Ways to make men fall in love with you?

[Root of Jesse]

How? I mean by knowingly avoiding sex during the times when she's most likely to conceive, aren't you attempting to control how many kids you have in much the same way that you are when you use BC?

Personally it is my opinion that to believe that anything we do in terms of controlling the number of kids we have, can thwart God's plan for us is rather arrogant. Spoken as one whose third child was conceived 2 years after my wife's tubes were tied.

Well, as you know, if God wants you to have children, no matter what you do, you will have children. But it's the way you do it. It's your attitude. See Mary, when the Angel told her she was going to bear a child, and she asked how, but didn't question it, said "Fiat" "Let's do this!" When the angel told Zechariah that Elizabeth was going to have a child, he doubted it, and was made mute until the child was born.

Or, in another example, if you have to mow the lawn, and you really don't want to, but you do it anyway. If you do it cheerfully, it goes faster, doesn't it? If you moan and belly-ache, it takes forever, seemingly.

It's the attitude you have.

 

[Athene]

You said "Yes, our modern attitudes to sex have been heavily influenced by secularism. "

I did, and ancient attitudes to sex were heavily influenced by Greek philosophy. We're all doomed, doomed I tell you!

Actually, you're wrong. I have a very intense sex life with the one woman I married, and after 25 years of marriage, it's still great.
But pleasure is the secondary purpose of sex.

Why are you telling me this? Does your wife not enjoy sex with you? Is bonding now only a secondary purpose for sex?

I'm aware you don't think sex should be engaged in purely for the sake of pleasure, that somehow you think it's improper to have sex for this reason. I'm sorry you have these hang-ups.

Yes, and so what? Who has believed them to be disgusting unholy urges? Names please? Certainly not Catholics. St. Catherine of Siena was the last of 22 children in her family...Many Catholic families are quite large. Sex is not unholy, never was, never will be. Wrongful use of sex, as food, certainly. And that would be different for each person. I gain weight if I smell chocolate, my wife eats it like it's going out of style, and never gains a pound.

Ambrose, Augustine, Teutillian, Jerome. The people who pushed for celibacy basically, of which there were many up until the reformation.

To me, wrongful use of sex would be rape. However, you seem to be suggesting that sex within marriage where the couple have no intention of having a child - is unholy.

 

[I Art Laughing]

What? You who rants about hippies? Shome mishtake shurely.

We went from anyhting goes to "no cards" or smiling on Sunday. I don't like hippies and I don't like legalism (human focused pietism). Any ideology that takes our focus off God is idolatry IMO. I see liberalism enthroning us while subjecting us to our own whims, I see tradition as enthroning us while subjecting us to the letter. The problem is that we think we are in control in both circumstances and we aren't, the flesh or the law is. The only way to escape those ruts is Cross and the Holy Spirit, living as a part of His vine, in His life and not our own.

I dunno, it doesn't seem complicated to me. Like Paul, I try to count it all dung.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I did, and ancient attitudes to sex were heavily influenced by Greek philosophy. We're all doomed, doomed I tell you!

Jewish and Christian attitudes toward sex weren't.

Why are you telling me this? Does your wife not enjoy sex with you? Is bonding now only a secondary purpose for sex?

I'm aware you don't think sex should be engaged in purely for the sake of pleasure, that somehow you think it's improper to have sex for this reason. I'm sorry you have these hang-ups.

No, my wife loves sex with me. Bonding IS only a secondary purpose. And you're right, I don't think sex should be engaged in purely for the sake of pleasure, and I think it's improper to have sex solely for that purpose, but I have no qualms about having sex that doesn't conceive a child and is purely pleasureable. It's not a hangup.

Ambrose, Augustine, Teutillian, Jerome. The people who pushed for celibacy basically, of which there were many up until the reformation.

You're forgetting Paul, lol. They pushed for it for themselves, not for anyone else. Augustine had a child. Out of wedlock, too. Considering that all of them were conceived, they wouldn't have objected to people being married and having children. Sorry, that's just wrong.
[/quote]
To me, wrongful use of sex would be rape. However, you seem to be suggesting that sex within marriage where the couple have no intention of having a child - is unholy.[/quote]
I think a couple having sex without inviting the will of God into the act is unholy.
Rape is not sex. It's violation.

It was actually the Protestant Reformation that subdued Catholic attitudes toward sex. See the Puritans? Quakers?

 

[chaz345]

Well, as you know, if God wants you to have children, no matter what you do, you will have children. But it's the way you do it. It's your attitude. See Mary, when the Angel told her she was going to bear a child, and she asked how, but didn't question it, said "Fiat" "Let's do this!" When the angel told Zechariah that Elizabeth was going to have a child, he doubted it, and was made mute until the child was born.

Or, in another example, if you have to mow the lawn, and you really don't want to, but you do it anyway. If you do it cheerfully, it goes faster, doesn't it? If you moan and belly-ache, it takes forever, seemingly.

It's the attitude you have.

I don't see the attitudinal difference between "I don't want a kid right now so I'm going to take this pill" versus " I don't want a kid right now so I'm not going to have sex when I'm ovulating."

 

[JaneFW]

Or, in another example, if you have to mow the lawn, and you really don't want to, but you do it anyway. If you do it cheerfully, it goes faster, doesn't it? If you moan and belly-ache, it takes forever, seemingly.

It's the attitude you have.

Kinda like the quote in my sig.

 

[dallasapple]

I think the difference in one way at least NFP is making a real sacrifice i.e delaying gratification for a time to control hwo many children you have and the other methods are involving more of a getting your cake and eating it too..be able to have sex whenever the urge hits you not having to use any self control in that way NFP is teaching discipline..

Having said that I think "sex for pleasure" when BOTH parties are desirng nd its pleasurable for both IS the part that bonds you ..if it wasnt pleasurable (if it didnt feel good physically or emotionally) I hardly think it would bond you..it would just be one more run of the mill chore..

I do see though how artificial BC for some can create in them a gluttonous attitude..Since there is nothing keeping them no "risks" involved(or a very small one lets say) in having sex whenever the urge hits..If there is a risks of pregnancy they would maybe use a little more self control..And possibly even appreciate the sexual union more..Becasue its not "on tap" it has to be delayed..

Dallas

 

[dallasapple]

I don't see the attitudinal difference between "I don't want a kid right now so I'm going to take this pill" versus " I don't want a kid right now so I'm not going to have sex when I'm ovulating."

Because abstaining from sex involves abstainign from the pleasure part of sex not only the possible results of ultimately having a child from that ONE encounter..Both are to avoid pregnancy..but ONE invloves delaying the sexual gratification part..If you are WILLING to give up the pleasure part in order to avoid pregnancy thats a little differnt than gettign to have the pleasure part knowing you get the low risk of pregnancy at the same time whenever the urge stikes you so NO delay in sexual gratification ..

Dallas

 

[Athene]

Jewish and Christian attitudes toward sex weren't.

That should have been ancient Christian attitude. My bad.

No, my wife loves sex with me. Bonding IS only a secondary purpose. And you're right, I don't think sex should be engaged in purely for the sake of pleasure, and I think it's improper to have sex solely for that purpose, but I have no qualms about having sex that doesn't conceive a child and is purely pleasureable. It's not a hangup.

It is a hangup, a contradictory hangup, you think it's ok for elderly people to have sex when there is no chance of conception, presumably you wouldn't expect an infertile couple to never have sex - you can justify this by Biblical accounts of miraculous conceptions. God might decide to have this 70 year old woman conceive therefore it's ok for her to have sex with her husband even though in their minds they're doing it because they're horny and they're not expecting or wanting a baby.

You even think it's ok to have lustful pleasure sex w/o using contraception but when there is next to no chance of conception occurring but because there is no contraception used you can delude yourself with believing that you're not trying to avoid conception.

