Wednesday, May 7, 2014

Poor People Should Not F**k

Dear Critically Pissed,

Recently, I read a bumper sticker which said, "Can't Feed 'Em? Don't Breed 'Em!"

I sighed in frustration and disappointment at the ignorance of those who support such messages, mainly because my guess is that supporters of this probably consider themselves conservative and, ironically, are also against abortion, planned parenthood, sex education, and the Affordable Care Act, which provide means for people to safely engage in sex and properly care for their bodies. I thought for a little bit and came to the conclusion that supporters of this bumper sticker are most likely a bunch of religious conservatives (RCs) saying this: Poor people should not f**k.

First of all, if abortion were not so vehemently opposed by RCs who are convinced that a fetus, while unable to sustain itself without the mother's body, is somehow laden with a "God-given" right to be sustained at the expense of someone who actually HAS the right to live via the fact that she is an independent body, then perhaps poor mother's and fathers would not be forced to bring into the world a child they cannot feed.

Second, if planned parenthood were not constantly under attack by (again) RCs who supposedly believe sex is only meant to be had between well-off married couples, then maybe poor mothers and fathers would have access to contraceptives/birth control, making it much less likely for them to (again) bring into the world a child they cannot feed.

Third, if (again) RCs weren't so freaked out and paranoid about schools teaching detailed sex education courses, maybe young people would have a fuller understanding of sex and gain an appreciation of what it could truly mean for them in the big picture.

Fourth, if RCs (yet again) weren't so critical of birth control and the ACA overall, maybe affordable birth control would always be a part of everyone's insurance plan.

Many of the viewpoints established by people who promote messages like the one I saw on this bumper sticker are inherently contradictory, and pretty much all rely on phony religious doctrine, which I do not buy into. It is clear to me that people who engage these viewpoints are simply in favor of one thing, that is: Poor people should not f**k.

So, to you RCs, I just have to say this: Thanks to you, abortions can be difficult to have in a safe manner. Condoms and birth control can be difficult to acquire (also thanks to you). Young people often don't have the resources to understand what sex is about (again thanks to you). And now, you say to the world: "If you are poor and cannot afford to feed a child, then you should simply not have a child, and if you are to have sex at all, we will do everything we can to make it extremely difficult for you to AVOID having a child." So essentially, I'm right when I say all you pretty much are for is this: Poor people should not f**k.

Oh, and I might as well add that, according to your doctrine, poor people should also avoid watching television or movies, reading magazines, playing video games, viewing advertisements, listening to music, or even checking the daily news, because SEX is often promoted via these media outlets (whether you realize it or not). Also, poor people should avoid drinking alcohol because this can induce the urge to fornicate. As a supporter, you should probably make sure that poor people have enough personal lubricant, pornography, vibrators and/or fake vaginas so they can manage their sex drive while you a) merrily appease yours with the condoms and/or birth control you deserve because you happen to be able to afford it, OR b) successfully repress your sinful urges like the good Christian you say you are.

Reality - YOU should go f**k yourself.

A Sympathetic Supporter of Sex AND Pregnancy-Prevention


  1. Perhaps this driver was not religious at all, but was coming at it from a social Darwinist perspective; i.e., poor people are not worthy of reproducing. If this is the case then much of your rebuttal is inapplicable.

    1. Social Darwinism: The reason why America has declined as a country. We, for some reason, have decided that if someone is poor and doesn't have money, then it is their own fault because they were not worthy. It has nothing to do with the wealthy wanting to stay wealthy so they pay them (the poor) as little as possible for their work. It is merely an act of Social Darwinism, so, it's okay that they are greedy. Social Darwinism is just a justification for those who step all over others fulfill their own greed. The original poster is right, in that it PROBABLY belongs to an RC, but you are right in that it may just be someone who just believes that they have a right to abuse everyone and decide whether they are worthy or not.

    2. I guess if this were the case then my rebuttal would be something more along the lines of, "what a selfish, narrow-minded asshole you are," instead.

      While it may be possible that you're right, I think it is fair to say that the driver easily could have been an RC, meaning, these people ARE out there. So even if this doesn't apply to this specific driver, it still stands that there are people who A) believe that poor people should not have children AND B) religiously oppose motions to help prevent poor people from having children, which still amounts to "poor people should not f**k".

