The Loss of Freedoms

[micro 0]

Quote

Quote

No, it doesn't sound illogical at all actually.

HOWEVER... the mere existence of things like condoms makes it easier FOR self-restraint to breakdown. It's easier to give in to temptation when you can avoid the consequences of f*cking up by using a condom when you're cheating on your wife (and thereby avoid an STD or an unplanned pregnancy). Perhaps these problems would be so rampant if we wouldn't make is so easy for people to be so weak.

I think that is REALLY reaching. Was there infidelity before condoms were around? Of course there was.

You take away the condoms, you will NOT stop premarital sex. You will just make it less safe. Do you think the a spouse thinks, "Well, I would not cheat but since we got these handy condoms things, I think I will?"

I don't really think that goes through his/her mind. If someone is going to cheat, they are going to cheat. And if they are worried about pregnancy and they have no comdoms...well, blowjobs are still cheating.

Yes, there has always been infidelity. But I really don't think this is reaching. If you think about it for a minute or two, it begins to make sense. Take away some of the external controls that would otherwise keep someone from taking that step and it is easier for them to make it. True, even if condoms weren't around, people will STILL cheat. If infidelity is in your heart, it's in your heart.

It's like this... I'm late for work but if I speed up just a bit on the freeway, I could make it into the office on time. No, can't do it. There's always this state trooper sitting on the other side of that overpass over there. He'll catch me and give me a ticket. Only today, I get over the overpass, no state trooper so I accelerate and I speed up, breaking the law, to get into work on time. Lack of external controls helped this person act in an unlawful manner.

And you're right... BJs are still cheating.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[micro 0]

Quote

Quote

As for condoms: if you need a BARRIER in order to safely engage in the most intimate, loving act that two human beings can engage in, so as to protect yourself from some possible disease you might get, should you really be having sex w/ this person anyway?

So, if you make a conscious decision to be with someone who has AIDS, no sex for you? Or do you just have to get AIDS too? I mean, you are taking a chance regardless, but at least with a condom you are TRYING to keep from getting a disease.

Um... You may be TRYING to keep from getting the disease but Rob, condoms break. They slip off. They are no panacea. Having sex w/ someone who has AIDS is playing Russian Roulette.

Having AIDS and having sex is the pinnacle of irresponsibility, IMO <---- there, I said it was an opinion so the asshats on here don't jump my shit!

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[GTAVercetti 0]

My point is that promiscuity is not a new thing. It did not arise because of condoms. It has been around for ages and will continue to be around for ages. That is a fact.

Because of that fact, it is a good choice to give those people the choice to be safe. You want to take that choice away. But in the end, it will not stop promiscuity. Especially with the increase in STDs in today's day and age, it will just ensure that number continues to increase.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Um... You may be TRYING to keep from getting the disease but Rob, condoms break. They slip off. They are no panacea. Having sex w/ someone who has AIDS is playing Russian Roulette.

Having AIDS and having sex is the pinnacle of irresponsibility, IMO <---- there, I said it was an opinion so the asshats on here don't jump my shit!

I am talking about a monogamous relationship where both partners know the score and love each other. Should they never get to be intimate in that way because they cannot use protection?

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[micro 0]

Quote

My point is that promiscuity is not a new thing. It did not arise because of condoms. It has been around for ages and will continue to be around for ages. That is a fact.

Because of that fact, it is a good choice to give those people the choice to be safe. You want to take that choice away. But in the end, it will not stop promiscuity. Especially with the increase in STDs in today's day and age, it will just ensure that number continues to increase.

Rob, I understand what you're saying. I know that promiscuity didn't begin w/ the advent of the condom. But your argument presupposes that promiscuity is either morally neutral or morally good. IMO, it is neither. Unplanned pregnancies, STDs, emotional trauma, unfaithfulness in marriage, divorces, etc. Sexual licentiousness is not a good thing. Giving people condoms so that they can safely engage in a "bad thing" is as bad as giving junkies clean needles. "Keep killing yourself w/ herion, but at least your needle is clean so you don't harm anyone else!" The problem is that you can't guarantee that the needle WON'T be used again when it ISN'T clean and you CAN'T guarantee that the condom will be used correctly. It's a bandaid for a gaping wound. It doesn't contain or correct the problem. Better, IMO, to try and help people see WHY promescuity is harmful in the beginning.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[micro 0]

Quote

Quote

Um... You may be TRYING to keep from getting the disease but Rob, condoms break. They slip off. They are no panacea. Having sex w/ someone who has AIDS is playing Russian Roulette.

