What does working to have a stable and happy marriage have anything to do with anyone’s worldview, “comprehensive” or not?

than have a million orgasms..

Now I am really confused.

You do not believe sex is for procreation as you believe in abortion and birth control.

You do not believe sex is for love, or for strengthening and unifying marriage as you believe in pre-marital sex.

Now you say you do not even believe sex is for the fun of orgasms.

So if sex is not for procreation, love, or even for fun, what is sex for, and why is it so important to have sex? If there is not point in having sex, there is no point in having abortions.

“In my naivety I actually really don’t understand the use of sex as a weapon thing.”

I don’t understand it either. Aside from it being flat out wrong, I can imagine this “weapon” could very easily backfire.

The rest of your post was excellent, I totally agree with your avoidance of sexual conversations with your friends and am very amused at the University of Chicago research. Those poor Unitarians.

Joe

In talking to my friends I think using sex as a manipulation tool is normal in their relationships. After all that is what their wives learn on TV. The woman has to be in complete control and have all things done to her specifications or no sex for the husband.

Well, I wasn’t really speaking about specifics as much as principle.

Manipulation or not, the reality is that a spouse has a right to have intercourse.

I was not arguing that it is OK to deny your spouse if not so great scenarios. Not at all. My point was in a relationship built on love and respect, you do not see a lot of forcing and withholding to get ones way with sex. Many of the questions that arose were “well, is forcing your spouse ok then?” And the answer is no. But you are right, marriages are relationships with people. People are not perfect, and when you live with someone for many years, problems arise here and there. The problems do not give someone the right to mistreat the gifts God has given them.

I gotta tell you that when my husband and I came back to the Church, I stopped talking to my friends about sex, and mainly because of this reason. I got tired of hearing husband bashing complaints, and about their sex lives which was not only personal, but was always conversations about “how he wanted to, but I wasn’t going to” kinds of things. Actually, when I first learned about this in my newborn revert time, my friend said she went to confession and told the priest about her marital problems, and the priest told her outright to stop denying her husband.

In my naivety I actually really don’t understand the use of sex as a weapon thing. Do not get me wrong, I come from a family of human beings. My MIL is an alcoholic (recovering), and there has been at least one on my side who has sort of shaped the way we learned to deal with people. I am no stranger to seeing manipulation tools being used (it is a major pet peeve of mine as a matter of fact). But sex is just way too powerful to use simply to just get your way. And once you start using it as such, you are taking something God gave you to strengthen a marriage especially in hard times and using it to create more difficulty.

Outside of marriage sex devalues the human person, inside of marriage it makes each person completely valuable to the other.

In Kimeberly Hahn’s book, Life Giving Love she talks about when her husband first became Catholic, that caused friction between them, so to help their marriage, they made love more often. I cannot imagine being like “nope, you’re Catholic. I’m not having sex again with you until you become protestant again.”

Interestingly enough when I was young, I used to read a lot of women’s magazines. On one hand, for single women, there is tons of advice about birth control options, sexy lingerie, “how to please your man”…But when it comes to relationship advice, they stress “communication” (which is of course very, very important-no argument there), but to stay away from sex until your issues are resolved because you don’t want the relationship to be about sex. I guess this is good advice if you are not married, but very bad if you are.

I think it is ironic that the very people I know that use contraceptives to avoid having children actually have sex less because of how devalued it is in their marriage. You would think they would use contraceptives to have sex more, but it just isn’t the case with them.

Religious women in commited relationships also have better sex:

When University of Chicago researchers set out to discover which religious denominations have the best sex, they learned that the faithful don’t do all their shouting in church. Conservative Protestant women, their 1994 survey found, report by far the most orgasms: Thirty-two percent say they achieve orgasm every time they make love. Mainline Protestants and Catholics lagged five points behind. Those with no religious affiliation were at 22 percent. (Unitarians may not wish to read any further.)

Bravo Joe! Good observation. And this is an example of the “creeping death” of contraception. Of course, with NFP many people tend to howl about a little abstinance (or maybe a lot of abstinance for them). (Try telling a child they can not have something and that becomes the only thing they think about, until they mature a bit; same with some NFP people.) But their marriage sex life does not die. It remains fresh, perhaps due to a bit of retained romance; who knows. Romance or the need for it is a modern heresy and almost a capital sin. Nonetheless, they tend to have as much sex or even more than the average consistantly contracepting couple. Very ironic and counter-intuitive, but true.

Bravo Joe! Good observation. And this is an example of the “creeping death” of contraception. Of course, with NFP many people tend to howl about a little abstinance (or maybe a lot of abstinance for them). (Try telling a child they can not have something and that becomes the only thing they think about, until they mature a bit; same with some NFP people.) But their marriage sex life does not die. It remains fresh, perhaps due to a bit of retained romance; who knows. Romance or the need for it is a modern heresy and almost a capital sin. Nonetheless, they tend to have as much sex or even more than the average consistantly contracepting couple. Very ironic and counter-intuitive, but true.

