Abortion and society
Bookworm on Nov 17 2008 at 3:33 pm | Filed under: Abortion
Charles Martel left a very good comment about the way in which the Pill changed, not only women’s approach to sex, but their approach to abortion too:
(I’m going to use an anthropomorphic term here, designed,” only because it makes it easier to discuss how nature works.)
Nature designed the act of sexual intercourse to result in conception and reproduction. For thousands of years human beings knew that, and created structures designed to keep young people from running amok once they became ready to have sex — chaparones, courtship, early marriage. People in those times could not fathom not taking responsibility for a child once it was conceived.
Fast forward to 1960 and the introduction of The Pill. Within 10 years a “contraceptive mindset” becames common once the means to consequence-free sex became available to millions of people. That mindset includes the following assumptions:
—Sex is primarily a recreational, not reproductive, activity.
—Because of contraceptives, recreational sex quickly evolves a new category of behavior: “safe sex.” In safe sex, the only danger that intercourse now presents is “accidental” pregnancy — accidental in the sense that most people engaging in intercourse have no intention of procreating.
—”Safe sex” soon becomes a pseudo-ethical category. It becomes the obligation of each participant in an act of intercourse to make sure that sperm does not meet egg. To fail to do so could derail carefully laid educational or career plans — powerful considerations since society has prolonged adolescence into the mid and late 20s.
An inevitable extension of the “safe sex” mentality is that unborn children now must be “wanted.” That is, the people engaging in intercourse must consciously decide at the outset that they are willing to accept and nurture a pregnancy thyat results from intercourse.
If the pregnancy is not intended, the fetus is an accident that has resulted from unsafe sex. It can, therefore, be moved into a separate category: abortable.
So, the reason why I’m not so gung-ho about teaching children about contraceptives is that their use leads inevitably to the idea that if there’s an “accident,” there’s an emergency exit: abortion.
I’d like to add one other thing to the enormous societal changes that have taken place in the last forty years, making young people more receptive to the notion of abortion, and that is the absence of babies in their lives.
In the old days, people lived within communities that were heterogeneous in terms of ages level. Whether in a small town or a busy city, you’d live in a community that ran the age gamut, from infants to the elderly.
We don’t live that way anymore. In so many of today’s communities, people don’t just live in the community and then happen to have babies, as used to be true in the old days. Instead, people target specific communities when they decide to start a family.
After moving into these family friendly neighborhoods, there are huge numbers of babies for a few years, and then that stops — all the families are done with their child-bearing years. There are kids, but no babies.
When these kids grow up, they go to college for four or six or eight years, where they hang with young people and never see any babies at all. If an older sibling gets pregnant and has a child, they probably see the sibling (or his wife) pregnant a few times, and then they see the niece and nephew at holidays, when the child is a pest.
When these young adults finish their college years, they move to urban areas, and live in the hot neighborhoods for singles, neighborhoods that, like their college communities, have no children. Only after several years of a self-centered lifestyle do these people, now in their thirties, finally decided to take the plunge and have children.
In the search for good schools, these soon-to-be parents replicate the same pattern they lived out themselves as children: they move into a neighborhood replete with identically situated families, and set up raising their own children into what will be a baby-free world. And so the cycle goes, one that’s been in play since the first Levittowns appeared in the late 1940s.
Why does this matter? It matters because, as long as babies are hypothetical, it’s easy to abort them. It’s only when you have a very close connection to the whole process, from early pregnancy through birth and infancy — and this is true whether it’s your pregnancy, or a family member’s or a friend’s — that you realize that there is a straight line between the fetus and the baby. You can’t draw a straight line from fetus to baby if you’re utterly unfamiliar with either.
Email This Post To A Friend
62 Responses to “Abortion and society”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Thanks, Book, for citing something I wrote.
I now realize that it was wrong of me to say that the ONLY danger that intercourse presents in the safe-sex mentality is pregnancy. There is, of course, the specter of STDs.
So I should add that “safe sex” presumes that sex is not only recreational but promiscuous — after all, a “healthy” libido will want to sample as many sets of genitalia as possible. Thus it becomes important to thwart the resultant increased risk of venereal diseases with all sorts of barriers and antibiotics.
Still, a bit of clap here or some crabs there is no biggie compared to having, as Obama would say, the punishment of a child in utero.
Indeed…you can add to the contraceptive solution the development of antibiotics that control syphilis, which is probably the most serious of STDs. The History Channel had a program on once that explored the origins of syphilis, its spread throughout society, and its effects.
Brother. They excavated bodies from the 16th-17th centuries and documented damage from syphilis that was visible on the bones. Some of the photos were pretty gruesome…it’s really no wonder that they really got caught up in the virginity requirement for marriage.
Even today, it amazes me to hear of people going from this person to that one for sex, with no testing before they act on their desires. There are ads for medication for herpes that basically say “sure I have herpes, but we’re not sexually active when I have an outbreak so it’s ok” YYYCCCKKKKK.
If there is a young woman (girl, as we used to say) in your life – someone you love, or even just care about – go to http://www.cblpi.org/senseandsexuality/ and get her one of these pamphlets. You will NEVER find anything so honest about sex and “hooking up”.
Here (http://www.cblpi.org/ftp/Sense%20&%20Sexuality/SenseAndSexuality_Low-Rez.pdf) is the .pdf, but don’t leave it at that. There’s something about having the object in your hand, in your purse, on your bedside table. Send the CBLPI a bit of money and get 50 of the pamphlets, so you’ll have one ready whenever it’s needed.
The pamphlet grows out of a book (Unprotected, by Miriam Grossman) that tells the truth and documents it from the refereed literature. Every girl going to college (probably high school today – I’m living in the past) should have a copy of this book. Please give it to those you love.
P.S. I do not benefit in any way from the sale of these books – except that I feel better when the sales figures rise!
Earl:
I went to the website and have to agree that Dr. Grossman’s booklet is about as honest and straightforward as it gets.
She does not mince words about the consequences of certain actions, and it is obvious she understands the immense pressure young women are under to have sex.
I remember having a discussion with an ardent feminist about how “empowering” male-type sexuality is for women. I asked her to imagine that she were Hugh Hefner in 1960 — a name that evoked a huge “yuck” factor with her — and to set down in writing the ideal woman from his point of view.
She did not object when I suggested the following “ideals” that Hefner would have (and did, in so many ways) set down:
—The woman would adore sex and be willing to fall into bed with any man who interested her.
—Like a man, the woman would make no demands whatsoever on her sex partner. If that meant a one-night stand with no subsequent contact between the partners, no harm no foul.
—If the woman were to become pregnant, she would have the child aborted. Again, she would make no demands on the man.
—Although the woman might draw a line at a likely partner’s adultery or infidelity, this wouldn’t necessarily be a deal breaker. Because liberated sex is recreational, it carries no moral freight or spiritual value.
After we drew up the list, I asked her how any of Hefner’s ideals really benefited a woman. “It seems to me,” I told her, “that what Hugh has drawn up is the masturbatory fantasy of a heedless, uncaring, unloving 20-year-old boy. Remind me, how would it be attractive to a woman to fit that fantasy?”
