Responsible Sexuality with Contraceptives

- Beliefnet

I STILL just hafta note, however, that a Guy who keeps his Willie in his Pants ISN'T called "Daddy" and DOESN'T contract an STD
teilhard

I don't normally include quotes on this blog but the above statement seems to be the dominant paradigm in the US today. Paternalistic as is all Christian based morality which seems to revel in sin and its consequences here and in the afterlife. As if any horny male teen particularly at a alcohol lubricated celebration of anything, is going to be able to do so. And if the available female isn't enthusiastic, rape will frequently be the option. This is the reality of post pubescent mammalian male behavior.

Virginity by college age is quite unnatural, in the sense of contrary to natural mammalian instincts. Teens by and large will have sex, and responsible sexuality means not being called daddy and not being a carrier of STDs whether or not the underwear stays in place. Even with the best of intentions it sometimes doesn't. This means at a minimum that the male considers a fresh condom a necessary component of a wallet. The female should have one in her purse and know how to put it on (with her teeth in the foreplay) whether the male wants it or not. A female contraceptive of choice should be as much a part of preparing for a date as makeup. Once these preparations are completed the guy can keep his willy in his pants and the gal can just say no and everyone including God is happy. If by chance an accident happens it won't as the old saying goes "cause people."

The program of abstinence until the first rape blessed by the Church results in broken lives, broken families, and STDs when people fail because of their natural instincts which Christians call sin. The problem here is that I do not buy into Paul's idea of sexual responsibility from 1 Corinthians 7:8-9. Paraphrasing a bit: Since I am an ugly misanthrope who isn't getting any, nobody else is going to get any either, and if they take the marriage route they better not enjoy that.

Many Catholic young women in my high school many years ago were sexually active and were desirable partners because the tinge of sinfulness added excitement. But the Florence Crittenton home down the street made them early believers in teaching their partners the no condom no sex rule. They made sure it was used properly. Florence Crittenton services were where sinners rejected by their church could hide out until the baby was born, and prepared for the nunnery, as they were "used goods" and unacceptable to any good Catholic man as a wife.

I am not anti-Catholic. In everything but sexuality I find the Catholic faith to be useful and beneficial to its parishioners. I do however blame the Pope and his whole sexually dysfunctional dogma that is the cause of all that is wrong with the RCC. But the Catholics that benefit from it by and large ignore the sexuality dogma. Not just the no condom part, the whole no sexuality part.

For me sexual responsibility involves radical respect for one's partner. That means no sex until both partners think it is a good idea. It means preventing pregnancy until both partners think they are ready for the responsibility of raising children financially, emotionally, and with the social support including medical that constitutes responsible parenting. Preventing the possible transmission of STD's is usually not an issue if both partners have the same ideas about responsible sexuality. But if one has had irresponsible sex in the past that may be a consideration until medical testing confirms freedom from STDs.

I was never indoctrinated that my sexual impulses were bad or 'dirty.' I was, however, strongly indoctrinated that if the Girl Scout was not similarly inclined or I was not prepared and ready to accept the consequences of my instinctual action, I had better cause her to cry and walk out the door, or cause myself to say 'Oh, shit. Oh well, there will be another who will be similarly inclined.'"

All of which have happened to me. As well as similar situations where we were both willing and eager, but not ready for the expected consequences. In one case purely psychological consequences. As a normal heterosexual male, in normal heterosexual social activities, I have had all the usual opportunities, and temptations, but in general according to my standards I behaved morally rather than instinctively. I have no regrets about missed opportunities, I think I chose wisely to miss them.

Having been around the horn (pun intended) several times in several relationships with and without the intent for progeny, the decision to try for a child by a loving couple inevitably changes a relationship by changing the focus from each other as people and partners to the planned family with all the extra responsibilities and commitment that a family entails. With all of the other pair bonding activities available to a couple that are mutually gratifying and intimate there seems to be a case to be made for reserving that ultimate bonding act intended by nature for the welfare of the continuation of the species for the time when the couple is ready, willing and able to do so. Certainly "taking off the rubber" changes things, but in my opinion and experience not really enough.

I understand the argument from pair bonded teens that are deferring parenting for many years that the sexuality is important to holding the bond together and in a sense permitting the deferral of parenting until they are ready financially, and educationally to take on that responsibility. Particularly when many of their peers are pair bonded, sexually active and parents. This normally results in monogamy long before the monogamy is blessed by some church, but if the bond fails, as occasionally happens in spite of sexual bonding, it will happen early and before children are involved. Then the result will be serial monogamy usually on the second try.

Contraceptive sexuality works a lot better than trying to deny the stiffie. It seems that not even priests can do that reliably. As my favorite T-shirt says: Got a stiffie wear a Jiffy (brand condom.) The stiffie will win every time particularly if she or in some cases he is interested. It is called being mammalian.

Will it work for everybody? Of course not, but it works a lot better than deferring sex until blessed by church or state in marriage. It might have made sense when pubescent females were sold off to the highest bidder. The pair bonding of sexuality was useful in keeping the family unit intact and keeping dad amused between procreation opportunities. And may still be useful in the societies where marriage and high school graduation are the norm at least for the women.

Personal responsibility may or may not include abstinence, monogamy, marriage, masturbation, porn, sex toys, prostitutes, homosexuality, and sundry other things the churches deplore for everybody but the preachers.

It does include radical respect for a partner, a partner capable of informed consent, and acceptance of responsibility for anything that is the result of the sex including STDs, psychological problems, and conception.

