RH Reality Check
Font Size: A |  A |  A

Here's A Yummy Marshmallow - Don't Eat It Until You're Married

By Amie Newman, Managing Editor

October 9, 2009 - 12:19pm

Published under: | | | | | | |
Amie Newman's blog | Printer-friendly version | Login or register to post comments |
Amie Newman's picture

The League of Young Voters is on a quest to educate people about abstinence-only programs and health care reform. And it's hilarious.

What's not funny? A provision to restore funding for abstinence-only programs was recently added to the current incarnation of the health care reform bill - funding that had been eliminated. The League of Young Voters is not happy. 

What is hilarious is the pubilc service announcement the League produced to make people aware of just how absurd abstinence-only programs are as sexual health education. The video parodies the well-known "Marshmallow Test", originally performed at Stanford and recently reprised, a sort of psychological test on self-control. The post-test analysis and follow up suggested that those children who were able to "save" the marshmallow for later "enjoyed greater success as adults." Whether or not that test had merit is debatable but the parody is a narrative on the virtues of resisting temptation, practicing self-control and patience, for greater rewards later on. 

You need to watch both videos to enjoy the hilarity of comparing marshmallows to sex - both are yummy and hard-to-resist, sure - but the larger point may be that we adults all know how wonderful sex is and yet all we do is throw it out there to young adults as, "Sure sex is fantastic/this marshmallow is delicious and sure you are a sexual being with sexual desires/you're a human who cannot resist marshmallows, but don't even think about having sex, your sexual desires, engaging in sexual activity/eating that squishy, sweet marshmallow. Wait, wait, and wait some more. And then you'll find the pot at the end of the rainbow. When you're married. Years from now."

Here's the marshmallow test (the PSA parody is below that):


Amie Newman's blog | Printer-friendly version | Login or register to post comments |
. . . . .
154 comments
Please login or register to post comments...
The second video isn't

The second video isn't really a great parody of the first since it appears as though most of the small children were quite willing to wait so that they could have two marshmallows. Smart kids!

Submitted by Anne on October 9, 2009 - 6:12pm.
The second video

It might not be a "great parody of the first" but it's a good example of what ab only education gives children in regards to facts and the tools to protect themselves with.  Students don't use safe sex practices, because they aren't taught about them, and as such, put themselves at risk.  It's why telling your children not to do something, and then only answering their questions of why with "Because I said so" doesn't work.  As a parent, when my children question my instructions, I've found what works best is to explain it with reasoning they can understand.  I have never and will never tell my children to stay out of the road simply because I told them to.  I tell my daughters that they should stay out of the road because the cars can hurt them, but I tell them how to be safe when walking with me, holding my hand, staying on the sidewalk, etc.  Would any of you tell children simply to stay out of the road without giving reason or alternitaves, and then walk away and assume that your job is done the way abstinance only education teaches our children to avoid sex?

Equal rights, equal responsibilities.

Submitted by Equalist on October 10, 2009 - 12:42am.
The first video

Using your example, in the first video, we don't know for sure if the woman promising the second marshmallow explained why she was giving one and promising one later. What we do see, though, is that the majority of the children are really resisting temptation pretty well-in the hopes of being able to enjoy not just one, but two. I really think that makes a case for abstinence only. After all, these small children that one might think have less ability to resist temptation actually do a pretty great job of it. Why should we suppose then that teens, assuming they have been taught about how valuable their sexuality is from a young age, will not be able to also resist the temptation? Also, I don't think that just because you tell kids they should wait until marriage means that you follow that up with, "because I said so!" It's actually pretty easy to give alot of reasons why one should wait until marriage, such as: no risk of std, no risk of pregnancy, no risk of needing an abortion, no risk of side affects of contraception, no risk of a condom breaking, the concept that perseverence pays off(being able to say no and not cave to 'pressure'), the opportunity to build one's own character and self-respect (in leiu of worrying about pleasing someone else sexually), the opportunity to be able to share your sexuality with the one you will spend your life with, the opportunity to really get to see if people you 'date' are worthy of you (since you know they aren't hanging out with you for sex)etc.......All great reasons to wait for the second marshmallow.