“It all has to do with using sex as a manipulation tool which is really not allowed.”

In talking to my friends I think using sex as a manipulation tool is normal in their relationships. After all that is what their wives learn on TV. The woman has to be in complete control and have all things done to her specifications or no sex for the husband.

I have heard that guys use sex as a manipulation tool as well, but I have yet to meet one. They are probably too ashamed to admit it.

Manipulation or not, the reality is that a spouse has a right to have intercourse. In Catholicism we are taught that sex in marriage is the total giving of oneself to the other. It is a God given right acquired through the sacrament of marriage. Outside of marriage sex devalues the human person, inside of marriage it makes each person completely valuable to the other. In that light, why wouldn’t it be a sin to refuse it?

I think sex between married couples is like a sacramental. It is so important; it is actually a holy thing. After all in a marriage it is the total giving of oneself to the other which in turn allows us to be co-creators with God. It’s got holiness written all over it.

In that light it makes me see two things clearly. The first is that our sex driven culture believes that sex must abound before marriage, and then dissipate once marriage happens. Second, the culture wants to remove the holiness of sex from the marriage through contraception. Basically they take a holy thing, use it for something precisely the opposite of what God intended, and then tell us we are evil for not seeing it their way.

I think it is ironic that the very people I know that use contraceptives to avoid having children actually have sex less because of how devalued it is in their marriage. You would think they would use contraceptives to have sex more, but it just isn’t the case with them.

Joe

Post #55. Thanks for the information. It makes more sense to me now.

YCW,

Post #56. Without researching the reasons as of yet I cannot argue with you. I do feel compelled to agree with your points in this post. I will have to research later on this.

I think we both can agree though NFP though it might not be the ultimate goal, would be much better option than contraception/birth control.

Sometimes its hard to get to the final destination without taking gradual steps toward that goal.

Mike

I believe the other circumstance mentioned in Catholic teaching is “grave circumstances,” or somesuch unspecific thing.

Tell me, how is spacing children not contraception? I think that spacing is already built into the system through breastfeeding and a nine-month gestation. Why is man’s wisdom about how close in age children should be better than God’s? How much space is too much? 3 years? 5? 15?

Yes it is sinful to deny your spouse. But I think motive comes into a play a lot in this. I doubt it is sinful to deny your spouse when you are laid up with 102 fever and the flu. But chances are if your spouse loves you, they won’t ask then anyway.

It all has to do with using sex as a manipulation tool which is really not allowed. “Punishing” your spouse by withholding sex when you are annoyed with them would be an example.

Like I said, it really is not much of an issue in a non-abusive, loving relationship.

I had not known that it was considered sinful by Catholics to refuse sex

I’m Catholic and this statement is news to me. I do not think it is exactly correct.

Mike

As to whether sex is ever required, it is not. But I think that one has to question one’s motives if you are always abstaining at the most fertile time.

I agree with your statement. NFP should not be used as contraception and this is what the Catholic Church teaches. NFP should be used only in certain circumstances — one of those is spacing children and offhand I do not remember the others.

Mike

” I had not known that it was considered sinful by Catholics to refuse sex. Presumably it is also sinful, of course, to force it?”

Of course. Couples have to be in cooperation with each other.

Mortal sin robs your soul of grace, and makes you an enemy of God. If you die with a mortal sin on your soul, you go straight to hell. Venial sin is a lesser offense.

Yes, forcing sex is sinful as well as denying sex. Both are different forms of the same sin, using sex as a tool for manipulation, but not as a gift to get unite a marriage.

The priest says “Thank God I’m celibate.” The wife says “Here’s another fine mess you’ve gotten me into.” The potential husband says, “I’m screwed. Is it too late to enter seminary?”

They were not being serious. In the end, it is about whether you are truly open to life with your actions. If you are, then there is a good chance more children will be produced. The sin isn’t having a chuckle over it.

My husband and I joke all the time:
“Why do we have 5 people in our bed? I hate 5 people in the bed!” It is much better to joke about the discomfort of having two boys and a cat lying in between you and your spouse lengthwise then it is to be grumpy and ultimately contracept because you lack tools such as humor, and even the ability to talk to others to deal with it. Neither one of us would want the alternative: no one in the bed even if it meant a better night’s sleep. We wouldn’t trade those munchkins for the world.

Young Christian woman says “NFP denies a woman sex when she is most likely to enjoy it the most and to naturally desire it.
..Paul says that Christians may abstain from sex for prayer, but not that they can abstain to avoid having children.
..Why do Catholics lump all forms of contraceptives together and deny the huge moral difference between abortifacients and non-abortifacients? ”

“Oddly enough Young Christian woman there is nothing in Catholic teaching that says a wife can not use aphrodesiacs, including any of the modern creams or other concoctions that are supposed to act as a female Viagra; to extend peak desire from Phase II to Phase III.

Concerning Paul’s advise, remember it is advise and people who abstain during Phase II should pray. When Protestant couples take time off for periods of conjugal abstinance to pray (but not to avoid pregnancy,) how long do you think is too long before you both will run out and start affairs? Sorry for the bit of sarcasm, but Paul’s advise is a consideration, not a carte blanche liberty for contraception as many Christians seem to think.”

I do not believe that abstention for prayer is very common, and I would hope that the couple would end the prayer time rather than have affairs—that seems rather silly. Long enough that you would start affairs would be too long. I certainly don’t take the verse to mean anything about contraception. If you think I am arguing in favor of contraception, you have misread me. I do not think that it is acceptable for Christians to use contraceptives or abstention for the purpose of avoiding children in any but the most extreme circumstances.

“Concerning the huge moral difference between abortifacients and non-abortifacients, yes that is a point, but it is ironic that the difference between abortifacient and non-abortifacient methods for preventing pregancy are also the difference between systemic methods (like living in sin) and singular methods (isolated sins). So even if there is a Pill that is only a true contraceptive, it will not be good because to use it is to declare a long term use of contraception.

I know some very good Protestant Christian teachers, such as Dr. Albert Mohler are talking about this whole contraception mentality when they did not do so 15 or so years ago. However, they are trying to play Goldilocks triagulation: Supposedly the abortifacient methods (pill IDU, etc) are too easy and too cavilier; NFP is too hard, but barriers (the almighty condom, diaphragm, spermicide, 50’s stype methods, etc) are just right. Well, I doubt if that is going to be enough to make a difference, so I suppose what will condense out of all this amongst the mass of Christian people in the 21st century will be a hybrid system of Fertility Awareness Method (FAM) that has both NFP and barriers, with a steady decrease of barrier use as the couple matures.”

You may well be correct that a combination of FAM and barrier methods would be the result of this thinking. Certainly it is better than the pill.

Another interesting point is that the barrier methods affect the sex act itself, but a pill would not. See, if you were really against contraception you would not have any in your place of residence. If you went out and bought condoms and then used them at the appropriate time—well, there’s a certain amount of premeditation there, is there not? Certainly it is difficult to imagine a couple at the height of passion stopping, running to the convenience store, then coming home and completing the act. They’d either stop and control themselves if they did not want the results of sex—that is, if they are not open to life—or they’d do what they were going to do.

I’m not really sure that barrier methods are any more sinful in extreme circumstances than NFP. If having children were really, truly going to be devastating to a couple, I’d think that any risk would be too much risk; if not, why are they preventing kids? If money is a problem, and they live in a country as rich as the US, the church should be able to help them.

I had not known that it was considered sinful by Catholics to refuse sex. Presumably it is also sinful, of course, to force it? What is the difference between a regular sin and a mortal sin?

As for taking over the planet, I certainly hope that they do. I think that’s a big part of the reason that Christians shouldn’t be limiting their families. Twelve people would have more impact on the world than two.

Does God require a couple to have sex on a few specific days of the month (the three days when both the wife and husband are fertile)?

If so, what if one of the spouses is sick on that required day and would rather abstain from sex and focus on recovering from illness?”

I don’t believe God requires it, no. But I think that there is a problem when you specifically, purposefully avoid those days. I do not think that there is no circumstance where avoiding pregnancy is appropriate. But I don’t think anyone will have a good reason for avoiding kids if they start from, “Gosh, I really don’t want kids, let me think of a reason not to have any.” If they start from a position of, “I love kids, and I want to let them come to me and not hinder them, and I want to grow the kingdom of God, but I have this really severe issue—such as some sort of genetic disease that makes extreme disability or early death of the children likely, or that makes the wife’s death or permanent illness from pregnancy likely (although I haven’t heard of this being the case), or extreme poverty where the children are likely to starve—then one might be justified in using NFP to prevent pregnancy, although if it works as poorly as Pansy’s article suggests, one may wonder why they are risking it. Alternately, such a couple might pray together and think about the issue and decide that they are still called to have children, and I think that would never be sinful. I think that would be what I would decide.

As to whether sex is ever required, it is not. But I think that one has to question one’s motives if you are always abstaining at the most fertile time. I pointed out old-testament regulations because that was at one point what God required of his people, and therefore is at least more relevant than what is commonly thought in our culture or what we might ourselves think about children.