Pair bonded parents provide the most stable platform for child raising, particularly when both parents are committed to the child raising process. The dad provider, mom caregiver paradigm is a holdover from the patriarchal religious past, and provides an unbalanced role image for the children. Far better is two parents sharing the providing and the nurturing.

Adultery is a different issue. There are many workable forms of parenting. And to a greater extent marriage without the intent of children. Consensual open marriages. Open mistresses and concubines with the knowledge if not the blessing of the wife isn't even a biblical sin. About the only moral issue is the ability and willingness to provide proper support to the mother of any resulting children.

Adultery without spousal consent is certainly a moral issue, but with contraception and STD prevention it is probably one of the most common moral failings around. Religious or secular. And if you factor in serial monogamy as a moral failing, which I do especially with children involved, statistics are ugly for religious and secular alike, something like 30% for religious couples and 20% secular."

Religious Satire - You Can't Lay it On Too Thick.

 If the Jahwist had not been the Disney of her time it is likely we wouldn't even have a Bible, or Torah.  Can you imagine worshiping a book compiled from P, E, and R if you left out J? All the good stories that are remembered from the Pentateuch are J's.  It is hard enough to wade through all that crap with the leavening of J.  All that would be left is soggy matzoth.

  If you read the Jahwist stories as a coherent whole The Book of J is a good place to start, although extracting them from your favorite scripture is also a reasonable endeavor, you will find an ironic reading of the oral tradition of the Hebrew people in which the male figures especially Yahweh are generally putzes that can't do anything very well.  The first Jahwist story, the famous creation story, God and Adam stumble around being dicks while mother Eve brings wisdom in the form of knowledge of good and evil without the intervention of any God to humankind.  This pisses off God and Adam, who was trying to push Eve around using God's edicts as a lever, and they blame her for discovering this boon.

The birth of Eve - Beliefnet:

"Agnostic" wrote:

Clearly Eve was a divine creation, separate from Adam. Eve was created in the divine image of God Herself. In contrast, Adam evolved from primates with lower intelligence. It should be obvious that women are innately superior to males.

The Bible shows this. The very name for 'the Lord' is Yahvah. Eve in Hebrew is Chavah. If you look at the original Hebrew letters, they are even more nearly identical.

Each time a female is born, it is another divine creation. Males, on the other hand, bear far too much similarity to apes of lesser intelligence. It should be obvious.

The Genesis story shows God leading the animals and beasts to Adam for a potential mate, because Adam was just an animal. Adam almost chose a dog for a mate. But God, in Her infinite wisdom, realized Adam was not capable of living without divine help, so God gave a replica of Herself to watch over Adam.

This is clear from the Hebrew word, usually translated as 'help mate' It is 'Ezer,' a word which does mean help. But in the Bible, it only appears as a term for God Herself, or for Eve. David says, 'God is my Help (Ezer)' Eve, the Woman, was Adam's Help (Ezer). It was Adam who needed help, divine assistance. Eve was provided. She did not evolve. She had a separate divine creation.

Scientists generally are correct. Adam evolved. But religion is also correct, Eve was a Divine Creation. All the violence is the world is caused by men, who have barely evolved past their lower primate origins. Even with divine assistance from women, they often are unable to advance beyond their atavistic nature."

 In light of Harold Bloom's theory that "J" was a woman, the irony in Genesis 2 is, with this post, beautifully explained.   

 If you read J's stories with an intelligent woman author in mind the misogyny of the traditional oral history is clear from the ironic retelling of the Garden story as a prime example.  "The woman made me do it."  The woman is the only reasonable person in the whole tale.  Both God and Adam look like idiots. 
Unfortunately J's stories became incorporated in the Pentateuch as the "Word of God" mixed up with P, E, & R and the irony and satire got lost as proof-texting was discovered by the (male) preachers and priests and the march of the Patriarchs became unstoppable.

 The entire Book of Mormon is a joke perpetrated on an annoyingly pious young man in New England by his gay, atheist friend Walt Whitman.  The Mormons suppress literary analysis like word count and stylistic and content parallels but they cannot suppress any literate person from comparing the Book of Mormon with Leaves of Grass on a boring few day stay in a Salt Lake City hotel. 

 I read the Book of Mormon on the first night of that boring stay (no booze, no friends) and could not miss the resemblance to a satire of the Bible I wrote in High School.  I gave myself 20 lashes with the monster's noodly appendages for not naming my angel Moroni, but chalked it up to a lack of literary genius.  The next day I got my copy of Leaves of Grass out of my suitcase and read it side by side with the Book of Mormon.  No brainer - same author.  I would not put it past Whitman to have given his friend "magic glasses" and told him where in the woods to dig.  I am sure Whitman kept a copy or revision of his satire and cleaned up parts of it for his future writings.  I still have mine.  

 It is amazing to me that the LDS even refuse to notice the satire of the name of one of their major saints but treat it as part of the Gospel they live by.  The whole BoM if read without belief is a brilliant satire of Christianity.  

 I know less about Islam than Judaism and Christianity, but the proof-texting by the Imams and other "Islamic" leaders from the Pentateuch and Muhammad is obvious to any reasonable observer.  Unfortunately I do not read Arabic and therefore cannot understand the context of the proof-texting.  I suspect the context is similar to Jewish and Christian scripture, and is as ironic in its character. 

In any event, no matter how satirical the original scripture was, religious leader proof texting and commentary can change the satire into doctrine, and the sheeple will bow down and shout amen.