Thursday, March 8, 2012

An End-Run Solution

For all of you who are giggling over the whole GOP flak about contraception -- and, more specifically, who pays for it -- here's an easy solution that won't add a dime to the taxpayers' burden. It's a contraceptive trick as old as ancient Rome, at least.

First, get one lemon, a half-pint of virgin olive oil, a bowl, a tablespoon, a sieve, an egg-whisk, and a sharp knife. Note that five of these items are often included in welfare special allotments under the title of "household goods", and the other two can be bought with food stamps.

First, take the knife and cut the lemon in half, through the bulgy waist. Take the sieve and place it in the bowl. Take the spoon and scoop out the pulp from one lemon-half, and dump it in the sieve. Trim the ends of the lemon-cup smooth. Squeeze the juice through the sieve and toss away the drained pulp. Take the egg-whisk, start slowly pouring the olive oil into the lemon juice, and beat the mixture vigorously. When it forms a foam about as thick as whipped cream, stop pouring the oil. Spoon the foam into the empty lemon-cup.

Stick the foam-loaded lemon-cup up your, ahem, vagina until it fits snugly over the neck of the cervix (like a classic Dutch Cap diaphragm). Spoon the rest of the foam into the vagina after the lemon-cup. Then go have sex. You'll have to replace the lemon-cup and its contents for every bout of sex, but lemons -- and olive-oil -- are relatively cheap. The lemon-juice-and-oil mix will not only kill sperm but will kill lots of known bacteria and viri as well. It's an inconvenient method, but a cheap and effective one.

Best of all, this method is totally "natural", "organic", and "non-hormonal"; even the Pope would have a hard time finding fault with it. ...Not that some fundamentalists won't try, of course.

--Leslie <;)))>< )O(

11 comments:

Aya Katz said...

Leslie, I always learn something new on your blog!

Doragoon said...

The Catholic objection would be that you're not being "open to children", but that is a sliding scale since NFP is OK. The key difference is interfering with the body's natural processes verses using those natural processes.

But this is all irrelevant since the POLITICAL question is, "Who's going to pay for my birth-control?" The answer, as with so much else, is, "You are!"

Leslie Fish said...

Hi, Aya. Would you believe, I learned that trick from an archeologist?

Hi, Dora. Heheheh. Yes, the question is always "who pays". Since the contraception we're talking about is, to be blunt, for the poor, one should consider this; it's a helluva lot cheaper to pay for a million units of contraception than a million bastard babies on Welfare. And you know that's where those babies would wind up; if a woman is too poor to pay for contraception, she's way too poor to raise a kid -- for 18 years at least -- by herself. For my part, hell yes, I'd be happy to pay all those poor women not to have babies!

--Leslie <;)))>< )O(

Doragoon said...

"it's a helluva lot cheaper to pay for a million units of contraception than a million bastard babies on Welfare"

And a bullet is even cheaper. And even cheaper than that is just not giving them the welfare. Financial reasons for charity don't make sense. If you're wanting to good things for people, then do it for that reason. If you're wanting to cut down costs, then charity is rarely the best option.

Give a man a fire, he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Ori Pomerantz said...

BTW, the current fight isn't about women on the bottom of the social scale who are unemployed and probably unemployable. It is about women further up, who at least have a job that gets them health insurance.

Leslie Fish said...

Hi, Ori. Women who can afford to buy their own health insurance also have enough cumulative clout to persuade the insurance companies to pay for contraception. It's the folks on the bottom end of the scale, who have to rely on state-paid insurance, who are most likely to be harmed by govt. healthcare cost-cutting.

Hi, Dora. To put it bluntly, History Hath Shewn that poor people will not obediently lie down and die for the convenience of the rich; they'll break the law that starves them instead. It's no coincidence that Welfare became a public concern at about the time that begging in the street became everywhere illegal. More than that, people who have nothing to lose aren't afraid of jail -- or of being shot at -- which is how the French Revolution started. Starving wolves will kill and eat each other; starving humans will kill and, at least symbolically, eat the rich. It's not a good idea to push people to that point of desperation -- especially not a lot of them. That's really the ultimate in "financial" reasons.

Paradoctor said...

Here's a quatrain celebrating one of the blessings of modern life:

Enfettered by the seed of man?
This wheel, darling, guards for thee
Affection, passion, love and yen;
A month of women's liberty!

Paradoctor said...

OOf, that should be "...love of men".

windmills said...

Leslie, (or others), has anyone else read a book titled "Freakanomics"? Statistician author draws a compeling correlation between Roe v/ Wade and a sudden downward spike in crime... 16yrs later... weird.
-J

KateGladstone said...

Uh ... The Pope (or some predecessor) DID find fault with the lemon trick: as a "mechanical and chemical obstacle," don't you know ...

KateGladstone said...

Why "toss away that drained pulp" produced early in the process? It hasn't touched anything intimate: why not just eat it, or rub it on your face like that lemon-scented facial-treatment stuff you can (expensively) buy?