<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?><oembed><version><![CDATA[1.0]]></version><provider_name><![CDATA[The Dish]]></provider_name><provider_url><![CDATA[http://dish.andrewsullivan.com]]></provider_url><author_name><![CDATA[Andrew Sullivan]]></author_name><author_url><![CDATA[https://dish.andrewsullivan.com/author/sullydish/]]></author_url><title><![CDATA[Santorum vs Mother&nbsp;Nature]]></title><type><![CDATA[link]]></type><html><![CDATA[
<p>Christopher Ryan <a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sex-dawn/201201/what-rick-santorum-doesn-t-know-about-sex" target="_self">counters</a> Rick&#39;s recent rhetoric:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Santorum has argued that contraception is morally wrong because, &quot;It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how  things are supposed to be.&quot; But human beings happily experience,  witness, imagine, and lament a cornicopia of erotic encounters that  couldn’t possibly result in conception. Leaving aside the many &quot;perversions&quot; happily practiced by humans the world over, the human  female is available even for Vatican-approved missionary position  intercourse—at least theoretically—when she’s menstruating, already  pregnant, post-menopausal, or otherwise precluded from conceiving. Is  this, too, an abomination? &#8230;</p>
<p>It’s the nature of the human beast. For <em>Homo sapiens</em>,  sex is primarily about establishing and maintaining  relationships—relationships often characterized by love, or at least  affection. Reproduction is a by-product of human sexual behavior, not  its primary purpose.</p>
</blockquote>
]]></html></oembed>