Protestants and Contraception

Originally posted by Nemesio
So, the only form of contraception acceptable to Roman Catholics is one
in which the woman must forgo sexual intimacy during the period of
her greatest arousal and ability to experience pleasure?

Yeah, real 'natural.' That's exactly what God intended when he
put the libido there.

Nemesio

What exactly is your argument? That "natural" contraception is less pleasurable for the woman? Would you advocate this as a basis for morality? Or are you suggesting that men force this teaching onto women, who are completely incapable of defying it?

Yeah, real 'natural.' That's exactly what God intended when he put the libido there.

Maybe the celibate life should just be abolished altogether. And by your argument, why not just act on any impulse that we feel? Because that's exactly what God intended when he put it there.

Originally posted by Conrau K
What exactly is your argument? That "natural" contraception is less pleasurable for the woman? Would you advocate this as a basis for morality? Or are you suggesting that men force this teaching onto women, who are completely incapable of defying it?

One of the arguments against artificial contraception is the barrier or
distance it creates between spouses. To deny your spouse the full
bounty of physical pleasure within the confines of the marriage bed is
a barrier, and a frustrating one. In RCC teaching, sexual pleasure is
indeed a gift from God, one that's meant to be expressed fully only
within the covenant of marriage.

But, if couple doesn't want to have children, then the RCC would have it
such that the woman's sexual pleasure be the victim of such a decision. This is neither natural nor healthy for a marriage.

Maybe the celibate life should just be abolished altogether. And by your argument, why not just act on any impulse that we feel? Because that's exactly what God intended when he put it there.

If you think that's my argument, then you didn't read what I wrote. I
deeply lament the sexual permissiveness of many of my colleagues
(male and female). And, yes, contraception makes this easier because
the fear of unwanted pregnancy (or STDs) is diminished and that is too
bad.

However, that doesn't entail that all uses of contraception are bad (unless
you simply dogmatically accept that they are). Simply because this
rejection of contraception as evil was a long-standing practice doesn't
mean that the teaching was ever right; indeed, the marginalization of
women in the Christian churches was at least as long-standing a practice.
That they abandoned the absurd position that all uses of contraception
are evil is to their credit. And, certainly, those few churches which are
reverting back to their draconian and short-sighted practices certainly
isn't a testament to the power of Orthodoxy, only to the stigmatization
of sexual pleasure that still infects the ultra-pious.

When I hear a priest tastefully say 'orgasm' or 'ejaculation' or any
other sexual term in the context of a sermon or talk and use these
terms with the respect that they deserve -- that the Church teaches they
merit because of their holiness -- then I will relax a bit on the issue.
But most people in the Church are still uncomfortable with the idea of
sex (and sexuality), with residual notions of 'dirtiness' pervading. This
contraception issue lingers as an example of it.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]What exactly is your argument? That "natural" contraception is less pleasurable for the woman? Would you advocate this as a basis for morality? Or are you suggesting that men force this teaching onto women, who are completely incapable of defying it?

One of the arguments against artificial contraception is the ...[text shortened]... ' pervading. This
contraception issue lingers as an example of it.

Nemesio[/b]

One of the arguments against artificial contraception is the barrier or distance it creates between spouses. To deny your spouse the full
bounty of physical pleasure within the confines of the marriage bed is
a barrier, and a frustrating one.

But see, this is exactly what I am arguing against. It is not the man (well, not the man necessarily) who denies the woman her sexual pleasure, it is the woman herself (or ideally it is.)

But, if couple doesn't want to have children, then the RCC would have it such that the woman's sexual pleasure be the victim of such a decision.

Not directly. It's hardly the Church's fault that a woman's most infertile time coincides with the point of least arousal.

If you think that's my argument, then you didn't read what I wrote.

I have no idea what you are arguing then. You argued that since God gave us a libido then we should clearly enjoy it.

But most people in the Church are still uncomfortable with the idea of sex (and sexuality), with residual notions of 'dirtiness' pervading. This contraception issue lingers as an example of it.

I see no reason why it should be assumed that the teaching on contraception is rooted in a dissaproval of sex and sexual pleasure. And I certainly disagree that "most people in the Church" have "residual notions of dirtiness pervading." John Paul II was very supportive of sex within the confines of a marriage. An English speaking layman named Christopher West deals exclusively with this subject.

Originally posted by Conrau K
But see, this is exactly what I am arguing against. It is not the man (well, not the man necessarily) who denies the woman her sexual pleasure, it is the woman herself (or ideally it is.)

You're missing the point with confusing semantics. The man does the
pleasuring, the woman denies receiving the pleasure. But it doesn't matter
either way, anyway. The point is the Church's absurd ban on contraception
has a direct impact on the way in which women specifically experience
sexual pleasure, and, in particular making them choose between having
children and complete sexual fulfillment.

Not directly. It's hardly the Church's fault that a woman's most infertile time coincides with the point of least arousal.

If the Church's teachings are the infallible mind of God -- that artificial
contraception is immoral -- then it would be God's fault for insisting
that women who do not want children at a particular time avoid conjugal
relations with their spouses. Given that I think that the Church is most
certainly misrepresenting the 'will' of God, I do hold the Church responsible
for insisting upon this teaching. Further, I find it profoundly irresponsible
to encourage procreative sexual relations in an environment which is
already severely overpopulated, in particular in those countries where the
Roman Catholic Church is the predominant authority -- those in Africa
and South America -- where poverty is exacerbated by families electing
to have numerous children. It is furthermore disgusting that the RCC
would insist in denying the use of artificial contraception (condoms
specifically) in those nations where as many as 1 in 10 children are
being born with AIDS (as you find in many countries in Africa).

I see no reason why it should be assumed that the teaching on contraception is rooted in a dissaproval of sex and sexual pleasure.

I suppose you wouldn't. Do you deny that sexual pleasure was a taboo
topic in the Church say, 250 years ago? I'm not asking what the Church
did or did not teach, but that its general (non-dogmatic) attitude was
decidedly negative?

And I certainly disagree that "most people in the Church" have "residual notions of dirtiness pervading." John Paul II was very supportive of sex within the confines of a marriage. An English speaking layman named Christopher West deals exclusively with this subject.

I don't deny that Pope John II continued the more forward-thinking attitudes.
I'm not talking about official Church position. I'm talking about the
residual effects of the negative stances that the Church permitted in the
past. Like I said, when I hear sexuality discussed openly and healthily
in the context of (adult) deliberation among Church folk, then I will
know that the age of deploring sexual pleasure as a necessary evil is
beginning to wane.

Nemesio

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]But see, this is exactly what I am arguing against. It is not the man (well, not the man necessarily) who denies the woman her sexual pleasure, it is the woman herself (or ideally it is.)

You're missing the point with confusing semantics. The man does the
pleasuring, the woman denies receiving the pleasure. ...[text shortened]... ual pleasure as a necessary evil is
beginning to wane.

Nemesio

Nemesio[/b]

A post so nice you signed it twice!

Originally posted by Nemesio
Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]But see, this is exactly what I am arguing against. It is not the man (well, not the man necessarily) who denies the woman her sexual pleasure, it is the woman herself (or ideally it is.)

You're missing the point with confusing semantics. The man does the
pleasuring, the woman denies receiving the pleasure. ...[text shortened]... ual pleasure as a necessary evil is
beginning to wane.

Nemesio

Nemesio[/b]

You're missing the point with confusing semantics. The man does the pleasuring, the woman denies receiving the pleasure.

The only one confusing semantics is you. You have persistently portrayed the man as denying the woman pleasure, as if it is some enforced oppression which the woman does not consent to.

The point is the Church's absurd ban on contraception
has a direct impact on the way in which women specifically experience sexual pleasure, and, in particular making them choose between having children and complete sexual fulfillment.

This is not an argument. Take the converse for example. Condoms diminish the pleasure of the male participant. Is it thus morally wrong? I might just as well say: your absurd endorsement of condoms has a direct impact on the way in which men specifically experience sexual pleasure, and, in particular making them choose between not-having children and complete sexual fulfillment.

Never mind the fact that a number of other contraceptives have adverse reactions in women.

If the Church's teachings are the infallible mind of God -- that artificial contraception is immoral -- then it would be God's fault for insisting that women who do not want children at a particular time avoid conjugal relations with their spouses.

No, the solemn teachings of the Church are said to be infallible and hence representative of the mind of God. I guess you could say it's God's fault.

is furthermore disgusting that the RCC would insist in denying the use of artificial contraception (condoms specifically) in those nations where as many as 1 in 10 children are being born with AIDS (as you find in many countries in Africa).

I'm not sure the RCC denies condoms. It just rejects condoms as a viable approach to solving the AIDS epidemic. However, I have no qualms about the use of condoms in such cases where the man insists on sex despite the possibility of AIDS transmission.

I suppose you wouldn't. Do you deny that sexual pleasure was a taboo topic in the Church say, 250 years ago? I'm not asking what the Church did or did not teach, but that its general (non-dogmatic) attitude was decidedly negative?

I have no idea what attitudes toward sexual pleasure were. I can make an assumption that 250 years ago sex was a "taboo topic"... whatever that means. But that hardly proves that the Church's teaching on contraception is rooted in a dissaproval of sexual pleasure.

Like I said, when I hear sexuality discussed openly and healthily
in the context of (adult) deliberation among Church folk, then I will
know that the age of deploring sexual pleasure as a necessary evil is
beginning to wane.

I'm only so young, so I have no awareness of any aversion to discussion of sexuality. I have never heard anyone deplore sex as a "necessary evil". In fact, quite clearly, when we allow "natural contraception" we see sexual pleasure as something vital to a relationship. If your premise, that sexual pleasure is seen as only a necessary evil, were true, then surely "natural contraception" would be equally deplorable.

Originally posted by Conrau K
The only one confusing semantics is you. You have persistently portrayed the man as denying the woman pleasure, as if it is some enforced oppression which the woman does not consent to.

I can't tell if you are just being obtuse or if you're just confused. In
my marriage, sexual relations are a joint decision; if she or I don't want
to engage in them, then neither of us pushes the issue. How often we
engage in sexual relations, and when precisely we do this is also our
joint decision. So, it's neither 'the woman' nor 'the man' who decides
anything in any normal marriage (irrespective of religious affiliation) as
far as I can tell.

Further, any man worth his salt has an interest in the pleasure his wife
receives from sexual activity. The penalty of sin is the obstacle from
engaging in sexual relations during the period of time when the woman
is most naturally sexually aroused. Any man indifferent to this is callous.
A woman who fears sinning and thus avoids sexual gratification is also
a victim of this.


This is not an argument. Take the converse for example. Condoms diminish the pleasure of the male participant. Is it thus morally wrong?

Of course not. A man who elects not to reach full gratification is within
his rights. Hell, if he never wants to ejaculate, I suppose he could do that,
too. However, in my example, a woman who does not want to have
children at that particular time is given three options: abstain (sexually
frustrating), risk having children (not desired), or sin and use
artificial contraception. It's not the sexual pleasure that's the sin, it's
the artificual contraception, and the Church (allegedly on behalf of
'God' in defense of 'natural relations'😉 has structured the marital
relationship such that women who do not desire children must by default
be sexually frustrated or sinners.

Keep in mind that you didn't really take the converse. Imagine that
it was a sin for a man to have sex without a condom (let's forget
the procreation factor for a moment). Can you imagine how sexually
frustrating that would be? Can you imagine a wife who didn't care that
her husband wasn't fully sexually gratified in the context of the marital
relations? This is what the Church (run by a bunch of celebate men!)
would insist for women, all in defense of 'natural moral order.' The
levels of irony are astonishing, frankly.

Never mind the fact that a number of other contraceptives have adverse reactions in women.

This is immaterial. Women or men who utilize contraception take on
these risks knowingly and willingly, not upon penalty of sin. Like I said,
if a man doesn't want to orgasm, that's his business. But if the Church
said it was a sin to ejaculate (or enjoy sex), then it becomes a problem.

No, the solemn teachings of the Church are said to be infallible and hence representative of the mind of God. I guess you could say it's God's fault.

Precisely. This is what makes it so absurd! God is said to have orchestrated
the human body such that sexual relations were healthy and holy in the
context of the marital bed, but then insists that those who do not want
children at that particular time must avoid sex rather than use artificial
contraception? And it says so because it's unnatural? And it asserts
that the so-called 'Natural' method which avoids gratification of the woman
in her most aroused state is 'natural?' This is the mind of God?

That alone ought to make people leave the Church! If this 'god' was that
confused, then WTF should anyone worship him for?

Or, people stay in the Church and ignore the teaching is most certainly
errant.

I'm not sure the RCC denies condoms. It just rejects condoms as a viable approach to solving the AIDS epidemic. However, I have no qualms about the use of condoms in such cases where the man insists on sex despite the possibility of AIDS transmission.

Are you kidding? Of course the Church denies the use of condoms!
And no one thinks that condoms 'solve the AIDS epidemic,' they just
slow the progress of it. And, the Church does have qualms with
condom
use within married couples in which one partner has AIDS, considering it
a sin (taught infallibly, mind you).

I have no idea what attitudes toward sexual pleasure were. I can make an assumption that 250 years ago sex was a "taboo topic"... whatever that means. But that hardly proves that the Church's teaching on contraception is rooted in a dissaproval of sexual pleasure.

Given its long history, I find it too hard to ignore. What do you suppose
it's rooted in?

I'm only so young, so I have no awareness of any aversion to discussion of sexuality. I have never heard anyone deplore sex as a "necessary evil". In fact, quite clearly, when we allow "natural contraception" we see sexual pleasure as something vital to a relationship. If your premise, that sexual pleasure is seen as only a necessary evil, were true, then surely "natural contraception" would be equally deplorable.

You go to Mass weekly or so, right? Has your particular church ever offered
talks on sex within the confines of marriage? Has your priest or deacon
ever offered a sermon that extols sexual pleasure in marriage? Has there
been any public discussion of sex in marriage?

Nemesio