      Obviously we can say that this driver doesn't want to pay to feed poor people's children, so is it likely that the same person would endorse paying to prevent those children from entering the world in the first place (even as a social darwinist)? Not really. They'd probably scoff and say, "can't poor women just keep their legs shut?", or something equally as or even more terrible (note: it is likely that this person is probably sexist too, since sexist attitudes tend to coincide with RC attitudes, even among women). But does it matter? Not really, because like I said, there ARE people out there like those addressed in the post, and whether or not this driver was one of them is kind of besides the point.

  2. the point isn't that poor people shouldn't F**K it that they need to be responsible when doing it. I spend $1.00 for a condom. I as a tax payer shouldn't have to pay for their child. Not all "poor" are in this boat, however, a lot are. I will agree to pay for the condom if the gov. would agree to drug test anyone who collects money from gov. assistance programs. If you pass than you will get the help you need, if not than fuck you.

    1. First of all, where do you get condoms for $1?
      Second, don't you understand the difference between "then" and "than" ?
      Third, I understand your point of view, however, your reasoning is flawed in that you presuppose a set of options for impoverished people that is very similar to the set of options you yourself have. To you and many others, it appears that poor people face decisions (to take drugs for instance) in pretty much the same way you do, when in reality, the decision is much more complicated than you're making it out to be. Your preconception of what poor people's options look like as a non-poor person is likely inaccurate due to your own cultural bias.

      Imagine living a life in which you are poor (and you've always been poor) and you're living in a place where it often seems more practical to make a living committing crimes (like selling drugs for instance), and you're submersed in a culture that not only condones drug use (and other criminal activity), but also encourages it. Furthermore, your life is pretty f**ked up overall (unstable family, shitty school system, bad role models, etc), and to cope, or make the day to day a little more tolerable (and even profitable in some way), you smoke pot, crack, use cocaine or heroine, and probably drink. Is this so condemnable?

      Now think of this - you say poor people shouldn't be able to collect welfare if they are also taking drugs (which you assume they spent money on), presumably because to you, the money spent on doing drugs is better used to cover that which your taxes are paying for, so less of your money would go to the poor. My question is this - what if those who collect welfare were spending money on some other form of mental escape/comfort such as video games or movies? By your line of reasoning, you would pretty much have to also take away the right of the poor to use tax payer money to pay for any and every unnecessary, pleasure-inducing activity. I mean, I view people's recreational drug use as mainly a counter-productive, pleasure-inducing activity that, like getting your hair done or playing video games all day, helps ease the pain of chronic struggle, gain social acceptance in some way, and probably profit in other ways I can't imagine right now.

      "Oh but drugs are illegal and so they must be 'off-limits' to anyone collecting welfare," you say, "and so to reap the benefits of government assistance, one must also follow the law regarding illegal drugs." If this is what you mean to say, then your argument is even more tenuous than I thought, and leads to the untenable consequence that government benefits may not be received by anyone who doesn't follow the law by passing a drug test. Of course however, you are probably discriminating between welfare and *acceptable* government benefits like social security, unemployment/disability aid, public education, etc.

      I'm hoping that you don't find it too difficult to wrap your head around what I've presented here. If so, then you really lack the imagination and shrewd intellect that society desperately needs to solve social problems like the one we're talking about.

      By applying your all-too-common beliefs (mainly about freedom, choice, and morality) to the rest of the world around you, you're reinforcing negative conceptions of people who happen to be mired in a worldview and lifestyle that, rather than being "wrong" or "right", is merely in opposition to your own. Your comments are little more than a discursive shaping of reality suited to your own personal beliefs and worldview, hence your commitment to place unwarranted restrictions on a particular group of people.

    2. typical liberal trash response! doing drugs is like playing video games or getting hair done? You are an IDIOT! Wrapping my head around that is difficult!

    3. Ok so video games and getting one's hair done is not exactly like doing drugs, except that the two may be considered as unnecessary expenditures (and I thought this conversation was about welfare money going to the wrong places). Obviously drugs are different in that they are actually addictive and can provide a means of making money, which is just another reason why it's not realistic to prohibit persons from collecting government aid unless they pass a drug test. Either way, your reasoning is flawed and you should probably reassess your argument.

  3. I understand that you have a hard time handling reality. But posting, "Fuck you," to it is no way to handle it.

  4. Government money should not be spent on anything besides basic needs. IE food, water, and shelter.

    Video games, cell phones, fancy food, etc, are luxary items that should only be available to those who pay for it themselves.

    Also, if you cannot afford to pay 5 bucks for a box of trojans, then you should prolly think long and hard about doing things to make a baby.

    It is selfish to have kids when you cant even take care of yourself.

    As far as abortion, you had a choice to keep your legs shut, you didnt, now its time to pay the consequences.