Submitted by Anne on October 14, 2009 - 8:08am.
I would add:

That chastity training from a young age and teaching about the miracle of human life from a very young age in my opinion would be the ideal abstinence-only education.  And there's really no good reason why we cannot offer that to all children.

Submitted by Anne on October 14, 2009 - 8:10am.
What is 'chastity training'?

What is 'chastity training'?

The only difference between the American anti-abortion movement and the Taliban is about 8,000 miles.

Dr Warren Hern, MD

Submitted by colleen on October 14, 2009 - 11:23am.
Teaching a person how to

Teaching a person how to live a chaste life.

Submitted by Anne on October 14, 2009 - 2:26pm.
Don't look on the Web!!

Checked for 'chastity training' and got all sorts of weird fetish sites.

Submitted by crowepps on October 14, 2009 - 6:49pm.
Don't look on the Web!! Too

Don't look on the Web!!

Too Late! After Anne's tautology disguised as an answer I did that search. Then I decided to filter it by putting in "chastity training" +Christian. I found two possible answers to what she may be talking about. One was training for Catholic Priests (which clearly isn't all that effective) and the other, a publicly funded method of humiliating low income single mothers who need welfare. Now I'm depressed for the rest of the day.

Except for the Priests and the fetishists none of the 'chastity training' was intended for human males of any age.

The only difference between the American anti-abortion movement and the Taliban is about 8,000 miles.

Dr Warren Hern, MD

Submitted by colleen on October 14, 2009 - 7:02pm.
Did find this -

The first evil inclination, the concupiscence of the flesh, seeks inordinately after all that gratifies the body, tickles the senses, and excites them to pleasure. Certainly the physical needs must be provided for and the sense activities must be exercised, otherwise life would not be worth living. But, how easily may the proper measure of enjoyment be exceeded, and thus that which might have been, according to St. Paul, a source of heavenly merit and for the greater honor and glory of God, is turned into a source of demerit, sin and punishment!

If then, dear Christian mother, you do not want your child to become the slave of sensual and carnal pleasures, you must train it from its earliest years to self-restraint and self-denial, to application and industry, to order and cleanliness. Among other things therefore a prudent Christian mother will provide for a thorough ventilation of the living and the bed rooms, so that wholesome, fresh air may constantly fill them. She will provide for the children plain, nourishing food, sensible clothing, and a neat comfortable bed; on the other hand, she will withhold from them everything that merely indulges the sensual appetite or wantonly excites the nerves. Children must not be permitted to eat as much and as often as they please, but whatever their reasonable needs demand, should be granted kindly and graciously. Cookies and candies and other palate-ticklers should not be allowed too frequently, since experience teaches that excessive munching of sweetmeats is not only injurious to the teeth and stomach but also to the general health. Try to impress upon the minds of your little ones, Christian mother, that it is a good work occasionally to give up some creature comforts and enjoyments for the love of God, that God especially loves children who act that way and rewards them for it in body and soul. Performing such little mortifications with a good intention is a powerful means of obtaining many favors from God. But in these mortifications children should be supervised so that they may not overdo them.

A Christian mother should let her children play much in the open air, even when the weather is somewhat cold and unpleasant. She should put them to bed early and in the morning also get them out early. They should be taught to get up immediately on the first call, to dress themselves quickly and to make their morning ablutions with cold water. Each child should have its own little daily work to do according to its age and strength, and a fixed time to do it. Dresses and coats, hats and caps, shoes and slippers, as well as playthings should not be allowed to be scattered around, and for everything that belongs to a child there should be a fixed place and it must be trained to put them in the proper places itself. Dirty hands and dirty faces as well as dirty clothes must never be tolerated.

Children should always be cheerful not only at their games and recreations but also at their work and even in their little trials and hurts. As early in life as possible they should be taught that the afflictions and reverses of life, such as excessive cold or heat, slander or gossip, offenses and insults and abuse, sickness and wounds and death, are blessings in disguise and sent by God to wean us from the world and its attractions and arouse in us a greater love and desire for the eternal joys of heaven. They should also be taught to see in them a means which God provides, to atone for our sins, our faults and imperfections. Finally, they should be taught that Jesus Christ Himself was willing to endure the same or similar afflictions during His life here on earth, and that it is a mark of great love of Christ to be satisfied to live amid the same conditions as He did and to bear willingly what He was willing to bear.

