Birth Control Costs More Than a Few Cups of Coffee

If you don't have insurance, birth control costs a lot more than a couple cups of coffee. The generic of the pill I'm prescribed costs $60 a month. Sure, some generics may cost as little as $8 a month, but you can only buy what you have a prescription for, and different birthcontrols have different effects on different people. If your body doesn't react well to some of the cheaper ones, then they aren't an option.  Some people suggest that we all just switch to condoms, but birth control is more effective, and you easier for a woman to control.  Plus, non-latex condoms are more expensive and less effective than the regular kind, but if you have a sensitivity to latex, like I do, they're the type you'd have to use if you want to have sex more than once a week-- and I think it's safe to assume that a lot of young folk want to have sex more than once a week, and also not get pregnant.  


What's also interesting is that it seems like a lot of people who are opposed to birth control or to having birth control covered by insurance are conflating a need for birth control with "screw[ing] everything in sight".  I'm all for people sleeping around if that's what works for them and keeps them happy in life... but statements like that are ignoring the fact that a lot of people who use birth control are in monogamous relationships, and others may be single and having sex quite rarely.  I'm married.  I'm a newlywed.  My husband and I aren't ready for children yet.  Birth control is what keeps us, a monogamous married couple, from having an unwanted pregnancy that we aren't financially or emotionally ready to deal with.


After a lot of research, I decided hormonal birth control is a better fit for me than an IUD or condoms (though I am considering looking into the arm implant, after I get insurance).  I've decided it is a WAY better fit than trying to track my fertility, since so many women do not have consistent cycles based on changes in diet, stress, and exposure to other women.  As I don't have insurance, so I pay $720 a year on the generic of the birth control my doctor prescribed, and i consider myself lucky that I'm not paying $1080 a year for it, the way a friend of mine who was prescribed birth control for non-contraceptive reasons does.

SERIOUSLY????

Oh. Oh my. Oh man.

There are ways to make me angry-- and then there are ways to make me disgusted-- but this? I does both.

My friend Jenny led me to this link: When Getting Beaten By Your Husband is a Pre-Existing Condition. When I saw the title, I thought "well, obviously, it can't be serious, domestic abuse wouldn't count as a pre-existing condition, it's not a disease and its the result of someone else's actions.

But then I read the HuffPo article. And it is exactly what it sounds like. Not every insurance policy has being a victim of domestic abuse as a pre-existing condition-- but at least seven of them allow it. That is, if you are a woman (or a man) who has been abused by a man (or a woman) and you stay in a relationship with that person, it is allowed for you to be charged a higher rate as a result. The HuffPo article points out the obvious logic to it-- women with abusive partners are more likely to be abused again, and thus, need medical treatment; since they statistically cost more, charge them more. But... this is not as easy a situation as this would make it out to be.

Yes, being a victim of abuse is like having an illness-- you don't want it, and you can't escape it, even though you may try to treat it through medicines or self help. But it's also different. This is something the system could fix if we gave more resources to women (and men! but for ease, I'll stick with saying women) who are abused. This is a time when our tax dollars could go to a good cause-- helping women escape their situation, have a shelter until they find work, and have therapy so they don't go back.

This is affecting me especially strongly because it hits close to home. One of my close college friends has dealt with domestic abuse, and is currently in the process of leaving her abuser and forging out on her own-- and there is not a great wealth of social services available to help her with this; she's had to move back with her parents to make this possible, and she has a job that makes some money, which helps. But for many abused women, there are no parents willing to help, and there is no job to help support them-- and even if there had been, there is likely no savings they can access. Men who are physically violent are often controlling in other ways, which often includes control of finances-- either not letting a woman work at all, or having her paycheck direct-deposited into an account he controls.

Also, getting a woman who has been abused to admit to that abuse is hard-- so if its on the record, making that record hurt her is the last thing we need, if we want to help people-- and I know insurance companies are corporations, not charities, but I believe that even corporations should have some ethical guidelines.

I guess what I'm basically saying is-- abuse should not be treated as a pre-existing condition. Women who deal with abuse have to deal with mistreatment from their partner and the legal system. And now I find out the insurance system would like to make it even harder for these women to tell their stories-- which ultimately makes it harder to leave. Because that's the other shitty part of domestic abuse-- psychologically, most of these women can't leave their abuser, at least not on the first-- what, ten or more?-- tries. You may not understand it, but there is some serious mental stuff that goes on-- more than i can get into here-- and the system itself is failing women whenever it refuses to acknowledge that.

On Being Groped By a Stranger, or My First TSA Pat-Down

As I write this, I'm sitting in Boston Logan airport, past security, and at my gate.  I think Logan is a really good airport, actually, in terms of efficiency, ease of access, and generally friendly staff.  So I want you to know this is not a complaint about the airport, but about the procedure itself.

