Is contraception really the answer to fulfilling sexual desires?

[Jethro Bodine]

Modern contraception has made sex virtually consequence free and opened up the door to unrestrained fulfillment of sexual desire (talking about married sex here, of course) ...and we get mad when that doesn't happen.

Maybe the potential for pregnancy was a very valuable restraint God built into sexual activity, especially men, that kept us from being mastered by the desire for it and helped us handle it more responsibly.

What do you think, and why?

 

[farouk]

Modern contraception has made sex virtually consequence free and opened up the door to unrestrained fulfillment of sexual desire (talking about married sex here, of course) ...and we get mad when that doesn't happen.

Maybe the potential for pregnancy was a very valuable restraint God built into sexual activity, especially men, that kept us from being mastered by the desire for it and helped us handle it more responsibly.

What do you think, and why?

Just to take up an aspect of this, should women really be expected to give birth to 10 to 15 children (or die first of exhaustion in the process) just because a 'religious' (but enthusiastic) man won't wear a condom? Such a situation was not uncommon many years ago.

 

[reba]

Yes Jethro .. The best joys are ones with responsibilities... We may dream of a vacation lasting for ever but how many of us REALLY want that?

I was a teenager before the PILL .... In those days a date was not always a sex hook-up. STDs were not rampant, pregnancy was a concern, and a deterrent, none of us girls wanted to go spend the next school year with Aunt Alice.... I am not trying to paint a picture of total innocence of those days... That would not be real. We did consider that he could be the father of our child... Clausal sleeping around was not the norm.. Many of us HAD to marry, some of us had to marry so we wouldn't have to marry :gah

Sex has been happening sense creation, it is nothing new. We have devalued sex made it a sport.. It should be the physical side of joining of man and woman together emotionally, and for Christians spiritually sorta.

"

Maybe the potential for pregnancy was a very valuable restraint God built into
sexual activity, especially men, that kept us from being mastered by the desire
for it and helped us handle it more responsibly.

This is right on except for the especially men phrase... We girls knew who would be raising a child or giving one up...

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Just to take up an aspect of this, should women be expected to give birth to 10 to 15 children (or die first of exhaustion in the process) just because a 'religious' (but enthusiastic) man won't wear a condom?

One thing I have noticed. More men and women do not understand the responsibilities that used to naturally go along with a married, sexual relationship, like the possibility of lots of children. And they can't handle, even resent, those consequences when they do turn up in a marriage relationship. IOW, our expectations are unrealistic because of what we expect contraception to have removed from marriage, but when those things we sure would not happen do happen our world crumbles and we complain about the things we should have been more aware of to begin with.

Such a situation was not uncommon many years ago.

I do think it's safe to say that it was actually the women who rebelled against the natural consequences of sex between a man and his wife, not so much the men. They seem to have been the driving force behind contraception and removing the burden of children.

So, instead of the men now pounding the walls in frustration of not being able to have sex on demand when contraception says they can, it used to be the women pounding the walls in frustration over having endless pregnancies, lol?

 

[farouk]

...
"This is right on except for the especially men phrase... We girls knew who would be raising a child or giving one up...

I kind of interpreted the question as being for married couples, but maybe it wasn't. Maybe the note about participants needing to be married, was what threw me a bit.

Anyway, re. 'especially men', 'it' shouldn't be regarded as a 'free ride', while the wife gets to be a perpetual incubator.

 

[farouk]

One thing I have noticed. More men and women do not understand the responsibilities that used to naturally go along with a married, sexual relationship, like the possibility of lots of children. And they can't handle, even resent, those consequences when they do turn up in a marriage relationship. IOW, our expectations are unrealistic because of what we expect contraception to have removed from marriage, but when those things we sure would not happen do happen our world crumbles and we complain about the things we should have been more aware of to begin with.




I do think it's safe to say that it was actually the women who rebelled against the natural consequences of sex between a man and his wife, not so much the men. They seem to have been the driving force behind contraception and removing the burden of children.

So, instead of the men now pounding the walls in frustration of not being able to have sex on demand when contraception says they can, it used to be the women pounding the walls in frustration over having endless pregnancies, lol?

J:

You've not answered my question and you don't have to, either; I was just putting forward some aspects of the matter.

But, re. 'like the possibility of lots of children' I hope you don't seriously think that a woman ought just to be content to wear herself out with 10 to 15 pregnancies (or die in the process) just because a husband won't roll a condom, or whatever?

 

[Claudya]

Maybe the potential for pregnancy was a very valuable restraint God built into sexual activity, especially men, that kept us from being mastered by the desire for it and helped us handle it more responsibly.

You can still leave out the contraceptives and restrain yourself if you prefere that.
Some couples prevent pregnancies only by observing the woman's monthly cycle, figure out when the fertile days are and have no sex during those days (or use condoms during those days, or resort to other ways to pleasure each other). It requires a lot of discipline of both. But christian couples seem to like this "natural" way of family planning.

But thinking of how many children some women had in earlier days I seriously doubt the risk of a pregnancy really kept people from being mastered by their sexuality. My grandmother had 10 siblings. I guess my great-grandparents were mastered.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Yes Jethro .. The best joys are ones with responsibilities... We may dream of a vacation lasting for ever but how many of us REALLY want that?

No, I guess not. I lived in sunny Florida for twenty years. I learned to hate endless sunny days!

I was a teenager before the PILL .... In those days a date was not always a sex hook-up. STDs were not rampant, pregnancy was a concern, and a deterrent, none of us girls wanted to go spend the next school year with Aunt Alice.... I am not trying to paint a picture of total innocence of those days... That would not be real. We did consider that he could be the father of our child... Clausal sleeping around was not the norm.. Many of us HAD to marry, some of us had to marry so we wouldn't have to marry :gah

You're capturing the heart and soul of what I'm saying. Right on, sis.

My heart aches that it is no longer this way and we have become such an unhappy and frustrated people for it. I say this with genuine sadness in my heart.

Sex has been happening sense creation, it is nothing new.

Hmmm...creation seems to have ended in my house, then. LOL.

"This is right on except for the especially men phrase... We girls knew who would be raising a child or giving one up...

I believe that. I said 'especially men' because for any given man and woman who is having sex it seems the man is the one out of the two who has not given as much thought to the consequences of doing that. That's a compliment to you ladies. You've probably thought it through a little more and not been as mindlessly driven by blind sexual desire to do it. Or am I wrong about that these days?

 

[farouk]

You can still leave out the contraceptives and restrain yourself if you prefere that.
Some couples prevent pregnancies only by observing the woman's monthly cycle, figure out when the fertile days are and have no sex during those days (or use condoms during those days, or resort to other ways to pleasure each other). It requires a lot of discipline of both. But christian couples seem to like this "natural" way of family planning.

But thinking of how many children some women had in earlier days I seriously doubt the risk of a pregnancy really kept people from being mastered by their sexuality. My grandmother had 10 siblings. I guess my great-grandparents were mastered.

Claudya:

Well, I think there is a big difference between using it within marriage and using it outside marriage.

For the Christian, presumably the restraint exercised prior to marriage, can be exercised, albeit in rather different circumstances, within marriage also.

But it's a big question with all sorts of aspects.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Anyway, re. 'especially men', 'it' shouldn't be regarded as a 'free ride', while the wife gets to be a perpetual incubator.

But that's the point I'm making. Contraception makes us, men particularly, think it's a free ticket to ride a mindless, on demand, indulgence of endless sex. And because we perceive it that way we've actually increased the very frustration we were sure we'd not have--by being able to have more sex--when the spouse says 'no'.

 

[farouk]

But that's the point I'm making. Contraception makes us, men particularly, think it's a free ticket to ride a mindless, on demand, indulgence of endless sex. And because we perceive it that way we've actually increased the very frustration we were sure we'd not have--by being able to have more sex--when the spouse says 'no'.

J: Oh okay so you're not challenging that sometimes the wife will prefer not to.

I see.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

But, re. 'like the possibility of lots of children' I hope you don't seriously think that a woman ought just to be content to wear herself out with 10 to 15 pregnancies (or die in the process) just because a husband won't roll a condom, or whatever?

No, I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is that possibility should be considered before a woman decides when, and to whom, they get married. It's kinda what Reba was saying. It's no so much about controlling consequences. It's about soberly knowing the potential for those consequences and approaching the decision to have sex (in marriage of course) that way. I'm talking about for both men and women in the same circumstances. The man has to consider that he may not get all the sex he wants. The woman has to consider that he may. This is the rational thinking that I suggest has disappeared because of contraception. I suggest thinking it through this way produced less frustration for men and women then, than the freedom of contraception produces in relationships today. You follow?

 

[farouk]

No, I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is that possibility should be considered before a woman decides when, and to whom, they get married. It's kinda what Reba was saying. It's no so much about controlling consequences. It's about soberly knowing the potential for those consequences and approaching the decision to have sex (in marriage of course) that way. I'm talking about for both men and women in the same circumstances. The man has to consider that he may not get all the sex he wants. The woman has to consider that he may. This is the rational thinking that I suggest has disappeared because of contraception.

J: But why? (re. hightlighted part).

 

[Claudya]

But that's the point I'm making. Contraception makes us, men particularly, think it's a free ticket to ride a mindless, on demand, indulgence of endless sex. And because we perceive it that way we've actually increased the very frustration we were sure we'd not have--by being able to have more sex--when the spouse says 'no'.

I see your point, but I think the availability of the pill has changed the female sexuality way more than the male.
Before contraception men could have sex and get away without having to face the consequences. Women were the ones that had to worry about pregnancy. Thus the costs of having sex were much higher for a woman than for a man. That's why women seemed to have a lower sex drive than men, the worries about their future with an unwanted child with no husband just simply ruined it for them.
But since hormonal contraceptives exist women have it in their hands whether they get pregnant or not (at least in theory). With the existence of reliable condoms std's are much less of a risk, too. So women can now indulge in mindless on demand sex, like previously only men could.
So I think if modern contraceptives spoiled someone it's not men, but women that do now think they have a free ticket without responsibility.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

You can still leave out the contraceptives and restrain yourself if you prefere that.

I actually think that's a good thing for Christian couples to consider. The man (or woman) can get mad about not having sex, or, because he/she knows the possibility of bringing a new life into the world, he/she can restrain their sexual desire and not take it out on his poor spouse and be at peace about the way this works in life. But how can the man who has the 'free ticket to ride' come to this place easily?

Some couples prevent pregnancies only by observing the woman's monthly cycle, figure out when the fertile days are and have no sex during those days (or use condoms during those days, or resort to other ways to pleasure each other). It requires a lot of discipline of both. But christian couples seem to like this "natural" way of family planning.

Yes, it's a good way to 'plan for a family', lol. I have four kids...thanks to the ovulation method of birth control. I love my kids dearly and don't regret having them (I deeply regret the world they came into). It's just that the ovulation method did the exact opposite for us of what it was supposed to do, lol.

During those days we both made a rational decision to accept the consequences of our behavior if the method did not work exactly as advertised. It was a cherished and wonderful time of life for me in our marriage, not a regretful time. Sex during that time carried the very real possibility of having another child. Hence, less frustration of not being able to do it whenever I wanted. (Note I did not say absence of frustration, lol).

But thinking of how many children some women had in earlier days I seriously doubt the risk of a pregnancy really kept people from being mastered by their sexuality. My grandmother had 10 siblings. I guess my great-grandparents were mastered.

Okay, good point to consider. I knew it would come along sooner or later.

Does a big family automatically equate to being mastered by sex? I wouldn't say so.

Are big families really a bad thing? I'm one of six kids. Six because the seventh died at an early age. I had a wonderful childhood.

 

[farouk]

I see your point, but I think the availability of the pill has changed the female sexuality way more than the male.
Before contraception men could have sex and get away without having to face the consequences. Women were the ones that had to worry about pregnancy. Thus the costs of having sex were much higher for a woman than for a man. That's why women seemed to have a lower sex drive than men, the worries about their future with an unwanted child with no husband just simply ruined it for them.
But since hormonal contraceptives exist women have it in their hands whether they get pregnant or not (at least in theory). With the existence of reliable condoms std's are much less of a risk, too. So women can now indulge in mindless on demand sex, like previously only men could.
So I think if modern contraceptives spoiled someone it's not men, but women that do now think they have a free ticket without responsibility.

Claudya:

I reckon the question still arises, Which women, married or not?

There are two separate ball games there.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

J: But why? (re. hightlighted part).

Because it's a reality of being married. The consequences of which we have removed from our modern societies and, thus, increased the frustration for ourselves of not being able to have sex on demand (when the spouse doesn't want it for whatever reason).

The woman who has considered this reality (the potential for lots of children) before she married, she is not going to be nearly as disturbed if it does happen as much as the women who did not expect it at all because of the freedom of contraception.

 

[Claudya]

oops I just noticed this is the forum I am not allowed to post in because I am single.
So this will be my last post here. I hope the mods won't delete my posts, since it is more of a "theoretical" topic.

I actually think that's a good thing for Christian couples to consider. The man (or woman) can get mad about not having sex, or, because he/she knows the possibility of bringing a new life into the world, he/she can restrain their sexual desire and not take it out on his poor spouse and be at peace about the way this works in life. But how can the man who has the 'free ticket to ride' come to this place easily?

Well it's never a "free ticket" anyway. Even within a marriage you will always need your partner's consent to have sex, otherwise you will commit an act of sexual violence (not sure about the American law, but in Germany where I live rape within a marriage is a punishable offense like any other rape). And I'm convinced most men wouldn't take pleasure in violating their wives. So any reason someone has to not want to have sex on a particular day is valid. No matter if it's a headache, stress, lack of libido or risk of pregnancy.

Yes, it's a good way to 'plan for a family', lol. I have four kids...thanks to the ovulation method of birth control.

Yeah a friend of mine prevented both her sons with natural family planning. She's very happy she's got them though. But she's on the pill now.

I love my kids dearly and don't regret having them (I deeply regret the world they came into). It's just that the ovulation method did the exact opposite for us of what it was supposed to do, lol.

Yeah, kids are awesome and you are a lucky guy to be blessed with so many kids!
You know the dangerous days to have sex are the 5-7 days BEFORE the ovulation, right? ;)
Well it's not a totally save method, but it's the method I will prefere to use if I ever get married. I guess the thought that we might create new life would make it a thousand times more exiting anyway.

Okay, good point to consider. I knew it would come along sooner or later.

Does a big family automatically equate to being mastered by sex? I wouldn't say so.

Are big families really a bad thing? I'm one of six kids. Six because the seventh died at an early age. I had a wonderful childhood.

Of course big families can be planned just as big as they are. But from what I heard my great-grand parents lived in rough times economically. They were working class people and I really can't imagine they planned to have 11 kids. Or maybe I lack imagination... unno But I'd rather think they had sex and didn't worry much.
Unwanted pregnancies just happened in pre-pill days. People knew what could happen and ignored it or took the risk. It's not like men in those days were totally self disciplined and today's males are either sex addicted monsters, or frustrated because their wife won't let them have it.

 

[Claudya]

Claudya:
I reckon the question still arises, Which women, married or not?

Both. There are married christian couples that use condoms for whatever reasons.
But I guess the std issue is more of a problem for people that are frequently changing their partners. I was a bit like that in my young and foolish past before I became a christian, so I'm not gonna condemn and judge anyone. It's actually good that there is a way those people can protect themselves.

Since I'm not allowed to post here this is really gonna be my last post in this thread!

 

[farouk]

Because it's a reality of being married. The consequences of which we have removed from our modern societies and, thus, increased the frustration for ourselves of not being able to have sex on demand (when the spouse doesn't want it for whatever reason).

The woman who has considered this reality (the potential for lots of children) before she married, she is not going to be nearly as disturbed if it does happen as much as the women who did not expect it at all because of the freedom of contraception.

J:

So you think that any woman must just be resigned to a husband just indulging himself whenever he feels like it?