Having AIDS and having sex is the pinnacle of irresponsibility, IMO <---- there, I said it was an opinion so the asshats on here don't jump my shit!

I am talking about a monogamous relationship where both partners know the score and love each other. Should they never get to be intimate in that way because they cannot use protection?

Each person is an autonomous being w/ free will and can do whatever they please. However, we now get into the argument of is this some form of "involuntary suicide?" Is that ethical/moral/lawful/whatever?

And, what if the relationship breaks up after they have been engaging in monogamous sex and the person w/o AIDS is now infected? What if he/she doesn't think they are infected but the virus hasn't shown up yet?

Now the person is in ANOTHER sexual relationship... and the problems start all over again...

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[GTAVercetti 0]

You want to make a GIANT social change. I mean that is a freaking huge thing to try and change EVERYONE'S habits and nature. And from what I see, it is not going so well...even in countries where the Catholic Church has a strong pull. You idea has merit. It WOULD be better if people were taught restraint instead. But it is quite optimistic to believe that you could change everyone's nature. It is nice idea, but much more optimistic than I can be.

There is absolutely NO reason why you cannot teach people that abstinence is the best choice while ensuring they know the proper tools for when they falter.

Time for me to go home.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[micro 0]

Quote

You want to make a GIANT social change. I mean that is a freaking huge thing to try and change EVERYONE'S habits and nature. And from what I see, it is not going so well...even in countries where the Catholic Church has a strong pull. You idea has merit. It WOULD be better if people were taught restraint instead. But it is quite optimistic to believe that you could change everyone's nature. It is nice idea, but much more optimistic than I can be.

There is absolutely NO reason why you cannot teach people that abstinence is the best choice while ensuring they know the proper tools for when they falter

Time for me to go home.

I agree w/ almost everything you said.

But we're not trying to change NATURE... we're trying to get the BEST of what human nature IS in front and what is WORST behind.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[wmw999 2,588]

Sounds like if you pack carefully enough you don't need a reserve, either. And with some serious consequences for not packing carefully enough, people would do it better.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[micro 0]

Quote

Sounds like if you pack carefully enough you don't need a reserve, either. And with some serious consequences for not packing carefully enough, people would do it better.

Wendy W.

Not a fair analogy Wendy. People HAVE control over their behavior. They don't HAVE to engage in promiscuity or adultery. They CHOOSE to.

You don't have nearly as much volitional control over your canopy malfunctioning.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[wmw999 2,588]

Quote

You don't have nearly as much volitional control over your canopy malfunctioning

actually you do. BASE jumpers do it all the time, and malfunctions are extremely rarely an issue.

Whether having a reserve is morally neutral is obviosly debatable . But malfunctions can be cut to effectively zero with careful personal choices.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[micro 0]

Quote

Quote

You don't have nearly as much volitional control over your canopy malfunctioning

actually you do. BASE jumpers do it all the time, and malfunctions are extremely rarely an issue.

Whether having a reserve is morally neutral is obviosly debatable . But malfunctions can be cut to effectively zero with careful personal choices.

Wendy W.

I thought your analogy was regarding skydiving.

Even so, you said "effectively" zero. That's not zero. Malfunctions can and do happen do to variables outside the jumpers realm of controllability. Not so the case with human behavior and volition.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Giving people condoms so that they can safely engage in a "bad thing" is as bad as giving junkies clean needles. "

The problem I've always had with this argument - both re: clean needles and re: birth control - and it's also used by some to discourage education about safe sex and birth control - is the premise that giving people these things will increase the frequency of the conduct, or the corollary, that depriving people of these things will reduce the conduct. I think that basic premise is a fallacy. To the contrary, people who are already inclined to engage in that behavior will do so anyway, so giving them the devices (or education) to do it more safely promotes a net social good, whereas depriving them of those devices (or education) is just sticking one's head in the sand.

[wmw999 2,588]

I'm talking about jumping without two parachutes.

While the chance of pregnancy does go down to zero (well, except for the Virgin Mary) with abstinence, you can still get a number of sexually-transmitted diseases through unlikely means without sex.

Making the consequences firm enough for behavior that's defined as "bad" by some group often means that the rest of society has to help pay the consequences. We don't let the baby starve, we don't let the sick just stay sick, infecting people. We all pay.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[billvon 3,116]

>As for guns: making it harder for people to get them also makes it
> harder for people to shoot others - INCLUDING innocent law abiding
> citizens who shoot perpetrators while defending themselves and
> their families. That's hardly a good thing.

Exactly! And making condoms harder to get will make it harder for people to prevent pregnancies - INCLUDING happily married couples who already have three kids and would have financial hardships supporting more.