Many things are sources of pleasure to children. In the first place there are the things of nature itself. These captivate the eyes of children by their beauty and variety. Naturally, the child admires them, asks questions about them and is happy in knowing them. A Christian mother will not only call attention to their beauty and variety of arrangement, but she will also show how they are evidences of God’s goodness and love as well as proofs of His infinite wisdom and power. The parish church is another source of joy to the child: its majestic appearance, its length and width and height on the outside, and on the inside its altars and their ornamentation, its pews and pictures and statues, its pulpit and confessionals. Gradually, the mother should teach the child the purpose and meaning of them all, so that it may learn to appreciate them as the means by which the salvation of mankind is affected. The feasts of the Church should give the mother opportunities for explanations and stories from the life of Christ in order to instill a greater love of Christ into the heart of her child; when occasion offers she will also narrate stories from the life of the Blessed Virgin Mary, so that the child’s affection for our heavenly Mother may constantly grow and confidence in her tender mercy may increase. Again and again she will tell of the lives of different saints, of their zeal for their own salvation as well as for the salvation of the souls of others and of their love of God and His glory. All that was ever learned in Catechism or Bible History, in sermons or conference, in the Lives of the Saints or some other spiritual book, the Christian mother will impart to her little ones in such simple words that even the youngest may understand. Her efforts will surely be blessed by God and she will enjoy not only the pleasure of gladdening the hearts of her children by her story-telling but will also be rewarded by the earnest endeavors with which her children will try to imitate the virtues of Jesus and Mary and of the saints.

Another species of joy is derived from home-life and the intimate associations of the family-members. Home, sweet home! Oh, that every home were so sweet and inviting, so pleasant and cheery, that neither father nor children would ever desire to be anywhere else but with and around mother! In such a home every say is the herald of new joys, and certain occasions such as the nameday or birthday of father, mother, brother, or sister and the anniversary of some joyous, important event, are celebrated in a festive manner with some innocent amusements and recreation and sincere testimonies of mutual affection.

In this manner the children will be protected against the deceitful allurements of carnal and worldly pleasures which alas! are only too often the death of purity and innocence. Would to God that every mother at least realized her responsibility in this matter! It may be safely affirmed that the loss of the sense of shame and modesty, so noticeable among the youth of the present generation, is primarily due to the indifference of mothers in observing proper precautions in bathing, dressing and bedding her little ones. Other causes are frequently assigned such as the prevailing fashions of the day, the promiscuous gatherings of young people in dancehalls and amusement places and the modern dances themselves, but all these should be considered as contributing causes merely, since the seed of immodesty and shamelessness was sowed earlier in life.

I can only indicate the sowing of this seed by telling what a mother should not do. A Christian mother will never bathe a child while other children are looking on, nor will she bathe them together at the same time. She will never strip them entirely to change their underwear in the presence of others; she will always have separate rooms and beds for her boys and girls. She will earnestly reprimand even the least breach against modesty and, if repeated, she should severely punish the offender. True, the little one may not understand the indecency of its act, but it is important to impress upon it the gravity of the fault by the infliction of some punishment so that it may not in later life fall into sins which, more that all others, are the cause of eternal damnation. The girls in particular, should be trained in Christian modesty, which includes also decency in dress. Fashions change with the times, so that sooner or later we may expect some improvement in present-day styles; but a mother who today dresses her girls in fashionable décolleté and sleeveless undress, is surely not preventing the violation of the sense of modesty, and is, indeed, contributing to the moral laxity of her daughters.