But you're not ok with a couple having sex in the middle of her cycle and slipping a condom on because they don't want a child. Even though their motivations are exactly the same as the horny old couple, or the horny young couple who are careful with their timings. This makes no sense at all, and can only be down to some kind of weird neurosis about people doing things only for their own pleasure, and a belief that because you have this weird neurosis, God must share it.

You're forgetting Paul, lol. They pushed for it for themselves, not for anyone else. Augustine had a child. Out of wedlock, too. Considering that all of them were conceived, they wouldn't have objected to people being married and having children. Sorry, that's just wrong.

No, Paul gives no indication in his writings that sex in marriage is unholy. He recommends marriage as a remedy against fornication, and even tells people to marry if they can't resist.

These people wrote letters and papers which clearly state their views. You don't have to take my word for it, by all means do the research yourself.

I think a couple having sex without inviting the will of God into the act is unholy.

What is the foundation that you have built this belief upon?

It was actually the Protestant Reformation that subdued Catholic attitudes toward sex. See the Puritans? Quakers?

No, for the most part they felt sex within marriage was fine. Their wrath was saved for people who had sex outside of marriage.

 

[dallasapple]

As a matter of fact..delaying rather than sex on tap becasue of aritficial BC might cause one to put a "higher value" on every sexual encounter and not let it be taken for granted..the "pleasure" part in that sense elevated to a status of "earned"..and to be valued at a level maybe not so with some who never expect they should ever have to delay the pleasure part and still have no risk of a huge responsibility attached..

Dallas

 

[Root of Jesse]

That should have been ancient Christian attitude. My bad.

But why would Christians pay attention to non-Christian mores about sex?

It is a hangup, a contradictory hangup, you think it's ok for elderly people to have sex when there is no chance of conception, presumably you wouldn't expect an infertile couple to never have sex - you can justify this by Biblical accounts of miraculous conceptions. God might decide to have this 70 year old woman conceive therefore it's ok for her to have sex with her husband even though in their minds they're doing it because they're horny and they're not expecting or wanting a baby.

No, I am just not in the practice of limiting God. If God wants to bless elderly people with a child, so be it. There's nothing that says that sex must always result in conception. Just that it must be open to it.

You even think it's ok to have lustful pleasure sex w/o using contraception but when there is next to no chance of conception occurring but because there is no contraception used you can delude yourself with believing that you're not trying to avoid conception.

No, I don't think that at all. Lust is wrong. I leave it to God to judge people's hearts. I do not judge.

But you're not ok with a couple having sex in the middle of her cycle and slipping a condom on because they don't want a child. Even though their motivations are exactly the same as the horny old couple, or the horny young couple who are careful with their timings. This makes no sense at all, and can only be down to some kind of weird neurosis about people doing things only for their own pleasure, and a belief that because you have this weird neurosis, God must share it.

No, I don't think 'horny' is a reason to have sex. That makes sex animalistic. Pleasure is never the primary goal of anything. If it is, there's something wrong. That doesn't mean you can't get pleasure out of something.

No, Paul gives no indication in his writings that sex in marriage is unholy. He recommends marriage as a remedy against fornication, and even tells people to marry if they can't resist.

These people wrote letters and papers which clearly state their views. You don't have to take my word for it, by all means do the research yourself.

I'm thouroughly well read in all of them. Maybe you could point me to an example? Just one?

What is the foundation that you have built this belief upon?

The first commandment.

No, for the most part they felt sex within marriage was fine. Their wrath was saved for people who had sex outside of marriage.

That's the same with Catholics! Hey! Whatdoyouknow???

 

[I Art Laughing]

As a matter of fact..delaying rather than sex on tap becasue of aritficial BC might cause one to put a "higher value" on every sexual encounter and not let it be taken for granted..the "pleasure" part in that sense elevated to a status of "earned"..and to be valued at a level maybe not so with some who never expect they should ever have to delay the pleasure part and still have no risk of a huge responsibility attached..

Dallas

Supply and demand huh?

 

[dallasapple]

Supply and demand huh?

No desire and willngnes to do what we SHOULD do use free will to put our own desires aside..

So its more like..desire meets desire ..over which we do NOT take for grant it..

