- Status
E
EasterJoy
Guest
Frigidity? Neglect? Try relations that cannot happen during the fertile time, too Especially when some get to a certain age, the natural lubrication outside that time is not as plentiful as it once was. Things are drier, things just aren’t as lively as was once the case.
B
bonvivantHermit
Guest
Wow. I wish we speaking in person, perhaps the abruptness would not be apparent.
Not every woman experiencing the need for lube is in menopause. And I don’t think I need a medical degree, I may or may not have, to theorize reasons for lube use.
Of course, Catholics are all red hot lovers
so I it can’t be technique and we’re all of sound mind, so it’s not psychological…
Not every woman experiencing the need for lube is in menopause. And I don’t think I need a medical degree, I may or may not have, to theorize reasons for lube use.
Of course, Catholics are all red hot lovers
so I it can’t be technique and we’re all of sound mind, so it’s not psychological…
E
EasterJoy
Guest
I’m not saying true dysfunction might not be a reason. I’m just saying, when the only phrases are: crutch, pain relief, and sexual dysfunction, it implies that lubricant isn’t needed by normally-functioning people. It isn’t abnormal to produce somewhat less mucous when aroused than is necessary for the comfort level a couple might be accustomed to, especially at certain parts of one’s cycle. Yes, this is far more common at menopause or in perimenopause, but for some before that, too. It is not as if there has to be some highly compelling reason to use this kind of thing.Wow. I wish we speaking in person, perhaps the abruptness would not be apparent.
Not every woman experiencing the need for lube is in menopause. And I don’t think I need a medical degree, I may or may not have, to theorize reasons for lube use.
Of course, Catholics are all red hot lovers
T
THP
Guest
OK
Why? If its not a contraceptive and it doesn’t impair fertility, then why would should we not choose the other brands? We are all thinking way too hard about this, myself included.
B
Bookcat
Guest
Many DO cause problems. Impede sperm mobility…damage sperm (even some do cause harm similar to gel contraceptives) …and can contain ingredients which kill sperm (and I am meaning those which are not “spermicides”) --that is why.
Other brands exist that do not harm or kill the or impede the sperm-- so hence I say --choose those to aid nature.
A very important point is the existence now of those which do not have these side effects …
F
fpt
Guest
Per se, lube is neutral. Using or not using between wife and husband should be only in function of the medical sexual issues, in the large meaning.
J
johnnyjones
Guest
I reviewed the info on studies you presented. Did you know that the Tide detergent company can show studies that it’s product cleans clothes better than other laundry detergents.
Point being, “Pre-seed” has a vested interest in stating that other lubricants can impair sperm. Again, unless your pouring half the bottle of a non spermacide lubricant all over…lets say the necessary area, it doesn’t seem to be a problem. I would say lube has been responsible for MORE pregnancies than not.
B
Bookcat
Guest
The various studies that where done over the years (I am not endorsing them simply noting them) where I would imagine done by various researchers not the company.
This is a known problem with many lubricants --our Catholic Doctor who was trained at the* Paul VI institute* first informed us of this* reality* as part of general information.
(and such was even some years ago–NOT in response to a this companies website)
J
johnnyjones
Guest
This whole issue hinges on the studies and the doctor. The validity of both and the churches ultimate view on the subject for those who want to research the matter will provide the answer.
B
Bookcat
Guest
Sure --yes the various studies …though I would imagine the “doctor” is going to be in the plural among Catholic Doctors…(one could inquire with say the Paul VI institute to see what ones they may recommend that do not give such side effects)
And the Church does not often get into these sorts of questions but leaves them to the good Catholic Moral Theologians to apply the principles of their art to them.
M
maryjk
Guest
The doctor I spoke to, NOT from the Paul VI institute, said she preferred I use one that didn’t irritate me. Other than that, she didn’t recommend any one over the other.
And before you say that she wouldn’t know or care one way or the other, she is an NFP only Catholic GYN. She knows and cares.
B
Bookcat
Guest
Not every doctor necessarily is up on such.
Doctors only have so much time …
(hence too the practice of getting additional doctors involved in treatment at times of various ailments)
E
EasterJoy
Guest
Not everybody with a business card from a Catholic institute has absolute scientific knowledge, either. Good Catholics, even good Catholic doctors, have been known to have personal opinions that are based on evidence that is not beyond dispute.
If you read the literature available on the internet, there is in vitro evidence and there are manufacturers making claims. There are not any studies that demonstrate lowered fertility.