She didn’t respond right away, but I could tell that I had suggested something to her that she had never considered: the Hefnerization of women is not a triumph of feminism, it is the final conquest of women as the objects of men’s uncaring lust.
Excellent comments, everyone. I think another factor in this mix is our increasing wealth in the 50s and 60s, with more appliances and and convenience foods. Homemaking became less a skill set that girls learned in adolescence and more a TV sitcom image of mom in heels at most putting dinner on the table. Mothers began to feel unappreciated and girls were given more time with their peers. A whole lot of cultural traditions were broken during those years.
Melanie Philips’s 11/14 diary entry at the Spectator has some other thoughts on other, more dramatic. changes that have occurred.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melanie philips/2680221/an-age.of-barbarism.thtml
What role has tax policies played? When the mother could stay home and supervise there were a lot fewer problems. In order to maintain a middle class lifestyle, when the tax rates rose, a second breadwinner was needed.
I am fortunate to live in a neighborhood where lots of women are able to stay home. This also adds to the overall security of the neighborhood.
Charles, how about putting these last comments into a book? You put it so well.
Charles, you lost me with your first assertion:
Nature designed the act of sexual intercourse to result in conception and reproduction.
That’s certainly true in some species; most any of the species which have an oestrus cycle, like dogs, cats, cows, and sheep. In these species, females are only sexually receptive when they are capable of conception.
Humans, along with most of our primate cousins, are sexually receptive at any time in the cycle. If we assume the convenience of teleology here, as you do by using “design”, then we have to assume that sexual receptivity has an additional purpose. And, indeed, there is no human society in which sexuality has no social aspect, and in which sexual contact purely for pleasure isn’t practiced. There are, however, innumerable human societies in which the social patterns of sexuality don’t match our current model, ranging from the ancient Egyptians to pre-missionary Eskimos and Polynesians to polygyny in the Middle East to pretty well all of sub-Saharan Africa.
Since your chain of inference starts off with something that is demonstrably untrue, it renders the whole thing suspect.
Beyond that, if your hypothesis were true, you’d expect societies in which extended families are together more would be ones in which abortion wasn’t practiced. There are a number of counter-examples to that as well, as for example in Nigeria, where abortion is illegal and unsafe, the social structures are much more cross generational, and abortion is none the less relatively common. In fact, looking at world wide statistics, it would appear that the strongest — and inverse — correlation to abortion rate is probably with economic conditions: countries in which economics are bad tend to have higher abortion rates.
All in all, while it’s an interesting theory, it looks to me like it doesn’t stand much critical analysis.
Hey, Charlie:
I fail to see how the fact that humans engage in sexual intercourse at all stages of the cycle negates the observation that the act of sexual intercourse is “designed”, or “evolved” if you prefer, to result in conception
and reproduction. Of course it is……
Just as the act of eating is “designed”, or “evolved” for those who prefer it,
for the purpose of nutrition. That most of us eat more than is strictly necessary to keep the machine going because we enjoy the sensations does not negate the original observation.
Or am I missing something?
Charlie:
I’ll respond by pretending that I’m Nature and that I’m conscious. My “reasoning” would be thus: No matter how indirect the path from intercourse to pregnancy and birth, I still intend the latter as the result. There’s simply no way around it. I refer you to homosexuals, who routinely engage in (a parody of) intercourse that, while it may serve to give pleasure and serve as a (deficient) means of bonding, it never results in conception.
My intent is that men and women screw one another as much as possible. It increases the odds of reproduction and all that. So, I’m happy to give humans all the more reason to make whoopee, which is the equivalent to my being the persuasive carnival barker at the side of the tent.
Next, I’ll pretend that I am a human who can reason morally — independent of blind nature (even though it seems to be my human “nature” to be moral.) I will look at the ancient Egyptians, the abortion-practicing Nigerians and the pre-missionary Eskimos and say, “Wow, those people really had some screwed up sexual ethics!” Understandable, perhaps, if one looks at them from a totally materialistic point of view or understands the state of abject ignorance in which they lived. But it is not really excusable in light of a better and greater morality.
If that appeal to something beyond nature distresses you, I apologize. But somehow modern Nigerians (and Eskimos) now know better, which indicates to me that their previous behavior was not necessarily “natural” or preordained.
In expat(#5) he has a link to the Melania Philips article, which contains:
—–
We read that he died at the hands of his mother, her boyfriend and their lodger. We read that the mother expressed no remorse and boasted she will be free by Christmas. We read that she had another child while she was in jail.
We read that the Director of Children’s Services at Haringey council has refused to apologise and insisted that no-one was to blame, despite evidence that social workers ignored doctors and three employees had received written warnings.
We read that four government ministers were warned that Haringey council’s child protection service was out of control seven months before baby P’s death – by a council whistleblower who was sacked and gagged for issuing this warning and who is prevented by court injunction from giving evidence to the official inquiry into the baby P case.
We read commentators falling over themselves to express horror, shock, revulsion, incredulity, outrage. Where have they all been these past two decades?
—–
Concerning the final question, “Where have they all been these past two decades?”, well this is one illustration of the abdication of responsibility by the vast majority of the citizenry. “I don’t care, it’s too hard, let the government deal with it.”
This willful blindness, this turning away from reality, is a phenomenon we have been seeing all around us here in America, and which has resulted in the election of Obama. The comfortable acceptance of a slogan and a facade; a refusal to dig for the facts, a refusal to face the facts. A refusal to deal with reality.
Behavior normally associated with children.
I should add there are a number of people who voted for Obama who *did* work at it and came to a reasonable conclusion. I’m convinced, however, that they are not even in the majority of those who voted for Obama.
I’m talking about the people who take little responsibility in their own lives, and who toss such responsibilities upon the government; who then refuse to hold themselves AND government accountable for anything! That would be too hard!
When you throw responsibility over to the government, and then ignore what government is actually doing, you are asking for what you get. And boy oh boy, are we about to “get it”.
The recent election has brought home to me once again a central tenant of Gramsci Communism. The massive war on the ‘cultural hegemony’ that is the core of my being and, it is clear, most of those who visit this most excellent blog.
I have grown up during that war, and Obama’s election is a major victory for those who would change forever our core values. When the limousine liberals and popular thought – shapers leave their gated communities and swank cooperatives, nothing bothers them more than the ever – more crowded NY sidewalks and ever – burgeoning ranks of tract houses covering the California hills…ever worse for the environment, obviously (to them) unsustainable. What’s worse is the thought of 2 billion Chinese in similar tract houses driving to work in massive SUVs.
So the fundamentals that underlie 2000 year – old policies of ‘more soldiers for the Pope’ are pushed aside. The liberated woman is born. And the problem of how to motivate workers in a world that increasingly limits the size and resource appetite of the usual toys becomes acute.
Will we be replaced by the teeming masses of the uneducated third world controlled by autocratic, luddite zealots, outfought and out – bred? Or will we reach for the stars? Do we rely on ideas developed over our long Judaic Christian history,j or emergency bailout strategies hatched in the last 50 years? That’s how it looks to me.
I apologize to those who think this trite, obvious and pedantic. Kindly suggest a more profitable way to channel my anger.
