What is the problem with contraception?

[Tyrion]

The main “problem” with “natural” methods is that it requires self-control on the part of both spouses.

I am sure you heard the word “ecstasy”. It literally means “standing outside of yourself” or losing “self-control”. Sex with self-control is an oxymoron. To have foreplay but to be anxious to put “things” where they “belong” is definitely unnatural and very frustrating. It interrupts the action in the name “openness”. The “(UN)natural” methods kill the spontaneity of the act.

No one could ever give a reason why should a couple be “open” to procreation EACH and EVERY time they have sex, even if procreation cannot happen (after a hysterectomy, for example). That is the dogmatic teaching, fully contradictory ot reason.

 

[levinas12]

As I asked a few times now, go and analyze the problem of the “young couple” on post #73, and tell us what actual harm does their behavior cause to either themselves or to others. That question seems to be avoided at all costs.

Well, the bodies of the “young couple” are “not telling the truth to one another”.

Note the emphasis on bodies. According to this view, bodies have their own intentionality - a concept that 20th century phenomenologists have elaborated on in great detail (see Merleau-Ponty et al).

All of this is part of a continuing dialogue with Aristotle that is going right now in sociobiology and cognitive science.

So, take two normal human bodies (male and female) - all parts present and functioning. And then place a barrier to prevent the natural processes from obtaining their goal. The organic unity is disrupted.

We are arguing that this artificial frustration of a natural end will lead to a dysfunctional relationship between the male and female - because it involves bodies telling “lies” to each other.

We are built for “truth” and “lying” destroys us.

Somehow, the sperm, the egg, the penis, the vagina, the womb, etc know the “truth” of what they’re supposed to do but they are forced to practice “deception”. And make no bones about it. They will take their vengeance on the “young couple”.

I know all of this might seem strange. But it’s no more than strange than Dawkins talking about genes competing with each other.

 

[levinas12]

Tyrion, I know that you will counter that dysfunction has been with us from time immemorial. So it’s ridiculous to blame artificial contraception for all of our present troubles. Fair enough. In fact, Catholics would agree that the problem began a long time ago in the Garden.

We are arguing only that artificial contraception aggravates the dysfunction.

There’s more selfishness, less sacrificial love. And this reverberates down to our molecules (hormonal, neuronal, or otherwise).

 

[ThinkingSapien]

…] This is why marriage, that is a life long commitment, was required in order for any sexual outlet. Marriage and sex were united…]

Another topic, but Marriage doesn’t seem to be as much of a life long commitment in modern western times compared to the times that you have in mind.

 

[Tyrion]

Well, the bodies of the “young couple” are “not telling the truth to one another”.

Note the emphasis on bodies. According to this view, bodies have their own intentionality - a concept that 20th century phenomenologists have elaborated on in great detail (see Merleau-Ponty et al).

All of this is part of a continuing dialogue with Aristotle that is going right now in sociobiology and cognitive science.

So, take two normal human bodies (male and female) - all parts present and functioning. And then place a barrier to prevent the natural processes from obtaining their goal. The organic unity is disrupted.

We are arguing that this artificial frustration of a natural end will lead to a dysfunctional relationship between the male and female - because it involves bodies telling “lies” to each other.

We are built for “truth” and “lying” destroys us.

Somehow, the sperm, the egg, the penis, the vagina, the womb, etc know the “truth” of what they’re supposed to do but they are forced to practice “deception”. And make no bones about it. They will take their vengeance on the “young couple”.

I know all of this might seem strange. But it’s no more than strange than Dawkins talking about genes competing with each other.

Ok. So now it looks like that the alleged “harm” (in that specific case we are discussing) only affects the couple, and not society in general. Apart from the anthropomorphic language you assert that the “unfulfilled” procreative aspect will cause a harmful affect. But you speak of generalities, not specifics. What kind of specific harm comes from practicing contraception from time to time? Will the organs “wilt” from “incorrect use”? And how do the celibate members of the clergy avoid that “harm”, since they refuse to use that poor organ for its intended “purpose”?

What is that “vengance” you talk about?

Tyrion, I know that you will counter that dysfunction has been with us from time immemorial. So it’s ridiculous to blame artificial contraception for all of our present troubles. Fair enough. In fact, Catholics would agree that the problem began a long time ago in the Garden.

We are arguing only that artificial contraception aggravates the dysfunction.

There’s more selfishness, less sacrificial love. And this reverberates down to our molecules (hormonal, neuronal, or otherwise).

Sorry, but to assert that there is some “selfishness” involved is not acceptable. What is “selfish” about postponing conception to the appropriate time, when the couple will be better equipped to care for their children?

Don’t forget that users of NFP do the very same thing, they attempt to postpone the procreation and they have to “pay” for it with having less frequent, and therefore less unitive acts. They “pay” for it with losing the spontaneity of act - which is very important. These are actual harms, not the nebulous effect it is supposed to have on our molecules.

 

[levinas12]

Most people use contraception temporarily, like the “young couple” scenario. A direct question to you: “do you see any actual harm (here and now) coming from their behavior?”

My answer is: YES.

Because even the temporary use of artificial contraception involves a “material” refusal of the self which becomes “trapped” in our bodies. It’s like masturbation which sets up a pattern of synaptic connections.

 

[levinas12]

But the sexual organs do not belong to this category.

Well, I think the question is still open. The “biochemistry” of love is still relatively unexplored. And for this reason of course the area is extremely speculative. But this is similar to what is happening in cognitive science with respect to consciousness and brain activity.

 

[levinas12]

Don’t forget that users of NFP do the very same thing …

Or do they?

I suppose that some users of NFP are anxious about the possibility of “new persons” and have a tendency towards smaller families. But I know a lot of NF users with large families
(through choice, not because of NF failure)

But I suspect that practitioners of artificial birth control are really anxious about the possibility of children (why else hypothesize about a “perfect” method unless anxiety is at extremely high levels). In fact, I bet these practioners almost universally have small families (2 kids at most, maybe 3).

But why the anxiety in the first place?

I think our hedonistic capitalist system is to blame.

Ever since the burgermeisters began to hide out in walled towns, economic security has been an obsession of the middle class.

Well, what about the lilies of the field?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

But why the anxiety in the first place?

Housing costs? College tuition?

It seems that capitalism has taken its toll.

There’s many potential sources of concern about getting pregnant. In general many of them seem to fall in a category of “I don’t yet feel that I am capable/prepared to provide for the needs of a helpless human being.” For young couples in school raising a child without the assistance of their family or community there’s the possible conflict of having to either choose to satisfy the needs of their child or the requirements of their school, both of which can have consequences. If school is prioritized the child may be neglected. If the child is prioritized school might not be completed; and that can impact their economic opportunities for seeing to the child’s needs in the future.

Delaying conception may be seen as a solution as it helps avoid these conflicts. It gives the couple the opportunity to build a “nest” before introducing young ones into the world.

 

[levinas12]

There’s many potential sources of concern about getting pregnant. In general many of them seem to fall in a category of “I don’t yet feel that I am capable/prepared to provide for the needs of a helpless human being.” For young couples in school raising a child without the assistance of their family or community there’s the possible conflict of having to either choose to satisfy the needs of their child or the requirements of their school, both of which can have consequences. If school is prioritized the child may be neglected. If the child is prioritized school might not be completed; and that can impact their economic opportunities for seeing to the child’s needs in the future.

Delaying conception may be seen as a solution as it helps avoid these conflicts. It gives the couple the opportunity to build a “nest” before introducing young ones into the world.

The irony is that capitalist system, instead of fostering risk taking, is making us all risk averse, i.e., wimps. This is especially true when it comes to bringing children into the world. But what could be more mindblowing than a “new person”?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

The irony is that capitalist system,

It is. And people tend to adapt their behaviour according to their knowledge of their environment. And there are people trying to change aspects of our environment. But it seems that change is slow so I’m not quite confident that waiting out until the environment no longer has capitalism as one of it’s attributes. One could try to go to a different environment. But doing that poses it’s own challenges, especially before one has raised their employment qualifications. Finishing school and getting job experience is one of the ways that one does this.

instead of fostering risk taking, is making us all risk averse, i.e., wimps. This is especially true when it comes to bringing children into the world. But what could be more mindblowing than a “new person”?

You’ll find that many people don’t mind putting themselves at risk, but have objections (Some times moral objections) against putting some one else at risk. Of course there’s a risk any time a new person is brought into the world making complete avoidance of that risk impossible. But that doesn’t stop one from being motivated to try to lower that risk.

 

[levinas12]

It is. And people tend to adapt their behaviour according to their knowledge of their environment. And there are people trying to change aspects of our environment. But it seems that change is slow so I’m not quite confident that waiting out until the environment no longer has capitalism as one of it’s attributes. One could try to go to a different environment. But doing that poses it’s own challenges, especially before one has raised their employment qualifications. Finishing school and getting job experience is one of the ways that one does this.

You’ll find that many people don’t mind putting themselves at risk, but have objections (Some times moral objections) against putting some one else at risk. Of course there’s a risk any time a new person is brought into the world making complete avoidance of that risk impossible. But that doesn’t stop one from being motivated to try to lower that risk.

I agree up to a point.

But it’s still interesting to note that the practice of artificial contraception is driven by such an intense anxiety about economic security.

 

[levinas12]

Well, I think the question is still open. The “biochemistry” of love is still relatively unexplored. And for this reason of course the area is extremely speculative. But this is similar to what is happening in cognitive science with respect to consciousness and brain activity.

To clarify. I agree - in contrast to lungs, heart and other vita organs, non-use of sex organs is not per se harmful. It’s what happens during the use of sex organs that I’m concerned with (including the biochemistry). It’s fair to say that much work needs to be done in this area.

 

[levinas12]

If you would talk about the functionality of the organs, many of them have multiple functions. Now, of all these functions SOME are life-sustaining, others are auxiliary. The usage of the lungs cannot be thwarted without causing immediate and irreparable harm to the organism. To interfere with the natural usage of these organs definitely causes serious harm.

But the sexual organs do not belong to this category. One can live a long life without ever using them for procreation - see your celibate clergy.

Just to clarify. I agree that, in contrast to lungs, heart and other vital organs, the non-use of sex organs is not per se harmful. So sex organs are indeed in a different category.

My point revolves around what happens during the **use **of sex organs. It’s fair to say that much work needs to be done in this area.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

But it’s still interesting to note that the practice of artificial contraception is driven by such an intense anxiety about economic security.

In some cases it can be. There are also those that don’t want to have [more] kids at all for various reasons. Those reasons may be economic, or from not wanting to re-experience challenges that were experience when previous offspring were raised.

I’m not sure if this falls in the same category, but one person of which I know saw himself as an unfit parent and had vasectomy done to permanently avoid ever causing children. There are also those that want to limit the number of kids that they have. I’ve got a relative that grew up with 11 siblings and parents that could not afford housing, clothing, and food for 11 siblings. I can’t say that I had ever asked how this person’s parents felt about contraception or economic pressure. But this person chose to limit the number of kids that she had and had surgery performed once she reached that limit.

But sticking with economic concerns, unless those economic concerns are found to be unwarranted it does seem that contraception does contribute towards addressing that need. If economic concerns are seen themselves as a problem and contraception as a “consequence” of that problem then it would seem to me that contraception is not a problem any more than a fire extinguisher is a problem. Rather than remove the fire extinguisher, perhaps more attention should be given to what is causing the problems. That is if you think that a capitalist economic system is a problem, why not try to promote an alternative?

 

[Tyrion]

Well, I think the question is still open.

That is an unsupported opinion. Ever since the dawn of time people have practiced all those sexual “sins”, among them contraception, masturbation, non-procreative positions and so on. There was no medical problem with these practices whatsoever… there is not even one instance recorded of having hair grow on the palms of the masturbators. So there is no no reason to assume that there is a hitherto undiscovered medical problem arising from these sexual behaviors.

Just to clarify. I agree that, in contrast to lungs, heart and other vital organs, the non-use of sex organs is not per se harmful. So sex organs are indeed in a different category.

My point revolves around what happens during the **use **of sex organs. It’s fair to say that much work needs to be done in this area.

Masters and Johnson and others did a lot of work on the subject. No one has ever found any kind of problem arising from contraception itself. And it is now well-known that masturbation is not just not harmful, but actually beneficial to the practitioners.

Let’s face reality. No group of humans had any problems with non-procreative sex, or engaging in self-gratification, or mutual gratification. None, except a relatively small subset of christians, who cannot bring up any examples of actual harm coming from these practices. That is fact. To paraphrase another old saying: “For (some) christians sex is an obsession. For everyone else it is a simple fact of life”.

 

[NonNobisDomine]

Actually, the modern, much more effective methods of contraception did not introduce anything new. The contraceptive mentality is as old as humanity. Humans are naturally oriented toward seeking pleasure and avoiding pain - just like any being with a nervous system. People want pleasure, as simple as that, and they want “something for nothing”. This is exactly what the modern contraceptive methods allow them to have. They are not 100% effective, but few things are.

If you think that BP (Before the Pill) everything was pink roses, you are seriously mistaken. If you look at the Victorian era, you will see the same problems, though most of it done in secret. Divorce was not allowed, so people had lovers. Children were welcome, but only as a working force. Even the 5-6 years olds were put to work. Who were the chimney sweeps back then? Slim children, whose hands and feet were severly burned, since the fire was not extinguished for such a mundane reason as a need to sweep the chimneys.

As I asked a few times now, go and analyze the problem of the “young couple” on post #73, and tell us what actual harm does their behavior cause to either themselves or to others. That question seems to be avoided at all costs.

I have to disagree. Contraception has changed the fabric of society. Did it change man’s attitude of seeking pleasure and avoiding pain? Not at all. But effective contraception has made that dream a reality.

 

[Gricken]

I have to disagree. Contraception has changed the fabric of society. Did it change man’s attitude of seeking pleasure and avoiding pain? Not at all. But effective contraception has made that dream a reality.

He doesn’t think that’s an issue. OP isn’t looking for an answer, he’s trying to make people looks stupid and “irrational”. That’s why he keeps dismissing every argument brought up.

In other words. Don’t feed the troll.

 

[levinas12]

So there is no reason to assume that there is a hitherto undiscovered medical problem arising from these sexual behaviors.

But there seems to be a long history of social disapproval of many of these behaviors - a history not just confined to the Christians.

Maybe the anthropologists on this forum would be willing to elaborate on this history.

But is it really unreasonable to suppose that the human body is hardwired for procreation?

Maybe the biochemists on this forum would be willing to elaborate on the specific wiring diagram (if there is any).

 

[Atticus_Sparrow]

Let’s face reality. No group of humans had any problems with non-procreative sex, or engaging in self-gratification, or mutual gratification. None, except a relatively small subset of christians, who cannot bring up any examples of actual harm coming from these practices. That is fact. To paraphrase another old saying: “For (some) christians sex is an obsession. For everyone else it is a simple fact of life”.

Really? The media and entertainment business isn’t obsessed with sex? I know it is anecdotal, but when I was a college kid it wasn’t the Christian (or other religious groups on campus) holding sex symposiums, handing out “goodie bags” filled with sex related items or holding BDSM nights. I was an agnostic at the time and I even found this silly. At the very least the people behind it were irritating.

Catholics catch flack because they aren’t part of the mainstream on this issue. You can’t sit there and say the pill, the 1960’s sexual revolution and social experiments, mainstreaming of porn haven’t had a disastrous impact on society.

Study after study shows women’s overall satisfaction in life has been dropping every year since 1960’s. dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1189894/Women-happy-years-ago-.html

Isn’t that exactly the opposite of where it should be? Broken homes, lack of father figures and a media that pushes sex as the only reason for being are far more harmful and do far more damage to society than anything else. You’ll often hear women lament that many men are stuck in perpetual adolescence. But men don’t have a reason to grow and mature anymore as women keep rewarding them with sex because many women foolishly think that’s their empowerment.

So you have a generation now of miserable people. Men who cannot, or will not, mature and women who are lost and beset by loneliness because they were hoodwinked by a form of feminism that tells them they’re emotionally just like men. I see it everyday. It’s sad and can be heartbreaking. Especially the children who are more often than not forgotten about because mommy and daddy need to have more fun and cannot be bothered.

But yes, blame Catholics for having standards.