POLL: Sex Me Up

Remove all ads!

Let me start by saying that I am a really old fashion Catholic and that I do not believe in the use of NFP except under very exceptional circumstances.

Having said that, the difference as I understand it lies not in the end result, but in the means. NFP is natural in the sense that it takes advantage of a woman's normal infertile periods. Barrier contraceptives act without regard to the woman's natural cycle.

Another way to look at it is that in using a condom, one is treating one's wife in the exact same way one would treat a hooker or a one night stand. Whereas one would not rely upon NFP in similar circumstances. I believe the symbolism matters and has long term consequences in how a man regards his wife, similar to how pornography tends to lead men to objectify women.

 

Not only allowed to enjoy, but obligated to accept the gift from the spouse and make it as enjoyable for him/her as we can. Is that what you're asking? But the enjoyment isn't meant to be a physical sensation alone, nor even a physical sensation with emotional closeness attached. The enjoyment comes from the fact that love is total and life-giving when it meets the same total commitment on the other side. Contraception and induced infertility dabbles with that, creating a barrier.

Agreed.

 

This just cracks me up.

How is using a condom treating one's wife like a hooker? Using a condom shows care, care for her wellfare and her will to not get pregnant. If she wants to get pregnant then I'm quite sure that not that many guys around refuse to have sex without a condom (assumed that the guy has nothing against having a child). I find having sex without a condom to be more like treating one's wife as a hooker since it shows that you don't care if she gets pregnant since it's her carrying the baby for the nine months anyway and she who gets the morning sickness.

Well unless you plan to keep your wife home in a cardboard box I assume she too has a career which she wants to pursue and develop in. Of course there are women who want a lot of babies instead of a carear but in the western world they usually want a carear and being pregnant all the time quite efficently kills any attempt pursue a career. It might even get one fired (it's illegal yes but the corporations can go around it in so many ways).

And teenagers are probably the most stressful kind of children there are with their more or less careless comings and goings additionally they have a nasty habit of rebelling against their parents which makes getting help from them more difficult.

[ May 26, 2005, 17:55: Message edited by: Morgoroth ]

 

My simplistic view is that anything that stops fertilization is an acceptable form of birth control, end of sentence. Thus, funky gels, little rubber suits, hormones taken orally or through the patch, getting snipped, the rhythm(sic) method and suchlike are all acceptable, IMHO. I do not support the killing of a living organism via abortion, however.

That said, I'm still not a big fan of the little rubber suits, but that's just a personal thing, and if people enjoy them, then rock on!

 

Wow. I am taken aback by this statement. I think Morgoroth has summed by my views on this now. The use of the condom is often going to be HER idea anyway. I'm struggling to even imagine a scenario where a wife would say "No! Don't use that condom! It makes me feel like a prostitute!". Unbelievable.

Taking this further, how many of you staunch NFP supporters have ever actually TRIED to use this method within a marriage? It's actually far more unnatural and awkward than a condom.

Sex is a natural part of a loving relationship and is one of the pillars that supports a strong marriage, along with love, trust, honesty, consideration etc etc. As such, it should be allowed to be a spontaneous expression of such love between those two people. When you start to introduce regimes like NFP, sex becomes a task that is scheduled into specific times of the month, almost to the point of being marked on the calendar. And that is a sure-fire way to kill off some of the romance and fun.

I think that some of the viewpoints being expressed in this thread are far too rigid, theoretical, and unyielding, and don't take into account the realities of life. I can understand and accept many of the principles by which you lead your lives (no sex before marriage, no adultery, even no homosexuality) but this distinction between condoms and NFP really has me baffled.

 

Please, please, please tell me you were joking - I noticed the but I really couldn't see how this sentance related to HB's point what-so-ever - he certainly didn't imply at all that this may be anyone's point of view. There should never, ever, be an obligation to have sex.

I just don't understand how you can proclaim to be able to talk for everyone when you say this. I can assure you that I am totally, utterly committed to my girlfriend and it makes not one iota bit of difference between us that we use contraception. Sex is a deeply loving and emotional experience - which I respect and applaud you haven't experienced yet as you haven't found the right lass. I too waited until I had found the right person but I do not believe getting married would make the blindest bit of difference. We have no intention to get married or have children and have been together for more than 7 years. We are probably more totally commited to each other than most other people I know, including those who are married. Yet you have the audacity to believe we would be better off married and having children. It may apply to you, but please don't believe it applies to everyone.

[ May 27, 2005, 15:32: Message edited by: Carcaroth ]

 

Great point Harbourboy. I never really thought if it that way, but NFP does in fact put up a barrier - and one that may be even more dramatic than a condom. It actually prevents you from expressing your love for your spouse in a sexual way during some times of the month. And I for one, would in no way want to schedule sexual encounters with my wife on a calander, much like I would a dental appointment.

One of the things about sex is that it is often spontaneous. Sure, you can set probabilities - for example, it is more likely that I'll have sex with my wife on the weekend than during the work week, but it's not like we ONLY have sex on the weekend. Then main problem I have with NFP is there are times during the month where you are obligated not to have sex, which then implies that there are times of the month where you are in fact, obligated to have sex. I can't think of anything less romantic than saying, "Well honey, we may as well have sex tonight, even if weren't not really in the mood, because if we don't we won't be able to have sex again for another two weeks."

 

OK, I've looked around, and while I know that NFP is your term for what I call the rhythm method, I'd like to know what the letters specifically stand for.

BTW, I'm living proof that this method can fail; I was what my Mother called "a pleasant surprise"

Chevy, normally you and I are pretty well right on the same page, but on this one I have to disagree. As I said before, preventing contraception is not killing a living organism, and thus condoms used for that purpose pass muster with me.

However, using condoms to engage in a promiscuous lifestyle, THAT is a matter of concern. While I agree that people in poor countries that are rife with AIDS should get help and condom training, they should also be told and educated that NOTHING is 100% effective against either pregnancy or STDs besides abstinence and subsequent fidelity. I realize that many poor people have nothing else to do besides have sex, but still, if we REALLY care about them, we'd try and educate them them with all the facts. I'm under no delusions, though, that very many of them would become abstinent.

 

There's an obligation, there's even a claim. There's just no claim one should be able to enforce. In the Catholic theology, for example, the husband is obliged to keep the wife satisfied instead of just falling asleep when he's finished.

I respect the fact of staying faithful for 7 years. Yet still, I disagree with the notion that marriage wouldn't change anything. What I'll concede is that a legal contract giving her your name wouldn't affect reality too much, but there's more to marriage than that. The question I always ask when it comes to commitment is why not seal it as permanent and exclusive if it's total and why not open oneself to children to make the love fruitful. Not like I'm going to chase you with holy books, but here's my reasoning.

You never know before you try.

Well, Aldeth... Why have sex if you aren't in the mood? To release the tension? Maybe it would be better to skip on it and it could taste better the next time one has it. Besides, there are so many things people can do apart from sex.

 

@Lord Keldin Depaara

NFP stands for Natural Family Planning. It is much more than simply the rhythm method. The rhythm method just relies upon the calendar to predict a woman's fertile period. It might work with a woman who's cycles have a clock-like precision. If she has any irregularity in her cycle, the next words you may hear are: "I'm pregnant."

NFP uses the calendar, but supplements it with the measurement of basel temperature and checking the consistincy of the vaginal mucous to determine whether ovulation has occurred. There are physical signs that accompany ovulation that can be tracked, if one knows what one is doing. That is why NFP is far more effective than the rhythm method, whether the goal is to achieve or avoid pregnancy.

Hope that helps.

 

An obligation is something that is binding and compelling. As far as I'm concerned, that's tantamount to sexual slavery - I seem to recall there was a film based on a real life story where a woman was raped by her husband. This "obligation" was used in his defence and it's existence is quite simply an abomination as it serves no good purpose.

You don't understand, it is sealed as permanent and exclusive in our hearts. The fact that it's not written on paper or pronounced in the name of a God I don't believe in changes nothing.

The world is overpopulated, I don't feel a need to increase that population.

 

In Catholic moral theology, each partner in a marriage has a moral obligation to provide for the sexual needs of their spouse. That is not a legal obligation, it is a moral one, and one spouse does not have the right to force the other to fulfill their obligation.

The obligation does binds on the conscience of the spouse. Thus, if one spouse unjustly denies the other, they commit a sin.

 

I have a feeling I'm going to regret asking, but what constitutes "unjust" denial of sex?

 

Unjust simply means without reasonable justification. If one spouse is sick (even with a real headache), that is reasonable. If one spouse just does not feel like it, that is not reasonable. After all, we do things everyday that we may not feel like doing, but are obligated to do anywya. I may not feel like going to work today, but I am obligated to do so. My children may not feel like going to school, but they are obligated to do so.

It is, of course, impossible to list every possible reason, but I hope the above helps some.

 

The other side of the coin is that it's also wrong to demand sex from the spouse just because you feel like it, if he or she isn't in the mood. Hardly charitable, hardly self-giving, likely selfish and lustful. It would fall under onanisticus usus matrimonii. It's hard to talk about this without looking on marital sex as unitive and procreative -- in this case, on the unitive aspect. It's hardly unitive when it happens because of a demand. On the other hand, no spouse should find himself or herself in such a state as to be forced to make demands. One spouse's obligation can't be viewed without the other one's symmetric obligation in mind and without regard to the fact that using one's spouse as a toy is wrong and incompatible with the dignity of persons. A man that honours his wife, honours himself. If he dishonours his wife, he dishonours himself. Works in both directions. Sorry for ancient language.

 

Well, that NFP method sounds kind of messy. But thanks for the info anyway.

I have to say, if both partners are happy with what's happening in the relationship, then I endorse whatever they do (barring abortion).

 

Excellent. I have no problems with that concept and would agree that would help keep a lifelong partnership strong and vigorous. So why deny that partnership the use of condoms if it helps them to provide for each others sexual needs? I can fully understand why you might be against things like the Pill because you might view that as unnatural chemical alteration of the body but I am still confused as to why NFP is somehow more acceptable than condoms.

Aldeth sums up nicely what I was trying to say about spontaneity.

Of course. But this thread is about sex, marriage, and contraception therein.

 

Chev,

Thanks for the other side of the coin! Just because there is an obligation for one spouse does not make it loving or prudent for the other spouse to make demands.

 

Good question. Condoms create a physical barrier and prevent the natural way of things happening in intercourse, collecting the semen in a rubber baloon for washing down the toilet or whatever. NFP operates within the natural cycle of a woman's body.

Agreed. Just wanted to point out that sex is an integral part of human life, not to be removed from the context or regarded as something central to our lives. Sex doesn't define our humanity, nor does it make the base of our existence, not even in the male-female relations. The omnipresent emphasis on sex and the saturation of our culture with sex is a modern product and it's artificial. Things haven't always been so.

Yeah, stressing the mutual self-giving instead of mutual taking or mutual putting up with. Sex on demand against the wishes of the other spouse would most probably be masturbatory use of marriage rather than anything sex in marriage really should be. Sounds like put out or go to hell kind of coercion. There's no obligation to comply with demands, but there's something much deeper, more involving and more consuming -- the obligation to care. A bit like with feeding children... Children shouldn't find themselves aching from hunger and begging parents for dinner, but rather parents should, as much as they can, do their best to provide wholesome healthy nourishment. On the other hand, a spoilt brat who shouts at his own mother (or father if he's cooking... why not ) to put the dinner on the table already, doesn't deserve anything.

Anyway, if both spouses religiously take care of each other, there shouldn't be any such situations as requesting, let alone demanding it.

Note: Demanding sex against the wishes of the other spouse violates one's own obligation to take care of that spouse's needs. Problem more or less solved.

[ May 31, 2005, 14:26: Message edited by: chevalier ]