The morality of sex- for reducto

Blog For Free! Archives Home 2007 April 2005 February 2005 January 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2003 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September My Links My essay: The Immorality of Marriage The Onion SelectSmart Games to test your logic, faith, morality, and philosophical ideas! Tom Robbins Quotes Funny Name Analysis Bushisms Letters From the Earth by Mark Twain Why I Am Not A Christian by Bertrand Russell Life, Liberty, Logic Wasting My Time RedTigress's Blog Jimmytherighteous's Blog Octo6er's Blog Nivek's Blog Magicjoejoe's Blog Littlemrmahatma's Blog Kurtmaddox's Blog Winstonsmith's Blog Drforbush's Blog Juniperflux's Blog Iron Blog Religion! tBlog My Profile Send tMail My tFriends My Images Sponsored Blog Bookmark this site!

The morality of sex- for reducto 05.02.04 (4:44 pm)   [edit] Please read nothing into the fact that this blog on sex is dedicated to you, reducto; my heart already belongs to another. In this post, I intend to explain in what ways my views as a pro-choice atheist relate to the views of a pro-life Catholic. In my view as well as the Catholic view, abortion is replete with immoral implications. Particularly if abortion is treated as merely a means of birth control (though I sincerely doubt many consider the act of abortion to be so insouciant), it does not seem a moral solution. In both Catholicism's teachings as well as my own views, birth control is considered wrong. Condoms, birth control pills, and all other, similar, forms of contraception seem unnatural. How then, do my views as a pro-choice atheist differ from those of the pro-life Catholic? Being pro-choice means that I do not express a moral sentiment on the issue of abortion, other than the morality of granting the individual the rights to their own life. That sounds rather pro-life, doesn't it? It is reminiscient of totalitarianism, however, to neglect the rights of the woman in favor of securing rights for a fetus that cannot be granted without the interference of the government into the private lives of its citizens. All individuals have certain inherent rights, and to argue that the baby must also receive those rights requires that the potentiality of life is valued over choice, over personal affairs, and over freedom from intrusive governmental standards. If abortion was banned, it would not be protecting life, it would be denying the rights of all women. If abortion is allowed to remain legal, the decision is not forced upon all, true freedom is expressed. To the Catholic contention that abortion is murder, that abortion is "playing God," it must be understood that there are other health concerns and that abortion is not merely a birth control device. Circumstances vary, and a legal standard dictating that abortion is wrong in all cases would not only be obtrusive, it would also hinder life by placing unnecessary risks on such a natural thing as birth. Abortion cannot be considered playing God, as it is not, in most instances, an attempt to maintain power over life or to control another's life. And if God is truly all-powerful, then we cannot circumvent that power. As far as birth control goes, Catholics are against the notion for that reason- it prevents life and therefore is an attempt to play God. Contraception goes against my personal views by reducing (and often replacing) the romantic value of sex. In essence, though my views seem in line with those of Catholicism, the difference lies in the meaning given to the act of sex. For Catholics, the purpose of sex is procreation. For me, the highest function of sex is romance. I recognize, however, that romance is often not the most important aspect of a sexual relationship, and is often not even present. Similarly, any reasonable Catholic should recognize that sex is not always a means of procreation. That is not the sole purpose of sex. Thus, we must all admit that there is a certain amount of responsibility that we must take, and that is why we use birth control devices. We must also allow others to take responsibility for themselves, and that is why restricting freedom should not be an option. Being against abortion is one thing, but supporting the restriction of rights by promoting the pro-life cause is in violation of America's values.   