Nfp Scenarios - Adult Material Thread

[prose]

This may be a hijack to the previous thread, so, I will start another thread:

I was up last night thinking about this. I just am curious as to your (everyone's) opinions. I was going to form it as a poll, but you can just quote and respond.

Now, let's say I am a woman and I am not "frisky". Now, it just so happens that I am fertile which only makes me less "in the mood" because I feel like I should space my children more. My husband is "frisky". If I choose to abstain, is this practicing contraceptive NFP?

Also, let's say I am fertile and I am frisky, and so I approach my hubby and say so. If he politely declines because he is not "in the mood", and it turns out part of the reason he wasn't was because he knew (through conversation or other overt signs - besides charting - I don't want to get too detailed) that I am fertile, is that contraceptive NFP? Or is that just not being in the mood and having one more thing to add to the reason?

Now, final two scenarios, both of the pair are "frisky", they fool around and realize the female is fertile. So they abstain. They control their feelings and go watch a movie. Using this time to grow in prayer together as they have discerned they should not have a child at this time. Is this contraceptive mentality in nature?

A couple finds they are both "frisky" they know she is fertile. The use alternate means to enjoy themselves. There is essentially no abstinence. Is this contraceptive mentality in nature?

Now if you answer yes to either of the first two, I was wondering whether you believe a couple should have sex whenever either partner is "frisky".

Let's try to keep this thread rated pg too. I did my best.

[MissyP89]

[color="red"][b]Note:[/b] the opinions expressed in this post are my own, and not necessarily that of Phatmass, its moderators, or the Catholic Church. Also, note that it's not my intention to sound unorthodox...this is just what I think. Pax![/color]

Contraceptive mentalities are hard for me to get my mind around as a young, new Catholic, but I can offer this:

If you (saying, hypothetically, that 'you' are a woman) aren't in the mood for the marital embrace, and your husband is, I do think you have the right to tell him no. I also think if the situation were reversed, he has the right to tell you no.

I mean, if you're not in the mood...you would probably enjoy it less, I would think (but I can't be sure, what with not being married). Though I understand Catholic teaching on marital relations, I do think it should be [i]enjoyable[/i] for both partners, not just a 'duty' that needs to be fulfilled.

Abstinence is strengthening. Put that in the record books, because I'll probably never admit it again.

The third scenario you described is contraceptive, IMHO. But if the two prayerfully feel the time isn't right for a child, and they have a good reason for this, I don't think it's a problem. As for fooling around, well, if you're married, I don't think it's a big deal.

I don't understand what you're trying to convey when you say 'alternate means' in the last situation. Could you try and elaborate a little?

Hope that helps!

[Archaeology cat]

I don't think the couple must have sex whenever either partner is "frisky". In my opinion, that seems to convey a lack of self-control to an extent.

In the first two scenarios, it seems that you're saying one partner isn't in the mood, but not solely because of being in the fertile time. That doesn't seem contraceptive, just that that person isn't feeling "frisky" at the moment.

In the third scenario the couple is doing nothing to circumvent conception, really, as you state that they have taken the time to discern that they should not have a child at that time (perhaps there are serious health or financial reasons?). Instead of subverting the marital embrace, they choose to abstain (a true sacrifice since they both feel "frisky") and instead focus on non-sexual affection and prayer, two things that will also serve to strengthen their love.

I suppose that's just my take on it, and I can relate to those three scenarios very easily.

Sidenote: Missy, I love your disclaimer at the top.

[CatherineM]

These are the kinds of things that we face weekly. I'm 45 years old, and didn't think I would be worrying about having children at my age. We've been married 2 years, and have had 3 miscarriages. I had a bad head injury 17 years ago, and it made my blood pressure go wacky. I had to quit using the medication that had stabilized my blood pressure so well when we got married because it is fetal toxic. The other doesn't work as well, but it is manageable. My last miscarriage a couple of months ago almost killed me. I'm not being dramatic, my blood pressure got so high that I could have had a stroke or bad brain bleed around my old injury at any moment. So we obviously have a serious enough reason to practice nfp.

We had tried to follow the teachings in the Theology of the Body for our entire married life. If you truly believe at marriage that you are giving yourself entirely to your spouse, then in a way, your body no longer belongs to you. It belongs to your husband, and his belongs to you. It does seem that when I am most fertile, is when I most want to be with my husband. Reproduction is such a strong impulse, that it only makes sense that this would be the case. It would certainly be easier to use contraceptives, but the Lord never promised us an easy road.

NFP has been described to me as marriage building. It certainly has been for us. We have to talk instead of just blindly acting. It would also be easier to just "satisfy" each other at those times when we can't have relations, but that would lead to selfishness. I love him too much to use him as a play toy. As to times when one or the other isn't in the mood, sometimes that's when we need the closeness the most. When I'm not in the mood, it is often because of the weight of the world pressing on me. Choosing to be intimate when you'd rather be working on something else, lets your husband know that he is more important. It also reminds me that no matter what stresses we face, we can handle them better together.

Lastly, maintaining marital chastity isn't easy at times. There are things that we can be drawn to that we know instinctively that we shouldn't do. I also love my husband too much to be a party to pulling him into sin. When you get to be middle-aged, and the warranty has long ago lapsed, things start falling apart, sagging, changing colors, and generally not working like they did when you were 20. Every morning it seems like I develop a new creak somewhere. I know there will eventually come a time when I can no longer conceive, but as long as we are open to life, there will be life between us.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='prose' post='1457543' date='Feb 8 2008, 12:24 PM']This may be a hijack to the previous thread, so, I will start another thread:

I was up last night thinking about this. I just am curious as to your (everyone's) opinions. I was going to form it as a poll, but you can just quote and respond.

Now, let's say I am a woman and I am not "frisky". Now, it just so happens that I am fertile which only makes me less "in the mood" because I feel like I should space my children more. My husband is "frisky". If I choose to abstain, is this practicing contraceptive NFP?

[color="#0000FF"]No, we are not required to have sex every time our husband is in the mood. If that were so, some people would never get out of bed! The average man thinks about sex every 2 minutes.[/color]

Also, let's say I am fertile and I am frisky, and so I approach my hubby and say so. If he politely declines because he is not "in the mood", and it turns out part of the reason he wasn't was because he knew (through conversation or other overt signs - besides charting - I don't want to get too detailed) that I am fertile, is that contraceptive NFP? Or is that just not being in the mood and having one more thing to add to the reason?

[color="#0000FF"]I don't think you can judge his reasons, only he can. Many reasons can put a man out of the mood.[/color]

Now, final two scenarios, both of the pair are "frisky", they fool around and realize the female is fertile. So they abstain. They control their feelings and go watch a movie. Using this time to grow in prayer together as they have discerned they should not have a child at this time. Is this contraceptive mentality in nature?

[color="#0000FF"]This is not the least contraceptive but unitive.[/color]

A couple finds they are both "frisky" they know she is fertile. The use alternate means to enjoy themselves. There is essentially no abstinence. Is this contraceptive mentality in nature?
[color="#0000FF"]Absolutely.[/color]

Now if you answer yes to either of the first two, I was wondering whether you believe a couple should have sex whenever either partner is "frisky".

[color="#0000FF"]I think it depends. Sometimes women are not in the mood, but hubby doing the dishes and running a bubblebath can do wonders Sometimes the husband is under presssure from his job, finances etc and just can't relax enough to get the mood. Sometimes you are carrying for a sick child, parent, working 2 jobs etc and just are too exhausted. Then the couple has to TALK and decide to work on the mood, rearrange their life or get help. The wive belongs to the husband and the husband to the wife.[/color]

Let's try to keep this thread rated pg too. I did my best.[/quote]

[dUSt]

I think out of all the scenarios, the only one that would not be in line with what the church teaches is this one:

[quote]A couple finds they are both "frisky" they know she is fertile. The use alternate means to enjoy themselves. There is essentially no abstinence. Is this contraceptive mentality in nature?[/quote]
Now, I'm assuming that when you say "enjoy themselves", it goes beyond foreplay and results in an "ending". If so, this would be morally wrong. Now, if it does not go beyond foreplay, and remains "anti-climatic", I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

[XIX]

But isn't sexual activity supposed to end with intercourse. I think it would be immoral to willfully start down the road with no intention of reaching the end of the road. You are basically creating a scenario in which you engage in sexual pleasure without any intention of being open to life.

However, if you start down the road and then in occurs to you that she is fertile, so you decide to pull back at that moment in time--I don't think there is anything wrong with that. I think that was Prose's question. But to engage in foreplay just for the sake of fooling around for a bit and never have any intention of going all the way, I would say that's wrong regardless of whether you get to climax.

Heck, you could do thing by yourself that don't include a climax--that doesn't make it okay.

Scenerio #4 is contraceptive, number #1and #2 are definitely not.

[CatherineM]

There are times in an intimate relationship where things happen that some would consider foreplay that aren't really for that goal. Touching, being playful, and being open to each other is a nice way of reinforcing your relationship even when you are too tired for anything more. And once you hit middle age, there is no guarantee that foreplay will be able to lead to intercourse even if you want it to. Sometimes the plumbing doesn't work as good as it did when you were in your twenty's, or you get disabilities where pain or mobility issues come into play. The relationship you form in your earlier years can sustain you later in life.

[qfnol31]

I hope I don't hijack this thread, but I want to comment that most often a contraceptive mentality is held for a longer period of time than just a single decision.

As for taking a contraceptive mentality, it would take me a while to go through how I would describe such an attitude (and it doesn't fit #1 and #3 are not contraceptive, but #4 sounds like a contraceptive mentality, if not more).

#2 is the most difficult of the ones to answer. It really comes down to why he is avoiding kids. If it's because he cannot survive or for your health or some such reason, then that isn't contraceptive, though one would imagine he and his wife should discuss such things first.

If he just wants to avoid children, then it isn't a contraceptive attitude on the wife's part, but I would really question where the guy's attitude rests.


As NFP was originally described to me, it is working with God's design in nature. In moral theology, at least in the traditional understanding, we participate in our salvation (in the words of Trent, we chose to follow God's grace). It is not simply God chooses whom He wills for salvation and damnation, nor is it that we have complete freedom and ability to bring about our own salvation.

In the context of NFP, acknowledging that God created man with the ability to work with God's intentions, He has offered us the ability to abstain during certain times of the month.

If our attitude during that time is one of "I want to prevent pregnancy, so I will not have sex," then we are practicing a contraceptive mentality, especially if we prolong this attitude unnecessarily. If we say, rather, "I will respect the sacred space of the month, knowing its wonderful goodness, abstaining solely because it is imprudent for me to have kids for a really good reason (health, money, etc.), but I will try to have kids again as soon as is reasonably possible, all while staying open to life" we are within a mindset more properly described as the right attitude in the moral life (all aspect, but of course applicable here to NFP) as we find it in [i]Veritatis Splendor[/i] and first hinted in [i]Humanae Vitae[/i].


I hope this somewhat convoluted post makes sense.

Edited February 10, 2008 by qfnol31

[Paddington]

Can a man and woman be really close and hug and kiss and not plan on getting married since they don't have the money? Maybe in the distant future, but maybe not?

Should the man step away and hope that another man with more money comes along for her to marry and have kids with?
Even if they are both very happy doing what they are doing? And they submit to the pope and encourage each other to submit to the pope?

[gamesfanatic04]

My head hurts

[prose]

[quote name='qfnol31' post='1458453' date='Feb 10 2008, 12:11 AM']I will try to have kids again as soon as is reasonably possible[/quote]

Are we really called to TRY to have kids whenever we can?? Or are we called to not AVOID having children?

I believe that we should be continually discerning children. Praying about it. Continually being open to it. But I am not so sure that we are meant to be TRYING to have them as a sign we are open to them.

[dUSt]

[quote name='XIX' post='1458345' date='Feb 9 2008, 08:03 PM']But to engage in foreplay just for the sake of fooling around for a bit and never have any intention of going all the way, I would say that's wrong regardless of whether you get to climax.[/quote]
Can you back this up with church teaching, because I think this is completely wrong.

[MissScripture]

[quote name='qfnol31' post='1458453' date='Feb 10 2008, 01:11 AM']#2 is the most difficult of the ones to answer. It really comes down to why he is avoiding kids. If it's because he cannot survive or for your health or some such reason, then that isn't contraceptive, though one would imagine he and his wife should discuss such things first.

If he just wants to avoid children, then it isn't a contraceptive attitude on the wife's part, but I would really question where the guy's attitude rests.[/quote]
In the original scenario it was said that the reason was not JUST to avoid having kids, he also had other reasons.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='prose' post='1459131' date='Feb 11 2008, 10:48 AM']Are we really called to TRY to have kids whenever we can?? Or are we called to not AVOID having children?

I believe that we should be continually discerning children. Praying about it. Continually being open to it. But I am not so sure that we are meant to be TRYING to have them as a sign we are open to them.[/quote]

That's a good question, and the more I think about it the more uncertain I am. I think that I will have to ponder the answer for quite a while. At the very least, as soon as we can we should stop practicing NFP in that sense (I realize there is more to NFP, but to say too much more would be to imply that we were using it wrong in the first place...I can't think of the right wording right now. Maybe we don't have to intentionally get pregnant, but we cannot avoid getting pregnant either.

Anyways, I'm not quite sure.

[quote name='dUSt' post='1459446' date='Feb 11 2008, 09:54 PM']Can you back this up with church teaching, because I think this is completely wrong.[/quote]

I don't think I can find anywhere that the Church teaches this is wrong. However, the founder of the Traditional Natural Law theory (Thomas) says that an action can be evil if it is not used according to the nature of the act.

It means if something is meant for a particular thing and you use it for something else, then your action would be evil. In this situation, if you use foreplay just for foreplay you're at least on a slippery slope.

Plus, why can't a guy practice foreplay with his girlfriend? It's not just because of lust, but because the foreplay is out of context. Just because a person is married doesn't really change the nature of foreplay.

Anyways, I think that's how Thomas would answer.

[quote name='MissScripture' post='1459450' date='Feb 11 2008, 10:05 PM']In the original scenario it was said that the reason was not JUST to avoid having kids, he also had other reasons.[/quote]

Right. It's the second scenario that I was talking about, and he was purposefully avoiding kids (so it seemed to me).