As much as I regret using The Spectrum as a medium for debate, I feel I must clarify the points I intended to make in my previous response to Rebecca Diegelman, printed in the March 3 issue.
Evidently, at least one reader of The Spectrum did not recognize the heavy sarcasm in my letter. I was using satire as a means to show how ridiculous I found many of Diegelman's claims. When I wrote, "curse you," I was being completely facetious, and I was not harassing her any more than Jonathan Swift was suggesting Irish babies actually taste good when served with cabbage.
The following are some of the points I had hoped to make:
1. A vast majority of sex is consensual. This is not to say that the male consents to assault a woman, but that both parties peacefully agree to have sex.
2. If a condom fails, it is usually not the fault of the man. Furthermore, not even the most inebriated frat boy thinks it's a good idea to get a girl pregnant. Anyone with any semblance of foresight sees the need for contraception.
3. Men do not sleep with women with the intent of killing them. Yes, if the woman was an unwilling sexual partner and she contracts a fatal disease, then her death is a result of his actions. Yes, this can be considered murder. Even so, this is not the premeditated "womanslaughter" you paint it as.
4. Men are not super villains. There is no conspiracy to destroy women.
I would also like to mention that there was no need for you to reiterate the points of your first letter, Ms. Diegelman. I read it the first time. I also fully understood your derivation of the words "womanslaughter" and "femicide." The definitions are very easy to infer.
Also, any "ignorance" contained in my letter was a reflection of similar ignorance in your own. For example, as I already stated, most sexual activity is performed with the consent of both parties. Your letters imply that the only sexual activity a woman engages in is forced. This viewpoint died (or should have died) with Queen Victoria. Also, I am well aware that a person cannot contract cancer in an organ he or she doesn't have. That is simple common sense.
There are a few more miscellaneous points I would like to make. First, as far as cases of true sexual assault go, I fully agree with Ms. Diegelman. The person who has been raped is completely a victim and should have the means to minimize the lasting consequences of the encounter.
Second, I fail to see the correlation between the Plan B pill and STD prevention.
Third, in cases of consensual sex, contraception is the responsibility of both parties, and there are other means than simply condoms and the Plan B bill, as Ms. Diegelman's letters imply.
Finally, making the Plan B pill an over-the-counter drug could actually have the side effect of reducing condom use. If it is so easy to access a pill to eliminate potential pregnancy, both parties may find this pill more attractive than condom use. This would leave the woman wide open for infections. In other words, making the pill over-the-counter could turn Plan B into "Plan A," and as they say, "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."
