Let's talk about sex, baby.

[geocajun]

You did misinterpret, my position is in black and white, nor "argument" was "implied" "clearly" or otherwise. You wrongly inferred and it is clear why.

Alright, I said:

I'll agree that the folks who claim abstaining for 2-3 weeks a month makes their marriage stronger are engaging in some serious self-deception. Imagine how great their marriage would be if they just abstained forever?

to which you responded:

Or maybe they really get it and really understand.

Any logician would analyze that your premise and conclusion (which constitute your argument) are as follows:

Premise: You [geocajun] don't really get it, nor really understand.
Conclusion: abstaining for 2-3 weeks a month DOES make marriage stronger.

If I'm wrong, show me how, by drawing out your actual premise and conclusion. As it is, your premise is just plain wrong.

 

[MikeK]

So, Curious, your argument is that "some people don't have sex then anyway, so it shouldn't matter to anyone?" Help me out here. These are fertile days that must be abstained upon if using NFP to avoid a pregnancy, but not with any other method. Why should they not be included in a count of days that NFP forces one to abstain? Curious indeed.

Does anyone know if Protinus has a conservative sock?

 

[geocajun]

If I were Geocajun, I would change my "Legend" custom user title to "Assassin" at this point. Sadly, he's a better man than I and probably classy enough not to do so.

that would be funny

Posts about how wonderful NFP is for a relationship do make it difficult to question it's cult and they do make you start to question yourself. But, as my wife and I started to actually speak about this stuff with out Church friends, my gosh, it appears we really aren't alone! It seems most people that I speak with resent it, at least some of the time. Most people understand that handing your wife a thermometer in the morning and filling out a chart for her does not appreciably strengthen what should already be a rather strong bond, nor does it make you appreciate her body in a deeper way or any of the other side benefits that NFP get's (over)sold with. Most people also kinda fear that there has been a very real attempt by some to repeat this mantra until it becomes true. That doesn't work.

If NFP if all we can use licitly, fine, so be it. Don't try to tell me I should be happy about it though because this package sucks. Sell it as the cross to bear that it is.

Have you read this article? http://www.crisismagazine.com/december2004/crocker.htm

I found it hilarious, but most NFP teachers were outraged. It is right on IMO.

 

[CuriousInIL]

Any logician would analyze that your premise and conclusion (which constitute your argument) are as follows:

Premise: You [geocajun] don't really get it, nor really understand.
Conclusion: abstaining for 2-3 weeks a month DOES make marriage stronger.

If I'm wrong, show me how, by drawing out your actual premise and conclusion. As it is, your premise is just plain wrong.

Ok
First, where you start to go wrong is in presuming that I was promoting a premise but I was not, I was refuting one; yours.
Your premise was

the folks who claim abstaining for 2-3 weeks a month makes their marriage stronger are engaging in some serious self-deception.

And, I defended them and said I thought that was not true. I would be willing to limit that statement to it is not true for at least one couple in the world and therefore your premise is false.

 

[geocajun]

Ok
First, where you start to go wrong is in presuming that I was promoting a premise but I was not, I was refuting one; yours.

You 'refuted' mine, by offering your own. Why are you doing this to yourself? Is just saying "You're right geo, you did properly analyze my argument" so hard?

Your premise was

That statement had both an implied premise and a conclusion. Can you show me your 'crazy logix skillz' and tell me which is which?

And, I defended them and said I thought that was not true. I would be willing to limit that statement to it is not true for at least one couple in the world and therefore your premise is false.

I must have missed the part where you defended anyone but yourself. If the weakness in my argument was that it made no exceptions for really "non-delusional holy abstaining people with stronger marriages due to not having sex" then that much is true, but that isn't what your initial argument stated.

 

[CuriousInIL]

You 'refuted' mine, by offering your own. Why are you doing this to yourself? Is just saying "You're right geo, you did properly analyze my argument" so hard?That statement had both an implied premise and a conclusion. Can you show me your 'crazy logix skillz' and tell me which is which?

I must have missed the part where you defended anyone but yourself. If the weakness in my argument was that it made no exceptions for really "non-delusional holy abstaining people with stronger marriages due to not having sex" then that much is true, but that isn't what your initial argument stated.

Yes, it is.

BTW, no part of this has been a defense of myself, I defended the non-delusional NFPers that you painted with a way-too broad brush.

If you are dead set on me setting up my comment as a Premise and Conclusion, try this:

Premise: Geo is wrong in his statement that "the folks who claim abstaining for 2-3 weeks a month makes their marriage stronger are engaging in some serious self-deception" because there is at least one couple in the world who are "non-delusional holy abstaining people with stronger marriages due to not having sex."

Evidence in support: Geo now admits this.

Conclusion: Geo was wrong.

Now, is NFP hard? Of course. Do some folks abstain for 2-3 weeks a month to make it work? Sure. Does that fail to strengthen some marriages? I assume so. In some of those cases are folks just fooling themselves and saying it really is making their marriage stronger? Again, I assume so.

But, it is not a logical conclusion from that to jump to "the folks who claim abstaining for 2-3 weeks a month makes their marriage stronger are engaging in some serious self-deception" a statement that clearly has no exceptions.

That is and always has been my point.

That, and that I cannot dance.

I would love to continue this, but I need to be in the real world for at least a few hours. Or put another way:
Premise 1: CuriousInIL needs to drive somewhere.
Premise 2: CuriousInIL will do so in his car.
Premise 3: CuriousInIL's car is not wired for connection to the internet and for good reason--I already need to put my Treo in the trunk so I don't look at it.
CONCLUSION: CuriousInIL will not respond to any more posts for at least a few hours.
Did I do ok with that?

 

[geocajun]

Yes, it is.

BTW, no part of this has been a defense of myself, I defended the non-delusional NFPers that you painted with a way-too broad brush.

If you are dead set on me setting up my comment as a Premise and Conclusion, try this:

Premise: Geo is wrong in his statement that "the folks who claim abstaining for 2-3 weeks a month makes their marriage stronger are engaging in some serious self-deception" because there is at least one couple in the world who are "non-delusional holy abstaining people with stronger marriages due to not having sex."

Evidence in support: Geo now admits this.

Conclusion: Geo was wrong.

Now, is NFP hard? Of course. Do some folks abstain for 2-3 weeks a month to make it work? Sure. Does that fail to strengthen some marriages? I assume so. In some of those cases are folks just fooling themselves and saying it really is making their marriage stronger? Again, I assume so.

But, it is not a logical conclusion from that to jump to "the folks who claim abstaining for 2-3 weeks a month makes their marriage stronger are engaging in some serious self-deception" a statement that clearly has no exceptions.

That is and always has been my point.

That, and that I cannot dance.

I would love to continue this, but I need to be in the real world for at least a few hours. Or put another way:
Premise 1: CuriousInIL needs to drive somewhere.
Premise 2: CuriousInIL will do so in his car.
Premise 3: CuriousInIL's car is not wired for connection to the internet and for good reason--I already need to put my Treo in the trunk so I don't look at it.
CONCLUSION: CuriousInIL will not respond to any more posts for at least a few hours.
Did I do ok with that?

I'm all out of energy here ...
Folks who use NFP and state that 2-3 weeks per month of abstinence per month improves their marriages, generally seem to be only deluding themselves.

I sure hope that made you happy.
I'm not going to touch your weak and wrong argument that I 'intentionally misinterpreted what you wrote because this is really getting petty.

 

[helenofbritain]

Thank you.




Well, to be truly safe, vaginal intercourse needs to be avoided for the first few weeks of the cycle including during the period. Otherwise, there is a risk of pregnancy. I know someone who got pregnant by having intercourse on day 5 of the cycle, just as the period was coming to an end. This is because the sperm can live for 7 days until the woman is fertile. Then you get the women who get pregnant because they did not have clear signs of fertility and ovulated late in the cycle. The only truly safe time is when the next period is imminent.

Hi - I don't know where you are getting your info - but for the majority of women what you just posted is just NOT TRUE.

Anyone who got confused, please click onto http://www.woomb.org for information on Billings - including how long sperm can actually live for, even when there is fertile mucous.

 

[BlessedPearl]

Hi - I don't know where you are getting your info - but for the majority of women what you just posted is just NOT TRUE.

I am walking proof of what I just posted. My sister-in-law just had a baby in her forties. She is also walking proof of what I just posted. It is interesting that you chose my post when there are so many people in this thread who are saying exactly what I am saying. Is it because I am a woman and, therefore, I really should know better? Or is it because I am a new face around here and therefore easier to challenge than all the regulars (who also happen to be men)?

 

[helenofbritain]

I am walking proof of what I just posted. My sister-in-law just had a baby in her forties. She is also walking proof of what I just posted. It is interesting that you chose my post when there are so many people in this thread who are saying exactly what I am saying. Is it because I am a woman and, therefore, I really should know better? Or is it because I am a new face around here and therefore easier to challenge than all the regulars (who also happen to be men)?

Notice I said "the majority of women". I also provided a source to explain my response.

The fact that you are a woman or new had nothing to do with it. Geo and Mike have made broadbrush statements about how long people have to abstain for. Not specifics. You provided reasons and timings which, for women with a regular and clear cycle, are not correct.

I do not deny that these things happen. But I reject the assertion that ALL couples can only be safe for three or whatever days before the woman's period.

Welcome to OBOB

 

[BlessedPearl]

Welcome to OBOB

Thank you.

 

[CuriousInIL]

I'm all out of energy here ...
Folks who use NFP and state that 2-3 weeks per month of abstinence per month improves their marriages, generally seem to be only deluding themselves.

I sure hope that made you happy.

No. Still too broad brush to be right.

 

[geocajun]

No. Still too broad brush to be right.

That's your opinion. My statement is also one of opinion, and you can say you think I'm wrong, but you can't prove it wrong.

 

[Caedmon]

Blah, blah, blah. Let's just go to Krystal's and get a 12 pack of gut grenades. They might have free wifi too, who knows.

 

[Globalnomad]

Helen and BlessedPearl, just a warning before you get into an argument over the details of how to count the days. There IS NO WAY NOT TO "paint with a broad brush", since there is a bell-shaped probability curve involved.

Roughly (I don't know the actual figures), it goes like this: If you want to be 99% sure not to conceive, you need to abstain during the whole first part of the cycle plus menstruation days. If 95% probability is enough, you can use those first few days in the cycle. If you just want 90% or so likelihood, abstaining for 3-4 days is enough. So don't try to pin it down, because you can't!

 

[helenofbritain]

Thanks GN, but I think we were done