When I travel, I usually travel with JD.  This is the first time I've traveled without him in years, actually.  We like being together, and we don't really have any reasons to travel alone, currently.  We'd discussed the backscatter vs the patdown before, and I'd come to the conclusion that, as much as I didn't like the idea of being groped, it was better than being exposed to unknown radiation risk, especially since both of my parents have had cancer, with my dad's skin cancer reappearing multiple times.  In our ideal scenario, i would request to be patted down in a private room with JD present.  But JD wasn't there today, and I was nervous and so, I got the pat down in public.

My terminal wasn't very full-- only a few people behind me to watch the patdown-- but it was still unnerving to be patted down in full view of others, because it really does involve groping.  The woman administering it was very professional, and told me everything she was doing in advance, but it was still unnerving to have someone touching areas that I generally don't let people who are not JD touch.  And in public.  I didn't get the breast cup and lift some people described, but the crotch cupping and but and breast contouring were quite unnerving as it was.

It wasn't as bad as I expected it to be, but for some reason, I still feel dirty and embarrassed.    Not dirty like I did anything bad, but dirty like skin-crawling.  It WAS embarrassing though, and it was strange and I did not like it.  I will still pick it over the backscatter, but now that it isn't just a hypothetical, my "whatever, I'll choose the sexual assault option" grumbling is less hypothetical.  I wasn't harmed in anyway, but... in a culture that does value bodily privacy and autonomy, it isn't pleasant to be touched in ways you don't approve of , in public, by a stranger.

Also: I forgot to take my liquids bag out of my purse.  They didn't notice that, though.

How should a crime that kills a wanted fetus be classified?

I recently (possibly today?  Possibly a few days ago?  Everything runs together when you realize you have to finish planning a wedding and fill out a Bar application in less than two months!) read an article on Jezebel-- and then the initial news article-- on laws affecting crimes against pregnant women, specifically ones that cause them to miscarry.

I tried to refind the articles, but I can't.  Which annoys me, because context is always helpful.  But at any rate, the issue is how do you deal with an attack that causes a miscarriage?  Is it simply ignored, with the crime against the woman considered, whether it's murder or just assault?  Is it an additional homicide in cases where the parent(s) were intending to bring it to term?  Is it an unlawful abortion?  Is it a form of theft?

The way it's dealt with matters, because in both the law and society, words have meaning-- and application of laws can create precedent.  We dealt with this situation some back in 1L Criminal law.  I don't remember how most of the people in the class felt, but I do remember that the cases dealt with scenarios where the woman wanted a child, and some of them were pretty horrifying, in part because of our societal views that pregnant women are to be protected, and in part just because of the brutality of the attack (I still remember reading about one man who said he was going to "stomp the baby" out of a woman).

I do think it should be taken seriously-- and I don't think that that in any way is in conflict with my being pro-choice.  It's pro-choice. Which means I respect the choices that women make for their bodies and reproductive futures, and I don't think abortions or miscarriages should be forced any more than I think they should be prohibited.  But the killing of a wanted fetus that the mother is planning to bring to term still should not count as a homicide-- because a fetus is not a person.  When it dies, a person is not dying-- a potential person is, even though a couple who wants a child may have already named it, and may already be emotionally thinking of it as a person.  But it isn't a person.

Still, because of their hopes and dream and effort put into it, and lifestyle changes, and potential dangers of just being pregnant, people invest a lot into a wanted pregnancy.  And there should be some kind of extra charge.  I guess the best that I can come up with would be a new charge, based on the idea of theft, but even that doesn't quite convey the right tone.  It's a trespass against someone's body in a way that a normal physical assault isn't, and it steals their past efforts and their hope of having that fetus be a child.  So I don't think it should be ignored, and I don't think it should be treated as murder, but I do think there should be some additional charge, and I also think that that is completely in low with a pro-choice viewpoint.

So, a pick up artist has allegedly shot a woman in the face

So, a man called Gunwitch, who is internet famous for running a pick-up artist site has allegedly shot a woman in the face.*  My first reaction to reading about this was to be… horrified, but not extremely surprised.  Which is so, so cynical—but if you ever stop by pick-up or “game” blogs, you quickly realize that most of the guys who are well known in those circles project seriously hateful, dismissive, and entitled attitudes towards women, and that a lot of the attitude that gets spoken about is a mindset where women’s only worth is found in their fuckability—women are discussed as objects to gain access to, whose feelings, desires, and humanity are nothing compared to a guy’s desire to get laid.  It’s disturbing.