As the children grow older, the vigilance of parents must become more alert, so that the boys and girls may not become victims of vicious companions who are ever ready to initiate the innocent into the clandestine and sinful methods of sex gratification. As soon as parents observe in their boys and girls a curiosity regarding sex, it would be highly imprudent to conceal from them the desired sex-knowledge, because they will not content themselves with evasions, and the danger is lest they obtain that knowledge in a crude and sinful way. Tell them briefly and frankly what they desire to know, and at the same time warn them against speaking on such subjects with outsiders and encourage them to seek all sex-information from you only-the girls from mother and the boys from father. But also, according to the age of the children, admonish them to preserve their mind[s] and heart[s] pure and chaste through an earnest devotion to the immaculate Blessed Virgin, who is ever ready to help and protect us in all unprovoked dangers and temptations.
Written by Sister Maria Philomena, M.I.C.M.
February 25th, 2009 at 2:40 pm

http://ihm.catholicism.org/2009/02/the-christian-training-of-children-co...

Submitted by crowepps on October 14, 2009 - 7:42pm.
Catholic upbringing

crowepps,

 

The 'site you were visiting is hosted by the Sisters of the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.  They've got a grade school in New Hampshire.

 

My critique of their advice is that it runs to scrupulosity.  The advice about fresh air, and cleanliness and order bespeaks a difficulty accepting human imperfection.  Such an acceptance is the foundation for true spiritual advancement.  The advice about adolescent sexuality is completely ineffectual. 

 

the vigilance of parents must become more alert, so that the boys and girls may not become victims of vicious companions who are ever ready to initiate the innocent into the clandestine and sinful methods of sex gratification.

 

This is Sister Philomena's oblique reference to masturbation.  I can assure her that the innocent can be initiated without the assistance of vicious companions.

 

On the positive side, I liked her suggestion that mothers speak regularly to their children about the Feast Days and about the lives of the saints.  The advice shouldn't just go to mothers, however.  I always took the lead in my family for those kinds of discussions.

 

Finally, somebody should explain to Sister Philomena that a devotion to the Blessed Mother offers very little solace to a youngster who is disturbed by unchaste thoughts and behaviors.  I have, however, found that the administration of anti-psychotic medicines is useful in many cases.  Talk to a competent psychiatrist.

 

Paul Bradford

Pro-Life Catholics for Choice

Submitted by Paul Bradford, Pro Life Catholics for Choice on October 14, 2009 - 8:23pm.
Is this hyperbole?

Finally, somebody should explain to Sister Philomena that a devotion to the Blessed Mother offers very little solace to a youngster who is disturbed by unchaste thoughts and behaviors.  I have, however, found that the administration of anti-psychotic medicines is useful in many cases.  Talk to a competent psychiatrist.

I may be reading too much into this, but it almost sounds as though you believe the correct prescription for feeling guilty about masturbating is anti-psychotic medication rather than simply being advised of the truth, that masturbation is normal and most people do it at least occasionally.  The youngster is not going to be 'disturbed by unchaste thoughts and behaviors' unless some idiot is telling him or her that those thoughts are 'disordered' instead of perfectly normal. 

Submitted by crowepps on October 15, 2009 - 4:05pm.
Compassion for suffering

masturbation is normal and most people do it at least occasionally.

 

crowepps,

 

You're exactly right.  Most people do it occasionally -- but some people do it so much that it becomes a problem.  Teenage boys who masturbate twenty or thirty times a week often grow up to be men who are addicted to pornography, who spend most of the day fantasizing and who have trouble developing healthy relationships with women.

 

I deal every day with people who struggle with compulsions and disorders -- alcoholism, drug addiction, bulimia.  Proper medication can bring substantial relief.  Some people (the overwhelming percentage are men) struggle with some form of sexual addiction and virtually all of them are compulsive masturbators.

 

For some reason, people with this problem think its a good idea to discuss it with a clergyman -- but clergymen are ill equipped to deal with it.  Some lay heavy guilt trips, some take your attitude and say it's "normal", some suggest prayer or meditation.  I've never seen those methods do any good at all.

 

Addictive or compulsive behavior is generally linked to an imbalance in brain chemistry.  That's why so many people see their symptoms reduced when they are properly medicated by a psychiatrist trained to deal with their issues.

 

Youngsters don't have to rely on 'some idiot' to tell them what's disordered and what's perfectly normal.  They can talk about their behaviors with somebody who actually knows what s/he's talking about. 

