- Status
T
The_Bucket
Guest
Interesting articles about the rapists who consented to using condoms, but that is a very rare exception to be sure. Rape is about domination, not sex. It is about violence, not pleasure.As many other posts have said, I really doubt a rapist would listen to that request to use a condom and acquiesce, simply because it takes away from the dominance factor. He would now willingly give up some level of control of the situation in that scenario and I just don’t see it.
I also don’t see there being any evil in condom use in that situation (after all, if he uses it to get away without evidence left behind, what can you as the woman do? Or, if he for some reason listens to a demand to use one, I see that as a legitimate form of self-defense). But really, if you want to carry a form of defense in your purse or have something in your nightstand, make it a firearm and be well-trained in its use.
I also don’t see there being any evil in condom use in that situation (after all, if he uses it to get away without evidence left behind, what can you as the woman do? Or, if he for some reason listens to a demand to use one, I see that as a legitimate form of self-defense). But really, if you want to carry a form of defense in your purse or have something in your nightstand, make it a firearm and be well-trained in its use.
W
whm
Guest
Not necessarily my opinion that it would be a sin, I was only interpreting someone else’s post., since it appears others were misinterpreting it.
However, I suppose it could be scandalous in this way “See that Catholic person buying condoms, what a hypocrite…” Does causing scandal always= sin, I don’t know.
L
lada
Guest
I completely agree.
J
jmcrae
Guest
I am having a difficult time imagining a man who is going to force himself sexually on a woman, but when she asks him to put on a condom, he says, “Oh, okay - whatever you like, dear.”
Men who rape don’t see women as people, but rather, as objects. They are not likely to listen to or comply with any demands - and if they are, then the woman should say, “Please don’t rape me,” instead of “please use a condom.” Don’t you think?
How in the world is she supposed to accomplish this?
But if she has power over him to make him wear a condom, then she can certainly say, “Not now, dear, I have a headache” and then make her escape.
M
manualman
Guest
Amber,
I’m quite glad to hear that you seem to have aboslutely no personal experience with what rape is. Go talk to a woman who has been raped. Volunteer somewhere where they help women who’ve experienced it. Men generally can’t help in that time, but I have close relatives who have been volunteers and victims.
Rape isn’t about a man who wants sex. Rape is about a man who wants to dominate a woman. The very act of asking him to use the condom is likely to make him LESS likely to use it. His goal isn’t just to have sex with her, his goal is to overpower her defenses and impose himself on her. A rapist might use a condom to hide the evidence, but he isn’t going to do so to honor the request of the victim.
And the church generally does not give instructions to sinners on how to sin in a less eggregious fashion. Such a thing implies that the fundamental sin isn’t so bad in the first place, or provides a toehold for a deformed (but not yet dead) conscience to rationalize what he is doing (hey, at least I’m using a condom!). The church spends its energy teaching us how NOT to sin in the first place.
I’m quite glad to hear that you seem to have aboslutely no personal experience with what rape is. Go talk to a woman who has been raped. Volunteer somewhere where they help women who’ve experienced it. Men generally can’t help in that time, but I have close relatives who have been volunteers and victims.
Rape isn’t about a man who wants sex. Rape is about a man who wants to dominate a woman. The very act of asking him to use the condom is likely to make him LESS likely to use it. His goal isn’t just to have sex with her, his goal is to overpower her defenses and impose himself on her. A rapist might use a condom to hide the evidence, but he isn’t going to do so to honor the request of the victim.
And the church generally does not give instructions to sinners on how to sin in a less eggregious fashion. Such a thing implies that the fundamental sin isn’t so bad in the first place, or provides a toehold for a deformed (but not yet dead) conscience to rationalize what he is doing (hey, at least I’m using a condom!). The church spends its energy teaching us how NOT to sin in the first place.
T
TraderTif
Guest
Interesting.
When I first saw this topic, I thought it would be discussing those female condoms used for self-defense (like the Rape-aXe).
When I first saw this topic, I thought it would be discussing those female condoms used for self-defense (like the Rape-aXe).
J
jmcrae
Guest
If you’re on speaking terms with your rapist and he is likely to cater to your wishes, why not simply ask him to stop raping you?
My personal experience of rape is that rapists don’t have a conversation with you beforehand - they just go after what they want. The only things you can really do are kick, bite, scratch, scream, and run away. Neither he nor you are going to be in the mood for some polite chit-chat regarding condoms.
E
exoflare
Guest
The Church is against both condom use and rape.
I’m pretty sure both of these would be covered in the Catechism.
I’m pretty sure both of these would be covered in the Catechism.
E
exoflare
Guest
LOL at some of the responses here… If you’re going to carry something on you to protect you from a rapist, can’t you come up with something better than a condom? How about something useful like a gun or at least some pepper spray? Also since we’re presuming here that the rapist is going to suddenly stop and listen to whatever you have to say, that would only make it all the more easy for you to tell him, “oh, hold on a second… let me just reach into my purse to get this condom that I carry around with me…” And then BAM! A bullet, mace, whatever, right in the head before he even knows what hit him.
