why the paranormal

by Rain Trueax

It's St. Patrick's Day, about which I thought of writing, since it's important to a lot of people-- even those not Irish. I am though really not much for saints of any sort even if they drove all the snakes out of somewhere, which I personally doubt. Instead, I'm interested in why some supernatural myths appeal to us and others frighten us.

It is ironic to me, is it to you? If you pray to an angel, it's okay but if you consult a spirit guide, it's not. Opening a Bible randomly to give wisdom for the day is fine but Tarot cards not so much. A miracle is accepted if it came from some sources but not from others. The Virgin Mary on a piece of toast is inspirational but a ghost telling someone how to invest in the stock market, not okay. On it goes.

I think these kinds of questions began my interest in the supernatural world which can nicely dovetail with the scientific.  Don't believe me? Check out quantum physics sometime for what we know and don't know about what we consider the reality of life. You think you are solid, think again and it's not just about atoms or time. Life is full of what we think isn't actually what is.

When I wrote my first paranormal, I didn't decide early on whether it'd have a real supernatural being in it. I tiptoed into the water of the other side gingerly with Sky Daughter. 

More than a few years later came When Fates Conspire. If you are interested in its beginning (out of a 2013 dream), I wrote more about it [here]. It was the first novella of what became three paranormals, which eventually ended up in one book, Diablo Canyon. (I still find that one of the more confusing things I've done as a writer because when I try to list how many books I've written, those three are slightly different without the spice but the same story. Still, I made it that way so that I could open the novel's door on the sexual relationships of the couples). The stories fit together into one book because they involve humans (some with extra powers) coming to eventually fight monsters, of the Native American sort, who have gathered on a canyon south of Billings, Montana. I used a mix of science and magic for the challenges.

The next time I was tempted into the paranormal was driving through downtown Tucson and Barrio Viejo. It was there that I saw the possibility of young, professional couples with a difference-- the women being natural born witches, dedicated to protecting the street. The first of those came out in 2016 and the most recent this year. 

To date, my paranormals have met with very limited interest from most of my readers who love historicals. The question then being-- why continue to write a series that few will ever see or give a try? Well, there is a reason. They excite my interest of what might be. It's fun to create a gnome as a secondary character or have a grandmother, who is Navajo, and lives a very physical life with her sheep and weaving but has protected her land in ways that have come naturally to her. That's the nature of the paranormal, where each writer makes their own rules.

In a paranormal, if I want to have a heroine, who can look into someone's memories (The Shaman's Daughter) or is convinced if people just understood more of the supernatural world, they'd see good guys there (To Speak of Things Unseen) or to be a witch and not want the gifts until they suddenly mean life or death (A Price to be Paid), or my latest where the heroine has to open herself to her human side with more trust (Something Waits), those are the fun parts of writing paranormals. 

In my case, I also see there being a responsible side when I create these fantasy elements in ways that are positive and show how to deal with what is not. Take away the powers and these books are like all my others for their values and what the story has for important elements. 

What they don't have are many readers and finding that kind of reader, open to mystery of life, is what I am looking to do. Turning away from what has been popular writing is not necessarily lucrative in a physical sense, but I don't know any other way to write and stay true to the Muse. ;)

To do it or not

Writers have a lot of things they wrestle with in terms of what to include in a book. My most recent such was deciding how long to have a conversation go on with the family of witches-- and then is there a way to get around repeatedly saying Grandma Hemstreet to make sure her dialogue is not confused with Grandma Cordova? Conversations are a big deal in terms of taking stories forward, staying true to point of view, and avoiding confusion.

A big issue in love stories is will the couple do it? In my books, there will be a certain point at which they are mature adults and committed to each other. They know this is more than a casual encounter. The energy between them is high. They will do it, and they won't wait for a wedding ring-- although there might be one. Some writers don't describe those happenings and others do. It's a choice.

Whether there will be a kiss, or considerably more, has been handled different ways with varying levels of heat-- or not. At the same time Jane Austen was writing her romance novels without a hint of desire, there were erotica authors also putting out their stories-- if a bit more secretively. There have always been those who want to read it and those who do not. Fortunately the writing world is big enough for both to find stories to suit them.

