Gibberish of the day!

[PhoneLobster]

tzor didn't frame that sentence in that his opinion, but of the Catholic Church,

Which he endorsed.

...which is really more of a proper attitude towards procreation in general.

[tzor]

Seeing as how I was not raised Catholic, I have no idea about the Church's view on things... If the issue with masturbation is actually chastity, not wasting of reproductive material, then what's the deal with contraception?

It’s all about chastity, although at a more complex level. This can be very difficult to explain, in part because it is normally described by celibate priests. Even when described by people like Scott Hahn, (who as far as I know has a normal sexual relationship with his wife Kimberly) it can be complex because it takes him an hour to explain his first sentence. (His first sentence is “Sex isn’t just ‘good;’ sex is ‘holy.’”)

Yes I know, at first glance it sounds loony. So instead of going through a number of pages to explain this in a “Christian” setting, I’ll just jump to the executive summary; sex is an act of mutual and reciprocal self giving which in turn is open to the act of creation.

Here we can see the first offense; masturbation is inwardly reflecting, with the purpose to bring joy to ones self. Contraception is a deliberate attempt to separate the act of mutual and reciprocal self giving from the openness to procreation. This can in turn into what is basically an act of mutual self giving into mutual self centered gratuity seeking.

(The second problem is that contraception is considered the gateway drug in terms of morality. If you are so determined to stop a pregnancy pre conception, why not stop it pre implantation, or even why not stop it pre birth?)

Here we also see the problems where the rubber hits the road. (That pun was not intended.) Sometimes some “contraception” is used for purposes other than preventing pregnancies – the use of the pill, for example. The principle of double effect then applies. It also gets odd because “abstinence” is not considered “contraception.” The use of deliberate abstinence during fertile periods to space pregnancies is actually considered an application of respect to ones partner. Back in the old days, Catholics used to get laughed at for “rhythm” methods, but through a more scientific understanding of menstrual cycles (Natural Family Planning) such abstinence becomes effective. Moreover, NFP is reversible; if you can know your cycle you can in turn use it to maximize your chance of pregnancy if that is your intent.

Naturally speaking, this ideal of mutual self giving is probably known by less than one percent of Roman Catholics (someone other than Scott and Kimberly must know this). It does seem a Pollyanna ideal; something out of a 1950’s television show. There is no way a bunch of celibate men can ever explain this. So most people flat out ignore it.

[tzor]

No, maj, the female system merely bleeds them out constantly or consistently, depending upon who you ask.

One can argue about that. This gets into the nature of what is “natural.” The general argument is that the natural state of a woman should be mostly pregnant or nursing. (We can argue that this in and of itself is a very odd state to maintain long term, but then again once we started walking upright pregnancy itself became a game of Russian roulette.) This significantly reduces both ovulation and menstrual periods.

It also makes an argument that women not actively trying to go into the cycle should probably be on reduced period contraception methods, but that is a side issue.

But on the other hand, it simply a natural part of the male anatomy that the male prostrate is tied to the naturally flowing spermatozoa and seminal vesicle fluid. Prostrate secretions account for 25%-30% of the volume of semen. When you consider the equivalent of this in the female anatomy (Wiki mentions the Skene's gland that secrets outside of the urethra, but the is also a web site that mentions secretions within the urethra as well. (See here for the female prostrate gland; go to here for the main page of this most informative web site. (In case the forum software edits the url the word after ‘the’ in the url is the female “c” word.)

[Kaelik]

So in other words:

1) Contraception is bad because it removes the act from procreation.
2) Rhythm method totally works super well.
3) It's okay not to be open to procreation when it's the Rhythm method though. Because we like it.

Trust Tzor to always bring in the crazy gibberish.

[Koumei]

1) Tzor is possibly more loony than ever.

2) Clitoris is not the c-word. The c-word is the one found in the county of Scunthorpe.

[PhoneLobster]

So Crissa. What was that Tzor was saying again? Hmm?

[Absentminded_Wizard]

More gibberish. Apparently, not mentioning Red Dawn until paragraph 23 and deigning to mention To Wong Foo is horribly slanted coverage.

Tim Graham[/url]][The Washington Post's] obituary for Patrick Swayze begins obviously by noting his big hits "Ghost" and "Dirty Dancing," but doesn't get to "Red Dawn" until paragraph 23. Even then, Bernstein wrongly suggests he had a supporting role.

My spouse has a betting pool on how long until they start to blame Obama for his death, being as he's an icon to the winger set.

-Crissa

That column was hilarious. I had no idea Red Dawn was such a breakout role for him. I never heard of Swayze until the Dirty Dancing hype.

[RobbyPants]

Because contraception reduces the obvious consequence of heterosexual intercourse--namely, pregnancy. The threat of pregnancy is enough to shy away enough people who would've otherwise had sex if there's no way to reduce it.

Thus the church achieves its goals of having less people fucking.

This stance of course creates a lot of other problems like, oh, AIDs and unwanted/unsupported pregnancies. Because people love to have sex and the threat of death and loss of livelihood will only deter a fraction of the people. But if you sufficiently lack empathy then hundreds of thousands of people getting HIV is a small price to pay to stop people from having sex, eh?

I have a friend who did something similar and ended up pregnant. My understanding was she didn't believe in contraception... yet she chose to have premarital sex.

Fuck. Pick both or none. If you're going to break one rule, you might as well do it intelligently.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

If I get turned on for any major length of time (more than an hour or two), and I don't get relief, I get some serious cramps. I have no idea why, but I do.

I didn't think women got turned on for that long a period of time. the women I've been with were basically "We do it now or you're not getting another chance for a long time".

And they were pretty good on that deal, every woman I've been with bragged about how sexual they were, then didn't want sex more often than once every couple of months. I figured that they were using a different metric on what constitutes being a sexual person than I did.

[tzor]

2) Clitoris is not the c-word.

Really? I thought the first letter of the word is "c." Silly me. (By the way I referenced this site on Nifty a while ago and the filter not only killed the word it killed the url name as well, that's why I mentioned it. Somehow they managed to get the right word.

[tzor]

So in other words:

1) Contraception is bad because it removes the act from procreation.
2) Rhythm method totally works super well.
3) It's okay not to be open to procreation when it's the Rhythm method though. Because we like it.

Trust Tzor to always bring in the crazy gibberish.

Not quite, close but no cigar.

1. Contraception is bad because it separates the act from the openness to procreation.
2. Rhythm does not work; NPF does work.
3. Abstinence doesn’t separate the act from openness to procreation; it just doesn’t do the act so it’s cool.

I used to have a musician friend who had a large family. When he announced that his wife was pregnant with what turned out to be their last child, one of the other musicians joked, “you’re a musician and you still don’t have rhythm?”

[RobbyPants]

I didn't think women got turned on for that long a period of time. the women I've been with were basically "We do it now or you're not getting another chance for a long time".

And they were pretty good on that deal, every woman I've been with bragged about how sexual they were, then didn't want sex more often than once every couple of months. I figured that they were using a different metric on what constitutes being a sexual person than I did.

All women you've dated = all women?

[Kaelik]

2) Rhythm does not work; NPF does work.

NPF is Rhythm.

Abstinence doesn’t separate the act from openness to procreation; it just doesn’t do the act so it’s cool.

I'm not talking about Abstinence you dumb fuck.

"1) Birth Control is bad because it removes openness to procreation.
2) This Birth Control works.
3) This Birth Control somehow doesn't count as removing openness for procreation because I said so!"

How the fuck is all birth control evil for doing something that your favorite type of birth control also does if it worked?

[CatharzGodfoot]

1. Contraception is bad because it separates the act from the openness to procreation.
2. Rhythm does not work; NPF does work.
3. Abstinence doesn’t separate the act from openness to procreation; it just doesn’t do the act so it’s cool.

I don't know what NPF is (National Pro Fastpitch? National Parkinson Foundation? National Psoriasis Foundation?), but I do know what Tzor is really saying: the Good Christian thing to do is pull out at the last moment and come on your wife's face.

[tzor]

I don't know what NPF is (National Pro Fastpitch? National Parkinson Foundation? National Psoriasis Foundation?), but I do know what Tzor is really saying: the Good Christian thing to do is pull out at the last moment and come on your wife's face.

That’s because you don’t know how to LOOK UP, as I had defined the term in my previous post. The Catholic position is the same as the bank disclaimer; “substantial penalties for early withdrawal.”

NFP: Natural Family Planning

[tzor]

NPF is Rhythm.

No, it's snot. <--- This is not a typo, but it is a pun.



Avoidng intercourse during preceived fertile periods is abstinence, although some tend to call it periodic abstinence.



Blah blah (did you check the link in the above post) mucus is mucus, nasal or cervical, it matters ... snot.

[Kaelik]

No, it's not.

Yes it is. Not having sex when it will get you pregnant is exactly like not having sex when it could get you pregnant.

Avoidng intercourse during preceived fertile periods is abstinence, although some tend to call it periodic abstinence.

Once again, having sex when you know it's not going to get her pregnant is bad, because it's removing the openness to procreation.

But as long as you have sex when you know it's not going to get her pregnant, it's okay, because it doesn't remove the openness to procreation.

Oh wait. Yes it fucking does.

And shut up with your terribly unfunny jokes that you have to go out of your way to explain. No one cares.

[RobbyPants]

Avoidng intercourse during preceived fertile periods is abstinence, although some tend to call it periodic abstinence.

Isn't that separating the intercourse and procreation?

[tzor]

Avoidng intercourse during preceived fertile periods is abstinence, although some tend to call it periodic abstinence.

Isn't that separating the intercourse and procreation?

NO that’s like saying a diet separates eating from digestion.

Not eating implies no digestion because the one leads to the other. But not eating does not isolate the process of eating from digestion.

Bt the way, if you want to consider the separation of eating from digestion, then consider the Romans …

That's not to say the Romans were unfamiliar with throwing up, or that they never did so on purpose. On the contrary, in ancient times vomiting seems to have been a standard part of the fine-dining experience. In his Moral Epistles the Roman philosopher Seneca writes, Cum ad cenandum discubuimus, alius sputa deterget, alius reliquias temulentorum [toro] subditus colligit, "When we recline at a banquet, one [slave] wipes up the spittle; another, situated beneath [the table], collects the leavings of the drunks." OK, it doesn't literally say puke, but come on. The orator Cicero, in Pro Rege Deiotaro, says matter-of-factly that Julius Caesar "expressed a desire to vomit after dinner"(vomere post cenam te velle dixisses), and elsewhere suggests that the dictator took emetics for this purpose. Caesar's hosts wanted to take him to the bathroom, since they supposedly had a squad of assassins waiting there (at the time of Cicero's speech, King Deiotarus was on trial for this alleged attempt on Caesar's life), but he decided to go to his bedroom instead.

Not having sex implies not get pregnant, but not having sex does not isolate the process of sex from the process to being open to getting pregnant.

[RobbyPants]

How is that better than birth control, again?

[Crissa]

Wow, I don't have to go looking for gibberish, it just sorta... seems to be self-sustaining.

Hrm.

I've never heard the version of abstinence which involves having intercourse.

-Crissa

[Kaelik]

So Tzor.

When someone has sex with their wife, and because they used The Fucking Rhythm Method, and yes it is the same damn thing, they know that she won't get pregnant, Is the actual sex they are actually having that they definitely don't want to result in procreation and that is the specific reason they choose right now to have sex, open to procreation?

And no one but you is talking about separating eating from digestion, because that's your false analogy because you read a book about natural law and natural lawyers don't have actual arguments so they just use bullshit analogies all the damn time instead.

Sorry, been through that bullshit session before. Heard the sum total of all arguments for this shit, which also happens to all be fucking anaologies, and apparently the same damn ones.

You want to tell me about how sex before marriage is like a piece of tape too? Answer the questions people actually ask instead of trying to divert into bullshit tangents to escape the logical implications of your premises.

[Maj]

On Swayze: I personally thought he was hysterical in Keeping Mum, but I have a weird sense of humor.

Tzor: Thank you for your explanation. What I'm curious to know is that if Natural Family Planning is an acceptable form of birth control, then would this cool little item be considered acceptable? (I wish I could afford one - it's not covered by insurance.)

I didn't think women got turned on for that long a period of time. the women I've been with were basically "We do it now or you're not getting another chance for a long time".

Oh, goodness... I'm not above looking at some inspiring imagery every now and again, or participating in some anticipatory roleplaying (MTP, not D&D - rolling dice is not a good thing in this situation). And then I usually have to wait until nap time to do something about it.



It's like foreforeplay.

And they were pretty good on that deal, every woman I've been with bragged about how sexual they were, then didn't want sex more often than once every couple of months. I figured that they were using a different metric on what constitutes being a sexual person than I did.

I prefer about 60 times more frequently than that.

[RobbyPants]

When someone has sex with their wife, and because they used The Fucking Rhythm Method, and yes it is the same damn thing, they know that she won't get pregnant, Is the actual sex they are actually having that they definitely don't want to result in procreation and that is the specific reason they choose right now to have sex, open to procreation?

And even if we could say "well, technically, she could get pregnant any time of the month", that would imply that contraception is okay because it doesn't work 100% of the time either. So, having sex with contraception technically isn't separating intercourse from procreation; it just makes it really fucking unlikely...

...sort of like the rhythm method or TFP or whatever.

[Absentminded_Wizard]

NFP is basically the new, improved Rhythm Method. The objective is the same (only have sex when the woman isn't ovulating), but the methods are more sophisticated (things like monitoring the woman's temperature instead of checking the calendar against known data about the woman's menstrual cycle). I don't have any statistics, but it probably is more effective than the old-fashioned rhythm method, if for no other reason than it can be used by women with irregular periods.

However, tzor still hasn't given a good reason why having sex when the woman isn't ovulating is any less narcissistic and evil than having sex while wearing a condom.