Today in WTF? moments

Well, that's only the half of it, pogge -- not even the half of it.

Vellacott's earlier statement included this now infamous line: "Pro-life feminists have also come to see abortion as part of a male agenda to have women more sexually available."

The clear implication of that position is that women do not desire or seek sex on their own. As far as sex is concerned, only men have agency. As far as sex is concerned, women are to be understood only in terms of their "availability," which presumably they are supposed to be hoarding. All this is essence of objectification: in the minds of people like Vellacott, women are a commodity no matter what they do, no matter what their experiences of sex.

Vellacott would not, I'm sure, accept my translations of his position, but for him and, alas, a lot of people like him, it comes down to this: sex for women happens in one of three ways:

1. Rape: woman is pathetic victim.

2. Prostitution: woman is vile and guilty, but victim nonetheless.

3. Marriage: woman trades sex for security and social approval.

If their "availability" to men is what defines women's sexuality, then those are the only options. Well, I suppose abstinence is an option. And women are not sexual beings -- iow, women are not fully human.

Shocked, appalled and dumbfounded are the first three words that immediately come to mind... all the rest are unprintable.