MikeD: “Behavior normally associated with children”
Liberals ARE children. The freedom they seek is the one that grants them a life of promiscuous irresponsibility while depending on their parents (i.e.government and the rest of us taxpayers) to carry the burdens of their irresponsibility.
Of course, they will realize too late that freedom and dependency are mutually exclusive principles. Their parents will eventually come down hard on them.
I agree with Charlie: the first asssertion, on which the entire argument is based, is wrong.
Sex was clearly “designed” – if that’s the word – in human beings for a purpose other than solely reproduction.
Every other mammalian species on the planet has sex for reproduction – and only reproduction. They are in fact only capable of sex at all when the female is primed for reproduction, and pregnancy is a virtual certainty. Dogs, cats, rabbits, goats, etc. etc. etc. throughout the animal kingdom cannot indulge in what’s called “recreational” sex – and that in fact includes the ape world. Only one animal on the planet can routinely have sex not for reproduction, but just because it’s fun. That would be us.
The salient point, Earl, is that every single time your cat, or dog, or any other mammal on the planet engages sexually it results in pregnancy. (That’s also why when the female is in estrus nature has designed the male to force intercourse fifty times an hour – to make certain.)
Which cracks me up, by the way: what stunningly acute observors our religiously inclined ancestors must have been! They observe the entire animal kingdom, everything there is; then they observe this glaringly, singularly, exceptional one: us – and what do they conclude? Why, that there’s no glaring exception at all, and sex is only for reproduction of course, and if you do it otherwise it’s a sin!
Excuse me? It’s like being able to breathe in outer space, but told by a benevolent creator that if you go there you’ll go to a place of eternal punishment.
Obviously nature intended humans to indulge in sex recreationally: that’s why we’re the only things on the planet that can! Every single time other mammals engage, pregnancy results. Not the case for us.
As usual, training your kids and controlling the potential problems, well: that’s parents’ job. And, as is increasingly usual in this society, parents aren’t doing it.
“Nature designed the act of sexual intercourse to result in conception and reproduction.”- Charles
I didn’t know there was another way to get pregnant.
Now if he had said the only purpose of sex was to result in conception, you would have a point. And if sex wasn’t pleasurable, there would be a lot fewer children.
I know of no prohibition to sex in the Bible in the context of a marriage relationship other than the law given to the tribe of Israel. They certainly understood the beauty of a relationship:
Song of Songs 7:5-9
The question is whether we’ve traded intimacy for sex in today’s society. That’s not to say there wasn’t a lot of sex going on back then. There were good relationships and bad ones.
You took the words right out of my mouth, Brian. Because every single act of sexual intercourse has the potential for pregnancy, that is the purpose behind sex — as it is in every other species. The fact that the female reproductive system is more complicated, and that females generally are more complicated, let to nature including a bonus for humans to encourage the statistical probability of success: make it fun, so people will engage in the activity with greater frequency.
What critics are forgetting is that the comment Charles left that started this all was his point about birth control changing the human approach to sexuality. It was birth control that disconnected sex from pregnancy. And the reasons people put rules in place regarding sexuality was to deal with the fact that, unlike other animals, humans have the ability to get pregnant any place, any time.
Bottom line: no matter how much we (or Mother Nature) try to dress it up, Nature’s goal is always the continuation of a species, and Nature establishes systems to encourage that continuation. This is true whether those systems are grounded in pleasure (humans) or sacrifice (as in the male black widow, who willingly dies so that, in feeding off his body’s own protein, the female black widow can bring his seed to fruition).
Incidentally, apropos the pleasure, Nature is tricky. For women, procreation is a few minutes of pleasure up front followed by nine months of increasing pain, plus the ever present and, during those same nine months, continuously increasing risk of death.
We forget now, but in the old days inordinate numbers of women died in childbirth. And as someone who had a miserable time during her own pregnancies with hyperemesis gravitas (perpetual morning sickness), I never forgot that, in a pre-medication, pre-IV era, Charlotte Bronte vomited herself to death during her pregnancy.
Another sample of strikingly inexact observation and drawing an astonishing conclusion from plainly evident and apparent facts:
The law of God, as quite plainly expressed in woman’s construction, is this: There shall be no limit put upon your intercourse with the other sex sexually, at any time of life.
The law of God, quite plainly expressed in man’s construction is this: During your entire life you shall be under inflexible limits and restrictions, sexually.
During twenty-three days in every month (in the absence of pregnancy) from the time a woman is seven years old until she dies of old age, she is ready for action, and competent. As competent as the candlestick is to receive the candle. Competent every day, competent every night. Also, she wants that candle – yearns for it, longs for it, hankers after it, as commanded by the law of God in her heart.
But man is only briefly competent; and only then in the moderate measure applicable to the word in his sex’s case. He is competent from the age of sixteen or seventeen thenceforward for thirty-five years. After fifty his performance is of poor quality, the intervals between are wide, and its satisfaction of no great value to either party; whereas his great-grandmother is as good as new. There is nothing the matter with her plant. Her candlestick is as firm as ever, whereas his candle is increasingly softened and weakened by the weather of age, as the years go by, until at last it can no longer stand, and is mournfully laid to rest in the hope of a blessed resurrection which is never to come.
By the woman’s make her plant has to be out of service three days in the month and during a part of her pregnancy. These are times of discomfort, often of suffering. For fair and just compensation she has the high privilege of unlimited adultery all the other days of her life.
That is the law of God, as revealed in her make. What becomes of this high privilege? Does she live in the free enjoyment of it? No. Nowhere in the whole world. She is robbed of it everywhere. Who does this? Man. Man’s statutes – if the Bible is the Word of God.
Now there you have a sample of man’s “reasoning powers,” as he calls them. He observes certain facts. For instance, that in all his life he never sees the day he can satisfy one woman; also, that no woman ever sees the day that she can’t overwork, and defeat, and put out of commission any ten masculine plants that can be put to bed in her. He puts these strikingly suggestive and luminous facts together, and from them draws this astonishing conclusion: The Creator intended the woman to be restricted to one man.
So he concretes that singular conclusion into a law, for good and all.
And he does it without consulting the woman, although she has a thousand times more at stake in the matter than he has. His procreative competency is limited to an average of a hundred exercises per year for fifty years, hers is good for three thousand a year for that whole time – and as many years longer as she may live. Thus his life interest in the matter is five thousand refreshments, while hers is a hundred and fifty thousand; yet instead of fairly and honorably leaving the making of the law to the person who has an overwhelming interest at stake in it, this immeasurable hog, who has nothing at stake in it worth considering, makes it himself.
Now if you or any other really intelligent person were arranging the fairnesses and justices between man and woman, you would give the man a one-fiftieth interest in one woman, and the woman a harem. Now wouldn’t you? Necessarily. I give you my word, this creature with the decrepit candle has arranged it exactly the other way.
That’s Mark Twain, on strikingly inexact observation. Just like noticing that – uniquely among life on the planet – in human beings sex is available at any time, and is enjoyable at every time: and concluding that therefore it must be limited; confined to one purpose only; and not enjoyed. (”Think of England, dear…”)
C’mon!
Brian and Book, thank you understanding the point I was trying to make. I did not assert — nor do I think — that every act of intercourse must result in pregnancy or that pregnancy must be the explicit goal of the people engaging in the act.
The criticisms here regarding my first assertion don’t seem to address or refute what is under discussion: a morality that has so utterly divorced sex from its ultimate purpose that it has led to a vast industry built upon the mass evisceration and dismemberment of unborn humans.
Whatever our attitudes toward sex, prudish or hedonistic, surely we should experience horror at the sheer monstrosity of an “ethic” that allows — encourages, even — women to treat their wombs as inconveniences that must periodically be purged like septic tanks.
Tiresias,
The only thing I can think of is:
If Twain’s observations were the order of things, not much else would get done!
Charles: morality is a different thing than nature. When you begin a dissertation on morality by asserting a fact of nature (and ignoring said fact’s one glaring exception: humanity) some conflation – and confusion – may probably be expected.
Nature isn’t particularly concerned with morality. In fact nature doesn’t know in what morality consists: morals are a human construct.
Nature concludes that if the moment is auspicious then a sperm will get together with an egg, and something will result. At which point nature downs tools and takes the rest of the day off: raising, nurturing, protecting, etc. the result is something in which nature evidences little interest. That’s a moral duty: we take care of the babies. Nature’s way is: baby can’t take care of itself; if nobody else does: dead baby.
Interestingly enough, it has long been observed that the wildly promiscuous (another judgmental word in which nature has no stake or interest) rarely get pregnant. Working (and busy) prostitutes don’t conceive very often. Science figured out why a few years back: seems one man’s pre-ejaculate and seminal fluids will be toxic to another man’s sperm. (The first job of the pre-ejaculate is to sterilize the area to make it safe for the sperm that will follow it out. If there are other sperm already present, it will have them for lunch.) Working girls who walk around with a stew of several ingredients inside are highly unlikely to conceive.
(Which raises an interesting point: perhaps nature is taking a somewhat moral point of view, and is in favor of promiscuity!)
I don’t know about your “ultimate purpose” thesis for sex, either. Given that it is always capable of enjoyment, but not always capable of resulting in conception, there’s room to wonder.
We should be careful to not overglamorize the old days. Imagine a married couple circa 1910. No matter how much the wife enjoyed sex at first, after 5 pregnancies or so (and remember, many of these babies did not survive) she would probably be scared and repelled by the whole thing. The husband would have been very frustrated. (I think visits to prostitutes by married men were much more common then, I’m pretty sure they were much more common for single men than they are now.) Some women were probably very sexually frustrated, too, but mostly they were probably just tired from taking care of all those children.
Tiresias:
I will leave it to you to describe what solution to reproduction nature has designed for its “one glaring exception.”
Same solution as always. The difference is: we can do it whenever. For the pure merry hell of it. Every other mammal in creation can only do it when the female is in estrus, making its purpose both obvious and inevitable.
Seems to me, innocent that I am, that such a singularity might well be worthy of a “why?”
Could it be that in the case of this exception to the all-except-for-us universal rule, there may also be a hint of an alternative purpose?
Tiresias,
It’s called free will. We are a unique creation.
Tiresias:
No disagreement. I never asserted otherwise. I simply said that in the end nature intends us to reproduce. If it takes 100 tries and lots of merrymaking along the way, so be it.
The question I posed — which never seems to get addressed — is why are so many moderns horrified when their moofkie poofkie creates a bun in the oven?
And why does that horror so easily translate into casual killing?
Just askin’.
Oh yeah, no question: the goal of life is continued life. Nature intends everything to reproduce.
We’re just the only ones that are capable of the sexual encounter for purposes other than reproduction.
Which makes us unique on the planet. Which means, I’d think: something. No idea what.
I have no idea why moderns do 90% of what they do. No clue, to take the obvious example, how Obama ended up as anything-elect.
>>The question I posed — which never seems to get addressed — is why are so many moderns horrified when their moofkie poofkie creates a bun in the oven?>>
Because it takes 20 years to get rid of that bun, and “those are going to be the best 20 years of my life!”
As for Twain…
He’s nuts. “from the time a woman is seven years old until she dies of old age, she is ready for action, and competent.”
A female is “ready” from age _seven_? And even the readiness of a woman past age 50 is questionable. Otherwise, how else to explain the prevalence and frequency of “headaches”?
And as for males…my mother used to say that “that” part of a man wasn’t dead for sure until he was 6 ft under, and even then it took 6 weeks!
Tiresias: You need to get up to speed on your zoology. I know of no data indicating that in non-human species, “Every single time other mammals engage (in sexual intercourse), pregnancy results.” In fact, if that were true, I would be very surprised.
Furthermore, the reason that male cats, as well as some other animals “force intercourse fifty times an hour”, is not “to make certain” in any humanly analogical sense, but to induce ovulation in the female. The penis bone (see Wikipedia) of said males has really fascinating shapes, and the stimulation of the female’s reproductive tract that results from repeated intercourse causes hormone flow that results in the shedding of eggs.
I think that you’ll also find you’re wrong that “the animal kingdom cannot indulge in what’s called “recreational” sex – and that in fact includes the ape world.” Go check out the bonobos, whose reputation in this area is pretty impressive.
Finally, if you are going to tell us that religious people believe that “sex is only for reproduction of course, and if you do it otherwise it’s a sin!”, then you need to provide citations. I don’t know of ANYONE who believes this. Who were you referring to, and where did you get this information, please……
This is all begging the question (although I do want an answer). The real issue is whether sex is “designed”, or “evolved” for the purpose of reproduction. Again, I think it’s plain that it is…..even the pleasure is part of the design, as pointed out above – it induces humans (who can think about things, get angry with each other, and find all kinds of reasons NOT to have sex) to engage in intercourse more frequently, thus increasing the likelihood that children will result from the pairing. Furthermore, the sexual act is now known to stimulate the release of hormones that increase bonding between the partners – if reproduction weren’t the aim of sex, why the bonding?
Finally, I can attest to the pleasure, but take issue with Mark Twain. It’s BETTER at 60 than at 30, although he’s right that it’s not as frequent.
>>Which makes us unique on the planet. Which means, I’d think: something. No idea what.>>
Only mankind has the potential for morality? for the development of self-discipline?
Free will – the ability to choose to act or not to act?
Interesting connection.
suek, LOL!
When our “bun” turned 7, we gave him a little trampoline to play on. But instead of jumping on it, he kept hitting it with sticks and clothes hangers to create a thumping sound that seemed to please him endlessly.
As a joke, we bought him a pair of drumsticks so he could “properly play” the trampoline. That quickly backfired — within three months we realized he needed a real drum set.
Fast forward 16 years and our bun is a very talented rock drummer who has been asked by various bands to sit in and do studio work with them. He also heads the drum department in our county’s largest music store.
My wife and I are totally confused as to where our son got his sense of rhythm, because we sure ain’t got any. Our family joke is that we even went to the Mormon genealogy database, which has 6 billion names (Mormons baptize everybody, dead or alive), and tracked back 37 generations without finding a single ancestor who had rhythm.
Ah, sweet mystery of life!
Charles asked,
>> The question I posed — which never seems to get addressed — is why are so many moderns horrified when their moofkie poofkie creates a bun in the oven? And why does that horror so easily translate into casual killing? >>
Because your topic is horrifying and depressing, Charles! Now, whether sex is by nature recreational fun or just procreational… now THAT is a topic you can really sink your teeth into! Er, if you’re into pain, that is.
Let me try again. Now THAT is a topic that can really get you excited. Err… One more try.
Now THAT is a topic to have you chomping at the bit! Dang it, darlin’, not so rough with the bridle!
>> why are so many moderns horrified when their moofkie poofkie creates a bun in the oven? >>
If they are horrified, they hide it well, Charles. I see among some of them a deeply buried sense of guilt, or perhaps horror. That repressed emotion gets unleashed sometimes as uncontrollable, vitroilic anger at Sarah Palin.
Mike:
You make a great point about leftists’ visceral reaction to and hatred for Sarah Palin. I really think they are blue-hot angry that she never sacrificed a child to Moloch.
If only she had! Progressive wymyn everywhere would have welcomed her into the sisterhood.
Let me throw one more thing into the mix here. I mentioned in a comment, above, that the downside of sex for women was that they died incredibly frequently during pregnancy. What I forgot to mention was that, in the pre-modern era, kids died a lot too: through the end of the 19th Century, 50% of all children born didn’t survive to the age of five. What with mothers — especially the ones in their child-bearing years — and children dying like flies continuously, Mother Nature needed to set up a system that (1) saw women (who have a consciousness that animals lack) willing to get into a situation that was incredibly dangerous for them and (2) replenished fairly easily all the children who died. Making sex pleasant, and making women capable of getting pregnant 24/7, all year round, was Nature’s answer to these dual risks.
I’ve forgotten where I was going with this, but I guess it is that the decline in female and infant mortality was inevitably going to change the focus of sex from a necessary procreation made fun for those most at risk, to something else entirely.
Sue – I don’t know about the seven year old thing either. Seems kind of early to me too – though like everybody else, Twain was a creature of his age and people matured a whole lot earlier then than they do now. (Mentally, at least; my father [born in 1900] was holding down a job at the age of twelve.) Physically, don’t know. I wasn’t there so can’t really say. Twain was, and he did say.
So did Kipling. Been reading Captain’s Courageous with a 7 year old nephew. Interesting to note Dan Troop and Harvey Cheyne were not yet fifteen – both fully employed, one on purpose, the other by accident but employed nonetheless – and both expected to be employed by the surrounding adults. (15 isn’t 7, but compare that to current attitudes/maturity.) Kipling was also a creature of his age, and the British Army in India was replete with twelve year old drummer boys, thousands of miles from home and engaged in doing a job.
Cats in particular (especially big cats) do indeed spend 24 hours in non-stop intercourse when females are receptive because (to take lions as an example) whoever’s in charge of the pride is the only one who breeds, and he is absolutely making sure that it’s his genes that carry on. (Consciously? Of course not, but instinctually.)
Cats (and goats, and pigs in particular) do indeed have peculiar looking adaptations, the proper use of which does indeed stimulate increased egg drops – but the attempt wouldn’t begin in the first place were the female not ready. Step 1 is that she goes into estrus. Step 2 is the male notices this (by smell). Step 3 is the male gets an idea he hasn’t had in weeks (having been unstimulated olfactorily) and the inevitable result follows. But it wasn’t recreational, and it took her receptiveness to begin it.
The canid family (dogs, wolves, coyotes, foxes), the ungulants, the equines – all only capable when female chemistry changes to alert the male that it’s time. (Whole lot of sniffing going on.)
Bonobos are interesting, but one of the reasons they’re interesting is because they may be unusual in this respect – like us. Orangs may be too.
Earl – you don’t know of anyone who believes that sex is just intended for reproduction? I’ll assume you’re neither Catholic nor Pentacostal. It was an absolute law of Christianity for its first 1,600 or so years, and remains a dominant thought in Catholicism to this day – and was absolutely church teaching when I went to Catechism. (Which was not that long ago!) I would also suggest that you flip on the tube any Sunday morning and tune in ANY of the Pentacostal mega-church services, you’ll find a whole bunch of people who are adamant about it.
Nobody ever said that the point of sex wasn’t reproduction – of course it is. In humans (and maybe bonobos and orangs), however, it may not be the whole point. For everything else it is.
I’ll amend: every single time – unless something misfires – your cat, dog, etc. indulges, pregnancy results. Ever owned an unspayed cat? I would feel quite safe in betting that every single time she came into estrus kittens appeared a few weeks thereafter. (If you ever had rabbits, or rats, same thing.)
Tiresias:
One of the ways that this Catholic better learns about his church’s teachings is to see how they are misrepresented by others.
Catholicism does not teach that sex is for procreational purposes only. It teaches that sex also has a unitive aspect, and that any married couple can engage in it with simply that in mind.
The only requirement attached to that is that the couple be “open to life.” In other words, any act of intercourse must remain open to the possibility of conception, which means imposing no barriers to it.
When I last checked, possibility does not mean the same as intention or duty.
Hi, Tiresias:
Part of my problem with your posts is the style…i.e.”every single time” in italics, when something a lot less emphatic would have expressed the truth of the matter better. The same with non-human mammals — we’ve gone from: “the animal kingdom cannot indulge in what’s called “recreational” sex – and that in fact includes the ape world.”….to: “Bonobos …may be unusual in this respect – like us. Orangs may be too.” Your arguments are hurt by extreme overstatement – one is tempted to stop paying attention when you’re so over the top.
Fiannly: your statement about “our religiously inclined ancestors” was “sex is only for reproduction of course, and if you do it otherwise it’s a sin!”
I think that this is false….I’m not saying that there aren’t a few religious people who look at it this way, but you implied that this was how “religious people” look at it, and in your most recent post you say that Catholics believed exactly this for 1600 years. Please support that with something besides an assertion – and NOT a report from somewhere, but something officially Catholic.
I’m not Catholic, but I would be shocked if it has ever been anything close to official that sex is “*only* for reproduction…and if you do it otherwise it’s a sin!” If you are trying to say that artificially interfering with the reproductive purpose of sexual intercourse is deemed sinful by the Roman Catholic Church, then we’ll have nothing to argue about. But the church recognizes, and I believe has long recognized, that sexual intercourse fulfills any number of purposes within a marriage – as “designed” originally. (And thanks, Charles, for the “inside report”….I was quite sure this was the case.)
Two words: Bonobo chimpanzees. They have sex all the time , hetero and homo, young and old–and most of it has nothing to do with making babies. When a female hits about the age of seven and begins her first fertile swellings, she leaves home and roams to find a new group. Nature’s way of keeping inbreeding out. Just google “bonobo sexuality,” and “bonobo sex and society” and you will quickly learn that humans are not the only ones.
Can you imagine the Shakers trying to recruit bonobos?
Well Charles, had they done so, they might have learned a thing or two, and still been in existence today…!
suek, you crack me up!
Earl-
“Ancestors” would seem to imply “past,” no? Are you seriously going to assert with a straight face that the Medieval church regarded sex as being for some purpose other than the purely reproductive?
Charles -
If the Catholic Church thought (seriously thought, I mean: not just lip service to maintain some position in a changing world. Seriously.) that there were other possibilities for what my Catechism always called “the Marriage Act” (always capitalized, for some reason) because they were too coy to just say “sex,” then contraception would not be a sin. Which it is, to this day.
Tiresias:
Please, I know you are a scholarly sort, but you are in no position to judge the “seriousness” of the Catholic Church, especially when said seriousness seems to depend on whether the Church agrees with your take on sex.
The reason why the Church refers to sex as the “Marriage Act” has nothing to do with being coy. It has everything to do with being consistent. If the Church teaches that sex is licit only within the marriage vow, then the only thing the Church need call it is “the Marriage Act.”
As I’ve pointed out — and you seem to pointedly evade — the Church clearly teaches the unitive aspects of the Marriage Act. However, since not even all the bonobos or street whores in the world can disprove my original assertion that the ULTIMATE purpose of intercourse is reproduction, I think you can understand why an institution that concerns itself with ultimate things might not be too impressed with your arguments for contraception.
“Two words: Bonobo chimpanzees. They have sex all the time , hetero and homo, young and old–and most of it has nothing to do with making babies.”- Sarah
Yeah, but do they enjoy it?
Brian, of course they do. Doing something all the time is a sure sign that the activity is enjoyable.
Just ask people who are always drinking beer, or eating food or picking at their scabs.
Tiresias: As I said earlier, I’m not Catholic. But, I’ve read what they say about the Marriage Act as well as their take on the role of sexual expression within a marriage, and their reasons for making artificial methods of contraception illicit are integrated and make sense, *if* you are willing to put yourself within their world view. I don’t see that the whole thing is Biblically required, but if I had to choose the Catholic way or the current culture’s way, I’d go with the Catholics in a New York minute. So long as you continue to judge Catholic practice from your own point of view, it’s going to look ridiculous or worse. But, it’s not fair to anyone to do this – no one looks good when looked at from someone else’s perspective.
Now, as to the medieval Church’s view of sex…..I can only speculate, since I haven’t studied the subject very deeply. However, I’d remind you that *YOU* were the one who was telling us exactly what they thought back then…..that for 1600 years, “sex is “*only* for reproduction…and if you do it otherwise it’s a sin!”
I said that I thought it was unlikely, based on what I actually do know about Catholic teaching. Perhaps you’re right, and neither I nor the Catholics on this thread know what we’re talking about….but it seems to me that since you’re making the claim that others are disputing, it’s up to you to show that the medieval Catholic church officially taught what you claim they believed.
Let me put this all together for you’all.
The Catholic church was merely taking pity on the male species during the middle ages.
Man comes home at the end of a 12 hour day slaving in the fields, chops a cord of wood, and sits down to read the local– well to sit down anyway. Last thing on his mind is sex, well maybe it’s on his mind, but he’s just too tired.
The woman, after scrubbing a dirt floor, cooking over a hot fire, throwing some clothes against some rocks at the local stream, and maybe carrying a pot or two of water a mile or two, is still ready for a little nookie (the female being the hardier specie of the two).
Husband reminds wife that there’s going to be children as a result of it (per church orders). That gives her second thoughts and him a reprieve.
Of course, that doesn’t explain the 12 children they already have.
Charles -
Humanae Vitae remains unrepealed. It’s pretty straightforward. Even in marriage, even if your intention is to unify and strengthen your marriage relationship, if you do so with birth control, it’s a sin. So it doesn’t seem to me to be a great leap to the idea that unifying and srengthening may not be the main (serious) idea. Therefore my conclusion: unifying and strengthening are all fine, but to be taken nowhere nearly as seriously as procreation.
http://www.Catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp
I would say – just a personal opinion – the nuns in my Catechism classes were being so darn coy they wouldn’t bring themselves to say the word. Maybe they were free-lancing and not reflecting the official attitude.
I would also say that most of the unitive, relationship-improving (or strengthening) stuff appeared in the mainstream post-Vatican II. (I would also say it did so in reaction to the dimminishing number of serious Catholic practitioners in the western world – particularly this country. So did they really mean it, or was it a sop for the masses? Dunno. Doesn’t look good.)
I do know that John Paul II, personally a lovely man, was a theological hard-ass – VERY conservative – and much of Vatican II came within an inch of being overturned as being way too liberal. (The man who is now Benedict XVI, also a lovely fellow, and even more conservative than John Paul, argued for doing so. He thought (and thinks? Who knows, he hasn’t said yet in the position of Pope) that it was way too liberal.
The ultimate purpose is self-evidently and obviously reproduction. I would simply assert that as far as the church is concerned, it seems to be the only genuinely permissible reason, since even if you’re doing it inside a marriage and with the stated intention of unifying and strengthening your marriage, you better not use birth control or it renders it – despite that other stuff – sinful.
On the other hand, if you engage with your wife and you both hate it, and it does nothing to unify or strengthen your relationship and may even tend to drive you apart, but you don’t use birth control – that’s fine. Everything’s peachy. No sin.
Could be just me, but I seem to be detecting a current in the belief-stream, here.
Tiresias: I take it that although you were raised Catholic, you no longer believe what the Church teaches. That’s your choice, of course. But, is that why you felt the need to use ad hominem in your arguments against the Pope? What you call being a “theological hard-ass” is seen by many as the Pope acting like someone who truly believed, and intended to conserve, what had been given him by the Church he loved and committed himself to serve…..
I’m not arguing with you about what you assert or think or feel….but about whether you’re accurately representing the teaching of the Catholic Church. You characterize their teaching in this area negatively, and you may be right — but if you’re going to do that, against those of us who say that the Church’s official beliefs and teachings are NOT being correctly characterized, then you need to provide actual evidence from Church publication of some kind.
I don’t know if the Church has an official position about whether it’s sinful to engage in sexual intercourse with a spouse whom you detest, but I’m quite sure I can guess what the preponderance of pastoral counsel would be…..that the sin is in allowing the relationship to deteriorate to this state, and admonition to lose the pride and whatever else is standing in the way of healing the marriage, so that the Marriage Act would once more be a source of support and pleasure to both partners.
Earl…
I think what Tiresias is saying is that because the Catholic church holds that to use birth control is a sin, therefore a couple cannot have intercourse _just_ for some purpose other than reproduction, and therefore, the Church condemns as sinful any sex other than that which _may_ result in conception. And from there, he proposes that the Church therefore condemns as sinful any sex which is not primarily reproductive in intent.
In a sense, he is right. The Church condemns as sinful any sexual intercourse that _excludes_ the possibility of conception. However, that doesn’t mean that the deliberative intent of each and every act _must_ be primarily reproductive – but rather than the possiblity is not excluded. And at the same time, he’s wrong – because each and every act _certainly_ has multiple motivators, from lust to recreation to absolutely nothing but reproduction..
So as someone said earlier, the problem here is the use of “always”, “only” “never” “must”…that kind of terminology.
sueK:
I want you to know that I always read you, if only sometimes quickly, but never without cogitating on what to me are must reads.
There, used ‘em all.
That’s a great compliment, Charles…
And returned equally!
I also appreciate your sense of humor…it’s very welcome along with the good thinking!
Tiresias:
I’m always intrigued when critics of the Church use political terminology. So, John Paul II and Benedict XVI are “conservatives,” eh?
Here I thought they were orthodox. But I guess when it comes to matters sexual, it’s necessary to pigeon-hole them so that we can =wink= =wink= more quickly discard their thoughts on the topic.
Now, on to your strawman:
“On the other hand, if you engage with your wife and you both hate it, and it does nothing to unify or strengthen your relationship and may even tend to drive you apart, but you don’t use birth control – that’s fine. Everything’s peachy. No sin.”
The Church would consider such a cirumstance an occasion of sin, even though you and your wife are open to conception. Why? Because it violates the unitive aspect of marriage by rendering the Marriage Act something unpleasant and alienating — certainly not what God intends.
“The ultimate purpose is self-evidently and obviously reproduction. I would simply assert that as far as the church is concerned, it seems to be the only genuinely permissible reason.”
It may “seem” to be such, but I don’t recall the Church ever saying so. I don’t understand how you can translate the Church’s desire that a couple be open to God’s will — the possibility of conception — to a demand that the couple must have sex with only that in mind for the act to be licit.
It’s like when I go a lecture. I know I have an intellectual obligation to be open to the possibility that my mind might be changed. But I am under no obligation to attend solely because it might be changed.
Earl -
I don’t characterize any of it as anything, I simply note it. And I think it’s pretty widely accepted that JP II was very conservative and traditionally oriented theologically, as is Ratzinger. Whether you find that negative or positive is of no concern to them, or me; and is entirely up to you.
As for the pre-Mediaeval and Mediaeval church, I don’t think there’s much mystery. And several hundred citations in the database. I won’t bury Bookworm’s page in that. However, as you like citations (me, too), herewith a few you can pretty easily lay hands on:
Pre-Mediaeval sources, early church fathers
1. Paul (Saul of Tarsus), Letters to the Cornithians; I Cor, 7:1 [he's really arguing for staying away from women altogether, but he supplied a lot of ammunition to Aquinas - who supplied a lot of ammunition to John Paul II.]
1. Jerome, Against Jovinian; I, 49
2. Seneca, Letter 88, 29 [not strictly a "father," but more than one of those who are so regarded read in his thoughts on Stoicism - he is often quoted by them.]
3. Musonius, Reliquae, 1st century, date uncertain. Can’t give you a page number: no idea what translation you’ll use. Will paraphrase: “Any act of intercourse not serving procreation is immoral. Only marital sex, and only when it’s aimed at procreation is keeping with good order. ["good order" is rather freely translated, but I like it because it fits and works for context.] Anyone intent simply on pleasure, even if he keep within the bounds of marriage, is reprehensible.”
4. Philo of Alexandria, On Joseph; 9, 43
5. Josephus, The Jewish War II; 8, 2-13 [Also not a church father, but observed the Essene and Gnostic sects that are supposed to have contributed to Christian thought.]
6. Philo of Alexandria, On The Individual Laws; 3, 2, 9
7. Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogus II; 10, 102, I
8. Ibid, 10, 99, 3
9. Origen, Commentary On Matthew; 15:3
10. Origen, In genesium homilaie; 5, n. 4
11. John Chrysostom, De virginitate; 14
12. John Chrysostom, In genesim homilaie; 18. I
13. Ambrose, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke; I, 44
14. Augustine, Enchiridion; 13, 41 – page depends on your translation
15. Augustine, Confessions IV; 2 – Rex Warner translation, NAL, 1963 – what page it is depends on your translation
16. Augustine, The Morality of the Manicheans; 18, 65 – can’t cite a page, depends on your translation
17. Augustine, The City Of God; XIV, 24 the whole chapter, so don’t need to cite a page
18. Augustine, Against Julian; 5, 46
19. Ibid, 4, 29
20. Augustine, face it: everything he wrote.
21. Gregory I (Pope), Responsum Gregorii 8th century letter to Bishop Augustine in England (not St. Augustine)
Let’s draw a line somewhere in the sand, and move from pre-Mediaeval:
Mediaeval, moving towards modernity, modernity
1.- Gratian, Liber viarum Dei; chapter 13, page numbers vary with translations
2. – Abelard, Peter – I won’t cite one; several of his letters to Heloise.
3.- Sixtus V (Pope), Effraenatam 1588; bull in which he threatened with excommunication and the death penalty(!) people who gave others or took themselves “contraceptive potions.”
4.- Aquinas, Thomas, Summa Theologiae II; II, q. 54, a. 8 ["The man who loves his wife too passionately contravenes the good of marriage and can be labeled an adulterer."]
5. – Alexander of Hales (d. 1241), Summa Theologiae; 2/2, 3, 5
6. – Catherine of Siena (St. – d. 1380), quoted in Contraception, John T. Noonan, 1965
7. Bernardine of Siena (d. 1444), Seraphic Sermons; 19, 1
8. – Innocent XI (Pope) in 1679 announced that marital relations “for pleasure alone” were not sinless. He did it from the balcony, not via encyclical, so there’s no specific citation except to reports.
9.- Pius XI (Pope) Casti connubii encyclical of 1930, translates literally as: “chaste marriage.” EARL! Do I need to tell you what it’s about? Okay, okay – two sentences: “… there is only one motive for contraception: It is practiced by those who lead a loose life (this is married folks, remember, these loose livers)… so as to have greater enjoyment in the sexual act. Some individuals lay claim to such criminal freedom because out of aversion for the blessings of chuildren they want to avoid the burden but enjoy the bliss.”
10.- Vatican II, Gaudium et spes – Pastoral Constitution on the Church in Today’s World; 51. [Often enough fidelity runs into danger when the number of children - at least, for the time being - cannot be increased" and no "immoral solutions" {that would be birth control} may be employed. The danger of infidelity is the first thing, evidently, that occurred to the council on the subject of contraception. The other danger the council sees is that: "the brave readiness to have more children will be endangered." Enjoyment? That didn't come up...]
11. – Paul VI, (Pope) Humanae Vitae; 1968
12.- John Paul II took up the notion of Aquinas’ about committing adultery with your own wife in the pursuit of something other than procreation in the general audience of October 8, 1980, and agreed with Aquinas. (reported in Der Spiegel; n. 47, 1980, p.9) [Just a guess, but I'd say supporting Aquinas on this one {Thomas died in the 13th century} could fairly be seen as conservative.]
Pre birth control pill era stuff: in 1853 Rome delivered a response (for the first time) about condom use. The question was: May a woman passively surrender to this sort of intercourse?” Answer? “No.” On June 3, 1916 Rome declared that if her husband approached her with a condom, the wife must resist her husband, “as she would a rapist.” (Quoted in Eunuchs For The Kingdom Of Christ, Uta Ranke-Heinemann)
Interesting case from Aachen, Germany. In 1935, a man had been forcibly sterilized. Later he wanted to get married. On January 22, 1944, the Roman Rota forbade him to marry, quoting an address given by Pope Pius XII on October 3, 1941, an address which harked back into history. Because the man couldn’t produce viable sperm (a requirement that goes back to Sixtus V in 1587!) he therefore had no right to marry, because obviously all he could do was enjoy sex, but not reproduce. NOT GOOD ENOUGH! Regrettably, this happened again in 1982 (not 1382; 1982) , as can be seen from reports that appeared in almost every newspaper in Germany (what is it with Germany?) The Westdeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung for December 3, 1982 reported that the Catholic church in Munich wouldn’t marry a young man and hius girlfriend. The young man suffered from muscular atrophy – and the priest declined to marry him unless he could produce a “certificate of potency.” (Don’t ask – I don’t know, either.) As reported, the reason cited by the priest was the husband’s “procreative incapacity.”
This has been enshrined, by the way. Look at the New Code of Canon Law (1983, canon 1084) which states that impotence makes a marriage invalid – because of course there can be no procreation – and not only says that, but narrows it by the addition of the little word coeundi, meaning that only the inability to engage in intercourse invalidates a marriage. In other words, pure fun leading to orgasm – disallowed. No intercourse – which can lead to reproduction – then no marriage.
I don’t know, Earl. I can drown you in this stuff if you really want me to. Bookworm probably wouldn’t thank me – but I’ll stick with my original statement, with one amendment: it evidently wasn’t just our “ancestors” who were of the opinion that sex had one purpose and one purpose only – and it wasn’t enjoyment. We can pull out samples a hell of a lot more recently than the ancestral.
Charles -
If you don’t recall the church ever saying so, then some of #55 will apply to you as well.
Tieresias
Can’t add much about Catholic doctrine, but Paul was certainly NOT suggesting anything along the lines you are suggesting. Paul was suggesting that people refrain from marriage because of the persecution of Christians by the Romans. He describes later in the chapter that celibacy would allow the individual to concentrate on serving God, since their loyalties wouldn’t be divided between God and family.
Correct – but celibacy in your mind doesn’t equate to staying away from women altogether?
Tiresias:
Wow! And they say Catholics are obsessed with sex.
You really have a jones on for the Catholic take on what the sex act should entail. I am trying to fathom your preoccupation with the ban on contraception, which to be truthful, seems (<–isn’t that one of your favorite words?) to approach a fixation.
That fixation would be the need to prove that sex could not possibly be sacred, or special or anything other than a desire to rut until the cows come home.
Several of your citations are suspect. Origen is hardly regarded as a mainstream source of Church theology, and Uta Ranke-Heinemann is a feminist crank who ranks with Mary Daly as a despiser — and distorter — of Church doctrine on sexuality.
You cite the Church’s conditions for what constitutes a licit marriage and make some snarky little comments about them, assuming that the rest of us will see the light like you and view them as self-evidently wrong. No need for Tiresias to show why or how!
My God, man, do you ever do actual work and say why you oppose something or why you think it’s wrong?
So, the pregnant question: Just what are your sexual ethics? What is the enlightened state of sexual being that, while it liberates you, holds you in thrall to this need to beat the Catholic horse over, and over and over?
I don’t think I’ve ever run into anybody more preoccupied with sex than you, and with such a compulsive need to assault any philosophy that tries to make it more than the casual bonobo romp you make it out to be.
Wait a minute, I take that back. Hefner and Snoop Dog come to mind.
Tiresias,
Yes, I would think that staying away from women would aid celibacy, but while Paul was suggesting this was the best course of action given what was happening to Christians, it wasn’t given as a commandment from God.
The very next verse he does reinforce the suggestion that people shouldn’t marry, put he points out that not everyone has the ability to remain single.
Paul later reinforces the idea that because of the crisis (the persecution of Christians) it would be better to remain single.
It’s pretty obvious that none of this has anything to do with sex and procreation, and it also very obvious that Paul recognized the need and benefit of sexual relations for married couples.
The image of the marriage relationship is used elsewhere to highlight the relationship God desires with us. Paul talks about the body of believers being Christ’s bride. God desires the sort of intimate relationship with us as is available to couples in the marriage relationship.
Tiresias
In all of your quotes, most fall into the category of condemnation of use of birth control of some sort. The two which do not, are the two German cases. In the case of the sterile but potent individual, I suspect that would not be the holding today. That is, I think that usually if a person does not deliberately choose an operation of sterilization for the purpose of not having children, but is open to having children if such a thing should occur, they would not be prohibited from marriage. The critical issue is the _motive_ for the sterilization. For example, one reason to invalidate a marriage is proof that one partner or the other intended before marriage that s/he would not have children.
In the second case which was inability to consummate the marriage – that has always been a reason to invalidate a marriage. I’m not sure just how the case arose, by the way, but the outcome would be that the couple could not have a religious marriage, and since they could not consummate the marriage anyway, there would hardly be any sin possible. The same is true of older couples. If the couple were both in their 70s, for example, it’s virtually impossible for children to result from their marriage, but if they are still open to the possibility, then there is no barrier.
As for the >>impotence makes a marriage invalid>>, that’s only if impotence exists before the marriage is consummated. If the marriage is consummated, then later impotence is irrelevant to the validity of the marriage.
In all cases, the Church’s position is that the primary purpose of marriage is the procreation of children and it is sinful to deliberately frustrate that purpose. If a couple doesn’t agree with this doctrine, they shouldn’t marry in the Catholic Church. That’s pretty simple. Civil law certainly doesn’t hold to the same ideals (except I think that inability to consummate the marriage is legal grounds for invalidation of the marriage), so if someone wants to marry, they just need to find another church that agrees with them or just have a civil ceremony. Nobody is _required_ to be Catholic. But if you claim to be Catholic, then _be_ Catholic.
It’s pretty stupid to claim to be a member of a religion one doesn’t agree with…or to expect that religion to change positions held over the centuries to ones that are _personally_ acceptable. If a person really believes that disobeying the rules of the religion they say they believe will result in their going to hell in the afterlife, then I can understand wanting the rules to be changed to meet their desires, but if same person also believes that the rules of their chosen religion are the result of God’s commandments, then how can the _religion_ change the rules? That’s pretty brazen. Or if the person believes that the rules are just man made…what value does the religion have?
Well, it’s the weekend, and I finally have some time for Bookworm’s blog. It’s nice to find that BrianE, Charles, and suek have provided the sort of replies that I would have liked to, but in some cases lacked the specialized knowledge to formulate.
The Pauline recommendations are the area where I feel most comfortable and BrianE has really done a good job there. Paul is one of the most misunderstood and (perhaps purposely) misconstrued of N.T. authors. In fairness, even Peter said that he wrote things that were difficult to understand.
I also noticed that most of the material in Tiresias’ post dealt with contraception – and the Church’s condemnation of contraception isn’t at issue. The condemnation results from the understanding that an essential part of accepting God’s will in our lives is not to frustrate the natural end of the Marriage Act, in order to enjoy only those parts that suit us. Again, not being Catholic, I’m not convinced that this is Biblically required, but I can’t see it as irrational, or perverse, or illogical, or aimed at damaging women, or any of the other canards thrown at the Church over it. Obviously, other people see it differently, but I haven’t seen a defense of other views that seem adequate to the task of convincing me.
I’m going back to making cranberry sauce for next week’s trip to my Mom’s – I’ve got five different recipes we’ll be trying. Yum.