I have to think that most guys who read those sites are probably not that messed up though, because otherwise, it’s just sad.  A lot of the men who read pick-up sites are probably just insecure and bad with women—and if all the sites taught men was how to be their best selves, I wouldn’t have a problem with them.  But they don’t, and the men who spend a lot of time on those sites come off as terrible human beings.  Their tactics seem aimed at focusing on women with low self esteem or reducing a woman’s self esteem, on lying about themself, on projecting threat, and on physically getting her away from her friends.  Gunwitch’s pickup strategies seem to be focused on threat—escalating physical contact, projecting animal sexuality (which—what does that even mean?  It seems to mean, treat her like an object you own), and ignoring any body cues or language that a normal human being would interpret to mean stop.  His catchphrase seems to be “make the ho say no”—an idea that a man shouldn’t leave a woman alone until she flat out directly refuses him.  In American culture, at least, women are taught from the time we’re girls that we’re supposed to be “nice”, that we shouldn’t flatly turn guys down because it will hurt their fragile egos, and that we need to sort of finagle are way out of being hit on.  Problem is, if you’re stuck in a corner while some guy keeps putting his hands on you, and you’re trying to get out while saying “I really don’t think this is a good idea” or trying to put him off with a phone number so that you can politely ignore him later without the direct esteem blow—well, this guy’s advice is for men to ignore all that and just touch her more.  Until she either actually says not, or just stops trying to escape.

I can totally see a woman stopping her escape attempts in this situation, not because she’s been seduced, but because the man is acting so outside of the normal bounds of human behavior that she’s afraid he’ll become violent if she doesn’t just shut up.  And sure, that might not lead to sex, but it’s going to lead to her dealing with a lot more touching than her comfort zone is ok with.  Plus, we all know that not all guys interpret no to mean no—I remember running around a club one night in college, trying to avoid a man who kept groping me, even after I’d told him thatn o, I did not want him touching me and no, I had no interest in him whatsoever.

So with all that—I find Gunwitch’s methods to be horribly creepy and morally deficient. But the phrase “make the ho say no” has another problem—ho.

It seems that a lot of men in the pick-up (and men’s rights) community view all women as—or at least, all American women—as morally devoid sluts… who still need to be seduced to get them into bed. (There is a blog post somewhere on the ridiculousness of this doublebind.  I thought it was on Figleaf’s blog, but can’t find it.  You should check out his blog anyway.)

I know, the two concepts don’t make much sense together.  The amount of cognitive dissonance going on in some people’s heads must be staggering.  And it will seem really odd if, like me, the men you know in real life are all good human beings who treat women like people and yet who still manage to have self respect and earn the respect of others.  But the truth remains—there are women who go out to bars or other locations, who live relatively chaste lives, and who are not going to go home with some random PUA no matter what his “game” is like.  There are also women who go out to bars looking for someone to go home with—and who might go home with a PUA, not because he has good “game”, but because he happened to be there and interested, and not too bad looking at the right time.  Pick-up treats women as if we’re all the same creature though, and as if we’re all able to be manipulated in the same easy X number of steps.

But a lot of guys will admit that pick-up is really just mostly a numbers game.  Which means that the pick up itself, for most people, is probably not what’s getting them laid—the fact that they asked ten women, and found one of two or three in the bar who was already looking to get laid is.  (Sidenote: I think it’s interesting how many guys in pickup talk about the “number close”, where they get a woman’s phone number.  When I was single, giving the phone number was usually a good way to get a guy to leave me alone when he wouldn’t listen to me telling him I wasn’t interested.  Then when you get a chance, change his name in your phone to “Do Not Answer”.  You’ve already told him you aren’t interested, and since he’s begged for your phone number “in case you change your mind”, he’ll be able to tell that you…. Haven’t changed your mind)

So yes,  I’m horrified, and honestly surprised that a pick-up artist actually (allegedly) shot a woman, even though my first instinct was to not be surprised.  But in a way, it makes a sick kind of sense—if you’re part of a culture that views women as only good for sex, and you are in fact someone who teaches others how to dehumanize women, then it makes sense that eventually you might internalize it to the extant that you end up shooting a woman.  I don’t know that the shooting was intentional, of course—other’s have pointed out that in his most recent videos, Gunwitch seemed mentally unstable, and managed to shoot a bullet into his wall with a gun he thought was unloaded.  Even if he was just trying to be cool and do an idiotic form of show and tell, he’s still responsible for shooting her in the face.  I’m just saying that, at this point, shooting a woman in the face is a disturbing, but slightly logical, extension of some of the thought in pickup blogs that treats women as interchangeable and less than human.

*Because I’m not a court of law, or even a lawyer, I’m going to say that I think he’s very likely to be guilty.  Because, contrary to some people’s understandings, innocent until proven guilty doesn’t mean that individuals can’t have their own opinion as to someone’s guilt or innocence.  So no, I don’t know that he shot her in the face.  But I think, given what’s been reported, that he probably did.

