Apparently, using contraceptives turns couples into The Lockhorns. Or so this post from CL on Complementarian Loners suggests:
Contraception reduces sex to recreation – ‘fun’ without the deep joy that a mindfully lived life can bring – and thus this percolates through the relationship as a whole. All those little jabs at each other, the passive-aggressive ways of letting the other know that you are hurting, and the hiding are part of this mentality. We’ve all done it, just as most of us have contracepted.
I’m sure many people will think this a stretch, but when we withhold something as central as our fertility from each other, what else do we withhold? Self-censored thought is like contraceptive sex. Married couples are often reluctant to be completely honest with each other and are apt to become defensive with each other, ending up – or even starting out – as adversaries rather than team mates. Since the so-called sexual revolution (think about that term for a moment), women and men have not needed each other the way they used to. Separating sexual intercourse from procreation has also separated us from each other – and from our essential selves – in a real way.
Yeah, it’s probably better for married couples to eschew contraception entirely and have eight gazillion children. And then get a reality show.
Zanana – like this, maybe?
CL is right: Pecunium’s argument doesn’t follow her and 7man’s need to preserve their contradictions.
@Kitteh, that looks like…… . . . …. . . . ……misandry!
Like Zaphod. two heads on one body?
CL is right: Pecunium’s argument doesn’t follow her and 7man’s need to preserve their contradictions.
Life is a paradox.
So true. I don’t even know if I’m a particle, a wave, or misandry!
I’ve had deliberately procreative and deliberately non-procreative sex. And now, since I have had an Essure procedure done, I will never have procreative sex again. I can tell you that the “unitive function” of sexual intercourse with my husband was just as strong when I was on HBC as when we were trying to conceive.
So this Roman Catholic idea is completely subjective, and not as universal as the celibates who “conceived” of it (hee!) would have us believe.
Wow, that is totally fucking deep, man. Somebody call up the Hallmark people and get that shit on a card, STAT.
Tulgey – of course it’s misandry! Isn’t everything?
Though it’s probably not as misandrist (misandric? Misandryish?) as this. Because kittehs.
I’ve had deliberately procreative and deliberately non-procreative sex. And now, since I have had an Essure procedure done, I will never have procreative sex again. I can tell you that the “unitive function” of sexual intercourse with my husband was just as strong when I was on HBC as when we were trying to conceive—and it remains so, now that I am infertile.
So this Roman Catholic idea is completely subjective, and not as universal as the celibates who “conceived” of it (hee!) would have us believe.
I believe the term for this, as established by the great scholar Steelepole Butthorn, is Misanglophony.
LOL!
If one introduced My Little Pony* into it, would it be Misanglopony?
*disclaimer: I’ve only encountered MLP through Manboobz. 😉
Surely that should be Misanglospheric? Misanglophony just reflects Steelepole’s attitude towards the English language.
I know I have ALL THE JOY knowing that by taking birth control pills, I will not develop another fucking 9 centimeter cyst on my sole remaining ovary, which could then rupture, send me into sepsis and kill me (assuming that a new cyst is benign and not cancerous).
So CL? Fuck you, you fucking fuck, for implying that SAVING MY OWN GOD DAMNED LIFE AND HEALTH somehow makes me immoral and less than you. I’m sorry that you feel you have no value as a human being, but don’t expect me to fall down to your level. I matter. Keeping myself alive and as healthy as I can be matters. Any potential partner who doesn’t agree with that isn’t worth fucking, or even being friends with.
My MIL was brought up old-school Roman Catholic; she’s the second-youngest of nine. She’s told me a little bit about her parents, but somehow she never gets around to what a glorious union of souls they shared. She mostly talks about how they both worked themselves to the bone night and day because they had NINE KIDS to feed and clothe in post World War II Yugoslavia.
Don’t know anything really about my MIL’s own marriage (my husband’s dad died before we met), but she must have decided that some boundaries were in order; she called it quits after three kids.
And Happy Halloween to everyone here, too. The kids dressed as a Cinderella and a dinosaur for trick-or-treating. I wanted to be a mad scientist, but my daughter told me that was “too mean.” So I had to be a nice scientist instead (same costume, I just smiled more and said “thank you”).
Happy haunting, halloweenies! (if that’s your thing)
My award for best costume tonight goes to the little guy who came by dressed as “Thor from Cars”. Thor costume and cape, Lightning McQueen mask.
That’s odd. Presumably the idea is that one is meant to remain open to the possibility of having kids, and so their God can control when they have children. But if one is doing the calculation, playing the odds, isn’t that cheating, or is their God easily fooled? “But Lord, I wasn’t using contraception, it was just by luck that we only shagged at those times!”
“Duh… okay”.
Though I suppose the rhythm method does make it easier for, um, God to cause a pregnancy. But then, given they believe He literally made a virgin become pregnant, and Sarah bear a child in old age, surely a condom with its own non-zero failure rate isn’t going to stand in His way?
I was aiming for “Gangster” and hit “Grandpa” with my costume today. Just needed a copy of The Princess Bride and a passable Peter Falk impression.
Love wearing a dressy vest. Just wish I could find a fedora that suits me.
@ CL
A couple things:
If everyone stopped using contraception, we would see a lot more families with multiple children in rapid succession. Even if we assume that all of these families are financially capable of taking care of their many children, that many pregnancies can be really difficult on the body. What happens if the mother gets really ill because her body can’t handle that many pregnancies? What happens if some of her children have physical or mental issues related to being one of many? (ie, one of the Duggar children was 2-3 months premature)
Throughout history women have used different methods to discourage or abort their unwanted pregnancies. Were these women being “withholding” in their relationships?
Lastly, the whole MRM “philosophy” (which you appear to support on your blog) is partially based on flawed evolutionary psychology, and that is all about relationships being adversarial. Why do you think that the “manosphere” is about promoting harmonious relationships?
Heh, I’m just going to leave this quote from CL’s blog here:
She’s got a point. When you stand me on my head, I kind of look like a vase.
The ideal would be Inigo Montoya in a fedora.
(He looks a bit like Mr Kitteh, who’s a fedora-wearer.)
“Is woman not a vessel?”
Short answer: no.
“Is woman not a vessel?”
I’m a gaff-rigged cutter on a broad reach ….
http://youtu.be/LS75NtlH3gI
Oh, well if we’re talking that sort of vessel, I’ll be the Duyfken replica. 🙂
I thought that women were always the “weaker vessel” – doesn’t this imply that men are vessels too? O.o