Contraception is just like bulemia!

[Balance]

Aquarius:

So, what’s wrong with mere pleasure?

Do you chew gum?

What’s wrong with mere pleasure? I apologise if you’re offended (I get the feeling you won’t be, that you’re up for a challenge) if I say that that’s not a particularly thoughtful thing to say - I don’t think you’re really thought it through.
Step it out - it’s fairly obvious what a pursuit of “mere pleasure” leads to.
What happens if we were to eat for pleasure alone? If I was to go about doing that, I wouldn’t eat a lot of vegetables, or drink much water - I’d eat a lot of cake, and chocolate, and bacon and eggs, and beer and wine, and icecream, and so on. and how would I end up?
I used to work in an upmarket restaurant with a lot of wealthy clientele who ate there a lot. I could see in them, again and again, a kind of desperation as they ate and drank - food and drink prepared to give maximum pleasure - heavy, rich sauces, big portions, minimal vegetables, cream and sugar and butter. none of it really satsified their deeper hunger - but boy was it pleasurable.

 

[gardenswithkids]

cynic:

there’s the contradiction, a couple using NFP are also of a mindset closed off to children otherwise they would not endeavor to reduce the chances of conception.

Relating back to the initial analogy, NFP is like dieting to loose weight. If a person has a valid reason to loose weight, then the way to go about that is by dieting, not purging. And likewise if a couple has a *valid *reason to avoid pregnancy, then they can use NFP which involves abstaining much in the way dieting involves abstaining.

 

[MikeinSD]

Someone suffering from bulemia needs help. An intervention can help this person from eventually killing his or herself.

I had a devout relative who actually did stage “interventions” with my siblings using birth control. My sisters couldn’t find their birth control pills after our large family gatherings. My brother couldn’t find his condoms after family get togethers. They asked me and I was clueless. My condoms weren’t taken after our family parties.

Eventually they discovered who was going through their medicine cabinets and bedroom drawers. The relative thought he was doing his duty as a family elder. He believes birth control is morally wrong. And he took the consequences for his actions. My siblings banned him and his wife from their homes. My relative believes that he did the correct action. All my siblings were married in the Catholic church. He thinks they should act like Catholics. And he stood up for his beliefs. And he thinks fellow Catholics should do the same with their families. Hard to argue with that.

My relative didn’t take my condoms because he thought gay men using rubbers wasn’t birth control. Not that he approves of me.

 

[cynic]

manualman:

Yup, what luv said.

Additionally, the NFP couple has never taken a direct action to sever the link. The contracepting couple has. NFP has a built-in device (those desirable fertile days when she is feeling frisky and you just can’t do anything about it) which tends to self-correct the couple to the proper knowledge of the connection between sex and life (and to wonder why is it we are trying to avoid pregnancy?). The contracepting couple has no such nudge back and, to the contrary, gets a short term apparent benefit of the pleasure of exploiting those deliriously nice fertile days instead of abstaining. But without the life openness, the focus of the sex becomes MERELY the pleasure, which encourages selfishness within sex and throughout the marriage. This is, again, like bulemia where the negative effects of purging become more and more serious with repetition.

merely the pleasure? what does a couple who practice nfp actually have sex for? forget all that ‘leaving it to God’ stuff, they have actively sought to reduce the chances of pregnancy - granted not to the point of interefering with their bodies - but why are they having sex in the first place? Since they don’t wish to conceive, perhaps it’s what have described as mere pleasure.

So let me understand this, a couple who have sex using contraception are merely using each other for pleasure, a totally loveless act. But a couple using nfp are doing it for the ‘unitive’ aspect. Even though they both seek to have intercourse without it resulting in children. Contracepting couples are only capable of self gratification, but nfp couples have unity. Riiight, sounds like very selective reasoning.

 

[luvmykids]

cynic:

merely the pleasure? what does a couple who practice nfp actually have sex for? forget all that ‘leaving it to God’ stuff, they have actively sought to reduce the chances of pregnancy - granted not to the point of interefering with their bodies - but why are they having sex in the first place? Since they don’t wish to conceive, perhaps it’s what have described as mere pleasure.