This is on my mind right now because of a discussion thread that arose in a book group to which I belong. The readers expressed their view of how books handle the sensual end of a relationship. Some were very adamant against anything other than holding hands. Others were open to more but it had to be without what they called smut or it being graphic. Which made me wonder what those words meant to them. Here's what I wrote with some editing and paragraphs breaks as that is a place you can't put in such breaks.

So that leads to another question. What is smut? Is it smut to say he came into her? How about using the word penis? I read that word turns some readers off because it is so biological. Graphic is another confusing term-- if someone says breast or nipple, those are pretty graphic.

For my own writing, I avoid using euphemisms that got ridiculed so badly by comedians. You know the ones that found all kinds of ways to get around using actual biological terms. I read a paragraph of that prose to my husband once and we were both laughing so hard I had a hard time getting through it. It was the way a lot of romance authors used to write, but frankly I don't see that in writers today so much-- partly because laughter doesn't set the right mood.

For research purposes, I read an urban fantasy recently, and the couple went on for pages with 'doing it'. I can't tell you though what words were used as I just skimmed ahead. It might have been graphic; but to me it was boring. There are only so many ways to say they did it before it is repetitive. If it does not carry the plot forward, I am not interested in it-- and well written sensual scenes can very much carry a plot forward with the emotions that go with the physical as someone who has been too tight and finally lets go.

I make sure my blurbs warn readers, there will be spice, as nobody wants a reader to feel blindsided. Reading or writing, I also don't want abuse. Romances used to have that and to me, if I come across it and accidentally bought that book, it's heading for the garbage most especially if it's the hero. I want it consensual between adults, healthy, fun (yes it can be), and good for the couple. The world is not always that way, but romance isn't about what all is out there in the world. It's why there's always a HEA. We need some place like that.

I don't know of any romance authors who don't want readers protected from what goes against their personal ethics. That's why a rating system is so important. I put one using  #1-#5 with #5 hottest (but not erotica, which is something quite different) on my blog that defines what my numbers mean. When putting it into a blurb, #1 should mean #1 for those who don't want even a suggestion that more lies ahead. I remember how irate some viewers were when they did a movie version of Pride and Prejudice where the couple kiss in the end-- after being married. It didn't stay true to the #1 in the minds of those viewers or for that matter of how Jane Austen wrote.

I guess it would be easier to not include it at all, but you write the story that comes to you, and I find writing a bedroom (which might not be in a bedroom) scene part of my need to describe a full, healthy relationship for my characters.

Disappointment

If you are uncomfortable with sexual discussions, then stop reading right now and come back on Saturday :).

More on the dilemma of being 'out there' or 'in the arena' as the video last week talked about. When you write for yourself and you are the only one who sees your words, you do not face what I got recently, making it worse-- just before I went to bed. Another review with this time only 2 stars and I would say an angry more than disappointed ex-reader:

Very disappointed, the sample of the story didn't prepare me for all the sexual context in the book. Had an good story line , historical facts , this author seem to thing that loading it down with bedroom seances made it better . If you are looking for a good clean historical novel this is not it! On a positive note St. Cloud was a good addition to the book! His faith in God and his knowledge was refreshing. !

I do everything I can to avoid this happening. I do not want that reader and my book to come together. She does not want sex in a book. I don't want her unhappy for reading things she'd rather not see. My blurbs for the books all have the warnings. The words sweet or clean do not appear. I reference the book having a heat level of 4 ♥♥♥♥. There is, however, no way to force someone to read the blurb. I also cannot help them interpret the sample. There are no opening chapters to romances (erotica maybe) that have the hero and heroine jumping in bed; so no sample will ever tell a reader there will or will not be sex. That has to be found in the blurb. 

This whole thing is driving me nuts-- not though about readers who don't want sex. This lady only represents the tip of the iceberg of readers who want zero sex, violence and profanity in their books. It is a movement that is hitting back against the easing up of what is possible in mainstream literature. My problem is how do I keep those readers from buying my books? I suppose some of them would like censorship where nobody could read books like mine-- where writers are forced to take out what these readers don't want to see.

Censorship can work. Big publishing houses can be impacted by it. Writers who have to make a living can. Now, with independent writers, it's harder to make the will of a movement felt on all. Writers like me are not going to change what they write. Amazon might be impacted if the pressure builds on them. The censorship movement did have some success with certain best-selling erotica a couple of years ago, but I think it eventually got back out.