 

 

Paul Bradford

Pro-Life Catholics for Choice

Submitted by Paul Bradford, Pro Life Catholics for Choice on October 16, 2009 - 9:07am.
Addicitions and compulsions

And yet obviously the 'problem' here is the brain chemistry that causes addiction and compulsion, not the masturbation itself. The person would need just as much help if their addiction or compulsion was being unable to 'correctly' enter doors or climb steps.

Submitted by crowepps on October 16, 2009 - 4:19pm.
The problem is all in their heads

I think we're in agreement, and we both dispute Sister Philomena's contention that the best way to alleviate the suffering of sexual compulsion is with a devotion to the Blessed Mother.

 

Paul Bradford

Pro-Life Catholics for Choice

Submitted by Paul Bradford, Pro Life Catholics for Choice on October 17, 2009 - 4:44pm.
Crowepps, please put a check

Crowepps, please put a check in the mail...amount should be sufficient to cover the costs of monitor wipes and a keyboard.

Submitted by ahunt on October 15, 2009 - 12:49pm.
Unbelieveable

I particularly liked the parts about how "life would not be worth living" without enjoyment but that its wrong that "the proper measure of enjoyment be exceeded" and so children should be 'trained' by being kept in cold, drafty rooms, fed insufficient boring food but not too much of it, and disallowed luxuries like washing in warm water because God is pleased by "little mortifications" and deliberately inflicts kiddies with excessive cold or heat, slander or gossip, offenses and insults and abuse, sickness and wounds and death so that they can achieve 'perfection'.  Frankly, if I were being raised in this abusive manner, AND being required to be 'cheerful' about it, I would certainly be absolutely EAGER to drop dead.

Submitted by crowepps on October 15, 2009 - 4:06pm.
I sent it around to our

I sent it around to our boys, apologizing for my failures as a mother.  The DIL's are having a field day...

 

A good time is being had by all. Thanks, Crowepps.

 

I am unable to write a response, because I lack your graciousness and I'm not about being mean/instigating meanness.

Submitted by ahunt on October 15, 2009 - 4:33pm.
Meaness

The meanness quickly dissolves when you understand that this poor woman actually BELIEVES all of this. Then you just feel really sad for her and for any children over whom she holds power.

Submitted by crowepps on October 15, 2009 - 4:53pm.
when you understand that

when you understand that this poor woman actually BELIEVES all of this.

 

Now see, crowepps...this where I let wiser, cooler, more compassionate minds prevail.

 

Half a century + 1 as of last Monday, and  my patience for adult conduct that "sadly" impacts children is limited. Better to quiet the viper in my soul...and relearn the lessons of early motherhood.

 

Which also explains why I haven't ripped Paul a new one for his sneaky snark over in Guttmacher.

Submitted by ahunt on October 15, 2009 - 7:08pm.
Happy Birthday, Ahunt and

Happy Birthday, Ahunt and thank you for your thoughful contributions on this blog.

Which also explains why I haven't ripped Paul a new one for his sneaky snark over in Guttmacher.

Paul? Passive aggressive? Who knew.

The only difference between the American anti-abortion movement and the Taliban is about 8,000 miles.

Dr Warren Hern, MD

Submitted by colleen on October 16, 2009 - 10:22pm.
Thanks Colleen...a good time

Thanks Colleen...a good time was had by all.

Submitted by ahunt on October 18, 2009 - 11:41pm.
Just you and me, ahunt, talking about things we care about

I haven't ripped Paul a new one for his sneaky snark over in Guttmacher.

 

ahunt,

 

By now, I would hope that you realize that you can get my attention without 'ripping me a new one'.  I'm interested in what you have to say about the Guttmacher report.  Have you read it?

 

I'm dying to know what you mean by 'sneaky snark'.  :-) 

 

Paul Bradford

Pro-Life Catholics for Choice

Submitted by Paul Bradford, Pro Life Catholics for Choice on October 17, 2009 - 4:51pm.
What struck me was the

What struck me was the nearly twenty million women worldwide who choose to undergo abortion in dangerous conditions...every year that statistics have been reliable.

My guess is that the real choice is between death and death for the majority of these women...and that pisses me off, Paul.

 

Sneaky Snark? In your critique, you suggest that the gender of the authors is a factor in the failure of the report to address your concerns regarding WCT, and that"my spirit" is representative of intent.

 

You mis-estimate me, Paul, and you fault the study for the lack of inclusion of your concerns. Permit me to point out the "your concerns" were not the purpose of the study.

Submitted by ahunt on October 18, 2009 - 11:54pm.
Why don't they discourage abortion!

Because their job is to gather facts about what is actually happening and describe what is actually being done in the real world and hopefully identify the results of those actions. (i.e., a rise in the availability of contraceptives makes abortion rates go down.) Faulting an organization that gathers accurate statistics for being neutral does seem kind of a stretch. It is, however, very consistent with Paul's usual method of devaluing the other person's opinion on the basis that, for instance, they must have a toothache.

Submitted by crowepps on October 19, 2009 - 5:24pm.
whateverology

 I was thinking the phrase 'chastity training' sort of spoke for itself, that's why I answered it that way.  I suppose training children to lead chaste lives may be a market cornered by Catholics, but I don't think it is.  I know one thing-I do not want to turn this 'conversation' into some brawl with you regulars.  The original marshmallow video was, to me, an example of how we just might be able to give teens more credit on the side of being able to actually control themselves if they had the information that training in chastity would give them.

I visit this site often enough to know that here, the Catholic religion is hated, women who had abortions and regret them are tolerated but frowned upon.  I know that anytime someone pays a visit here trying to shed a different light on things you typically throw them in a pot of boiling water.  Well go ahead and put the pot on for me..... I have lived it all.  Parents divorced, raised by single mom, raised on welfare, dad not in my life, fondled sexually by a few men and boys as a child, sexually active 'by choice' at 13, pregnant at 15, gave birth to that child, kept the child and married his father at 16 (he was 18). File for divorce at 19, move in with boyfriend, break up with boyfriend, find out I'm pregnant a month later, abort the baby.  Now officially divorced and raising my son alone.  Enjoying my sexual freedom.  Get two more abortions.  Meet the man who will become my husband, he is Catholic.  Doesn't matter to me one way or the other, I am not becoming religious and he doesn't ask me to.  BTW, we are sexually active quickly in the relationship, his Catholic self using condoms.  Later in the marriage he wants me to join the church.  I throw up to him a couple hundred times how he is a Cathoilic using condoms to screw his wife, and he doesn't go to church anyway, no thank you-I don't need to be Catholic.  I begin to 'settle down', have a daughter.  Begin to really think about my choices and where they took me.  Begin to really dig deep.  Decide to go through RCIA (information about the history and catechism of the Catholic church)  I still am not bought in-just open minded-I just know I want better for my kids than I have had.  I hear about Rachel's Vineyard at RCIA.  I go to my retreat to 'heal' after my abortions.  I am shown, through Scripture in the Holy Bible, that Christ died for my sins and He forgives me, and my unborn babies forgive me......go ahead, call HYPERBOLE! HYPERBOLE!  Is the water at a boil yet ladies?   Here's the thing........I cried like a baby when I heard that Christ loves me and forgives me.   WHY????  It hadn't really thought about it too much over the years, tried to forget it.  I did not even know the whole story of Christ let alone care if He forgave me.  Blah blah blah, I join the church and since I'm Catholic, by God my condom using husband ain't using no condom on me anymore.  I start following lots of things to the T.  What I am finding is that it makes sense.  All of it.  Say what you want, throw me in the water (MARTYR! MARTYR!) I love my Catholic faith, the one so misunderstood and/or mistaught, the one with the gift of John Paul II's 'Theology of the Body' which, if practiced on the whole would cure so many problems in our world.  Do yourselves a huge favor girls (and guys) Read the resources available on the Theology of the Body.  Have the courage to have open minds.  Read it in secret if it makes you feel any better.   I just don't see what you have to lose. 

OK, I'm brainwashed, a trifling troll, woman hating patriarchal loving hater of sex who just came here to prosthelisize and judge...would Christ judge??!!! The only moral abortion is my own!  Go ahead, we've heard it all before.....