Keep in mind, too, that advice given to couples who are having difficulty with conception are not moral imperatives for all couples. A man with a low sperm count may avoid hot tubs, but that doesn’t make hot tubs contraception, per se. Drinking too much alcohol or caffeine is thought to impair the fertility of women who have difficulty conceiving, but that doesn’t make coffee and wine contraceptives. Likewise, although this lubricant or that might make a few sperm swim a little slower when put under a microscope, that hardly means that the overall fertility of a couple in average health would be impacted at all if the couple were to elect to use a lubricant or not. In contrast, using a lubricant with a spermicidal agent would be expected to greatly lower the chances the couple would conceive, even if it wouldn’t eliminate the possibility entirely. The lubricant with the spermicide is obviously meant to be a contraceptive; the lubricant without it is not.
Does that make sense?
B
Bookcat
Guest
Thankfully ours is very good…(she is extremely based on scientific knowledge …and the Paul VI Institute is of high repute)
As for the rest – I understand where your coming from --but do not agree with where you arrive.
The fact is that lubricants now exist that do not have these side effects. Where they did not seem to exist before to aid nature where needful. So it would seem to me that such would be the ones to choose.
B
Bookcat
Guest
Drinking alcohol or too much coffee --if they have some such side effects – are not part of the marital act (well not directly…)
Lubricants are used *directly in the marital act *-- in the act it self --with their direct side effect of harming (not just a few) the mobility of sperm, damaging sperm, and even killing sperm directly by the ingredients in the lubricant.
Hence it seems that the ones that do not do such are the ones to choose to aid nature.
M
maryjk
Guest
Or at least their ads claim this. So of course we must believe them. :hypno:
B
Bookcat
Guest
Many have not good side effects. Impede sperm mobility…damage sperm (even some do cause harm similar to gel contraceptives) …and can contain ingredients which kill sperm (and I am meaning those which are not “spermicides”).
Other brands exist that do not harm or kill the or impede the sperm-- so hence I say --choose those to aid nature.
A very important point is the existence now of those which do not have these side effects …
Regarding the potential use by a couple who needed it to facilitate the martial act --of those brands that have those side effects—one could explore the issue (noting the effects and that there are those* that exist which do not have such effects) --in light of the principle of double effect** with for example an ethicist at the *National Catholic Bioethics Center *or like orthodox and informed source of counsel (noting the side effects and the existence of others that do not have such side effects)
And as some noted above certainly if the couple intends the bad side effects --that is one way sin can be very present…
If someone asks me such --I note the problems and point them to the Preseed or Pre (not sure if Pre exists still) or any others there may be that are known to not be problematic. Since *now *such exist. (whereas in the past when this question was looked at I do not think they did --preseed is 21 century stuff)
*(I am not sure of how many or which ones --one could contact the Paul VI institute perhaps --I see that Preseed is readily available -even internationally -though it may also help the conception–so there may be others too (pre?))
**( One formulation catholicreference.net/index.cfm?id=33215 Note one will find this principle formulated a bit differently by various orthodox Catholic Moral Theologians–though in the main reflect the same principle . One such formulation has as one of the points that the good effect cannot be obtained in some “equally expeditious and effective way” without the bad unintended side effects (Thomas O Donnell SJ Medicine and Christian Morality -Alba House 1996–where as I did not find that line in anther good formulation–though in that one it notes in a parenthesis that one would prevent the evil side effect if one could without omitting the good act …so not sure how that compares…again a Moral Theologian of good repute can bring their art to bear)
Other brands exist that do not harm or kill the or impede the sperm-- so hence I say --choose those to aid nature.
A very important point is the existence now of those which do not have these side effects …
Regarding the potential use by a couple who needed it to facilitate the martial act --of those brands that have those side effects—one could explore the issue (noting the effects and that there are those* that exist which do not have such effects) --in light of the principle of double effect** with for example an ethicist at the *National Catholic Bioethics Center *or like orthodox and informed source of counsel (noting the side effects and the existence of others that do not have such side effects)
And as some noted above certainly if the couple intends the bad side effects --that is one way sin can be very present…
If someone asks me such --I note the problems and point them to the Preseed or Pre (not sure if Pre exists still) or any others there may be that are known to not be problematic. Since *now *such exist. (whereas in the past when this question was looked at I do not think they did --preseed is 21 century stuff)
*(I am not sure of how many or which ones --one could contact the Paul VI institute perhaps --I see that Preseed is readily available -even internationally -though it may also help the conception–so there may be others too (pre?))
**( One formulation catholicreference.net/index.cfm?id=33215 Note one will find this principle formulated a bit differently by various orthodox Catholic Moral Theologians–though in the main reflect the same principle . One such formulation has as one of the points that the good effect cannot be obtained in some “equally expeditious and effective way” without the bad unintended side effects (Thomas O Donnell SJ Medicine and Christian Morality -Alba House 1996–where as I did not find that line in anther good formulation–though in that one it notes in a parenthesis that one would prevent the evil side effect if one could without omitting the good act …so not sure how that compares…again a Moral Theologian of good repute can bring their art to bear)
B
Bookcat
Guest
a…I knew lubricants had this kind of side effects long before I ever heard of this company…
I got to go to sleep though --have a wonderful night!