Surely a family of five that can send their kids to school is preferable to a family of 11 that can't even afford to feed themselves, right?

>if you need a BARRIER in order to safely engage in the most
> intimate, loving act that two human beings can engage in, so as to
> protect yourself from some possible disease you might get, should
> you really be having sex w/ this person anyway?

If your wife contracted a sexually-transmissible disease through a transfusion (god forbid) would you stop having sex with her?

>At root, IMO, what condoms do is denegrate sex to a recreation activity.

People seem to have recreational sex with or without condoms. You can prevent someone from shooting someone by ensuring he can't get a gun; you cannot prevent someone from having recreational sex by ensuring he can't get a condom. From that angle, making sure people can't get guns makes a lot more sense.

[micro 0]

Quote

Quote

Giving people condoms so that they can safely engage in a "bad thing" is as bad as giving junkies clean needles. "

The problem I've always had with this argument - both re: clean needles and re: birth control - and it's also used by some to discourage education about safe sex and birth control - is the premise that giving people these things will increase the frequency of the conduct, or the corollary, that depriving people of these things will reduce the conduct. I think that basic premise is a fallacy. To the contrary, people who are already inclined to engage in that behavior will do so anyway, so giving them the devices (or education) to do it more safely promotes a net social good, whereas depriving them of those devices (or education) is just sticking one's head in the sand.

Two problems I have w/ your statement:

"... behavior [they] will do...anyway..."

"... net social good..."

I think both of those are debatable. Sure, there will always be promiscuity and probably always drug use. However, I'm not advocating taking those things away and not educating on the importance of abstaining from drugs and promiscuity. Abstinence programs work.

Also, it has to do w/ how you view humanity, IMO. "Well, they're gonna do bad things anyway, might as well make a BAD thing as SAFE as possible." Why not work on helping people see that a BAD thing is a BAD thing, period? That has NOTHING to do w/ being an osterich and everything to do w/ trying to help people A) realize their fullest potential and B) avoid a road that is full of pain and suffering.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[micro 0]

Quote

Exactly! And making condoms harder to get will make it harder for people to prevent pregnancies - INCLUDING happily married couples who already have three kids and would have financial hardships supporting more.

Surely a family of five that can send their kids to school is preferable to a family of 11 that can't even afford to feed themselves, right?

Well, has the advent of birth control and condoms made for happier marriages? I'd say not. The divorce rate certainly doesn't reflect that (I know that the there are more factors in that, but it's part of it).
There's a lot more to this that I don't have time to continue on now, although I'd like to come back to this when I have more time.

As for your other point, the billings ovulation method or the sympto-thermal method of detecting ovulation is extremely effective in family planning. It's natural, no devices, no pills, no hormones. You want to avoid pregnancy, don't have sex when the female is fertile. But see, that smacks right in the face of our "convenience," "I want it now" society, doesn't it. We're not very good in this society at restraint and self-control.

My wife and I have used Natural Family Planning (NFP), the sympto-thermal method, which is NOT the rythm method, all of our marriage. Each and every time we wanted a kid, boom. For five years when we did not want to conceive, no kids. It works just as well w/ irregular cycles, b/c it's NOT RYTHM. It's driven by the symptoms of fertility.

Also, in your example of the 5 vs 11 kids... in MOST cases in our society, that argument is simply spurious. MOST of the time, we want to limit the number of kids not because "they'll die of starvation" if we have more, but b/c we want to maintain a certain style of life... a certain level of convenience and luxury.

Quote

If your wife contracted a sexually-transmissible disease through a transfusion (god forbid) would you stop having sex with her?

Yes. Not only am I her husband but I am also her kids father. They rely on me to provide for them which I cannot do if I'm unhealthy as well. It would be a very difficult but simple choice to make.

Quote

People seem to have recreational sex with or without condoms. You can prevent someone from shooting someone by ensuring he can't get a gun; you cannot prevent someone from having recreational sex by ensuring he can't get a condom. From that angle, making sure people can't get guns makes a lot more sense.

But see, that's where you and I differ... I see the view of sex as recreational as detrimental to individuals, marriages, families and society. You can help to prevent people from shooting others and from engaging in self-destructive behavior with proper education, good parenting, etc.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[Michele 1]

Quote

There is absolutely NO reason why you cannot teach people that abstinence is the best choice while ensuring they know the proper tools for when they falter.

Agreed wholeheartedly. But the question arises now...should it be the church who teaches that, or should it be the educational system? The government? Whose responsibility is it to teach that abstinence is best, but here's condoms/bc so you can live to see thirty.

I don't believe it's the church's responsibility; they teach faith and religion. They teach what they believe. If they don't believe that condom usage is appropriate to teach, they're just not going to do that.

So who is responsible for the teaching?

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[billvon 3,116]

>Well, has the advent of birth control and condoms made for happier
>marriages? I'd say not.

No, I think it's just made for smaller and better-planned families. Happy marriages take a whole lot more than that.

>As for your other point, the billings ovulation method or the sympto-
>thermal method of detecting ovulation is extremely effective in
> family planning. It's natural, no devices, no pills, no hormones.
> You want to avoid pregnancy, don't have sex when the female is
> fertile.

Yeah, we had a couple teach us NFP during pre-cana. They were both certified NFP instructors. They had an unplanned kid. So clearly it's not that foolproof.

Both condoms and NFP can fail. Couples should choose the method that works best for them.

>My wife and I have used Natural Family Planning (NFP), the sympto-
>thermal method, which is NOT the rythm method, all of our marriage.

That's great! Glad it works for you.

>Also, in your example of the 5 vs 11 kids... in MOST cases in our
> society, that argument is simply spurious. MOST of the time, we
> want to limit the number of kids not because "they'll die of
>starvation" if we have more, but b/c we want to maintain a certain
> style of life... a certain level of convenience and luxury.

Well, my example was 3 vs 9 kids (family of 5 = 3 kids) but anyway:

Nonsense on the luxury thing. My parents stopped at 3 because that's how many they _might_ be able to afford to send to college, and they couldn't afford a bigger house. My sisters shared a room, I had what was once a storage room and my grandmother lived in the basement. I suppose they could have had more kids and had my grandmother sleep in the car - but to me that's not "a level of luxury and convenience," that's a good decision based on limited resources.

Many US parents make similar choices. In other countries, too many children often _does_ lead to starvation and death. Being able to limit the number of children one has is an important means of preventing famines in developing countries.

>I see the view of sex as recreational as detrimental to individuals,
> marriages, families and society.

I see it as an important part of a committed relationship or marriage, even if it purely recreational.

>You can help to prevent people from shooting others and from
> engaging in self-destructive behavior with proper education, good
> parenting, etc.

I agree there. It is education, not limiting availability of condoms (or guns) that will make the difference.

[Lindsey 0]

>I see the view of sex as recreational as detrimental to individuals,
> marriages, families and society.

I only have sex recreationally. Does that make me bad?

lol...that's right. I'm baaaad. :)

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Abstinence programs work.

They do? I read that these kids instead go for lots of ass fucking, following Clinton's moral leadership on what constitutes sex.

And as for the birth control you espouse, history has shown that no other form is less reliable.

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Quote

Well written, and the Roman Church can advocate whatever it wishes to its followers.

When it trys to influence legislation that affects non Roman Catholics, I have a very serious problem with that.

And if non RC try to influence legislation that affects RC do you feel the same?

I don't know of anyone trying to force RCs to have premarital sex and use condoms. Please tell us who is doing that and I will be the first to criticize them.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Quote

Sounds like if you pack carefully enough you don't need a reserve, either. And with some serious consequences for not packing carefully enough, people would do it better.

Wendy W.

Not a fair analogy Wendy. People HAVE control over their behavior. They don't HAVE to engage in promiscuity or adultery. They CHOOSE to.

You don't have nearly as much volitional control over your canopy malfunctioning.

You can always abstain from skydiving. Abstinence is far preferable to using that reserve. Reserves have been know to fail.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[micro 0]

Quote

Yeah, we had a couple teach us NFP during pre-cana. They were both certified NFP instructors. They had an unplanned kid. So clearly it's not that foolproof.

It's not foolproof when the people don't follow it properly. Otherwise it rivals every other method of BC.

And you admit to condom failure. And when they DO fail, and STDs are acquired, what then?

Or if an unplanned pregnancy occurs, just trot on down to the abortion clinic to take care of the "accident" as if something has gone wrong w/ the act of sex (when in reality, something has gone RIGHT!).

The answer is sexual continence. The answer is chastity (which differs from celibacy, BTW) before, during and after marriage.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Well written, and the Roman Church can advocate whatever it wishes to its followers.

When it trys to influence legislation that affects non Roman Catholics, I have a very serious problem with that.

And if non RC try to influence legislation that affects RC do you feel the same?

I don't know of anyone trying to force RCs to have premarital sex and use condoms. Please tell us who is doing that and I will be the first to criticize them.

I was just talking about laws in general.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln