep in mind the fact that it is a surgical procedure that carries the same risks of complication as any other surgery, such as hematoma and infection, when many other cheaper and less risky alternatives are available on the market.

      “It always amazes me how men bring children into the world that they don’t really want when they just need to visit their GP.”
      That sentence makes no sense. Apart from the fact that a GP can’t perform vasectomies, if a man didn’t really want a child then you can be assured that it was not their decision to then bring it into the world.

    • Modern Primitive says:

      10:47am | 28/02/13

      >andrew, you forget that men can have vasectomies which are reversible if they want to have children later. 

      Exactly how reversible are they though?

      >I think many men forget that as they always seem to get annoyed when they impregnate a woman

      Perhaps it’s often a case of “oh, the pill didn’t work, Surprise!”

    • andrew says:

      11:45am | 28/02/13

      Joan, Dr’s advice is do not consider a vasectomy reversible - as they more often than not aren’t. Either way it’s not ideal for a man to be expected to have 2 lots of surgery for something that can surely be solved by a male pill or injection following a bit more research.

    • Robert S McCormick says:

      07:55am | 28/02/13

      The looming collapse of the red-neck, bigoted, ultra-conservative Catholic Church had it’s origins with the release of “The Pill”!
      Women suddenly discovered that they and not some unmarried, possible paedophile twat dressed in the white drag of the Pope, the red of the Cardinals all the way down to the black of the local priests, were in control of their own bodies.
      Even after so many years the loudest voice against the use of “The Pill” is still that massive money-making business.
      Pre-Pill women still had to get permission from their husbands to use a “diaphragm!
      If memory serves when “The Pill” was first introduced for a period your local, friendly, male, GP would not prescribe it without the “woman’s owner” - in those days her husband - giving his permission for her to be given the prescription! Then along came rational, intelligent, free-thinking Female GPs who ignored that stupid rule the men & priests had introduced & started prescribing “The Pill to any woman who asked for it! Male GPs, if they wanted to keep making money, had to give in!!
      Remember that ridiculous church-approved system whereby the man had to pull out just as he reached orgasm? Yeah! Right! You are in the throes of the highest sexual arousal possible & you have to remember to pull out!! Bullshit!
      That old imaginary bloke up in some imaginary heaven is we, are told, “Omnipotent” & “Omniscient”.
      If he was so bloody all-powerful & all-knowing and did not, as those in Rome would have us believe, want “Women to mess with God’s Plan” then why did he give men & women the power to invent “The Pill” & all those half-successful methods of contraception? That has nothing to do with that other nonsense they blather on about “Free Will”.
      If there is a god, there isn’t it’s just a control mechanism invented by men to control other human beings and, in particular, Women. Check all religions with their roots in the Middle East (Judaism, Christianity & Islam) they were all created by men. They all class women as the “property of men”, as Second Class, The Bible even states that if a woman’s husband dies then her brother is required to take her as his wife - never mind that he already has one or more already. The widow has no choice.
      Look at the punishments the Bible & the Qu’ran authorise for for any woman who commits adultery or even makes friends with any man before she get married! The men, typically, are allowed to do as they want.
      The greatest boon for women was the day they took control of their own bodies & denied that control to men and in particular those unmarried, possibly paedophile, ones who know nothing about real life we call “Priest”

    • wakeuppls says:

      09:35am | 28/02/13

      I don’t know if you realise this, but Christians in the UK, Australia and the US are mostly Protestant Christians. Nice shot across the Christian bow though. Doing you and your ignorant atheist buddies proud.

    • d says:

      10:55am | 28/02/13

      ‘Pulling out’ is considered a mortal sin by the catholic church as it is not a full expression of self giving.

    • ramases says:

      08:01am | 28/02/13

      I started to read this article then realised that it was another article written by some dweeb who just wanted an excuse to have a rant about Abbott.
        If you wanted to do that then why dress it up as a serious article at all, just paraphrase acotrel, Christian Real, gof and the like and vent your spleen that way.
        What could have been an interesting article is now filed under LaborTroll, do not read.

    • Alfie says:

      08:08am | 28/02/13

      Gabriele Falloppio - inventor of old style condoms. LMAO

    • Vernon says:

      08:59am | 28/02/13

      I bet Grant Kenny is wishing there had been a male pill available !

    • Fiona says:

      05:45pm | 28/02/13

      Or he could have, shock horror, used a condom!

    • Blue says:

      09:09am | 28/02/13

      “We live in a time where sex is distinctly less impeded than in the centuries proceeding us: perhaps it’s time to celebrate this.”

      How about a root?

    • Emma2 says:

      09:21am | 28/02/13

      Contraception has been great, it has allowed me all the sex I want with or without commitment, and kept me STI and baby free smile

      on the baby free note, men need to start lobbying harder for their own pill. It’s good to be in control of your body/possible spawn.

    • Modern Primitive says:

      10:49am | 28/02/13

      You go girl, I don’t see why women shouldn’t be allowed to enjoy themselves. I wonder though, what do other women think of a women who wants to enjoy herself?

      Also, I’d love a male pill, apparently there have been quite a few options for male contraception for some time, but we haven’t seen/heard much about them.

    • T says:

      12:53pm | 28/02/13

      “I wonder though, what do other women think of a women who wants to enjoy herself?”

      Most mature open minded ones think she has every right and embrace it themselves!

      And I agree Emma2, Men stand up and demand this pill… I tend to forget to take mine some days smile

    • Scotchfinger says:

      01:24pm | 28/02/13

      Modern Primitive, there is a male contraceptive out there, stupendously effective: it’s called Marriage. Even Tony Abbott supports its use.

    • Modern Primitive says:

      02:38pm | 28/02/13

      Not exactly cheap though is it Scotchy?

    • vox says:

      09:22am | 28/02/13

      My, my. Haven’t the chooks come home to roost and haven’t the same old whingers come out to count them.
      Abbott may not at one time believed in contraception, (and we are all well aware of him deserting the assumed consequences of that little immoral hypocrisy, aren’t we), but I don’t think it’s fair to say that he doesn’t now believe in the benefits derived thereof. If he decried contraception of some type wouldn’t his house be overrun with little pitter-patterers?
      That hypocrisy doesn’t stop with Abbott and his catholic policy advisers. No No!
      It carries over to every voice in the Libs echo chamber who labelled Gillard, “barren”, because she chose not to have children. Then those same Gillard hunters get up from their PC, undress, take their precautions, then hop into the cot for a bit of “safe” sex. Safe from STDs, same from impregnation, and safe from having an unwanted child.
      Such is the excellent foppery of the Liberal Party.
      These are the same liars that support the sleazy, “I’ll do anything to get the baton”, Abbott.
      Good luck, Australia.

    • d says:

      10:29am | 28/02/13

      Perhaps, he and his wife practice the Billings Method. This is a natural way to plan your family. It is accepted by the Catholic Church.

    • Sue says:

      12:19pm | 28/02/13

      Glad to see you support a woman that had a history of ignoring that some of her partners were married at the time. Just ask Tim or Craig E.

    • Anne71 says:

      01:05pm | 28/02/13

      @d - the Billings (Rhythm?) Method is also extremely unreliable, compared to other forms of contraception.  Forgive me for repeating a joke, but there’s a very good reason why it’s known as Vatican Roulette - it might “work” for a while,  but if the woman’s cycle changes (as they often do) or they get the dates wrong, then bingo!  Surprise baby!

    • v says:

      02:16pm | 28/02/13

      So what you are really saying Anne71 is it is not the Billings Method that is unreliable BUT in actual fact the person using it. Her ability to accurately trend the temps, allow for other factors and show control when necessary. Thus for the ease of following ones instant urges and not having to show great discipline you prefer the pill I bet.

    • Aux says:

      02:18pm | 28/02/13

      @ Sue

      Typical “religious moral” bullshit. Cant accept that people dont live by your rules can you?

    • Sue says:

      02:49pm | 28/02/13

      Aux, nothing at all to do with religion. All you have done is shown you have no morals and only care for what meets your self-centred needs. I pity anyone with the misfortune to trust you.

    • Sickemrex says:

      03:33pm | 28/02/13

      @ Sue, I cam see how the men are entirely blameless, seeing how utterly hot our PM is. This whole rhythm method thing. How does it work with an irregular cycle? How does it work if the husband is insisting his wife doesn’t “withhold” sex?

    • d says:

      04:54pm | 28/02/13

      I think that the ‘insisting the wife doesn’t withhold sex’ might be crossing the sexual abuse line - and is definitely not the Billings Method.

      The billings method requires discipline and understanding from both partners. If followed correctly, I believe that it offers similar results as other contraceptives. I recall reading that WHO did extensive research into the method and it proved to be as effective.

      The best thing about billings is that you get to remove all of the hormones, rubbers, plastics and chemicals that can get in the way of sexual pleasure and make love as nature intended.

    • Anne71 says:

      05:15pm | 28/02/13

      So in your world, V, it’s the WOMAN who has to show restraint? That tells us all we need to know about you.

      Oh, and not that it’s really your business, but I’m celibate. So your bitchy little remark about the Pill being my preferred form of contraception really missed its mark. Idiot.

    • Aux says:

      05:55pm | 28/02/13

      @ Sue

      Hardly.. I just prefer not to judge people on their relationship or social status unlike many shallow people just like you.

    • Sickemrex says:

      06:04pm | 28/02/13

      Pop quiz @d, who said this?:

      “I think there does need to be give and take on both sides, and this idea that sex is kind of a woman’s right to absolutely withhold, just as the idea that sex is a man’s right to demand I think they are both they both need to be moderated, so to speak.”

      I just wonder how the speaker of that quote would go with the Billings method if the wife is refusing to have sex because of it.

    • Anniebello says:

      09:23am | 28/02/13

      Wow, you Labor people just have to get the boots into Abbott at every turn don’t you. Continuing to play the man and not the ball will not win the game in September. .

      The bit after the few couple of paragraphs is actually informative, thanks. Its a pity all the responsiblity (and the abiltiy to fleece a bloke by having his baby) is on the women. I totally agree - the blokes should share the burden and also have the ability to protect themselves against unwanted fatherhood.

    • JT says:

      09:38am | 28/02/13

      The thing I love about twitter is it often exposes the real side to a person. For example Holly Hutchinson here re-tweeted this comment by esseeeayeenn

      ‘‘esseeeayeenn People should stop saying Abbott is unelectable. The frightening this he could be elected. Nixon was elected. Hitler was elected. #auspol 10:50 AM Aug 1th, 2012 from TweetDeck retweeted by holandaise’‘

      tweeted this herself:

      ‘‘holandaise Will Christmas Island accept people fleeing Oz when Abbott becomes PM? #gobacksbs 11:04 AM Aug 30th, 2012 from web’‘

      &

      holandaise ‘Hi, you’ve reached the voicemail of Tony Abbott, MP. I can’t get to the phone, I’m BUILDING A HOUSE IN THE BUSH.’ Beep http://t.co/4izyDAv3
      3:00 AM Oct 19th, 2011 from web

      &

      ‘‘holandaise Leftie Yoga: each morning, stretch the arms up and greet the sun with joy and relief that Abbott is not prime minister.’‘

      This column certainly reads like an excuse to a jibe at Abbott and cover it up with some half interesting history of contraception.

    • lisadp says:

      10:11am | 28/02/13

      That this article is critical of Abbott doesn’t mean it’s not important to point out that a potential prime minister would like to roll back Australia’s access to contraceptives.

      Have you ever used contraceptives? Does it scare you that a potential prime minister (and previous health minister) would like to restrict your access to those contraceptives?

    • Modern Primitive says:

      11:09am | 28/02/13

      >That this article is critical of Abbott doesn’t mean it’s not important to point out that a potential prime minister would like to roll back Australia’s access to contraceptives.

      Pray, tell, where has Abbott said he is going to roll back access to contraceptives? Speaking out against them (his opinion) is not the same as activly trying to prevent access to them.

    • JT says:

      11:49am | 28/02/13

      @lisadp

      Wow you have some gall. Everything you just said is a lie.

    • Markus says:

      12:09pm | 28/02/13

      @lisadp, except that there has not actually been any evidence provided that Abbott has ever intended to restrict access to contraception.

      Not even this lame pot shot parading as a legitimate article attempted to make such a claim.

    • Chris L says:

      10:10am | 28/02/13

      I find it amusing so many people are complaining about Abbott being mentioned (even though he has a history of commenting on people’s sex life) but will clog just about every other article with unrelated team barracking and their hatred of the opposing team and it’s leader. Clear case of projection.

    • Markus says:

      12:38pm | 28/02/13

      Unlike the writers, those who choose to post partisans rants are not being paid to pretend they are professional journalists.

      If the ‘Filed Under’ tags for the article included ‘Politics’ or even ‘Rant’ then at least it would be open in its message.

    • Chris L says:

      02:06pm | 28/02/13

      I can see your point Markus, but these same people would defend Bolt, Ackerman or Jones as they are paid to produce opinion.

      Plus you’ll find far stronger partisan comments from any of those guys than this mention of Abbott’s previously stated stance on contraception.

    • Wakey Wakey says:

      10:53am | 28/02/13

      The Abbott link to dark-age social practice is entirely valid. With the demise of Turnbull and other small “l” liberals, Abbott will be free to re-assert the conservative religious christian under-belly policy agenda so skilfully applied by Howard, funded by the public purse at the expense of social progress

    • GregE says:

      04:15pm | 28/02/13

      This is all the ALP voter has left. What a sad sad state the Australia labor party is in these days that their supporters have to resort to this kind of pathetic nonsense.

      Absolutely laughable!

      You keep justifying a blind eye to waste, fraud and corruption. But those of us with some morality will not!

    • Modern primitive says:

      10:54am | 28/02/13

      Thanks for the article Holly, abbott bashing from someone else makes such a welcome change from T&T doing it.

    • Scotchfinger says:

      10:58am | 28/02/13

      Holly Hutchinson, in her brief and somewhat historically confused mini-dissertion on pre-pill contraception through the ages, failed to mention the most common and simple one of all, that has been used ever since men linked their semen with pregnancy: withdrawal. Yes it does work, and no side effects (apart from the obvious that needn’t be dwelled on here…)

    • Kika says:

      01:41pm | 28/02/13

      Scotch… tricky. It depends on the man’s technique and how clever he is with his withdrawal. Some men just can’t do it… Some can.

    • Scotchfinger says:

      04:14pm | 28/02/13

      well Kika, some men are just smarter than others wink

    • Elizabeth1 says:

      04:15pm | 28/02/13

      Reminds me of a joke:
      Q:  What do you call a person who uses the withdrawl method?
      A: A parent

    • Liz says:

      11:15am | 28/02/13

      A lot of babies have been conceived while women are on the pill. Do we celebrate the new babies or the fact that the only fool hardy way of not getting pregnant is abstinence? And how much heart ache do woman go through trying not to avoid babies by filling their body with unnatural substances that are peed back into our water supplies? Finally do we also celebrate the number of women who have taken the pill for years and then when they think they are ready for children, they have rendered themselves infertile with unexplained infertility?

      And what has woman choosing to have children or not really got to do with a a male politician who loves life and the product of real love, the personification of love in a new human being?

    • Sanity says:

      11:59am | 28/02/13

      Of those:

      -No contraception (even sterilisation) has been marketed as being 100% effective. The closest one aside from abstinence would be the Implanon since the reason for failure is typically due to the doctor, not the patient. The Pill can fail if the patient is vomiting or has diarrhea, if they don’t take it at the exact time every day or if they are taking other medications (and a responsible user would be asking their pharmacist/doctor every time).

      -I’m presuming by your second comment you mean “trying to avoid babies” since you’ve otherwise used a double negative meaning that women aren’t trying to avoid babies. Urine is typically 95-97% water with the remaining 3% being trace compounds (including urea, sodium and chloride). Also, unless women all over Australia are peeing directly into your local reservoir, water goes through an intense filtration process which would remove any “compounds” which aren’t absorbed by the body.  Also, there are some natural substances that can cause abortion, are you going to start lauding those?

      Finally, I suggest that you do some research on the compounds used to make up hormonal contraceptives. They are primarily substances that already occur in the body anyway, some of which occur only during pregnancy. They are oestrogen and progesterone (generally the former is used in the combined pill, the latter in the mini-pill and most other contraceptives). When a woman stops taking either contraceptive, the main ingredient in the contraceptive of choice leaves the body after a certain period of time. Chances are that the unexplained infertility you mention is due to other factors-age, being around particular toxins day in and day out (that’s more than the average human being by the way), certain chemo treatments, undiagnosed endometriosis, PCOS or other medical conditions or a failed/reversed tubal ligation (aka the female “snip”).

      That said, if you want to be a breeding machine, go ahead.

    • vox says:

      12:12pm | 28/02/13

      Ah Liz, you are such a forgiving person of those on your side of the political fence. “..a male politician who loves life and the product of real love, the personification of love in a new human being”.
      Are you referring to the ex-priest who had sex, unprotected sex, along with others, with a young girl who became pregnant? In response to which the ex-priest fled the scene leaving the assumed mother of his child, and the assumed product of that union, that “new human being”, to fend on their own?
      Perhaps deciding not to have children to whom you are not prepared or unable to give complete care to is not such a bad idea after all.
      Any article in Australia today about men or women not having control over their own bodies is an article about Abbott and those who pull his strings.
      For goodness sake, wake up!

    • Philosopher says:

      12:45pm | 28/02/13

      Sanity, haven’t you read your Dawkins? We are all just breeding machines wink

    • Liz says:

      11:15am | 28/02/13

      A lot of babies have been conceived while women are on the pill. Do we celebrate the new babies or the fact that the only fool hardy way of not getting pregnant is abstinence? And how much heart ache do woman go through trying not to avoid babies by filling their body with unnatural substances that are peed back into our water supplies? Finally do we also celebrate the number of women who have taken the pill for years and then when they think they are ready for children, they have rendered themselves infertile with unexplained infertility?

      And what has woman choosing to have children or not really got to do with a a male politician who loves life and the product of real love, the personification of love in a new human being?

    • Hanzel says:

      11:23am | 28/02/13

      Let’s also celebrate the other pill that has allowed women to cope with their liberation, the anti-depressant - CDC: “Antidepressant use skyrockets 400% in past 20 years”. So, in a way, as we reject life, life rejects us.

      “Progress means getting nearer to the place you want to be. And if you have taken a wrong turning, then to go forward does not get you any nearer.
      If you are on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; and in that case the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man.” C.S. Lewis.

    • d says:

      12:04pm | 28/02/13

      Awesome quote…

    • Jim Moriarty says:

      12:23pm | 28/02/13

      @Hanzel

      You know men take anti depressants, too.

    • Aux says:

      01:14pm | 28/02/13

      FFS can someone go and tell Tony he’s still runnin the wrong way!

    • australias' moral minority says:

      12:29pm | 28/02/13

      Its marvellous how all these proddys’ think they have a right to moralise about micks and the rythmn method,however when abortion gets mentioned, they run for cover with “Idon’t want to know”.
      The moral of all this is the new generation australian as they say overseas..just another” jabba”,(just another boring ba…d aussie),  full of piss and wind, telling everyone and sundry, what to do with their lives..fair dinkum.

    • vox says:

      02:06pm | 28/02/13

      Hey, ease up!  I always used the rythym method back in the fifties, when Crosby and Sinatra were supplying the rythm, but then along came Rock and Roll. Now I’ve got fourteen kids! It just depends on whether you sing hymns or listen to Jerry Lee Lewis.
      Jeez! Some people!

    • attn morally obnoxious stickybeak says:

      03:46pm | 28/02/13

      jezz some pepehole
      take your humour which comes aka schoolie week mixed with the stooge at the bar who cannot mind his own busyiness and slide awa.y
      I didn’t ask for an opinion nor did I ask for yours expressely, so why give it, you auntie mini caldwell.ps hope you get splinters from perving over the fence at your neeeeghbores

    • Stained says:

      03:51pm | 28/02/13

      I agree vox, and the missus can’t stand the new Rap music, it hurts to keep up wink

    • Pattem says:

      01:51pm | 28/02/13

      @Holly, you wrote: “We live in a time where sex is distinctly less impeded than in the centuries proceeding us: perhaps it’s time to celebrate this.”