So let me understand this, a couple who have sex using contraception are merely using each other for pleasure, a totally loveless act. But a couple using nfp are doing it for the ‘unitive’ aspect. Even though they both seek to have intercourse without it resulting in children. Contracepting couples are only capable of self gratification, but nfp couples have unity. Riiight, sounds like very selective reasoning.

Because you are not thinking about it hard enough. The NFP couple is respecting each other’s bodies enough to say,“ok, we aren’t in a position right now to have more children, and you are fertile right now. So I am going to repect you enough to wait.” Instead, the contraceptin couple says, “I don’t care if you are fertile right now, I want or need the pleasure so much right now that I will either make you put artificial chemicals into the beautiful body that God gave me and you, or I will use “protection” (that always kills me, protection from the one you love?), because I can’t wait.” When you are using NFP, no matter what time in the cycle you have sex, whether it be fertile or not, you are gving all of yourseves to each other at that given moment. You are not altering your body or the act itself in any way. If God wanted you to get pregnant EVERY time you had sex, you would be fertile all the time. And He didn’t say you couldn’t have sex on non-fertile days. Also, there is still the idea of being open to life given the very small chance of pregnancy at any time in the cycle for getting pregnant. It’s respecting the bodies that God gave you and the sex act itself. Now if you think of it as just another bodily function or think of us as just animals or something, then that might be a different story.

If people had more repect for the gift of this act and our bodies, there might not be so much promiscuity in the world. It’s part of repecting each other.

 

[Hitetlen]

luvmykids:

Because you are not thinking about it hard enough. The NFP couple is respecting each other’s bodies enough to say,“ok, we aren’t in a position right now to have more children, and you are fertile right now. So I am going to repect you enough to wait.” Instead, the contraceptin couple says, “I don’t care if you are fertile right now, I want or need the pleasure so much right now that I will either make you put artificial chemicals into the beautiful body that God gave me and you, or I will use “protection” (that always kills me, protection from the one you love?), because I can’t wait.”

This is a very typical portrait of the unwilling, “forced” female partner, who is assumed to submit to her partner’s desire against her will. Nothing could be further from the truth. The human female can and does enjoy sex even at times she is not in oestrus. She can also crave the pleasure at the time she could conceive, but for various reasons does not want to.

Maybe the couple understands that they are financially unable to support (more) children, and that is a very responsible on their part, but wish to enjoy the unity the sex gives them. (There is such a thing as sexual urge, and not only for males!) Maybe the woman has a medical condition which renders her vulnerable (maybe even life threatening) if she gets pregnant. There can be zillions of good, solid reasons for a couple NOT to wish to conceive. And the protection is NOT from the one you love, it is the unwanted consequence of the sex.

The generic answer to these objections is to abstain if they don’t want children. But that is crazy. If you wish to do so, be my guest. But this generic condemnation of everyone else, who does not want the frustration of abstinence as “sinners” is ludicrous.

 

[luvmykids]

This is a very typical portrait of the unwilling, “forced” female partner, who is assumed to submit to her partner’s desire against her will. Nothing could be further from the truth. The human female can and does enjoy sex even at times she is not in oestrus. She can also crave the pleasure at the time she could conceive, but for various reasons does not want to.

Maybe the couple understands that they are financially unable to support (more) children, and that is a very responsible on their part, but wish to enjoy the unity the sex gives them. (There is such a thing as sexual urge, and not only for males!) Maybe the woman has a medical condition which renders her vulnerable (maybe even life threatening) if she gets pregnant. There can be zillions of good, solid reasons for a couple NOT to wish to conceive. And the protection is NOT from the one you love, it is the unwanted consequence of the sex.

The generic answer to these objections is to abstain if they don’t want children. But that is crazy. If you wish to do so, be my guest. But this generic condemnation of everyone else, who does not want the frustration of abstinence as “sinners” is ludicrous.

