Condoms (NSFW)

[AndyDT]

I can understand the Christian view of no sex before marriage but when you're married, at least for non-Catholics, suddenly non-repoductive sex is ok. If I buy condoms then it says to me "I'm into casual sex and I need to feed my ego so need this thing, this device to catch and dispose of my spurty tingle just like a masturbator throws it away into a tissue"

Personally these days, I don't really want to ejaculate, obviously the feeling is good but ejaculation can be suppressed. I don't like the ego feeding of it and the waste of energy outside of reproductive sex. I'm more interested in giving the woman sexual pleasure in other ways. For example using hands or mouth.

If God designed sex for expressing love physically then why didn't Jesus or Paul talk about prophylactics? In other words, if it's ok in marriage then the bible's message is you *must* be prepared to make the woman pregnant when you express love physically. In which case, what do Christians do? Buy condoms or expect the woman to disrupt her menstrual cycle with chemicals? Is the message that it is ok under God to waste ejaculate and deny the natural function of sex?

Surely it is more "God's design" that sex is used for reproduction rather than "expressing love". The whole thing seems to have been co-opted by mainly the non-Catholic church to entice people with the prospect of limitles sex but within a church-ordained structure. I'm suggesting that if God designed us for sex within marriage then within that marriage conventional sexual intercourse should be avoided outside of reproduction.

[Perpetual Change]

If God wants her to get pregnant, he'll make the condom break 

[Phantasmatron]

I...disagree with what you're suggesting.  

But mostly I'm wondering how you decided that this long, meandering post of yours boiled down to the single word "condom."

[hefdaddy42]

Surely it is more "God's design" that sex is used for reproduction rather than "expressing love". The whole thing seems to have been co-opted by mainly the non-Catholic church to entice people with the prospect of limitles sex but within a church-ordained structure. I'm suggesting that if God designed us for sex within marriage then within that marriage conventional sexual intercourse should be avoided outside of reproduction.

If that were God's design, then I would imagine we would have mating seasons like all the other animals.  And I would further imagine that things like the clitoris and the G-spot wouldn't exist, as they have no reproductive function.

[Perpetual Change]

Also, if God didn't want sex outside of reproduction, why would he send his other son to write this song?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrMrqBcv6Mk

[hefdaddy42]

Also, if God didn't want sex outside of reproduction, why would he send his other son to write this song?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrMrqBcv6Mk

FAIL.

THIS is God's other son, and THIS is his testimony.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wFpvRMIIEM

[eric42434224]

Also, if God didn't want sex outside of reproduction, why would he send his other son to write this song?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrMrqBcv6Mk

FAIL.

THIS is God's other son, and THIS is his testimony.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wFpvRMIIEM

BOTH FAIL.


This is Gods other son.  Craig.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPdFrW076R

[rumborak]

I don't think we should drive cars. Clearly we are meant to walk all the time, given that God gave us legs.

rumborak

[PlaysLikeMyung]

"I'm into casual sex and I need to feed my ego so need this thing, this device to catch and dispose of my spurty tingle just like a masturbator throws it away into a tissue"

I want to have sex with this statement

[emindead]

Surely it is more "God's design" that sex is used for reproduction rather than "expressing love". The whole thing seems to have been co-opted by mainly the non-Catholic church to entice people with the prospect of limitles sex but within a church-ordained structure. I'm suggesting that if God designed us for sex within marriage then within that marriage conventional sexual intercourse should be avoided outside of reproduction.

If that were God's design, then I would imagine we would have mating seasons like all the other animals.  And I would further imagine that things like the clitoris and the G-spot wouldn't exist, as they have no reproductive function.

They were design so you could go and get reproductive.

[El Barto]

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

Let the heathen spill theirs
On the dusty ground.
God shall make them pay for
Each sperm that can't be found.

Every sperm is wanted.
Every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed
In your neighbourhood.

Hindu, Taoist, Mormon,
Spill theirs just anywhere,
But God loves those who treat their
Semen with more care.

You ask quite a lot of questions about how we're supposed to live a life with concepts that are in conflict with God's implied wishes.  There's a never-ending string of things that are ordinary components of life that are in conflict with what Christians think God wants, and you keep finding more and more.  That should tell you something, Andy. 

As for scripture, isn't it pretty clear that sex for any reason other than procreation naughty?  I thought that was the whole point of Onan, or is that just another one of those inconvenient bits of the bible that we work around now?

