Friends with Benefits? Or Lovers About to be Hurt?

Friends with benefits have been a topic that has come up in the media fairly often recently. Between the three different movies portraying it (Friends with Benefits, No Strings Attached, The Ugly Truth) or just the mildly common practice in today’s youth. The idea behind having friends with benefits is that you and another person can have sexual relations together without being in any sort of emotional relationship. Of course this idea sounds BRILLIANT because the two parties are most likely already all hot and bothered and I have a feeling most conversations about this are not in situations where both parties have sexual pleasure in other places to use.

The taboo behind friends with benefits is the old idea that only married couples should have sex and that it should be strictly used for procreation. This has definitely been put on the shelf by today’s culture saying that you should be in some sort of committed relationship but not necessarily marriage. Today’s media, on the other hand, is encouraging close to anonymous relationships with all the one night stands and drunken hookups you see on TV. The other thing the media loves right now is teen pregnancy, as seen on MTV’s “16 and Pregnant” or “Teen Mom.”

The reason I believe one night stands do not work out in the long run without emotional attachment is because in most situations, that I am familiar with, where you can stand to be around each other long enough then if you continue spending time with each other there is bound to be some sort of interest in the other or at least finding common ground to talk about and stuff. So the fact that these friend with benefits spend so much time together and make so many memories (granted they are usually naked during this) they will always have that sort of bond from that time they spend together.

So my solution to the issue is not very effective but in this new world we do take into account how good a lover our partner is when it comes to “Forever” so friends should always start before the benefits roll around.

Free Birth Control

1. Identify a subject position.

The decision of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to require all new health insurance plans to cover birth control for women as a part of the Affordable Care Act.

2. Identify an issue with a specific claim in it.

The Affordable Care Act helps stop health problems before they start.

3. Build a bridge.

A little background information....August 1, 2011 Obama and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) required all new health insurance plans to cover birth control for women, annual well-woman exams, breastfeeding tools, and a range of other services without co-pays, co-insurance or a deductible as a part of the Affordable Care Act. This decision was passed because it will help ensure women get the preventive health benefits they need and problems of the past won't be as big of an issue if all women have access to these preventive resources.

This is a very controversial subject within families, parents, daughters, women, etc. Many believed that anti-choice as well as pro-choice would be for "free" birth control because it would prevent unwanted pregnancies. That is surprisingly not the case for most cultures and populations. There has been huge controversy in the Religious community over this issue. There is a multi-billion dollar Catholic health care industry. Obama has made the decision to allow exemption for this act within the Catholic health care industry because they are highly against premarital sex. This is also a huge issue amongst families. There has been huge debate whether or not parental consent should be required for birth control. Why not? Children under the age of 19 most likely have their parents pay for their insurance, so they should have to go through them to get birth control. This law has way too many loopholes and controversial issues. Although I think birth control should be affordable and available to all, I feel that free birth control gives of the wrong message especially to young adults. 1. It's not actually free. Young women do not understand this. Someones taxes are being raised because you don't want to pay your co-pay. 2. It demoralizes sex. Sex used to be known as an intimate act between two people in love but in this day in age it has changed. Free birth control makes it seem as though sex can be done with anyone as long as you are protected and to find that protection is easy.

I believe that free birth control is creating more problems than preventing them. If women are smart and mature enough to be having sex they should be able to afford the average co-pay of about $5.00. They should not have to hide their decision to have sex from their parents. Many feel that free birth control basically gives women the right to sleep around with whoever they choose because in the end as long as they're not pregnant it doesn't really matter. I think free birth control gives off a terrible impression. There is already a free form of birth control..,.absteining from sex until one is ready. Until then if one can't afford the contraceptives they shouldn't be sleeping around with whoever. It's not right and it's the wrong message to give off to future generations.

Turkish Delight

Arranged marriage has been around for quite some time, and let me tell you, it almost got me into a heap load of trouble back in the day.

It was the summer of my junior year in high school when i met a beautiful turkish girl. She played basketball in the same conference as me and we had seen each other for many years but never really talked to each other until we met up at a "leadership summit" in downtown Madison. We clicked right away, and things went well for a week or so until she spilled the beans on her turkish history: arranged marriage. Alas, my turkish delight was sent into a spiraling controversy. I now realized why we never hung out around her house, never mentioned her parents, made me pick her up a block away from her house...her dad was going to be furious if he saw me!

Now I dont claim to be an expert on arranged marriage, but the vibes i got from this female are this: it sucks. She said she was not allowed to date anyone and that, although she could give some minor input, her father had the final say. Does this work in some countries? Obviously seeing as its still around today. But do I, as a man brought up with the freedom to think critically about who i surround myself with/who i date, think this works? Nah. In my opinion, real love cant be arranged. Then again how can I even say that when the divorce rate is around 50%?

The one thing i've seen from arranged marriage is this; the familes make it work. Divorce isnt an option and at the end of the day, even if the married party is unhappy, they must find a way to compromise. Plenty of families around the world make it work, and the marriage generally benefits each family in a different way at the end of the day.

At the end of the day, there is no right or wrong, no better or worse, theres just where you come from and what culture you are brought up in.

"Family Planning" Aisle in Drug Stores

Drug stores such as CVS, Rite-Aid, Wal-Mart, and Walgreens began selling sexual products (such as sensual sprays, lubricants, massage oils, “massagers”, and condoms) in 2006, and some people are very offended. Many conservative family groups, such as “One Million Moms” and the Family Research Council are protesting and boycotting these mega-chains; saying that the products are evidence of the erosion of morality and good taste in America.

These family groups worry that children will be exposed to this sexual material, and their youthful innocence will be tarnished. They are also concerned that there is no age limit to buy these items, and it will encourage underage teens to have sexual relations. Interestingly enough, the biggest taboo with these items is that most of them are aimed at female pleasure. Parents see these items as vulgar and unnecessary, even sacrilegious. Certain verses in the Bible can be interpreted to say that female pleasure is evil, and against God. These family councils (who also lead campaigns to boycott companies that advertise for risqué television shows, such as Glee) take these interpretations to heart, and have been protesting the adoption of the sexual items onto drugstore shelves ever since.

Personally, I see these changes as progressive, and optimistic. America has evolved to a point where we can openly talk about sex, and encourage healthy sexual relationships. I understand parents’ concern over children buying condoms, but I believe in safe sex, and that parents should prefer their children to buy condoms rather than be pregnant or diagnosed with an STD. These drugstores are simply making sexual use materials available to a wider audience than before, and while parents see this as the fall of morality in America, I see it as a new age of comfort and pleasure, and most importantly health.

Sister Wives

1. Identify a subject position.

The Brown Family and Mormon Fundamentalism

Please take note of the difference between Mormons (monogamy) and Fundamentalist Mormons (polygamy)

TLC TV Show “Sister Wives”



2. Identify an issue with a specific claim in it.

Polygamist Marriage or Plural Marriage. (A man married to and having children with multiple women)

Fundamentalist Mormons believe that polygamy will bring you closer to God and is the best way to live your life.

3. Build a bridge.

This is a controversial issue because a man having multiple wives goes against many of the mainstream beliefs, religions and laws in the United States. The example of polygamy that gets the most media attention is the cults and sects that deny women choices and rights. What I think of when I hear “polygamy” is a young woman being forced into a marriage with a much older man that already has 4 other wives and will live an oppressed life. It is difficult for me to understand that a woman would willingly choose to or want to share her husband with 3 other women. My upbringing has led me to believe that marriage should only be between two people.

In the YouTube video embedded above, the wives speak so comfortably and confidently about their choice of lifestyle. While watching it, I was in the unsettling position that what they were saying wasn’t “normal” but the manner in which they were saying things made it seem nothing out of the ordinary. One line in particular that caught me off guard was when one of the wives said “I was never interested in single guys”. Which is such a bizarre comment in my mind, but to her it is completely normal. She knew that she wanted to be in a plural marriage, so she was interested in finding a man that already had a wife. While searching additional video clips about this unique family, I came across another comment that I found confusing. In “The Kiss” clip, the 3rd wife explains that she did not kiss her husband until they were married because she did not feel comfortable “kissing a married man”. Because of how I was raised and my view of marriage, this statement does not make any sense. He was already and still is a ‘married man’. To me, the husband is cheating on his first wife. But I can start understand her point, coming from the polygamist perspective, that until they were husband and wife, if he kissed her he would be cheating on his current wives.

In today’s society, it is not uncommon for a man to have children from different women or for women to have children from different men. Many families are unique with children from previous marriages, children out of wedlock, adopted children or foster children. So it is interesting to compare those situations to that of the Browns. At least in the Brown’s case, all of the children’s parents are consistently in their lives. Their father doesn’t live miles away and only sees them every other weekend. Another position to take is that Kody Brown and his wives are able to provide a stable home environment and support their family financially. The Brown children have a roof over their heads, clothes on their backs and food at the table, which is unfortunately true for every child in the United States. Another way to bridge the gap between the Brown family’s lifestyle and the conventional lifestyle is that the other wives are comparable to having a live-in or full-time nanny. There are many children that are not solely raised by their birth mother and father. In the clip “Multiple Mommies” the Browns explain how they believe that having more than one mother is good for their children.

I know that I personally do not believe in polygamy, but after watching clips of and learning about the Brown family I can at least respect that the wives have chosen this lifestyle for themselves. Though difficult to understand, the wives have clearly given a lot of thought to their choice and have their own justifications for it. It seems to be a way of life that they are comfortable with and believe in.

Are Artificial Insemination from Donors Appropriate?

The claim against artificial insemination is the whole idea of creating another human being is the fact that there is a shared intimacy between the two creators. But what if you and your partner are sharing this intimacy and the resulting human can’t be created?

Artificial insemination from donors (AID) is a procedure that places the sperm directly into the uterus so it does not have to travel as far and have the chance of not connecting with the egg to achieve pregnancy.

This artificial insemination technique can be helpful for three types of relationships: lesbian partnerships, choice mothers, and infertile heterosexual couples. First, artificial insemination from a donor allows a lesbian couple to conceive a child that is blood-related to one of the parents. It also allows one mother to appreciate the closeness of carrying a baby and giving birth. Second, a choice mother is a single woman that wants to raise a child without another parent because of older age (coming closer to menopause and not in a relationship) or other personal reasons. This type of reasoning was humorously displayed in the 2008 movie Baby Mama with Tina Fey and Amy Poehler where she originally interested in artificial insemination, but when she learns she is infertile she embraces the idea of a surrogate mother instead. Third, there are several reasons why heterosexual couples may have a difficult time conceiving a child. The woman’s body might reject the sperm of that particular man which means it would never make it to the uterus. Or, the man may be infertile and not even produce sperm to travel through the women’s body. In either case, artificial insemination will allow the opportunity for the woman to be impregnated and not necessarily move to the next option of adoption.

Even though this process of artificial insemination from donors is not giving the gift of life directly through the process of sexual intercourse, it is still between two people and giving the gift of life. These families and individuals that want to have a child are completely in love with and ready for the idea that they are bringing a new life into this world. Their own bodies do not allow them to create another human on their own. The child is going to be loved by two mothers, or one mother, or a mom and dad because they know the miracle that it took to create them.

A child is always a gift; the logistics do not always matter.

Politically Correct?

People can be categorized into an infinite array of opposing orientations. Whether it be the eternal juxtaposition of black and white, cat or dog, or paper and plastic, there exists an untold variety of divisions one can draw from the collective well of human tendency. Differences are plentiful. Adversity, conflict, tragedy, and irony run amok in today's world, providing plenty of material for the light of heart, such as myself, to observe, comment, or perhaps even jest about, or conversely, the subject of many a rumination and consideration by the serious and sombre. My friend Luke and I happen to fall on two different sides of a spectrum concerning the conceptual validity of the "politically correct", and the vast disparity is reflected in both our words and behaviors, in my case the former, in his the latter.

Luke claims that it is never okay to make a racist joke. Or a sexist joke. Or a joke about domestic violence, or the mentally retar...er...um handicapped. He is a firm believer in the politically correct.

The complex issue at hand is one that enfolds propriety, blasphemy, social justice, bigotry, freedom and restraint under one inherently paradoxical issue of political correctness. By utilizing devices like euphemism and stigmatization, society seeks to eliminate the historical injustices it has committed, erase the present inequities that still exist, and smother the ugliness inherent to the world. While we all desire a society free from racism, violence, oppression, disease, and sadness, the Luke's and the Alexander's of the world approach and respond to these circumstances very differently.

Alex would be the first to crack a joke at the expense of any of the aforementioned. He wouldn't think twice about mocking people or ideas sanctified by society's good intentions, for what better way to overcome obstacles and dispel adversity than to laugh? By affording blacks or gays or women or any marginalized component of the population sociolinguistic protection against those who wish to speak or jest in more than the least colorful of terms only widens the rift between those who marginalize and their victims: it formally and institutionally recognizes discrepancies...or if one were to venture further...inequalities between people and more importantly, compounds and magnifies the sentiment that they must somehow merit being treated differently. Alex would ask the world to lighten up, laugh, and prepare to give and receive offense that hopefully someday would cease to offend due to a foundational lack of society's emphasis on perceived inequality of its peoples.

Luke would be mortified if he ever happened to offend anyone for almost any reason. He lives by a strong moral code, one that prohibits his words from causing hurt, or entertaining at the expense of others. By refraining from uttering a single questionable word, Luke obeys the laws of political correctness and embraces the ideals upon which it was created. He argues there is a time and place for everything, and cites certain realms as off limits regardless of the situation. Luke's position as an advocate for political correctness and its need in today's society is governed by the discipline of his own heart as well as the teachings society has impressed upon him. Differences are to be treated with respect, revered even, and are not cannon fodder for tasteless jokes or cheap entertainment. He does not mar his tongue with racy jest or partake in laughter spawned from the telling of such. His belief lies in the hope that one day political correctness would be the utter image of modern speech, and language of that day would lack any need for correction at all.

Both Luke and Alex have their hearts in the right place. They both harbor good intentions, yet depart greatly from one another in coming to terms with the sour aspects of life. To understand the terms presented by each, one must delve into the thoughts and understandings of two very, very, very different people. Luke, who hopes to be a pastor someday, was born and raised in a white Christian household that instilled traditional values into an upstanding young gentleman. He recognizes the tremendous power that words carry, and appreciates rhetoric as an immense tool, a vessel with extraordinary potential to degrade or inspire. Differences shouldn't be exploited or taken lightly, rather, they should be shown the respect they are due. To be politically correct is to use said tool responsibly. Such is the way of the serious heart. Alex (who approaches from a minority background) perhaps advocates the absolute dismissal of political correctness to level the playing field for all varieties of people and truly disregard the differences between them: everyone has the right to make fun of and be made fun of equally. Be poking uninhibited fun at differences, society renders its stifling and impossible power asunder, and manages to generate a few laughs and some damned funny jokes along the way. These are the musings of the lighthearted. Despite their vastly different understanding of what makes an appropriate joke or statement, the two still manage to get along, most of the time.