      So basically, what you are saying is that in years to come sex is going to be even less impeded that what it is now.

      You mean, you are prophesying that it will get worse, or at least more liberal?

      Unless you are a prophet, I think you may mean “the centuries preceding us:...”

    • Pattem says:

      02:33pm | 28/02/13

      Oops!  Forgot to flip the prophecy, based on the use of proceeding versus preceding.  But the use of proceeding/preceding still stands.

      So, Holly, you are saying sex is less impeded now than in proceeding centuries…means you are prophesying that the future will be more sexually impeded than it is now.

      Bascially you are prophesying that the LGBT social experiment will fail, that the sexual freedoms we have now, won’t be there in the future.

      Interesting crystal balling!

    • Stained says:

      03:10pm | 28/02/13

      I can see the new frigid bride waiting to become pregnant, and the new hubby (on his male pill) saying we need to try harder and more often wink

    • Esteban says:

      04:30pm | 28/02/13

      According to ancient wisdom if you touch a woman exactly in the middle of two particular toes then you will cure frigidity.

      The secret is to know which two toes.

    • Mrs Smith says:

      03:54pm | 28/02/13

      The presumption that contraception has ‘set women free’ is contestable.  Follow my logic:  the pill has set women free from unplanned pregnancy;  this has made her able to join the workforce;  incomes have gone up;  house prices have gone up; the economy now functions on the presumption that both partners work full time;  women now MUST work - its no longer a choice;  unplanned pregnancies can mean a financial disaster;  abortion must be an option, because mortgages must be paid…...  so contraception has set women free?  Life is better now? 

      Sexual promiscuity - casual sex - has created relationship insecurity.  Women complain that they can’t find a man to settle down with - or create babies with. 

      2/3 of all women having abortions cite that ‘failed contraception”  is the reason for needing an abortion.  (Vic Better Health website)  I don’t see contraception as being the ‘golden bullet’... the means of setting women free.  As a woman I see it has in fact complicated women’s lives - and in some ways, set women back.

    • marley says:

      05:59pm | 28/02/13

      It’s complicated women’s lives, yes.  Now women have to take full accountability for their decisions.  That is in fact freedom.  Freedom isn’t a soft, protective cushion: it’s all fire and barbed wire.  For men and for women.  That’s the way it should be.

    • Pattem says:

      06:01pm | 28/02/13

      @Mrs Smith

      I could not agree more.  Women used to hold all the Aces when it came to sex and relationships.  If the man wanted to “get it on” with her, she had him over a barrel.

      Now that women are free to have the same approach (ala casual) to sex as men, the Aces are either out of the deck, or in the Man’s hand.  The man will always be able to find a Modern Woman willing to enter into a casual sexual relationship, so how can a relationship seeking woman compete with that?

    • Luc Belrose says:

      04:58pm | 28/02/13

      I distinctly remember another contraception method used by couples pre pill days known as the withdrawal method. The male would quickly and adroitly withdraw from the woman seconds before he reaches his climax! How frustrating and distressful the situation must have been for the unfortunate males!

    • Pattem says:

      06:28pm | 28/02/13

      These days the Withdrawal Method refers to using the ATM at the Brothel.  It certainly means you don’t get your wife pregnant.

      Just ask Craig Thomson about it.

    • Ben says:

      06:51pm | 28/02/13

      >>Sometimes I wonder if he misses those happier times when he was free [Abbott] to be “the mad monk”, deploring the “condom culture”.<<

      Thanks for this, Holly. Sometimes in moments of despair I doubt that this Labor Government is going to be swept from power at the election as I have predicted, but pieces like yours convince me of how desperate their supporters have become.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Malcolm Farr

RT @andrewjbutcher: I hope I never agree to write a press release with a first par as full of nonsensical spin as this one from Ford. http:…

Lucy Kippist

RT @sarahvmac: In session about Women's fiction at @SydWritersFest w @overingtonc Publishers say it not taken seriously but it's up to 70% …

Paul Colgan

HSBC's China Flash PMI hits a seven-month low... http://t.co/nOpQv9GtUB

Lucy Kippist

RT @victoria_craw: Government will allocate $30 million to fund to help communities, calls on #Ford to make substantial donation http://t.c…

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter