Great. Now we'll be forbidden from using the rhythm method, too.
(I read something recently that pointed out that breastfeeding may prevent implantation--which is the argument against Plan B, that it "causes abortion" because it's fertilization, not implantation, that constitutes pregnancy. I'm looking forward to the "breastfeeding kills babies" campaign.)
Heh. I love this argument -- I saw it referred to someplace and was thinking of trying to post on it when I posted on Plan B. It might even work against no-contraceptive method at all sex, as opposed to barrier-method sex; when you add up failures to implant and very early miscarriages of which there are lots, depending on how exactly the numbers work out you could end up with more 'deaths' from sincerely trying to get pregnant every time you fucked than from using barrier methods of contraception.
Yes, LB, but those deaths are God's decision, not ours.
One of the things that's always bugged me about the whole "Life Begins at Conception" crowd (note: just one of the things) is this issue of "killing embryos," completely separate from Contraception.
It is (I believe) the case that some incredibly large fraction (upwards of 2/3, or 3/4?) of implanted embryos die very early on in pregnancy (I cite this wikipedia article after only 5 mins of searching, but I've heard it first-hand from much more reputable and biologically savvy sources as well).
If you really believe that these are little humans who are dying, little guys who it would be murderous to intentionally kill, shouldn't you also believe that we are (as a species) in the grip of a massive wave of death, the likes of which would dwarf all cancers and violent crime? Early Pregnancy Miscarriage, the Silent Killer? Shouldn't we be throwing billions of dollars into federal funding to prevent this, to study its causes and treatments, to protect all these unborn innocent lives being cruelly cut short just 20 weeks after they first appear on this Green Earth?
Or something? (modus tollens, indeed).
I mean, I don't think conception and the "rhythm" method even have to enter into the argument. There's something more fundamental going on here, right?
goddamnit, pre-empted by #2.
Feh, okay, glad I'm not the only one thinking this way.
Shouldn't we be throwing billions of dollars into federal funding to prevent this, to study its causes and treatments, to protect all these unborn innocent lives being cruelly cut short just 20 weeks after they first appear on this Green Earth?
Dear god, please no. I'm sure we're not far away from that. The first step will be forcing women to spend most of their time lying flat on their backs, to aid implantation.
There's something more fundamental going on here, right?
Well, yes. But whenever you actually say what it is, people yelp that you're being unfair to the anti-abortion people who really do have genuinely principled pro-life feelings. Apparently it's not fair to point out the gap between their feelings and actual reality, or something.
Well, I was being a bit sarcastic with that first quote...
I always thought the rhythm method was a confusing name- when I was a kid and first heard about it I thought it had something to do with the various motions and timing associated with the act itself- what would more properly be referred to as withdrawl.
7: I know, but it seems like the distinction between satire and how-to manual got lost somewhere.
We used to practice the withdrawl method when I was a kid, back in NC...
also, 9: one man's (or woman's) satire is another one's how-to manual, right? but wouldn't you rather be one of those whose opponents are appropriating proper satire for how-to fodder? Cue defenddelay, etc.
Hey, 5, 7, 10, 11: If you're all the same person, or even if you're up to four different people, could you pick a name? Nothing wrong with pseudonymity, I'm all about it myself, but having no continuous identity at all is irritating.
It doesn't have to be permanent -- you can change it at will.
11: No. B/c the satirical things that have been appropriated w/r/t women's health are scary.
2: when you add up failures to implant and very early miscarriages of which there are lots, depending on how exactly the numbers work out you could end up with more 'deaths' from sincerely trying to get pregnant every time you fucked than from using barrier methods of contraception.
3: Yes, LB, but those deaths are God's decision, not ours.
But if an embryo conceived by a couple using the rhythm method fails to implant, isn't that also God's decision? It was not the couple's intended outcome.
I think this whole argument runs afoul of the doing/allowing distinction endorsed by Catholic bioethicists
15 was me.
Also, does Bovens intend the modus ponens or the modus tollens argument in this situation?
15 gets it exactly right. It's not about embryos dying, it's about trying to kill them.
But the rhythm method attempts to avoid pregnancy. If, in so doing, it results in the creation of more unviable embryos, then, intentionally or not, it's killing embryos. And therefore, we not only have to ban birth control, we have to stop educating women about reproductive health. Because they might use that knowledge to flout god's will.
But I think the "intentionally or not" matters here. You sound as if you think intent is irrelevent, and I'm not sure why.
It doesn't seem to matter if, say, you need birth control pills to control bleeding or endometriosis. Or if you need a d&c after an incomplete miscarriage. Or, like, if you need a d&x because the fetus you're carrying lacks a brain....
Intention always matters in catholic bioethics, to the extent that many of the procedures Bitch mentions are sanctioned, and not called abortion, because the intent is different. (Not d&x because the fetus lacks a brain, though. There the fact that seems morally relevant to the rest of us is that the fetus is anencephalic, which isn't a matter of intent.)
Intention mattering like that is what makes the secularists among us think of the Catholic opposition to abortion/birth control as a purely religious issue, rather than a generally applicable moral argument. If the issue were killing baby-equivalents, rather than thwarting the will of God, it wouldn't matter, morally, if it were happening as the result of intentionally chosen, non-compelled, actions seeking those 'deaths' or regretting those 'deaths'. If it's okay to act in a manner that you know will cause more 'deaths', because you're not trying in an impermissible fashion to avoid having children, then the 'deaths' aren't really the issue.
I'm Catholic. And while I can think of it as a moral argument, I can't think of it as a generally applicable *legal* argument. It totally weirds me out that the church has gotten itself mixed up with these freaky fundies.
It totally weirds me out that the church has gotten itself mixed up with these freaky fundies.
Ah yes. Where is the logical, science oriented Catholic church of yore?
Wait a minute here...are we totally dropping doing/allowing? Intentional murder is as bad as not giving to a charity when it leads to a predictable death. I don't believe people here think that, maybe I'm wrong. But it looks like the argument here is that, even if one is willing to grant the pro-life argument that intentionally causing a fertilized egg to not go through to birth, they must believe that all failures of a fertilized egg to be born are that bad.
The intention/allowing doctrine-of-double-effect stuff can surely be employed just as effectively by the advocate of non-rhythm methods of contraception though?
It's not as if users of IUDs are intending to kill foetuses, they are intending to prevent pregnancy.
25: Well, quite. Was there some time in the past when the Catholic Church wasn't like this? Presumably it was after 1990, when the Pope admitted that Galileo was right about the whole heliocentrism thing...
It's not as if users of IUDs are intending to kill foetuses, they are intending to prevent pregnancy.
Part of the doctrine of double effect is that the bad effect cannot be the means by which the good effect is brought about. IUDs prevent pregnancy by killing the fetus.
On the other hand, if one uses the rhythm method, the means by which one intends not to give birth is by avoiding conception. The embryos that fail to implant are collateral damage.
This reasoning gets pretty tenuous pretty quickly, I know. Supposedly, you can have surgery to end an ectopic pregnancy, because the means by which you save your life is removing the embryo from the fallopian tube, and the subsequent death of the embryo is collateral damage.
I don't actually buy into this. I'm just explaining the reasoning as I understand it.
On the other hand, if one uses the rhythm method, the means by which one intends not to give birth is by avoiding conception.
But the exactly equivalent thing is true of Plan B. So shouldn't the Vatican be all over emergency contraception?
Or wait... is the Vatican opposed to contraception? In which case, why would they allow the rhythm method?
The doctrine of double effect has always struck me as, on some level, bullshit. How does it differ from saying that it is wrong to run someone down with your car intentionally because you want them dead, but all right to take a shortcut driving up the sidewalk and killing dozens if your reason is to get where you're going faster?
I can see the possibility of a marginal difference in culpability, such that necessity might allow the latter and not the former (you really need to make that appointment), but not one that operated in the absence of necessity. In the rhythm method context, having a satisfying sex life is clearly not a necessity -- how can the doctrine of double effect allow sexual relations at all other than at times of maximum fertility and in relation to an active attempt to get pregnant, in order to minimize risk to fertilized eggs?
having a satisfying sex life is clearly not a necessity
How clear is this?
To an organization that encourages vows of celibacy in some contexts, I think clear.
About the doctrine of double effect, the harm has to be proportional to the good, so running people over in order to take a shortcut wouldn't be OK regardless of double effect.
The DeLong thread mentioned in the linked thread is here. The example I used there is the following (real life!):
Both Yglesias and Grover Norquist have opposed reform of the Alternative Minimum Tax. Norquist opposes reform because the AMT falls disproportionately on blue-state residents, and he wants blue-state residents to suffer. Yglesias opposes reform because it is expensive and not particularly unjust compared to the tax code; while recognizing that the AMT will cause disproportionate suffering in blue states.
I think that Yglesias seems OK here; he recognizes that his policy will have a bad effect, disproportionate blue suffering, but thinks this effect is outweighed by the benefits it produces. But Norquist intends the harm, rather than merely foreseeing it, and so this goes on the incredibly long list of reasons why he's an awful person.
I'm not sure that this is exactly a case of double effect, but it does seem that there might be a difference here between intended and foreseen effects. None of this is meant as a defense of Vatican teaching on sex. [On preview: And as I understand it, the rhythm method itself only makes sense on the assumption that a satisfying sex life is not a necessity.]
About the doctrine of double effect, the harm has to be proportional to the good, so running people over in order to take a shortcut wouldn't be OK regardless of double effect.
Well, that's the thing. Given that the good of a satisfying sex life is presumed to be not all that significant, and the evil of the death of a fertilized egg is presumed to be quite significant, I can't see how the doctrine of double effect can justify anything other than conducting onself in a way that absolutely minimizes the amount of possible fertilizations -- I would expect that would be abstinence, barring sex at peak fertile times only for the purpose of intended conception.
Any other course of action suggests to me that the early death of fertilized eggs really isn't considered all that much of a big deal.
I don't know from Catholic doctrine; I was raised as a bigoted protestant, although I did go to a Catholic law school. Canon law issues were sometimes raised, particularly in the family law context, but in general, w/r/t intent, the gods of legal realism looked down on us, and I learned to think of intent as significant only when provable by external evidence.
I agree that "having a satisfying sex life is clearly not a necessity" is an unfortunate way of putting it. My understanding is that a satisfying sex life is a gift from god, to be encouraged, hoped for and cultivated, and that ideally, naturally, it will lead in due course to loved children. But concerns that a pregnancy may be less-than-desirable just now, combined with the free will we have not to engage in sex at any time, I would say unilaterally but certainly by mutual consent, leads as it were naturally to rhythm.
The problem is how much more we keep learning about the process. Even presuming advanced knowledge, an analog basal thermometer must have been damn hard to use in the 'thirties. I presume people mostly used the calendar and guessed, and were usually safe only if they avoided p + 15 by a wide margin. I think the main effect of the church's acceptance of rhythm was to legitimate the idea of family planning, thereby leaving many, many Catholics free to use more effective methods without being conscience-stricken.
Re: "having a satisfying sex life is clearly not a necessity", what we were taught in Catholic school was that since the rhythm required periods of abstinence throughout the month, that actually led to a more satisfying sex life because it provides windows for you and your partner husband to focus on the emotional aspect of your relationship, uncluttered from the sexual component. I think that's B.S., but that's their logic, anyway.
What about IVF? I have understood that in IVF some unneeded fertilized eggs go to trash and yet can't recall much of a fuss ever being made about it. Surely it would be at least easier to stop IVF than to stop abortion or emergency contraception or what have you.
Yeah, but however it works, vows of celibacy are still not only allowable but encouraged in Catholicism. So while a satisfying sex life may be allowable and possible with the rhythm method, it can't be essential -- achieving one doesn't qualify as necessary. Taking that, and the assumption that recklessly taking actions leading to the death of fertilized eggs is sinful in the same fashion that recklessly taking actions leading to the death of people would be sinful, as premises, I can't see how you can morally come to any conclusion other than a moral obligation to scientifically determine how to minimize the number of fertilized-egg 'deaths' as a result of your sex life, and then to do that. Catholic doctrine doesn't seem to take them here, which suggests to me that they really don't think of the death of a fertilized egg as comparable to the death of a person.
Are vows of celibacy encouraged in Catholicism outside of the clergy and nuns?
Doesn't matter -- that's enough to establish that sexual enjoyment isn't a religious or moral requirement. Not killing fertilized eggs, apparently, is. So I can't see how any argument from sexual enjoyment can justify recklessly putting fertilized eggs at risk if the real issue is the rights or interests of the zygote. Again, that leads to barrier methods of contraception, or if that's not allowable, abstinence when not part of a deliberate effort to conceive.
I'll handle 42 and repond to 41: no. EVERYONE is encouraged towards marriage, which is definitely not meant to be celibate. Even priests the holy orders are thougth to be "married" -- to the Church (which happens not to put out very often, at least in the normal ways, hence they wind up celibate. The 'vow of celibacy' is really just a marital vow of fidelity to the Church.)
Periods of (potentially lengthy) chastity within an otherwise "fruitful" marriage, however, are not really discouraged. So I think LB's point has some force -- 'sex anytime you want' is definitely not the Vatican's mantra.
That's not mean to imply that I agree with LB, however.
Also, 40: yes, the church adamentaly opposed to IVF.
what we were taught in Catholic school was that since the rhythm required periods of abstinence
Au contraire. This is an actual conversation I had with a devout Catholic female co worker. I'd made a joke about backwards states like Utah still having laws regulating oral sex on the books.
Catholic Co-Worder: "Mormons are weird that way. Catholics don't really regulate sexual practices between married couples."
Me: "Whoa, hold on. So if I convert to Catholicism, I'll be forbidden from using birth control, but that's okay because I can just avoid pregancy by by banging my wife in the ass 7 days a week?"
CCW: "Well, yeah."
Me: "SWEET"
abstinence when not part of a deliberate effort to conceive
My understanding is catholic history isn't great, but I think this was a well-accepted position for a very long time (until quite recently, perhaps). Saint Augustine thought that sex was only permissible if done with the purpose of conception. Even then, enjoying it was in some sense giving oneself over to carnal lusts, and so off-limits. Thus he said it was possible for a married couple to have sex without sinning, but very difficult. (Because they have such a tendency to enjoy it.)
Augustine's position was never official catholic dogma, I don't think, but I know it was pretty damn influential for many centuries.
46- your co-worker is wrong.
47- was supposed to say "My understanding of catholic history isn't great...", though the typo wasn't really false.
#48
Yeah, I was pretty sure she was, but it was entertaining all the same.
46-- And once again, I am made aware of how different it must be to be a Mormon in Utah. My female cousins and I all swore up and down when we were teenagers that if we managed to hold out until marriage, nobody was going to hold us back after that point.
50:Meaning no holds barred, so to speak, within marriage?
46 - We had that discussion in Marriage and Sacraments class. Our teacher was giving us some rah-rah speech about how Catholicism was really pro-sex and Catholics should enjoy their sex lives and not be repressed and that the only limitation was that sex should be confined to marriage. A girl in our class asked if that meant that once we were married, we could "bust out the whips and chains and razor blades" (a phrase that has stuck with me all of these years) and it would all be OK in the church's eyes. Our teacher (a former nun) stammered a bit and was saved by the bell.
51: Well, that was the impression I got, but then I didn't grow up in Utah.
This may be idealization of the other, and individual results may vary, but I suspect Catholics do have better sex lives on average. I think Greeley had shown statistical support for this, based on surveys.
By "better" in 54, do you mean in some sort of self-reported sexual satisfaction surveys? Or something more concrete?
Or something more concrete?
Number of partners? Diversity of partners? Diversity of situations?
#52
So what is the actual position of the church? That girl I work with went to Catholic school, and she didn't sound like she was just pulling information out of nowhere.
#53
Yeah, L.A. upbringing here, so what you describe sounds more normal.
I suspect Catholics do have better sex lives on average
That's not fair. Catholicism dominates a LOT of heavy drinking cultures, and they've got a pretty good lock on South America.
I suspect Catholics do have better sex lives on average
There's this great John Waters article called "Puff Piece" describing his idea of a perfect day (a companion to an article called "Hatchet Piece" about the most horrible day imaginable to him). It included staying home all day in his robe and wearing Kleenex boxes for shoes, if I remember correctly, but near the end he starts praying and one of the things he includes is something along the lines of "and thank you, God, for making me Catholic, because sex is always so much better when it's dirty."
Hey M/tch, I could use your help over here. (Also IdeaList and Bitch would probably have useful input.)
Oh wait, I see M/tch already knew about it. Nevermind, M/tch.
"What a pity it isn't a sin to drink water", cried an Italian, "how good it would taste.". (GC Lichtenberg, Notebook F, number 85 in Hollingdale's selection's numeration.)
57- gswift, see here for the short answer:
http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:3OvRPugrrrsJ:www.nds.edu/well-Palermo.htm
63 -- so you can start in her mouth but have to finish in her pussy?
And it's interesting (or not) that the document uses "orgasm" to mean "ejaculation".
63: I think that's a logical inference. Actually does seem somewhat more conservative that way, in privileging coitus.
#63
Can it be the Catholics are MORE uptight than Mormons? Now that's saying something. The general standard with Mormons is that sexual practices between married couples are a private matter, and bishops are not to inquire. Pretty much a "whatever is mutally acceptable" kind of thing. Ditto with how many kids to have, and birth control is perfectly acceptable. Mormons, a veritable bastion of progressive thought (relatively). It boggles the mind.
So just how many Catholics actually follow any of the rules? Drawing upon the highly scientific data sample of "Catholics I've known", not very many.
IUDs prevent pregnancy by killing the fetus.
Not actually. They prevent implantation, which means no fetus is formed, and no pregnancy begun.
Oh, won't someone please think of the blastocysts.
I just now read 63. I think it needs excerpting:
The acts by which spouses lovingly prepare each other for genital intercourse (foreplay) are honorable and good. But stimulation of each other’s genitals to the point of climax apart from an act of normal intercourse is nothing other than mutual masturbation… An important point of clarification is needed. Since it’s the male orgasm that’s inherently linked with the possibility of new life, the husband must never intentionally ejaculate outside of his wife’s vagina. Since the female orgasm, however, isn’t necessarily linked to the possibility of conception, so long as it takes place within the overall context of an act of intercourse, it need not, morally speaking, be during actual penetration… Ideally, the wife’s orgasm would happen simultaneously with her husband’s [orgasm], but this is easier said than done for many couples. In fact, if the wife’s orgasm isn’t achieved during the natural course of foreplay and consummation, it would be the loving thing for the husband to stimulate his wife to climax thereafter (if she so desired).
According to the Church’s traditional teaching, it is neither unnatural, perverted, nor immoral for couples to seek sexual stimulation and arousal by means of oral (…) intercourse, but such activity should not be continued to the point of orgasm… Sexual climax, however, is to occur only after vaginal penetration…On another matter of marital sexuality, some wives may need reassurance. Should it happen that she fails to achieve sexual fulfillment in the act of sexual intercourse, a woman is morally permitted, according to the Church’s teaching, to seek and achieve orgasm by other means.
Just like West, Genovesi acknowledges that male orgasm ordinarily may occur before female orgasm. Ideally, both should happen at the same time, and couples should strive for this goal. However, if the male should reach orgasm before his spouse, it is morally acceptable to help the spouse reach orgasm as a completion of intercourse. Nicholas Halligan, author of the series, The Ministry of the Celebration of the Sacraments, comments: “Although a woman is not obliged to do so, she may immediately after her husband’s ejaculation in the vagina or immediately after his withdrawal upon ejaculation obtain her own complete satisfaction through her own or her spouse’s efforts performed by means of touches or in some other manner.” In other words, as long as the oral stimulation serves an honorable purpose, namely, to help both of the spouses reach sexual climax through normal intercourse, it is permissible.
What if the husband can pull off multiples? Can he over the "possibility of new life" with the first one, then give the facial with the second round?
73: No. Because each sperm is an individual, and deserves its own individual chance.
I also note that the woman is not allowed to come before her husband. Presumably lest she fall asleep, or something.
B's right in 75. But I wonder if more exotic tricks are allowed. What if she gives oral sex that ends in a snowball, followed by him giving oral to her? All the swimmers end up in (roughly) the right place, no?
I think I've found a loophole!
B -- where do you get 76? I've never heard that, and I think I'm fairly well versed in catholic sexual ethics.
I'm giggling sophomorically over translating the modi as the methods of putting by putting and taking by taking and thinking naughty thoughts. Logicus interruptus...
Anyhow. Short form CalaCatholicism (note, I'm probably going to hell): Sex is for a) making babies and b) a nifty fun celebration of the marital bond. Rules: don't fuck with a) or b), but fucking around with b) on the way to a) is a-okay.
So, NFP works† to prevent by instructing the couple to abstain when the women is fertile. Okay. Well, it's okay not to have babies by not having sex. That doesn't violate a) or b). And rob helpy-chalk's got the rest of the intent factor right. If you're going about just happily having sex and letting it be 'open to the possibility of life'††, if an embryo doesn't implant, well, that's not any of your fault. If you go about taking Plan B or using condoms, etc, you're violating a) and then that's a problem. (I'm not sure, but I think Plan B, if understood properly, would be in the contraception category, not the abortion category, as far as moral wrongs went.)
You can also make an argument for tubal ligation or the bcp; if the woman is doing it for health reasons (another pregnancy will kill her, e.g., cramps suck) it's okay to have sex (we're assumed married) because she's not intentionally trying to get out of a).
It doesn't make sense from a consequentialist perspective, but Catholic teaching isn't consequentialist. The moral worth of the embryo is important, of course, but not the deciding factor.
I know of one Catholic couple (married) who used NFP and were pregnant within a year. I think this technically counts as a failure of a contraceptive method, but they insist it worked. Everyone else I know has said whee! technology and nay!! to irish twins.
I know entirely too much about this for a lapsed Catholic.
†Any contraceptive method that can also be used to make a baby intentionally to my mind misses the point.
†† This is a creepy phrase when uttered prayerfully by a Catholic virgin. Just sayin'.
78: 76 is implicit in 71. Read it again.
76 - Actually:
Finally, the habitual employment/need for oral stimulation after normal intercourse merits some moral discussion. Specifically, why does the man reach orgasm before the woman? Is it due to the fact that the man suffers from premature ejaculation, anxiety, or other situations? Or, could it occur because he wants to experience sexual pleasure as a means of gratification… and does not concern himself with the desires and needs of his spouse? The former sounds more morally plausible than the latter, but I would still question both of these situations. What is stopping the man from adequately stimulating his wife before intercourse? Sex was not meant to be enjoyed by only one of the spouses! Therefore, I would speculate that one or both of the couples are not communicating as well as they should. Genovesi states the same conclusion when it comes to the habitual need for oral stimulation after normal intercourse:
…[In] this situation, I would suggest that a wife’s regular or habitual failure to achieve a desired orgasm through sexual intercourse would seem to highlight the need for better, more open, and honest communication between spouses concerning their sexual expressions of love. Given a woman’s generally slower response to sexual stimulation, it may be necessary for a husband to prolong the period of foreplay out of concern for his wife and her sexual fulfillment. At the same time, a wife should freely tell her husband what actions please her, and she should better inform him as to whether or not she is ready for the initiation of vaginal intercourse.
Although the phrase "regular or habitual failure" and all of the emphasis on women having orgasms during intercourse at the exact same time as their husbands raises some red flags.
I think no one's supposed to orgasm before penetration, and ideally during, but the man's supposed to make his wife happy, and if after all's said and done, she's not, go to town (but ideally, foreplay!)
You know, the more I think about it, the clearer it gets that the Catholic position on contaception is clearly just anti-pleasure. If you don't want kids, that's okay--but you're not allowed any nookie. Otherwise, given (b), there's really no reason to forbid birth control.
Damn, Catholics are weird.
80- I've re-read and I can see the implicit idea that a woman shouldn't be intentionally brought to orgasm before penetration has occurred, but not that the woman shouldn't ever get off before the man.
How exactly would that work -- if a woman is approaching orgasm during intercourse the couple needs to stop and let her cool off a bit? Why? What principle would this serve, even within the strict confines of catholic sexual morality?
81 seems to imply that it's his job to get her *close* to orgasm before penetration. But that's not the same thing. It consistently says she should orgasm with her husband, or after. Its says nothing about before.
Pretty much. There's a whole bit about 'using the other person' for fun and 'objectification'†, the idea being if you're not both thinking about having kids, you're using the other person as a sex toy.††
What's striking to me is that this positions seems to be substantially liberalized from what my mom was taught. Yikes.
†Also not something to be uttered prayerfully.
†† Ponens ponendo, old couples, infertile couples, etc.
85: Any proper man will be excited to orgasm by his wife's achieving orgasm, obviously. You're supposed to do it *together*. I'm sure you'll be forgiven if you fuck up the timing, though. As long as you confess it on Sunday.
84- I think the idea is that (a) and (b) can't be intentionally separated. Pursuing (b) for it's own sake (as occurs with contraceptive sex) exhibits a lack of marital chastity.
I'm impressed that the thread has gone on so far without anyone mentioning modus morons.
modus morons = NFP?
= discussing Catholic sexual ethics on a Friday night?
I'm impressed that the thread has gone on so far without anyone mentioning modus morons.
We were too busy with the modus pudens.
I don't know what NFP is, but modus morons is either affirming the consequent or whatever the "respectable" name for a → b, ¬a; therefore, ¬b. (Denying the, uh, something?)
Where "either" means "it can be either one", not "it might be one or the other but I'm not sure".
94: is that what the kids are calling it these days? What's wrong with the oh-so-much-more-poetical mons Veneris? Too close to "venereal", which is nowadays only used in conjunction with "disease" (an ignoble fate to have befallen such a word)?
89: I know that's the rationale. But look at the logic. It's fine to have sex without wanting to conceive. It's even fine to have sex knowing you can't conceive (e.g., NFP. Or while pregnant. Or if you're infertile)--because of (b). Therefore, it makes no sense to prohibit the use of contraception in order to allow you to have sex during the week or so of pre- and post-ovulation risk, since it's perfectly fine to do it the other three weeks of the month.
The logic is that you can have sex at times you know you're infertile and god bless you. But if you're fertile, you *cannot have sex* (if you don't want a pregnancy). It's okay to avoid pregnancy by *not* having sex. Hence, the problem isn't avoiding pregnancy; it's having sexual pleasure while avoiding pregnancy. You can avoid pregnancy all you like, as long as you don't have fun with it.
better, more open, and honest communication
This may be too open for Catholic ethics, aside from the fact that it doesn't concern spouses.
Aaaaahhh...symboic logic! I'm about half a glass from Becks-style. Talking about sex i can handle. Logic is going to make my head assplode.
96 - I was just going for parallelism. mons Veneris sounds cooler.
Denying the antecedent?
97 - And, of course, nature is a little bitch by making the times a woman is most fertile also the times she is most...responsive.
#97
Like you said, Catholics are weird.
I'm not sure that the concluding remarks--that the addressee is "smart," "sexy" and "educated"--correspond to the evidence at hand.
"assplode" is not allowed. Apparently it can go in there if you call if foreplay, but finishing in there is unacceptable.
I don't know what "symboic logic" is.
104: There is no nature. There is only god. Clearly he has made us in his own image, which is to say that he's made us so that we desire sex *even independent of the desire for procreation*.
Clearly, therefore, the church is wrong.
Ok, so no assplosives, but what about assfricates?
108: Right. And you can't use condoms. SO, if you're going to fuck someone up the ass, you have to either go wash up afterwards or they have to risk some kind of infection.
110 - Probably not labiodental assfricates.
I'm pretty sure ass-fucking is forbidden, even if you don't get off in there. I think this is an unwritten rule though.
Clearly he has made us in his own image, which is to say that he's made us so that we desire sex *even independent of the desire for procreation*.
Are you saying god is a horndog?
Probably not labiodental assfricates.
Not without a dam, anyway. You know, for health reasons.
102: sounds good.
Except it sounds a littel like it ought to refer to the fallacy of rejecting your own premise.
Ok, so no assplosives, but what about assfricates?
That reminds me.
114: Apparently so, given how many rules about sex he's supposedly come up with.
I second 106. Dude's in his thirties, doesn't go down on her, doesn't get her off, and either can't tell, or doesn't care. Quite a catch.
"fallacy" s/b "boner"
How anybody is having an orgasm while rememberinng all of these rules is beyond me.
Linky, linky! "boner"
121 - That second-to-last one is brilliant.
120: See? The church's silly rules actually *impede* both (a) and (b).
How anybody is having an orgasm while rememberinng all of these rules is beyond me.
Catholic sex: modeled after golfing lessons.
And in other news of Christian craziness, Pat Robertson says he leg presses 2000 pounds.
Yeah, you read that right, 2000. Nice and plausible.
126 - Slate did an effective takedown of that.
The Slate thing is disappointing, because it appears to believe that Robertson could actually leg-press nearly a thousand pounds, which is clearly nuts.
That first link, I was reading, thinking, "all this time I thought Robertson was a political dickweed and a shill and a liar; I never realized that, in fact, he's literally insane." I almost started feeling sorry for the poor crazy bastard.
Then I read the last paragraph and reverted to "shill and liar."
The Slate thing is disappointing, because it appears to believe that Albright and Robertson are public intellectuals.
128- I've follwed powerlifting for a few years now, and that's exactly what I was thinking. "2000? Why stop there? Go ahead and throw in a 700 bench and a 900 deadlift while you're at it. The man has gone completely fucking insane."
And then came the pitch for the protein shake. It's now only a matter of time before we hear about Pat Robertson's massive cock, which you too can have through the miracle of his regimen of diet and prayer.
93: NFP = natural family planning.
2000 pounds on a leg-press? My ass. (I'm not sure I've seen a leg press machine that would hold 1000 pounds.)
From the Slate articile:
"When I was in college, I witnessed many a meathead pick up girls from the elliptical machines by inviting them over to the leg press machine, loading up four plates, and marveling at how easily they could do 180 pounds."
God, I hope not. 180 pounds is a weight the girls on the ellipticals should have been capable of doing.
What's all this talk about women having orgasms? I "female orgasms" was just an urban legend?
No?
Aw crap.
Aw crap.
I thought "female orgasms" . . .
133: I think that's the point. That the girls didn't know that that wasn't impressive, giving the guy a guaranteed opportunity to flatter them.