I am in the midst of the new one, Aztec Moon, and it has the same level of heat. I do not write what is computer driven by the latest polls for what readers want. When I put my books (this blog also) out there, I am revealing something of myself, my thinking, my belief about life. Because they say never contact a reader or answer a review, I cannot explain to her why the opening sample in that book gave more clues as to what was coming than even the blurb.

I won't post the sample here. Anybody who wants can take a free look [Round the Bend]. The book's first three chapters are reached by clicking on the cover. What I am going to say here is I am beginning to get a feel for what upsets these women readers so much. It's not that there is sex permeating the whole book as the above reviewer implies. Sure there is desire, but where I think the upset came, for this reader, is who is feeling it-- the woman. 

The heroine is young, not quite eighteen, and she is just awakening to her own body and to what it feels like to desire a man. Round the Bend is not just about a man jumping a woman's bones (he does try that in the first chapter). The story is her growing in her understanding of what she wants. It's her thoughts, her yearnings more than even actual action. She is headstrong, and it takes a lot for her to realize actions have consequences. I have a feeling the women readers (and it is mostly women) dislike it that the heroine is the aggressor, and he is the more responsible one where it comes to understanding consequences. There are reasons he knows that and she does not. It is her journey to learn it.


Because I do understand how sex can be a powerful force and even one that can be destructive, I have another female character in the book who illustrates the other side of how women can deceive and even damage themselves by misunderstanding what sex is really about-- which means it belongs in responsible, mature relationships where the consequences are fully faced. That's the message the reviewer above missed.

Round the Bend is in a lot of ways the journey of women. Being 71 years old, I am well aware of how most women were taught about sex. They threatened us so much with don't do it that they forgot to tell us how it should be done. They were so afraid of the power of sex that they turned it into something unclean outside of a closed bedroom door-- do not talk about it, watch it, or hear anything about it. 

Of course, many women did it anyway and many married pregnant; but they usually wanted to think that they were seduced into it. It was what a good woman did. She got seduced. She didn't do the seducing. 

Well (and this happens a lot in my books), this heroine discovers a good woman can feel desire and want a man. Then she worries that she isn't good. She eventually talks to her mother about her sexual desire. When she tells the hero her mother's wisdom, that whitens his face, but it shows the kind of relationship the heroine has with her mother. The mother does all she can to stop her daughter from having sex too young or from being with the wrong man, but she recognizes reality and gives her practical advice (also from the Bible, I might add).

You know, the Bible is a pretty lusty book itself. It actually has one book just about passion and a woman's desire for a man-- Song of Solomon. Worth reading if you have forgotten how heady that book actually is. Now religious teachers have tried to tame it down to suit their fear of healthy sexuality by saying it's talking about a man's love for God; but give me a break! Anybody who reads it knows it speaks of a woman's desire for her lover's body and his for hers. It even discusses oral sex-- of course, in a very poetic way, but the words cannot be mistaken. 

What I believe is that healthy sexuality is what more people need to read about. Not in some dry textbook with the biological facts but in a way that inspires an understanding that actions have consequences and that the connection we want with another person is one that goes beyond the physical to include the soul or spirit. 

I won't quit writing books like the one that so offended her. I think such books are healthy for readers. I just want to find a way so that a reader like her and I never come across each other.

As I lay in bed after reading that review, I thought putting books out there is a lot like going to a dance where you didn't go with a date. This might be something young people don't experience today, but I remember being in a big hall where the girls sat on one side. The boys on the other. The music started and the boys began to come across to ask girls to dance-- or not. 

For this dance, the music starts when the book is out there. The reader is the one who requests a dance, a relationship that lasts as long as the book takes unless the reader wants more dances. What I want to find is a way to not have my books asked to the dance by those who will find a full exploration of life is not their cup of tea. There are plenty of books out there for them, they are called sweet or clean. Those readers should also watch where they read in the Bible. ;)

Beltane

Despite the calendar telling us that summer doesn't begin until the Solstice, here in the Pacific Northwest, it begins May 1 with Beltane. Celtic festivals follow nature and reflect it unrelated to religious demands-- pagan or otherwise.

Beltane

For Beltane, there used to be the May pole to dance around but not sure many still do that. Where I live, and in the lands where the Celtic religion originated, it is the time of hills turning green, trees in leaf, wildflowers everywhere and gardens full of color. The days are growing longer; the birds are building nests. It is a time for eager anticipation of summer weather when we can swim in rivers and hike in mountains that winter denied us (unless we snowshoe). It is a time to celebrate the renewal of life. It was the day in 1910 when my father was born in South Dakota.