B
Bookcat
Guest
I missed commenting on the question of “moral imperative” that was raised above.
I have not per se said anything about “moral imperative”.
But one would look at the side effects of the particular brand and others and bring that into ones judgment as to the morality of using such within the very marital act.
Many have not good side effects. Impede sperm mobility…damage sperm (even some do cause harm similar to gel contraceptives) …and can contain ingredients which kill sperm (and I am meaning those which are not “spermicides”).
Other brands exist that do not harm or kill the or impede the sperm-- so hence I have been saying–choose those to aid nature.
A very important point is the existence now of those which do not have these side effects …
I think there is a good moral question given the known side effects – and the existence now of ones without such.
Regarding the potential use by a couple who needed it to facilitate the martial act --of those brands that have those side effects—one could explore the issue --in light of the principle of double effect** (there are various things that need to be true --see the Principle) One could do so with for example with an ethicist at the *National Catholic Bioethics Center *or like orthodox and informed source of counsel (noting the side effects and the existence of others that do not have such side effects)
And as some noted above certainly if the couple intends the bad side effects --that is one way sin can be very present…
*(I am not sure of how many or which ones --one could contact the Paul VI institute perhaps --I see that Preseed is readily available -even internationally -though it may also help the conception–so there may be others too (pre?))
**( A couple of formulations cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=56 and catholicreference.net/index.cfm?id=33215 Note one will find this principle formulated a little bit differently by various orthodox Catholic Moral Theologians–though in the main reflect the same principle. One such formulation has as one of the points that the good effect cannot be obtained in some “equally expeditious and effective way” without the bad unintended side effects (Thomas O Donnell SJ Medicine and Christian Morality -Alba House 1996)–where as I did not find that line in another good formulation–though in that one it notes in a parenthesis that one would prevent the evil side effect if one could without omitting the good act …so not sure how that compares…again a Moral Theologian of good repute can bring their art to bear…)
If someone asks me such --I note the problems and point them to the Pre-seed or Pre (not sure if Pre exists still) or any others there may be that are known to not be problematic (Pre-seed I think even helps the sperm to their end…but others like Pre I think do not give extra “help” but do not “hinder” either). Since *now *such exist. (whereas in the past when this question was looked at I do not think they did --pre-seed is 21 century stuff)
I have not per se said anything about “moral imperative”.
But one would look at the side effects of the particular brand and others and bring that into ones judgment as to the morality of using such within the very marital act.
Many have not good side effects. Impede sperm mobility…damage sperm (even some do cause harm similar to gel contraceptives) …and can contain ingredients which kill sperm (and I am meaning those which are not “spermicides”).
Other brands exist that do not harm or kill the or impede the sperm-- so hence I have been saying–choose those to aid nature.
A very important point is the existence now of those which do not have these side effects …
I think there is a good moral question given the known side effects – and the existence now of ones without such.
Regarding the potential use by a couple who needed it to facilitate the martial act --of those brands that have those side effects—one could explore the issue --in light of the principle of double effect** (there are various things that need to be true --see the Principle) One could do so with for example with an ethicist at the *National Catholic Bioethics Center *or like orthodox and informed source of counsel (noting the side effects and the existence of others that do not have such side effects)
And as some noted above certainly if the couple intends the bad side effects --that is one way sin can be very present…
*(I am not sure of how many or which ones --one could contact the Paul VI institute perhaps --I see that Preseed is readily available -even internationally -though it may also help the conception–so there may be others too (pre?))
**( A couple of formulations cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=56 and catholicreference.net/index.cfm?id=33215 Note one will find this principle formulated a little bit differently by various orthodox Catholic Moral Theologians–though in the main reflect the same principle. One such formulation has as one of the points that the good effect cannot be obtained in some “equally expeditious and effective way” without the bad unintended side effects (Thomas O Donnell SJ Medicine and Christian Morality -Alba House 1996)–where as I did not find that line in another good formulation–though in that one it notes in a parenthesis that one would prevent the evil side effect if one could without omitting the good act …so not sure how that compares…again a Moral Theologian of good repute can bring their art to bear…)
If someone asks me such --I note the problems and point them to the Pre-seed or Pre (not sure if Pre exists still) or any others there may be that are known to not be problematic (Pre-seed I think even helps the sperm to their end…but others like Pre I think do not give extra “help” but do not “hinder” either). Since *now *such exist. (whereas in the past when this question was looked at I do not think they did --pre-seed is 21 century stuff)
- Status