If there is an unwanted consequence of something, you just don’t do it, or wait for a time that is not fertile. Isn’t that what we try to teach our children? There are consequences to everything. By using ABC you are trying to avoid the consequences of something, by using something that has even greater consequences. For one thing mortal sin. If you are going to deny that, then let’s look at the physical consequences. The killing of your own child (abortion) and unwanted and even life threatening physical side effects too long to even post here. This can be caused by birth control pills, IUD, depo, the patch,etc… A condom is like putting a barrier between yourself and the one you love. And it is like protecting yourself from the one you love. You are protecting yourself from each other’s own bodily fluids. It’s like saying “I am protecting myself from you because YOUR body can get me pregnant.” It’s like having sex with a piece of plastic. Sorry to be so explicit, but unfortunately with the nature of the discussion it’s hard not to be. The genitals aren’t really even touching. That doesn’t sound very intimate and loving to me. It’s like a re-enactment of something that you wish you could be doing. It’s like kissing your spouse with a bag over your head.

 

[Palamite]

I’ll be honest and say that I find this subject very interesting precisely because I find the RC position on it so infuriatingly silly. I guess I’m just a glutton for punishment.

It seems to me the RC (Roman Catholic) take on family planning has two types of argument.

First we hear that it’s supposedly the position of the Church Fathers. This is simply not the case. The “proof texts” often taken by RC apologists to demonstrate their cause are either directed toward abortion (such as the use of herbal potions which acted as a sort of “morning after pill”), or are conclusions reached by certain Fathers on the basis of a pre-scientific view common to much of the ancient world, that the “male seed” was the sole contributer to conception (being much like an acorn) and thus had a status roughly equivelent to a newly formed fetus. This is why those Fathers who criticize “wasting the seed” so very often refer to it as a form of murder. This is very telling - since even the RCC, while calling “ABC” a mortal sin, does not equate it with abortion/murder; which (again) puts to lie their whole schpeel that their position is one based upon the writings of certain Church Fathers.

Additionally, there is a third type of “proof text” which is often used to argue the RC case - but this does said apologists no favour because it also stands as a condemnation of NFP. There are a few Fathers (though not all - for example St.John Chrysostom says quite the opposite in his teaching on the topic of married sex) who basically believed the only wholesome motive for a married couple having sexual relations was for the express purpose of conceiving a child. There are some (like Bl.Augustine of Hippo) who are in fact quite adamant about this, even to the point of finding fault with such a couple having too much enjoyment from even this activity. So it is, again, very dishonest to prop them up as “proof.”

However the reality is that the line of argument used by most modern “magisterial” RC’s has nothing to do with the Fathers - it is the whole “theology of the body” business. Propping this up as being “patristic” is dishonest - it involves alot of ideas that owe more to post-enlightenment “romanticism” than the great ecclessiastical teachers of early Christianity.

 

[Palamite]

luvmykids,

A condom is like putting a barrier between yourself and the one you love.

This is precisely the kind of “romanticism” nonsense that I was refering to in my previous post in this thread. I really want to keep anything I post “PG” rated, but some of the irrational things I’m reading here really tempt me, since I could (being married) give you some very clear examples of precisely why such “reasoning” does not hold when put under scrutiny.

Suffice it to say, by this “logic”, certain “positions” should also be made mortally sinful because they involve not being able to “look your loved one in the eyes” and hence “ruin intimacy.” What bunk.

 

[luvmykids]

Palamite:

luvmykids,

This is precisely the kind of “romanticism” nonsense that I was refering to in my previous post in this thread. I really want to keep anything I post “PG” rated, but some of the irrational things I’m reading here really tempt me, since I could (being married) give you some very clear examples of precisely why such “reasoning” does not hold when put under scrutiny.

Suffice it to say, by this “logic”, certain “positions” should also be made mortally sinful because they involve not being able to “look your loved one in the eyes” and hence “ruin intimacy.” What bunk.

If it’s nonsense to you, then great just keep doing what your doing. To me it is not nonsense. It makes A LOT of sense. It’s a manipulation of the act. Truly loving someone is about a lot more than just being able to sexualy gratify yourself when the need comes along.

If putting a condom on isn’t putting a barrier between you and the one you love, then what would you call it? I think that that’s why they call it a “barrier method”.

 

[BlindSheep]

“crisis of lack of imagination” I mean - the general climate of weary apathy that we’ll never live up to what God asks of us, or the idea of the world that sex really perhaps isn’t that special - that casual sex with multiple partners is all there is.

Well said - you nailed it.

 

[BlindSheep]

This is a very typical portrait of the unwilling, “forced” female partner, who is assumed to submit to her partner’s desire against her will. Nothing could be further from the truth. The human female can and does enjoy sex even at times she is not in oestrus. She can also crave the pleasure at the time she could conceive, but for various reasons does not want to.

Of course we do. In fact, for me and several other women I know, we “crave” sex most when we can conceive (makes sense, doesn’t it?).
However, women are, like men, capable of self-control. Women are not slaves to our “cravings” (what a degrading idea!)

The generic answer to these objections is to abstain if they don’t want children. But that is crazy.

Why? Because it requires them not to do something they want to do? gasp

If you wish to do so, be my guest. But this generic condemnation of everyone else, who does not want the frustration of abstinence as “sinners” is ludicrous.

What is ludicrous about it? I suppose you would consider it more reasonable if the Church said “contraception is a sin, unless you want to use it”?
We (faithful Catholics & the magisterium) are not condemning them, by the way. We are warning them about the spiritual consequences of their actions. Sadly, a lot of people ignore the warning.

 

[Palamite]

luvmykids,

It’s a manipulation of the act.

And conspiring to copulate only when a woman is infertile is not “manipulation of the act”?

Truly loving someone is about a lot more than just being able to sexualy gratify yourself when the need comes along.

This is rich - so people who use ABC don’t really love their spouses, and just have to be only using them to satisfy their bestial urges? Of course I’m also supposed to assume NFP’ers never have sex with their spouses simply because it “feels good” and they’re (to put it euphemistically) “in the mood for love”.

Nonsense, and incredibly judgemental nonsense at that. You assume way too much.

If putting a condom on isn’t putting a barrier between you and the one you love, then what would you call it? I think that that’s why they call it a “barrier method”.

You’re confusing an emotional analogy (“barrier”) with a few-micron-thick physical reality (latex condom - “barrier”). Bad logic, or more to the point, a simply irrelevent comparison. If you have a real hang-up about this, fine; but I can assure you, it’s not one shared by everyone.

 

[BlindSheep]

Palamite:

luvmykids,
And conspiring to copulate only when a woman is infertile is not “manipulation of the act”?

What “act” would you say is being “manipulated” in this case? The one they don’t engage in (during the fertile time), the one they do (during the infertile time), or both? And how is/are these act(s) being “manipulated”?

 

[luvmykids]

Palamite:

luvmykids,

This is rich - so people who use ABC don’t really love their spouses, and just have to be only using them to satisfy their bestial urges? Of course I’m also supposed to assume NFP’ers never have sex with their spouses simply because it “feels good” and they’re (to put it euphemistically) “in the mood for love”.

Nonsense, and incredibly judgemental nonsense at that. You assume way too much.

You are twisting my words. I am saying that if you can put aside your urges for the good of the other, why would you need ABC? It’s all about respect for the other’s body.

Palamite:

You’re confusing an emotional analogy (“barrier”) with a few-micron-thick physical reality (latex condom - “barrier”). Bad logic, or more to the point, a simply irrelevent comparison. If you have a real hang-up about this, fine; but I can assure you, it’s not one shared by everyone.

If you don’t need the physical reality of true intimacy with no physical barriers, then why not just imagine it, that will solve all these problems. You won’t even have to worry about birth control. It actually wasn’t meant to be an emotional analogy on my part. I meant it in the physical sense. If it’s all about just getting your biological release, you can do that yourself. (sorry again to be so explicit, just trying to show you where I’m coming from)

 

[Aquarius]

Balance:

What’s wrong with mere pleasure? I apologise if you’re offended (I get the feeling you won’t be, that you’re up for a challenge) if I say that that’s not a particularly thoughtful thing to say - I don’t think you’re really thought it through.
Step it out - it’s fairly obvious what a pursuit of “mere pleasure” leads to.
What happens if we were to eat for pleasure alone? If I was to go about doing that, I wouldn’t eat a lot of vegetables, or drink much water - I’d eat a lot of cake, and chocolate, and bacon and eggs, and beer and wine, and icecream, and so on. and how would I end up?
I used to work in an upmarket restaurant with a lot of wealthy clientele who ate there a lot. I could see in them, again and again, a kind of desperation as they ate and drank - food and drink prepared to give maximum pleasure - heavy, rich sauces, big portions, minimal vegetables, cream and sugar and butter. none of it really satsified their deeper hunger - but boy was it pleasurable.

I agree that acting exclusively for pleasure will probably lead to undesirable results. But the question was not about acting exclusively for pleasure. It simply asked what was wrong with mere pleasure.

 

[Aquarius]

luvmykids:

If there is an unwanted consequence of something, you just don’t do it, or wait for a time that is not fertile. Isn’t that what we try to teach our children? There are consequences to everything. By using ABC you are trying to avoid the consequences of something, by using something that has even greater consequences. For one thing mortal sin. If you are going to deny that, then let’s look at the physical consequences. The killing of your own child (abortion) and unwanted and even life threatening physical side effects too long to even post here. This can be caused by birth control pills, IUD, depo, the patch,etc… A condom is like putting a barrier between yourself and the one you love. And it is like protecting yourself from the one you love. You are protecting yourself from each other’s own bodily fluids. It’s like saying “I am protecting myself from you because YOUR body can get me pregnant.” It’s like having sex with a piece of plastic. Sorry to be so explicit, but unfortunately with the nature of the discussion it’s hard not to be. The genitals aren’t really even touching. That doesn’t sound very intimate and loving to me. It’s like a re-enactment of something that you wish you could be doing. It’s like kissing your spouse with a bag over your head.

I walked outside this morning and encountered an unwanted consequence. I was cold. So, thinking quickly and correctly, I went back inside and donned a heavier jacket, putting a barrier beteewn me and the cold.

I suppose I could have said just don’t do it. I could also have waited for the temperature to change. Ain’t it great we can think?

 

[Aquarius]

luvmykids:

If it’s nonsense to you, then great just keep doing what your doing. To me it is not nonsense. It makes A LOT of sense. It’s a manipulation of the act. Truly loving someone is about a lot more than just being able to sexualy gratify yourself when the need comes along.

If putting a condom on isn’t putting a barrier between you and the one you love, then what would you call it? I think that that’s why they call it a “barrier method”.

So, perhaps this really does hinge on the individual?

 

[Hitetlen]

luvmykids:

If there is an unwanted consequence of something, you just don’t do it, or wait for a time that is not fertile. Isn’t that what we try to teach our children?

I should hope not. When there are unwanted consequences, one solution is to abstain from doing it, that is true. But that is not the only option. One may improve on the process, eliminating the unwanted consequences, but keeping the beneficial ones - and this is the process we humans have been pursuing for millenia now: it is called progress.

Futhermore, one should apply the cost-benefit analysis to all problems. What are the ramifications of abstinence and the contraception both poistive AND negative? And I mean secular and biological ones not the imaginary kind. Unnecessary abstinence is unhealthy, it can cause frustration at the very least. Contraception may have some consequences for some people, but for the vast majority of the people it is not harmful. Besides there are many different kinds of contraceptions, it would be futile to render a summary judgment about all of them.

Having sex is uplifting, satisfying and beneficial. So it is up to the couples involved how they measure these positive and negative aspects and make their decisions accordingly.

 

[Hitetlen]

BlindSheep:

Of course we do. In fact, for me and several other women I know, we “crave” sex most when we can conceive (makes sense, doesn’t it?).

It makes perfectly good sense, indeed.

BlindSheep:

However, women are, like men, capable of self-control. Women are not slaves to our “cravings” (what a degrading idea!)

No, they can exercise self-control if they so desire. Nothing wrong with that. The problem is when you wish to assume control over other people’s lives by asserting that what they do is “sinful” and they really should abstain. It is not your role to control how other people behave, as long as they do not harm others.

BlindSheep:

Why? Because it requires them not to do something they want to do? gasp

Precisely. If what you want to do is beneficial and avoiding it is not, why not do it? Especially since it does not hurt anyone. Just because some old people who either never had sex in their lives (yeah, right! we all know that!) or already forgot what it feels like want you to conform to their wishes? Again, if you let them control you, it is your business. But I and millions of others do not.