[hefdaddy42]

As for scripture, isn't it pretty clear that sex for any reason other than procreation naughty?  I thought that was the whole point of Onan, or is that just another one of those inconvenient bits of the bible that we work around now?

That is not the whole point of Onan.  The sin of Onan is that he spilled his seed instead of providing his sister-in-law Tamar with an heir for his brother Er in a Levirate marriage.  It has nothing to do with sex only being for procreation.

[El Barto]

As for scripture, isn't it pretty clear that sex for any reason other than procreation naughty?  I thought that was the whole point of Onan, or is that just another one of those inconvenient bits of the bible that we work around now?

That is not the whole point of Onan.  The sin of Onan is that he spilled his seed instead of providing his sister-in-law Tamar with an heir for his brother Er in a Levirate marriage.  It has nothing to do with sex only being for procreation.

So it's the latter.

I'm not well versed on the story, but what I do recall is that during my brief stint at bible-thumper school, the story was used as the primary citation of why God frowns upon whacking off.  Now, these people had a knack for finding excuses for demonstrating anything they wanted demonstrated, but this particular instance seemed pretty cut and dry.  Out of curiosity, was it ordained that Onan knock up his sister in law?  Why was it his responsibility to the extent that God pronounced his action worse than murder?

[7thHanyou]

As a Christian and a protestant (unmarried as yet, so I don't have personal experience but I'm still allowed an opinion, right?) I have a thing or two to say about this.

First, I think married couples who have intercourse should be prepared for the possibility of children.  They need to be responsible and not be taken by surprise if something happens, regardless of the special precautions they take.  That's just a given, and any Christian who would call a child a "mistake" clearly doesn't understand their own religion very well.

Secondly, why should sperm be given any special status?  In your post, you say that you'd rather find other means of pleasuring your wife--which I understand.  What I don't understand is why "every sperm is sacred," and why the man should be deprived of pleasure just because he contains one half of the genetic information necessary to create a human being.  So what?  Sperm is pretty much worthless in regards to procreation without an egg to attach itself to.  Pleasure is as much a function of sex as procreation, and nothing tells us otherwise.

Third, yeah, the Bible's fairly silent on the issue of what's allowed sexually within marriage.  Which leads me to believe nothing's really disallowed unless it fails to glorify that specific marriage.  The Song of Solomon and other passages make it clear that the husband and wife should take pleasure in each other in whatever ways they deem most appropriate.  To say something excluded from the Bible is automatically wrong is to make an incredible jump in logic.  It's like the Christians who hate on metal because it's "inherently evil."  What, did they confuse Plato's Republic for the Bible or something?  I don't get it.

The more I study Catholicism, the more I'm intrigued by its bizarre dogmas, restrictions, and customs--some of which have entered the protestant church.  While I have no problem with someone's personal decision to refrain from intercourse (actually, I respect chastity), as a doctrine it's just misguided and strange, mostly because of its lack of any Biblical foundation.  And yeah, obviously most Christian principles will seem strange to non-Christians--that's fine--but at least you can trace them back to the supposedly holy text.

EDIT: Why on earth was "LOOK AT ME, I'M AN ATTENTION WHORE!!!!" in my post earlier? o.O  I had to replace it with the word "post"...I don't know what I had there before, but it seems...unwarranted.

[hefdaddy42]

As for scripture, isn't it pretty clear that sex for any reason other than procreation naughty?  I thought that was the whole point of Onan, or is that just another one of those inconvenient bits of the bible that we work around now?

That is not the whole point of Onan.  The sin of Onan is that he spilled his seed instead of providing his sister-in-law Tamar with an heir for his brother Er in a Levirate marriage.  It has nothing to do with sex only being for procreation.

So it's the latter.

I'm not well versed on the story, but what I do recall is that during my brief stint at bible-thumper school, the story was used as the primary citation of why God frowns upon whacking off.  Now, these people had a knack for finding excuses for demonstrating anything they wanted demonstrated, but this particular instance seemed pretty cut and dry.  Out of curiosity, was it ordained that Onan knock up his sister in law?  Why was it his responsibility to the extent that God pronounced his action worse than murder?

Why are casting aspersions when you admit that you aren't familiar with the story?  Why not read it?

Tamar was the wife of Er, the brother of Onan.  Er died without an heir.  The custom then was for a brother, in this case Onan, to perform what was known as a Levirate marriage, to impregnate his brother's wife to provide his brother with a legal heir (even though it wouldn't be biological).  In that culture, this was a sacred responsibility and taken very seriously.  Onan's sin was that instead of that, he basically committed rape by having sex with Tamar but then pulling out, preventing her from getting pregnant. The story has nothing to do with masturbation or with sex in general, it has to do with Onan not fulfilling his sacred responsibility to his brother and taking advantage of his sister-in-law in the process.  Anyone that tells you anything else is selling something.

[7thHanyou]

^ Of course, depending on which Christian you ask, certain stories may or may not be literal.  Opinions differ on every passage of scripture so much that it can be pretty difficult to discern what is "true" and what isn't, what is simply historical and what is a parable.  Anyone can be forgiven for construing a passage of scripture to mean something you think it doesn't.  As a theistic evolutionist I struggle with this a lot.

All of that said, in my opinion it is pretty damn clear that that particular story has nothing to do with masturbation and/or birth control as a whole.

[rumborak]

It's also hard to take moral guidance from people who ask their brothers to have sex with their wife.

rumborak

[yeshaberto]

hefdaddy is right on about onan...

Solomon in Prov urges the husband to "be satisfied with her breasts at all times" as a means to avoid being lured by other women. 

Prov 5:15 ¶  Drink water from your own cistern, And running water from your own well.
16  Should your fountains be dispersed abroad, Streams of water in the streets?
17  Let them be only your own, And not for strangers with you.
18  Let your fountain be blessed, And rejoice with the wife of your youth.
19  As a loving deer and a graceful doe, Let her breasts satisfy you at all times; And always be enraptured with her love.

Paul urged husbands and wives to have sex all the time, except for times of prayer and fasting 

I Cor 7:5  Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

there is no question that God's desire is that a husband/wife enjoy the sexual relationship, especially so that they are not "tempted," as indicated in these two texts

[El Barto]

As for scripture, isn't it pretty clear that sex for any reason other than procreation naughty?  I thought that was the whole point of Onan, or is that just another one of those inconvenient bits of the bible that we work around now?

That is not the whole point of Onan.  The sin of Onan is that he spilled his seed instead of providing his sister-in-law Tamar with an heir for his brother Er in a Levirate marriage.  It has nothing to do with sex only being for procreation.

So it's the latter.

I'm not well versed on the story, but what I do recall is that during my brief stint at bible-thumper school, the story was used as the primary citation of why God frowns upon whacking off.  Now, these people had a knack for finding excuses for demonstrating anything they wanted demonstrated, but this particular instance seemed pretty cut and dry.  Out of curiosity, was it ordained that Onan knock up his sister in law?  Why was it his responsibility to the extent that God pronounced his action worse than murder?

Why are casting aspersions when you admit that you aren't familiar with the story?  Why not read it?

Tamar was the wife of Er, the brother of Onan.  Er died without an heir.  The custom then was for a brother, in this case Onan, to perform what was known as a Levirate marriage, to impregnate his brother's wife to provide his brother with a legal heir (even though it wouldn't be biological).  In that culture, this was a sacred responsibility and taken very seriously.  Onan's sin was that instead of that, he basically committed rape by having sex with Tamar but then pulling out, preventing her from getting pregnant. The story has nothing to do with masturbation or with sex in general, it has to do with Onan not fulfilling his sacred responsibility to his brother and taking advantage of his sister-in-law in the process.  Anyone that tells you anything else is selling something.

What they were selling was Christianity and abstinence.  The reason I cast aspersions is because, as 7H just pointed out, the story like most things in the bible can be twisted or spun for myriad different purposes.  Your version, while no less creepy, is reasonable and vastly different than what the folks at the Christian school were promoting, yet I'm sure it's equally valid in the minds of both you and the faculty there.  These sorts of conflicts tend to foul me on the entire concept. 

BTW, I'll point out that Onan has become synonymous with rubbing one out, so it's reasonable to accept that plenty of others share the notion that every sperm is indeed sacred. 

[7thHanyou]

there is no question that God's desire is that a husband/wife enjoy the sexual relationship, especially so that they are not "tempted," as indicated in these two texts

^ Good find, yeshaberto.  I also mentioned the Song of Solomon, which is basically an ode to marital sex.

[yeshaberto]

yeah, I thought about that one too, but I am not good at that type of literary style 

[AndyDT]

Surely it is more "God's design" that sex is used for reproduction rather than "expressing love". The whole thing seems to have been co-opted by mainly the non-Catholic church to entice people with the prospect of limitles sex but within a church-ordained structure. I'm suggesting that if God designed us for sex within marriage then within that marriage conventional sexual intercourse should be avoided outside of reproduction.