What I didn't know about Beltane (or had forgotten) is that it is also the time of the coming together of the god and goddess, of male and female.

"Handfastings (Pagan marriages) are traditional at this time. It is a time of fertility and harvest, the time for reaping the wealth from the seeds that we have sown. Celebrations include braiding of one's hair (to honour the union of man and woman and Goddess and God), circling the Maypole for fertility and jumping the Beltane fire for luck. Beltane is one of the Major Sabbats of the Wiccan religion. We celebrate sexuality (something we see as holy and intrinsic to us as holy beings), we celebrate life and the unity which fosters it. The myths of Beltane state that the young God has blossomed into manhood, and the Goddess takes him on as her lover. Together, they learn the secrets of the sexual and the sensual, and through their union, all life begins."            From  The Shaman's Well, link above

Romance is the bread of life. Love is a worthy of celebration as artists and writers seek to capture the elusiveness of human reasons for mating.
 

I love thinking of Beltane as a not just a celebration of spring but one of sexuality and love. It is what the continuation of life is all about. And it's not all about opposite sex relationships as love between adults is love wherever it's found. And love, for those who have found each other through all the pitfalls (and there are plenty) is always a precious thing to celebrate.

 When I painted, I liked to paint emotional connections between people. When I did sculptures, I looked for poses that illustrated the same. Now it's books; but it's always what I am drawn to capture whether in clay, paint or words. 

The sculptures are all fired clay. If I get back to painting again, I hope I can do more couples in various poses reflecting love's moods.

Sex and Politics-- or cheating and power

When I got this idea of cutting down on the posts here at Thoughts, I listed off some possible topics. I hope relationships was among them because that's what's on my mind right now-- not my relationships but the ones currently we are reading a lot about if we are reading the news anyway.

One thing to clarify first-- politics is not government. Politics is the nature of how people work out decisions, relationships, power, etc. Unless humans are living solitary lives, politics is in any relationship they have (maybe animals too). So when I say sex and politics it means sexuality and the dynamics of human interactions.

One other thing-- in comparison to stories like why are we still in Afghanistan, the tragedy unfolding in Israel and Gaza, this affair is seemingly a non-story that wouldn't have been a story in the past.

It might matter to us as in how easy our online correspondence is to track [privacy? What privacy?] but has that changed so much when someone in the FBI wants to find your secrets?  An obsessive FBI agent led to the downfall of Petraeus

Now that it's out, it has gotten so much coverage mostly because humans love dashing heroes, beautiful women, juicy gossip, taking down heroes, and in the case of right wingers-- some way to punish Obama for daring to win twice. 

CIA directors and scandals

Our current example of cheating and power just keeps getting curiouser and curiouser as it reveals a world of interconnected warriors and hot women. So for anybody who reads here but has no interest in such relationship stories, the crux of it, that we know for now, goes like this (for today because it might change next week).

David Petraeus, who has been an American war hero (mostly to the right), suddenly resigned as director of the CIA-- right after the election (first suspicious clue for conspiracy seekers). He admitted he had been having an affair (the dates of which change with every story I read) with a married woman who wrote a flattering biography of him and has been embedded with him (turns out literally although the only for sure account is under a desk).

It gets more complicated when we find the affair was discovered while an FBI agent, on his own, was investigating harassing emails sent to another hot babe (all part of what would make for a good English melodrama) in kind of an interconnected group of friends which has led to discovering hundreds of titillating emails sent by the current General in charge of Afghanistan to the second of the two hot babes (it gets more confusing).

One person said the most damage this story is doing is to the Staff Sergeant trying to teach a group of young military recruits about the high standards of the military while we see the general in charge of Afghanistan has had time to send flirty emails to one of those hot babes.

When I first read about this, I went to Drudge (something I no longer bookmark because it's so one-sided and salacious but when I wanted salacious, it was the place I thought of), read the articles there and then went below for rightie comments.

The comment section is where this gets scary. They did not believe Petraeus even had an affair.  The commenters thought it was all about Obama trying to prevent the CIA director from testifying about Benghazi (which I gave my earlier take on back in the blog--Doubling down on dumb-- Benghazi).

Get serious, it's not like Obama would be hurt running for election with this attack having been al Qaeda. In some circles, they call that wagging the dog and some presidents have been accused of creating such an incident. Plus he's had an ongoing action using drones (which some believe is wrong) against terrorist leaders anywhere they are found. This attack could make his use of drones seem more necessary even to the left. It sounds more like that October surprise they expected him to create to stay in office. Plus he did call it an act of terror.

As far as I know, they have yet to prove what political group planned it. What I think is it was part of a much broader effort, but I can no more prove that then they can that the Chicago tough guys were behind blackmail and coverups. The latest far-out theory by some of the wackiest is that Obama set up the woman to have the affair and trap Petraeus. I tell you, righties will believe anything.

 The right wing has an ongoing effort to somehow blame Obama for those four deaths. That Libya was a dangerous country. That the men (three trained warriors and one ambassador who had seen the worst of Libya's civil war) killed all knew their dangers, not of interest. That the extra security was requested for Tripoli, also not of interest. Nailing Obama somehow for something that could lead to an impeachment, that is.  And wacky righties think they have it now-- Benghazi a way to undo an election they could not buy or steal.

Now skip the lack of logic that Petraeus' resignation would not and did not prevent him from testifying. Maybe some of those commenters were spy novel fans (all clearly watched Fox 'news' and/or listened to Rush and his ilk). Most of them sounded like bigots who cannot stand a black man as President.

Their logic is that if the affair had come out before the election it would hurt Obama which skips over the fact that the right had Petraeus up on more of a pedestal than the left.  The women, the FBI agent, the Generals all apparently were Republicans. When all those parties and high lifestyle were coming out, might it not have more likely impacted Romney who wanted $1,000,000,000 more for the military? [high living no surprise to locals]

A lot of those commenters saw Petraeus as a hero and by golly they still wanted him to be one. A resignation over a simple affair got in their way; and since facts don't seem important, they could dismiss those (he didn't have an affair but admitted to one out of ____ you fill in the blank).

They created a new story that had nothing to do with sex. Fox and empty headed commentators like Peggy Noonan are helping them do it. I used to respect her but listening to her talk about this with kind of an inane expression, a skinny old lady, she strikes me as so far over the top, and anything but bright that it's no wonder she was a speech writer for Reagan.

Is any of this affair/affairs our business as Americans? Do we have a right to demand sexual fealty from our heroes?  Alpha males and cheating

The affair and all that has come out since would not have been revealed except for two cat fighting females and an obsessive FBI agent, who had no idea it involved the General or any possible threat to security but as soon as he thought it could have political capital went to right wing politicians with the story due to his belief his superiors would not properly use it. It got as far as Eric Cantor who went to the FBI head but didn't reveal anything to anybody. He might've also wondered whose ox it would gore if it did come out before voting.

Incidentally that aggressive FBI agent sent a topless photo of himself to one of the hot babes. He has said it was sent to many as a joke which might have been true or not; but it is something that men, who do such things, often say (do not ask how I know-- but I do).

The more we read about this and that aspect, the more it sounds like one of those British novels regarding their military in India or Africa and the complex interrelationships that we had no idea was happening right there in Tampa (and likely on other high level bases). I suspect we would have been happier not knowing-- unless this involves revealing classified secrets which so far it appears it has not.

We're not alone with such scandals where two women set about bringing down a leadership-- not with that intent so much but out of jealousy.  France is going through something similar (could there be something in the water?)

Should we even elevate heroes? Do we like to put people onto pedestals so we can then see them knocked off? From the stories of warriors, like David Petraeus, affairs are not unlikely whether they end up proven (wisely he admitted it and won't end up in prison for perjury like Martha Stewart) or like Eisenhower, simply rumored and revealed by his mistress after he was long dead and couldn't deny it.

Is adultery in our leaders the business of the public? If someone is a general, the military regards it as theirs. From what I know of the military code of ethics, it's grounds for court martial to commit adultery (when it's proven). And I guess it's up for debate whether it still might impact Petraeus as a retired officer if they wanted to reactivate him and prosecute. I read they are unlikely to do that.

Some say this is all just too coincidental to come out right now. Oh, I don't mean those trying to tie Obama into it with the hope of another impeachment over nothing. I mean the James Bond film which came out at the same time.

Such films are likely one of the reasons for those conspiracy types to be sure Obama (or as one retired military leader said on Fox, the Chicago tough guys) had something to do with this as a cover up or had been using it as blackmail to shut Petraeus up. That would be smart, wouldn't it, to reveal the affair and make someone mad enough to reveal those secrets you were trying to blackmail them into keeping. Remember logic is not a factor in any of this-- not the behavior nor the reaction.

Some ask why I don't want to write more realistic stories, closer to real life. Why choose romances that are a bit of fairy tales? Well this is why-- rare are the happy endings when it involves people living life on the edge. Happy endings are for boring little lives that are the best to actually live but definitely don't make for 100,000 exciting words to tell about. Such lives are for memoirs which most likely (unless a celebrity or noted biologist) only have family members interested in reading-- if them.

Years ago when discussing Bill Clinton and his sexual scandals, Farm Boss said that was probably where he got his energy-- the cheating. It's that challenge of doing it, hiding it, knowing it could be found out, the power, the risk. This is not to say that there aren't some real love stories out there in these secret affairs. One that might be the case was Mark Sanford sneaking off to South America to meet with his lover and saying later she was his soul mate and he would not give her up. Evidently they are planning on marriage-- but will that lead to a happily ever after? If I had to put money on it, I'd take the other side ;)

Remember the old saying-- ah what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive. Actually a spider web is pretty well organized in comparison to human webs.

Jon Stewart, as usual, lays it all out with logic and humor. Too bad righties are so mad at those like him and Bill Maher who also did a good job on explaining it last night. They could learn a thing or two or three.  

Jon Stewart blasts Petraeus conspiracy theories

Abuse in fiction

Two free days (June 25-26, 2012) for my eBook Moon Dust, which is, I believe, a strong love story of a broken relationship, but something more -- information about the repercussions on adult males from childhood sexual abuse. I know it's an unpleasant topic but when you write, part of why is to give people a good read but weaving within that some truths about life. This one came to me probably fifteen or more years ago because of some things I had seen in my own community.

Many do not understand the problem when it's boys who have been molested. Some even think-- wow hot teacher, what is to complain? Or so what if it was a coach, the kid got something out of it. We saw some of this argument with the Sandusky accusations and now guilty verdict. The boys didn't run away. They didn't tell. They didn't tell as adults. It was all very suspect to some people.

If people more understood that sexual abuse of a child is a crime of control, of taking away another person's power, they'd understand what it does and why at the time and even later, as an adult, the person can have a hard time getting past what happened. There is a great deal of reticence in even thinking about it themselves, let alone telling someone else. What many don't realize is there are many emotional ramifications of such abuse.

The story Moon Dust is about a marriage breaking up over that kind of secret. It is also about our educational system and all the conflicting demands being put upon it right now. It's about how we make a difference in another person's life-- and when we cannot.

Because it is a deep book as well as a romance, it's not had an easy time finding readers. It would probably do better in a straight literary category as such readers might be more open to such a tough topic. I felt though it also belonged in the story of a romance because in the end romances are always about relationship.

I have written two books that dealt with the adult ramifications of abuse on men. The other, a historical, has not yet been published, and I am still deciding whether I ever want to bring it out as an eBook. In that one it was physical abuse. In both cases the abuser was in the family, and that is the most common source of abuse for boys or girls. Sad isn't it!

So I hope Moon Dust gets some takers with its free days. I hope that some who read it will learn more about the topic of abuse in a positive sense as we are only victims when we can't change something. Knowledge is power. Abuse is widespread in our culture. It doesn't just happen to girls.

Trailer also available at Picasa-- Moon Dust eBook Trailer

Birth Control

This might surprise a few readers of this blog who have not been with me long, but quite a few years ago, Farm Boss and I led a teen-age youth group from our rural church. We did this over a period of years and had their Sunday night meetings at our farmhouse.

The sessions were a Bible study and making it practical for issues they would face in their daily lives (sometimes there would be a pizza, movie and hot tub party). These were the years when we believed in a fundamental Christian view of the Bible; so don't panic that we were leading them into decadence. We did, however, discuss many touchy subjects and one of them was birth control.

Back then we taught that sex outside of marriage-- any sex outside of marriage-- was a sin biblically speaking. BUT birth control was not. We took the view that many unwanted pregnancies come out of young people who think they can let themselves be carried away by sex and somehow avoid feeling they sinned as greatly if they were not using birth control-- you know the old-- if it just happens, there is less blame than if it's planned. We taught that adding birth control onto sex didn't enhance the infraction.

The Catholic basis for their claim it is a mortal sin goes back to the story of Onan (Genesis 38:8-10) where I believe they totally missed the point of the story as many do with Sodom and Gomorrah. However, they don't care much about that fact as with their Pope getting orders directly from God, they can say it's a sin with no logical biblical basis.

For anybody without a Bible or who doesn't want to bother looking up the story of Onan, it's typical Old Testament. Fathers took wives for their sons. God smote whoever didn't do his will.

In this case, Judah got Tamar as a wife for his oldest son. Oldest son did evil in God's eyes (doesn't say what). God killed him. So Judah ordered his son Onan to have sex with his brother's widow, as her brother-in-law, and the child would be considered that it was his brother's.

Onan, not surprisingly didn't take well to this idea. The offspring would never be his. Sounds like he'd not even get to marry the widow. Frankly it's a weird story however you look at it. But Onan went to her and 'wasted his seed on the ground' which might mean withdrawal (Catholics also use this story to claim masturbation is a mortal sin). Anyway when God saw this, He killed Onan too. (Tamar has an interesting story if you want to pursue what happened next to her).

Most of us, using logic (not needed for those who base everything on faith), would say God was mad at Onan because he wouldn't do what his father and God wanted-- produce an heir illicitly for his brother-- the one who did something so bad that God had killed him for it.

So to rebel against God or your father could end up with a death sentence. But the story isn't about birth control as anybody can see. The Popes though began to use it as their justification for no birth control (except the rhythm method-- figure the logic on that one)-- and considering it to be a mortal sin if you do use it. And for any non-Catholics reading here, mortal sins are the biggies, the kind God smites you for (see above for what that could mean) versus venal sins which are the minor ones. (Wonder where they classify Bishops who hid the sexual molestation being done by their priests -- probably okay as it was protecting the Church which clearly always takes the priority).

Anyway now we have in our country some people, even those who are not Catholics, defending the Catholic right to dictate this logic onto every single person in the country under threat of law if enough voters agree with them.

Now I think the evangelical wing of the church (and mostly christianists whatever they call themselves as their practices sure don't follow Christ's teachings) want to block birth control access because they are convinced that everybody using it is out committing some kind of licentious act. If they block birth control availability, people won't be doing that... Told you logic isn't a factor in any of this.

You know, I don't really have a problem with people using twisted logic and considering themselves to be better than everybody who doesn't. It's their problem-- right up until they want to make everybody else also follow that logic. Then it's my problem.

When a pharmacist in a small town in the South said he would not fill a birth control prescription for a woman because it was a sin to use it, it was really the first volley in a new culture war. We are now being told it would be okay, this by a candidate running for the presidency of this nation, if a state voted to make all birth control illegal. It would be okay to make Catholic moral laws into American legal laws (based on believing that above story makes sense as well as that any Pope has a direct pipeline to God for being given instructions for what we should do under threat not just of death now but also hell). A lot of us are still in shock.

The argument that birth control allows for illicit sex is obviously proven wrong by statistics. Half of all pregnancies are unplanned according to statistics (maybe going back to the logic of if I didn't take birth control, the sin is lessened).

Any stupid argument that a couple should have all the children god naturally gives them makes me want to ask-- so no intervention regarding your nearly rupturing appendix since god gave you that too?

What is happening now is purely illogical. Not that logic is much praised these days from the far right where only blind faith is admired and as for facts-- what are those?

You know to believe in making sure birth control is easily available to women does not mean one is promoting a licentious lifestyle. Where it comes to sexuality, I don't have the religious view on it anymore but still believe living a life of sex with a rotating set of partners is not healthy. I believe in honesty and openness in sexual connections even if marriage isn't a factor or frankly even if it's polyamory. The thing is even for those doing the one-night stands, it doesn't make it more healthy to add with no birth control.

My guess is most birth control is used within marriages or committed relationships. For those of us shaking our heads at this even being an issue again, we see this as not about morality but about responsibility for yourself, the children you might have and the ones you already have. This means not just as an individual but as a community-- which is why it matters that birth control is available and easy to get-- even if it's no longer an issue for us personally. It's about operating from logic not blind unthinking faith.

This is a good link and I hope you take a look at it.

What got lost in the debate about birth control