A condom… haha… honestly, people…
A condom… haha… honestly, people…
P
Phemie
Guest
You can’t legally carry those in many countries. OTOH, condoms have not been deemed concealed weapons.
E
exoflare
Guest
Well find something that CAN be used as a “weapon”… at least something you can spray in their face that will blind them or stun them or something. I’m sure whatever ridiculous government rules we’re talking about here haven’t been able to outlaw absolutely everything that could be used this way. In any case, I’m sure you could come up with something better than a condom.
K
KostyaJMJ
Guest
Yes a small piece of rubber makes a lousy weapon of opportunity, and plus if you’re the kind of person who can make a condom into a deadly weapon I don’t think that anyone is going to mess with you to begin with. The only kind of condom that would do any good as a weapon is an actual anti-rape condom.Well find something that CAN be used as a “weapon”… at least something you can spray in their face that will blind them or stun them or something. I’m sure whatever ridiculous government rules we’re talking about here haven’t been able to outlaw absolutely everything that could be used this way. In any case, I’m sure you could come up with something better than a condom.
1
1ke
Guest
I think people need to rein it in a little on this thread.
The OP asked a perfectly legitimate question-- maybe better suited to the Morality board-- regarding whether the Church had a teaching on this topic or not. It’s a great intellectual exercise in Church teaching, researching Church documents, and conscience formation in the absence of a definitive teaching.
But, instead we have people basically lambasting the OP for even having intellectual curiosity. Suddenly she is being ridiculed over the idea of “stashing” condoms everywhere and buying condoms in bulk. And, moreover there are now all sorts of posts ridiculing the very idea that a rapist might actually comply or that there are “better” methods of self-defense.
The OP didn’t ask about the likelihood of a rapist complying, the logistics of stashing condoms all about, or opinions or more effective methods of deterring a rapist. And she certainly didn’t ask for ridicule and character assassination for merely making an intellectual pursuit.
She asked about the *morality *of the situation. And, I think there are things to be learned by sticking to that topic.
The OP asked a perfectly legitimate question-- maybe better suited to the Morality board-- regarding whether the Church had a teaching on this topic or not. It’s a great intellectual exercise in Church teaching, researching Church documents, and conscience formation in the absence of a definitive teaching.
But, instead we have people basically lambasting the OP for even having intellectual curiosity. Suddenly she is being ridiculed over the idea of “stashing” condoms everywhere and buying condoms in bulk. And, moreover there are now all sorts of posts ridiculing the very idea that a rapist might actually comply or that there are “better” methods of self-defense.
The OP didn’t ask about the likelihood of a rapist complying, the logistics of stashing condoms all about, or opinions or more effective methods of deterring a rapist. And she certainly didn’t ask for ridicule and character assassination for merely making an intellectual pursuit.
She asked about the *morality *of the situation. And, I think there are things to be learned by sticking to that topic.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Yes, you’re right, 1ke. It is true, it is a difficult topic. this is one topic which we really need to get some authority on, and I hope that it comes soon.
As one who put a few hypotheticals myself, I’d like to state that I’m not lambasting the OP (or I don’t mean to and apologize if it came across that way).
I think though (I emphasize ‘I think’) that there is a difference between taking something that has as a primary purpose contraception (which is morally evil in the sense that it is deliberately used to prevent pregnancy through a barrier) and using it in a secondary sense as a possible defense against disease.
But it is a very narrow ‘defense’. Because it does open up some further gray areas.
Like: If it is morally licit in this scenario, then what else will open up? If to protect against disease, then what else? it will be argued that the disease threatens the life of the victim, and that certain pregnancies also ‘threaten the life’ and if you permit it for the one, why not the other?
(Seriously. I am really taking this topically seriously. I can recall in 1973 being practically laughed out of my then-secular high school when I stated that to legalize abortion would be to legalize murder. I was a kid for crying out loud and I knew that for all the hype that this would ONLY be the case in a FRACTION of cases where one’s heart really did ache for the women (incest, rape, etc.), that starting with ‘just this case’ would lead to another and another and finally a free for all).
So, I do have a lot of reservations. I have seen too many times people start out with beautiful noble ideas about helping others and saving lives and I’ve seen what happens when something gets brought out from ‘left field’ like this. The moral relativists and indifferentists are the ones who benefit.
But again, this is just my opinion here.
As one who put a few hypotheticals myself, I’d like to state that I’m not lambasting the OP (or I don’t mean to and apologize if it came across that way).
I think though (I emphasize ‘I think’) that there is a difference between taking something that has as a primary purpose contraception (which is morally evil in the sense that it is deliberately used to prevent pregnancy through a barrier) and using it in a secondary sense as a possible defense against disease.
But it is a very narrow ‘defense’. Because it does open up some further gray areas.
Like: If it is morally licit in this scenario, then what else will open up? If to protect against disease, then what else? it will be argued that the disease threatens the life of the victim, and that certain pregnancies also ‘threaten the life’ and if you permit it for the one, why not the other?
(Seriously. I am really taking this topically seriously. I can recall in 1973 being practically laughed out of my then-secular high school when I stated that to legalize abortion would be to legalize murder. I was a kid for crying out loud and I knew that for all the hype that this would ONLY be the case in a FRACTION of cases where one’s heart really did ache for the women (incest, rape, etc.), that starting with ‘just this case’ would lead to another and another and finally a free for all).
So, I do have a lot of reservations. I have seen too many times people start out with beautiful noble ideas about helping others and saving lives and I’ve seen what happens when something gets brought out from ‘left field’ like this. The moral relativists and indifferentists are the ones who benefit.
But again, this is just my opinion here.
W
whm
Guest
This is exactly what I was thinking, it seem like a starting point for a slippery slope. I don’t think this is what the OP had in mind though.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Exactly. Satan doesn’t want to corrupt things that are already dicey. He wants to corrupt the best ideals and the nicest people. That’s why so often it’s the idealists who become cynics. . .it’s far worse for them because it’s a bigger ‘crash’ than it is for the person who is indifferent already to become cynical.
And of course, the nicer a person is speaking out for a dicey topic, the more ‘normal’ and moral and licit the topic looks.
Also, if you can get some really ‘not nice’ person coming and speaking out against the topic, that works too. You’ll get people who were neutral coming out in favor because they just can’t stand so-and-so, and if that person is against something, they’ll want to be for it.
One of the twistiest little arguments out there too is the label and box type.
If a person says, “well, but I think X is not right because”, the ‘label and box’ response is, "then you are a (label, insert choice) who wants to do (insert bad things here such as ‘repress’, ‘deny’, ‘punish’, ‘force’) to everybody for your own selfish gain just as all you ‘(label) people do.’
Because everybody knows that if you are, say, against condoms in rape situations you are a:
- Sanctimonious holier-than-thou who wants to
- punish people to
- Feel holier-than-thou because
- All you sanctimonious people are like that.
Because then you aren’t a ‘sanctimonious holier-than-thou’. You’re a person with a real point of view that needs to be considered, not just dismissed because you’re too nasty a person to even discuss it with.
1
1ke
Guest
Yes, I agree. And, I think these are valid points you make.
Jimmy Akin argues the opposite, arguing it from the point of defining contraception in the context of the marital exchange and how it is possible that this could be allowable because there is no marital exchange. Note: he’s not endorsing any such thing, but he is making an intellectual argument using available Church teachings. His focus is on the definition of conjugal relations.
I think my primary point is that the Church hasn’t ruled definitely, and there are serious arguments on both sides of the issue of whether it is permissible. It is incumbent upon each Catholic to properly form their conscience-- and in this day and age to also be able to reasonably articulate things to a secular, hostile society. So, it’s worth reading the speculative writings of various theologians and forming opinions on the topic, all the while remaining open to what the Church may say in the future.
The theologians do the heavy lifting in Catholicism, and the Church weighs things very carefully before speaking definitively. I think the dust-up over condom use in Africa to prevent AIDS may lead to the Church speaking definitively on this whether they want to or not.
H
Havard
Guest
I’m no expert in rape prevention, but if rape is a realistic and possibly imminent concern, I can imagine better defensive measures than conventional condoms.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
I agree, 1ke, I think it is going to come up. And (I may be wrong, it’s happened once or twice 
) but I actually think (Jimmy will be shocked) that the decision is going to be made that even in such a case, a condom is not morally acceptable, and it will be for probably one of the reasons I put forth and possibly some others that I’m not smart enough to know.
One reason I think so is that it is the more ‘difficult’ teaching. So often in moral situations I have found that the more the teaching is decried in the world (for those ‘common sense’ reasons), or the more it seems to be looked at as too hard, or not loving, etc. . .the more likely it is to be the **correct teaching. **
So maybe I’ll be Cassandra for a while, telling the Trojans (no pun intended, believe me) the unpalatable and unrecognized truth every time. Whatever the ultimate outcome, I wish only for people’s health and happiness and safety in so far as can be morally and licitly gotten, and pray for all for an ultimate joy in heaven.
) but I actually think (Jimmy will be shocked) that the decision is going to be made that even in such a case, a condom is not morally acceptable, and it will be for probably one of the reasons I put forth and possibly some others that I’m not smart enough to know.One reason I think so is that it is the more ‘difficult’ teaching. So often in moral situations I have found that the more the teaching is decried in the world (for those ‘common sense’ reasons), or the more it seems to be looked at as too hard, or not loving, etc. . .the more likely it is to be the **correct teaching. **
So maybe I’ll be Cassandra for a while, telling the Trojans (no pun intended, believe me) the unpalatable and unrecognized truth every time. Whatever the ultimate outcome, I wish only for people’s health and happiness and safety in so far as can be morally and licitly gotten, and pray for all for an ultimate joy in heaven.
- Status