If that were God's design, then I would imagine we would have mating seasons like all the other animals.  And I would further imagine that things like the clitoris and the G-spot wouldn't exist, as they have no reproductive function.

AIUI, they do have a reproductive function in helping the woman to enjoy and stay with the sexual act i.e. penetration.

[AndyDT]

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

Let the heathen spill theirs
On the dusty ground.
God shall make them pay for
Each sperm that can't be found.

Every sperm is wanted.
Every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed
In your neighbourhood.

Hindu, Taoist, Mormon,
Spill theirs just anywhere,
But God loves those who treat their
Semen with more care.

You ask quite a lot of questions about how we're supposed to live a life with concepts that are in conflict with God's implied wishes.  There's a never-ending string of things that are ordinary components of life that are in conflict with what Christians think God wants, and you keep finding more and more.  That should tell you something, Andy. 

As for scripture, isn't it pretty clear that sex for any reason other than procreation naughty?  I thought that was the whole point of Onan, or is that just another one of those inconvenient bits of the bible that we work around now?

Yes, but this I think is in conflict with itself (ie. christianity). Most christians seem to be saying it's ok to use contraceptives but everything else we have to keep in alignment with biblical protocol. Basically, would most christians really be comfortable buying contraceptives at the supermarket etc?

[7StringedBeast]

I need to add this video to this thread.

This actor was the lead actor in my senior thesis film.  He's like 30 something now, but this is him sometime in the 90s.  I wish I had seen this video when I was on set with him, surely he would never hear the end of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIeaz9M_7tY

[sneakyblueberry]

I am a married christian and my wife and I use condoms.  Why?  Because we aren't ready to have children, and due to some medication I'm taking at the moment, there could be complications with a child as my sperm is either abnormal or just simply not there.  Does this mean my wife and I are disobeying God every time we have sex without trying to have a child?  I doubt it.  Very much.  In Genesis 2 when Adam and Eve meet for the first time, there isn't a mention of sex being used solely as a means of conception.  Adam just seems stoked to have his woman, and can't wait to have sex with her, pretty much.

The way I see it, there are two obvious reasons why God created sex.  1) Reproduction, and 2) Intimacy.  You can have one without the other, and human beings have just gotten better at that over time.  All IMO, of course.

[Perpetual Change]

Another great point that brings up: are couples incapable of having children supposed to refrain from any kind of intercourse at all?

[hefdaddy42]

Basically, would most christians really be comfortable buying contraceptives at the supermarket etc?

Yes.  We do.  What's the problem?

The only people who teach "no contraceptives" are the Catholics, for whom every sperm is sacred, indeed.  Protestants don't buy that crap.

[Perpetual Change]

The only people who teach "no contraceptives" are the Catholics, for whom every sperm is sacred, indeed.  Protestants don't buy that crap.

What an ignorant generalization.

[AndyDT]

My problem is sex being treated lightly or not at all as soon as marriage happens but before that it's a sin.

[Perpetual Change]

I think the problem some churches see is that irresponsible or uncommitted sex with contraceptives weakens the family unit. Ultimately, I think that's at least what some of churches want to see: strong and committed family units. I don't see why a couple who've proven to be so should be forced to leave sex always up open to pregnancy.

[AndyDT]

So they're not bothered about the individual, just about a societal structure?

[Perpetual Change]

Based on conversations I've had with other Catholics, that seems to be the general understanding. I think the core idea is casual partners (who can be casual thanks to birth control) aren't as series or as preferable as married couples. Also married couples ought to take sex seriously and more responsibly. Whether or not married people who've already shown to be committed and responsible should use birth control is more of a debate, with most if not all of the Catholics I've talked to leaning on the side that says they should be able to.

[7thHanyou]

My problem is sex being treated lightly or not at all as soon as marriage happens but before that it's a sin.

The problem isn't the sexual act itself, but the misuse of sex.  Having multiple sexual partners is, from the Christian perspective, misuse.  The sexual act at least corresponds to two being made one flesh.

Why do you assume that using sex for pleasure/intimacy is automatically "treating it lightly?" 

[AndyDT]

How is it feeding the flesh any less than outside of marriage?

[hefdaddy42]

How is it feeding the flesh any less than outside of marriage?

Because it is reserved for marriage.

The only people who teach "no contraceptives" are the Catholics, for whom every sperm is sacred, indeed.  Protestants don't buy that crap.

What an ignorant generalization.

How so?  That is a teaching of the Catholic Church - no contraceptives.  It is not a teaching of any other Christian body of which I am aware.