Dallas

 

[I Art Laughing]

No desire and willngnes to do what we SHOULD do use free will to put our own desires aside..

So its more like..desire meets desire ..over which we do NOT take for grant it..

Dallas

Yes, but you're suggesting having less sex because of a lack of BC (decreased supply) would have the effect of creating greater "enjoyment" (demand). Supply and demand was at the heart of your argument; it is one of the most powerful market tools and motivators of human beings known (some would argue that it is motivation itself). Who should wield that tool? Man or God?

 

[Tamara224]

I wouldn't hold a blog as the truth, not without something behind it. Especially regarding the Catholic Church.

I'm sorry but this counts as a massive reading comprehension fail.

Read the part I quoted in my post.

The part with links to surveys and polls.

Your facts are not facts, who are you to see inside people's hearts? You have no idea what 'they' think.

In polls and surveys, people are asked questions about what they do and what they believe.

I know what people think when they tell us what they think.

It's not that difficult to find out what people think.

The truth is that God gave us a way to not have 26 children, which was your whole point to begin with.

That wasn't my point. Maybe it was yours, I really don't know. But it wasn't mine.

You said that BC allowed women to not die so young and to not die due to having so many children.

You're confusing me with Athene, I think.

I said 1)that it did no such thing, that medical advancement did that,

You mean medical advances like hormonal birth control pills? Yep.

and 2)there's no reason for women to use ABC and that there's a form of family planning that doesn't use contraception and is as effective, if not more so, and doesn't involve hormones,

:o I'm sorry but... are you for real? That's just contrary to any actual facts. The rhythm method is the LEAST effective way of preventing pregnancy.

Birth Control Chart

and doesn't subvert the will of God for what sex is for, which is procreative, primarily, and unitive, secondarily.

The big gaping hole in the logic is still there, RoJ. There's no difference between the purpose of using NFP and the purpose of using the pill.

Both are used so a couple can have sex without getting pregnant.

If it's subverting the will of God to use BC, then it's subverting the will of God to use NFP, too.

Then you went into the couple's state of mind and said that BC users and NFP users have the same state of mind.

I said they "can" have the same state of mind.

I've shown you that they don't,

Um... No, no you absolutely didn't show me any such thing. Stating it as an unsupported fact is not, in fact, "showing" me anything. Indeed, when asked for proof of your assertion you provided............. nada. (And then proceeded to demand proof of one of my assertions, which I gave you.)

Methinks someone needs to go back and reread this conversation.

when NFP is done the way it's supposed to be done.

What does this even mean? If NFP is done "the way it's supposed to be done"?

So, NFP is supposed to be done in a way that isn't intended to prevent pregnancy while still having sex?

You're going to have to connect the dots a little here, RoJ.

BC users want to have sex whenever they want to, with no consequences. NFP users do not.

So.... it's okay to want to have sex without getting pregnant as long as at least some of the time you don't have sex when you really want to?

That's what it's sounding like. It's okay to not want kids as long as you do a little penance a few times a month to make up for it.

 

[dallasapple]

I think that is the only difference in NFP and using some sort of regular (at any time) BC..With NFP the abstaining part is deliberate as in not havign sex in order for it not to result in pregnancy ..so in a sense just as deliberate as taking a pill and swallowing it (prevention)..then the sex part with NFP ..going ahead and having sex when you have some sort of evidence the woman is not fertile the goal is the same(I woudl say identicle)..to have sex with the peace of mind the odds are low she will concieve..

NFP is birth control.Just that it would require that you restrict how often you have sex..Thats the ony difference i can see..

Dallas

 

[newbeliever02072005]

MOD HAT ON:



Thread remaining closed for the following reason:

Statement of Purpose: Married Couples - updated 3/7/2012

Intimate topics (how to deal with addiction to inappropriate contentography, intimacy problems, etc.) will only be allowed in the separate forums for married men's/women's personal topics. Be cautious when wording these posts. Don't be too graphic in the OP or any replies. No promotion of the use of inappropriate content allowed.

MOD HAT OFF