posted by: jbfs (reply) post date: 05.02.04 (6:41 pm) just so that I can understand where you're coming from a little better (as I am, personally, very pro-contraception), by saying that "the highest function of sex is romance," do you mean romance in the sense of two people who share a deep, loving connection with each other, or does it extend to two people who are "merely" filled with lust for each other? (This could be translated, albeit not entirely correctly, to a question of romance being a function of relationship seriousness. i.e. one night stand vs. long-term relationship.) posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 05.02.04 (8:29 pm) Reply to: jbfs To clarify, I'm not entirely against the use of contraception in practice, only in theory. I think it cheapens the experience, but I still see it as necessary. That's just where responsibility comes in. And I do think that romance extends to lustful encounters, regardless of the seriousness of the relationship itself. I have no doubt that some one-night stands involve more romance than many relationships that last years. Thanks for the comment. posted by: juniperflux (reply) post date: 05.03.04 (3:17 am) Personally, I find birth control (some methods at least) to be liberating. Not havnig to worry about being called "mom" makes sex all the more enjoyable for me. (And yes, I realize that no method is fool proof). For me... that heightens the experience rather than cheapening it or making the situation somehow awkward. As for abortion (I realize this isn't really the subject of your post ~ but is related), I think what really bothers me about the pro-life/pro-choice debate is that so many, many people spend their whole lives worrying about life BEFORE birth, and yet don't seem to give a damn about life AFTER birth. It just seems to me that all the energy exerted on behalf of the unborn could be better spent on those who are already here and living in poverty or abusive situations, etc. As always... great blog. I'm sure reducto is honored. :) posted by: jbfs (reply) post date: 05.03.04 (4:43 am) Reply to: juniperflux I would tend to agree with juniperflux on the liberating aspects of birth control. (Although, I don't tend to worry about becoming "mom.") Given that I've not experienced a situation in which birth control was not used and thus I have a fairly limited ability to compare the two. posted by: RedTigress (reply) post date: 05.03.04 (9:14 am) "Please read nothing into the fact that this blog on sex is dedicated to you, reducto; my heart already belongs to another." OMG! I almost died laughin'! ;D posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 05.03.04 (10:39 am) Reply to: juniperflux Reply to: jbfs Is birth control really liberating, though? In some aspects, absolutely. Having a method of prevention against pregnancy as well as disease is certainly a good thing. But it isn't entirely liberating. The risks of unwanted pregnancy and disease are generally replaced (although not entirely, maybe I should say the risks are coupled) with the risks of nausea, infection, hemorrhage, hormone imbalance, blood clots, and so on- and that's before even having sex in most cases. Granted, the risks associated with birth control methods probably occur more rarely than the risks of not using contraception. But I still find it slightly misleading to designate birth control as liberating. And in terms of romance (which, remember, is my silly notion of value for sex), the unnatural, synthetic devices used to thwart unwanted pregnancies are quite unromantic. posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 05.03.04 (10:40 am) Reply to: RedTigress Lol, glad you liked it. ;) posted by: therealspartacus007 (reply) post date: 05.03.04 (1:01 pm) I agree with you entirely on the abortion argument; pro-choice IS pro-life. However, as far as contraception goes, I feel some more explanation is needed on how you are not opposed to in "in practice, only in theory." If something works only in theory, then it is a bad theory. Viewing something as a 'necessary evil' is the sort assumed guilt mindset that takes place in Original Sin. I also take issue with contraception being "unnatural." I've always seen the line between 'natural' and 'artificial' as meaningless. If birth control pills are somehow detrimental to the value of love making, then are allergy pills, taken to reduce the negative consequences of being one with nature, 'unnatural,' and hurt the experience? The 'rythm method,' the only form of contraception with the Vatican's OK Seal of Approval is just as 'unnatural' as 'the pill-' both alter the chemical structure of the body to prevent pregnancy. The only difference is the particular means of implementation. I also see s as not necessarily 'reducing and often replacing' the romantic value of . Although it is true that most couples perfer less , how are they any different (in result, not primary purpose) than other people-made objects? Given their decrease of the flesh-on-flesh connection, it is understandable how they can interfere with arousal, but with the numerous other methods of contraception avaliable, it is hard to understand how contraception itself can be written off as unromantic. posted by: therealspartacus007 (reply) post date: 05.03.04 (1:03 pm) Reply to: therealspartacus007 OK, my parent's web filter blocked a few words there, so let me retype that first sentence of the last paragraph, spelling everything wrong. "I also see kondomss as not necessarily 'reducing and often replacing' the romantic value of seex." posted by: mblog (reply) post date: 05.03.04 (6:41 pm) I also don't see how contraception reduces the romantic value of sex. A couple who is about to have sex might not be giving the slightest thought to birth control, yet be fully protected by it. If a woman gets an IUD inserted by her gynecologist at her 6 week post delivery checkup, she need not give it another thought for a decade. How does that change the romantic value of sex? She's not going out of her way to do anything at all, and she would have been at the MD office anyway with her legs spread. It may lengthen her visit by 30 seconds, not counting paperwork, but they tend to leave you in the room for a long time before the doctor shows up anyway, so there's plenty of time for that. The next time she has sex, it won't feel any different and she won't have to do anything special. By the way, the failure rates of most birth control methods are largely, or in some cases, almost exclusively due to misuse. Forgetting to take a pill or starting sex without a condom but planning to put one on later all count as failures of birth control rather than not using it. They are important to know, especially for unmarried couples who may risk STD's too, but that's a different issue. Perhaps you'd like to discuss the morality of sex among unmarried couples. posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 05.03.04 (7:51 pm) Reply to: therealspartacus007 Reply to: mblog I failed to explain in what ways I'm truly against contraception, I suppose. I said that it is unromantic, but I actually didn't mean that it is solely unromantic as it relates to the act of sex itself. Romance in this sense is not about passion, I am talking about the use of contraceptives separate from sex. By stating that I am against contraception in theory, I meant that I find controlling biological matters by artificial devices to be unromantic. However, I am willing to forego a bit of romance in the name of safety. Contraception is unnatural because it controls natural things. Sex is a much less natural experience when contraception is used. Birth control may not directly affect the romantic value of sexual experiences, but the idea of contraception itself is unromantic. posted by: koby (reply) post date: 05.03.04 (11:43 pm) Reply to: DragonBait22 Do not get me wrong. I am “pro choice”. However, to say that denying women access to abortion is wrong because it denies a woman’s “inherent” right to choice amounts to nothing at all. The matter at hand is, after all, should a woman have the LEGAL right to an abortion. People arguing against of the merits of giving women that legal right are not going pause and say “but of course women have the “inherent” right to choice and our legal rights and are inherent rights should match up”. If these opponents address you on the issue of “inherent rights” at all, most are going to deny that you have such an “inherent right”. Other people, who think all talk of inherent rights is just plain silly, will just ignore you altogether. As for contraception, to say that the purpose of sex is romance strikes me as about on par with saying the purpose of chess is to win. People play chess for a whole host of reasons. And for many beating other people at it might be their main or sole motivation for playing. However, people’s motivations for playing the game do not constitute the game’s purpose. The game has no purpose. It is just a game. The same goes for sex. It is just an activity that we engage in for a whole host of reasons. posted by: mblog (reply) post date: 05.04.04 (5:10 pm) Reply to: DragonBait22 Why is contraception unnatural? What does unnatural mean anyway? Is wearing clothing unnatural? What about driving cars or using computers? Are you against all those things too? Are beaver dams unnatural, or is it just that anything made by man is unnatural? If so, why? posted by: jbfs (reply) post date: 05.06.04 (11:03 am) Reply to: mblog nice false dichotomy posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 05.06.04 (4:55 pm) Reply to: koby "The matter at hand is, after all, should a woman have the LEGAL right to an abortion." Actually, I'm not so sure that is the matter at hand. I see it more as a question of whether the government should prevent all women from choosing the option of abortion. That is why I say that allowing women the right to choose is fundamental. "As for contraception, to say that the purpose of sex is romance strikes me as about on par with saying the purpose of chess is to win." Um, yeah, I agree. I said that, in my personal view, I see romance as the highest function of sex. But I also recognize that there are other factors that go into it, and that is why contraceptives are necessary. posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 05.06.04 (4:56 pm) Reply to: mblog Contraception is unnatural in its effect on something natural, with the clear intention of altering a natural thing. posted by: koby (reply) post date: 05.07.04 (1:45 am) Reply to: DragonBait22 “’The matter at hand is, after all, should a woman have the LEGAL right to an abortion.’ Actually, I'm not so sure that is the matter at hand. I see it more as a question of whether the government should prevent all women from choosing the option of abortion. That is why I say that allowing women the right to choose is fundamental.” Come again. To say that the issue is "whether the government should prevent all women from choosing the option of abortion” is just to say that the issue is should abortion be legal. ”’As for contraception, to say that the purpose of sex is romance strikes me as about on par with saying the purpose of chess is to win.’” Um, yeah, I agree. I said that, in my personal view, I see romance as the highest function of sex.” You agree? I am stating here that to say sex has a function/ purpose is as absurd as saying that chess has a purpose/ function. Motivation and purpose are not one and same. To say, someone was motivated to do X by Y is to give a causal explanation for why they did x. To give the function of something is say what its role is in some larger system that is readily acknowledged (e.g., the function of the party whip is maintain party discipline, the role of the spark plug is x) posted by: mblog (reply) post date: 05.07.04 (9:59 am) Reply to: DragonBait22 I have no idea what that means. Are you saying that altering a natural thing is unnatural? So everything from cave paintings to the production of plastic is inherently bad? posted by: therealspartacus007 (reply) post date: 05.08.04 (4:22 pm) Reply to: koby The word 'purpose' was used, to my understanding, to mean the purpose or reason one chose to have sex. Like all actions, there are different purposes that sex may fulfill; fun, cure of boredom, filling a psychological need, etc. When Dragon Bait says that sex's 'highest purpose' is the expression of romantic love, this is because sex increases the enjoyment of one's life best when used in that capacity. Sex is not a 'spark plug' in some machine. It is an action that humans (and most animals) can perform. And even a spark plug can be put to other purposes- part of a piece of modern art, a doorstop, or even a torture device. posted by: koby (reply) post date: 05.09.04 (12:11 am) Reply to: therealspartacus007 Of course a spark plug can be put to a different use/ serve another function/purpose other than the purpose it was designed for. I should have made it clearer that I was addressing the way she was using “function” and “purpose”, which is way in the way I described. Anyway, any doubt she was using it in a different sense is wiped out by the fact that she contrasts her conception with that of the Catholics. “For Catholics, the purpose of sex is procreation. For me, the highest function of sex is romance.” For Catholics, engaging in sex for reasons other than procreation runs contrary to the role that god has set for sex to play in our lives in is for that reason wrong. As contrasting any two things, implies that the things being contrasted are in one aspect the same, I took her to be using “function” in the same way that Catholics did so. The problem is what larger system does sex fulfill such a romantic function? She does not explain such a system. As for sex being used for this, or that end, this is fine. A hooker might proclaim that sex for her is just a means of making money. However, just as often sex is considered an end in its self. We engaged in sex; it was so romantic. posted by: reducto (reply) post date: 05.21.04 (5:32 pm) Just happened upon your blog..normally, I couldn't care less about reading your infantile comments, but since this is directed at me, I must say one thing: I would never ever think that you'd be interested in me, Dragon. In fact, it would be about the most disgusting thing I can imagine. That said, I'm glad to know that you are in love with someone else, BUT... You're still spectacularly wrong on just about everything. That will never change. Your Name: Your Comment:

"Tragically, a nation that was created by intellectuals and visionaries has now been completely taken over by venal corporate gangsters, delusional Christian fruitcakes and hopelessly shallow Texas shit-kickers." -Tom Robbins