The irrelevance of Gawker's attempt to shame Christine O'Donnell

I get that hypocrisy in our elected officials is an important thing to take note of, and I'm all for calling people out on it, but... Gawker's little "expose" on Christine O'Donnell did not do that.  True, she's totally a joke of a politician, and we know that she had sex back in college, so her current anti-pre-marital sex attitude seems a little do as a say not as I did-- the exact kind of attitude that gets parents to lose their children's respect-- but Gawker's piece is just-- not serving any real and legitimate purpose.

The piece says its about a one-night-stand, but all the details it actually gives are that he managed to get her clothing off, they didn't have sex, and she was aggressive about pursuing some kisses earlier in the evening.  Oh, and that she was utterly WASTED.  She made it clear she wasn't going to have sex.  That checks with her political positions, so that doesn't fall into the realm of important hypocrisy.  She wanted to do some making our and kissing.  Ok, but has she said that kissing isn't ok?  If she has-- which, ok, wouldn't shock me-- it isn't something I've heard about.  So again, not seeing hypocrisy.  Her clothes came off-- ok, I can see why that's problematic with the family values set-- but there is absolutely no reason to detail the state of her pubic hair.  That's utterly irrelevant, and exists only as a salacious detail-- plus, who really cares what her pubic hair is like?  Are they really trying to shame someone for not waxing?  I've been in women's locker rooms, and I can tell you that, while widespread, being hairless isn't as universal as some people make it out to be.  Also, theres' a curious lack of detail regarding how the underwear got off of the utterly wasted woman-- did she take it off?  Did he?   I'd honestly be curious to see what her recollection of the night was, especially since the anonymous author does represent her as being drunker than he, and since once they were in bed, his early and repeated descriptions of her as aggressive ended.

So, what's the take away?  She was aggressive about making out, but adamant about not having sex and seemed sexually inexperienced.  I don't see how this is an important expose on hypocrisy.  All I see is an attempt to embarrass her.  Quite frankly, her politics do a good enough job of that on their own-- and this just makes me think poorly of Gawker, for trying to use previous legal drunken sexual actions to shame her.

Stanton v. Metro Corp.

DEAR SELIGSGROVE, PA:  Maybe try a google scholar search to get to something other than this page?

Is it defamatory to imply that a teenage girl engages in promiscuous behavior? What if it's just using her picture to illustrate an article on teen promiscuity that appears on a metropolitan area magazine?

We discussed a case in Media Law today, where a teen girl was pictured as the illustration to an article on the increase in all the crazy sex ads kids are getting up to these days. There was a disclaimer, yes, but it said she was part of some other project that was also on teen sexuality, and it was small enough that some people in our class didn't notice it when they first looked over the article.

So-- it might-- or might not-- imply that this girl gets around. Her name isn't mentioned, but it's a very clear picture, and anyone who knew her would have recognized it. One of the guys, who used to work for one of my least favorite news organizations, was of the opinion that it would be ridiculous to call it defamation, and that media needs to be able to use stock images in their posts. Ok, fine, stock images, whatever. I can see stock images being ok most of the time, but in this setting, even if it's legally ok (which it was, in this case, because of the disclaimer) I think it isn't ethical.

Yes, there are some legal things I think are actually unethical!

The argument that readers will read the entire article and not decide the girl is involved in the behavior seems illogical to me. Even knowing that a lot of media sources use stock photography, I still think I would assume that a picture of a teen in an article about a subgroup of teens might be one of them. Particularly a shot where the girl pictured is clearly the average looking, non-model type. In something like Cosmo, which regularly runs sex articles alongside posed images, you know the advice or stories are general enough to not include the model. In something that's offering real life anecdotes from real teens, paired with an unposed image of teens? I think that leaping to the conclusion that the pictured teens are involved is not that far of a jump.

So. Assuming all that-- what's wrong with sending the message that a girl is promiscuous? After all, I'm pretty pro-slut, as long as people handle everything safely, and keep a realistic view on the emotions involved.

But not everyone is like that. And as much as some of us might like for sexual behavior to be de-stigmatized, it is still stigmatized, especially when we're talking about teens. Regardless of their actual sexual behavior, teens who are thought to be promiscuous are often judged. Adults may disrespect them, being less likely to offer them a job or scholarship, and honor societies may decide the students don't meet some moral honor code. Even if the other teens are promiscuous, this girl could have become a sort of poster child for sleeping around-- and despite the slant of the article her image was featured in, the other students may have labelled her as a slut, dirty, and not worth treating as an equal. Finally, sexuality is a personal thing-- and the amount people are willing to share can vary wildly. Just like people should have the choice to be open about their lives-- and not shamed for it-- they should have the choice to keep their sex life private-- and not be shamed for it.

It is unethical in my worldview because this girl should be in control of her sexuality and how she chooses to display it. That choice was taken from her by the actions of the magazine in a totally legal manner. And removing that choice is a violation of personal identity.