Submitted by Anne on October 14, 2009 - 9:31pm.
Not to worry, Anne. Everyone

Not to worry, Anne. Everyone here is glad you have found your peace.

 

I hope you can be equally glad for those of us who have found our peace outside of doctrines that define our personhood solely in terms of our reproductive aparatus.

Submitted by ahunt on October 14, 2009 - 10:33pm.
Hi Anne

I'm a Catholic who has been posting on these threads for about a year and I can assure you that NO ONE has ever tried to drop me into a pot of boiling water.  (Everyone is afraid I'll poison the water supply!)

 

It was really great to hear your story.  I like it when people reveal a little bit about themselves.  This shouldn't be a forum for people to bat around disembodied ideas about 'Choice' and 'Life'.  We're all people who have made choices and who have experienced life so we have the opportunity to share ourselves, not just our philosophies.

 

You say, "The only moral abortion is my own!".  May I suggest that you take a break from worrying whether abortion is 'moral' or 'immoral' and look at it from the perspective of whether your behavior is based on being 'connected' with or 'disconnected' from other people.  Morality isn't a competitive sport, it's an indicator of whether or not we're able to value and respect and care about the lives of others.

 

As to whether or not Catholics are "woman-hating, patriarchal-loving haters of sex who come around to proselytize and judge"....  Well, I'm not going to say that that behavior doesn't exist, but it doesn't represent Catholicism at its best.  I think that the best way to be a Catholic is the same thing as the best way to be a human being -- and that's to honor all your relationships with people.

 

Well, I hope you keep coming around.  Why not toss in a quote from JP2 every time you post?  :-) 

 

Paul Bradford

Pro-Life Catholics for Choice

Submitted by Paul Bradford, Pro Life Catholics for Choice on October 15, 2009 - 10:18am.
Paul,

When I said the 'only moral abortion was my own', I was saying that because the regulars here love to throw that out when women who regret their abortions tell their stories and then say they now don't agree with abortion, and that nobody should get them based on their own bad experience or that they now realize it's wrong.  I do not really believe "the only moral abortion is my own". And you know also that the pro-choice folks here do generally think all of those things about the Catholic faith.  Which I think is a shame, because it really is a wonderful faith when it is understood from a position of a love and belief in Christ.  

Submitted by Anne on October 15, 2009 - 11:02am.
Universal Language

it really is a wonderful faith when it is understood from a position of a love and belief in Christ.

 

It's also a wonderful faith if you're sick and you happen to live in a village in rural Africa and there's no government or private health clinic within a hundred miles -- but there's a clinic run by the Church you can walk to.

 

Paul Bradford

Pro-Life Catholics for Choice

Submitted by Paul Bradford, Pro Life Catholics for Choice on October 15, 2009 - 3:56pm.
Wonderful faith

Receiving needed medical care is a wonderful thing no matter who is providing it, unless, of course, for ideological reasons the Catholic clinic won't provide all the medical services wanted by the villagers (like birth control or sterilization), resulting in the people in the village receiving substandard care.

Submitted by crowepps on October 16, 2009 - 4:24pm.
Ideological Constraints

unless, of course, for ideological reasons the Catholic clinic won't provide all the medical services wanted by the villagers

 

crowepps,

 

From what I hear, the health workers 'on the ground' are generally more interested in tending to the needs of the people than they are in worrying about the opinions of the bishops.

 

If you surrender yourself to an impulse for compassion, you start to find work-arounds for little obstacles like 'ideology' and 'authority'.

 

Paul Bradford

Pro-Life Catholics for Choice

Submitted by Paul Bradford, Pro Life Catholics for Choice on October 17, 2009 - 4:52pm.
My sympathies

It sounds to me like you've had a pretty tough life. To me, however, it doesn't logically follow that the root of all those evils was sex although I'm sure everything that happened seems more manageable once an 'evil thing' is identified on which to place all the blame.

Submitted by crowepps on October 15, 2009 - 4:10pm.
Sex is not evil.

I never said it was.  Sex can be used in sinful/evil ways, a great example of this is rape.  In my experience, a few boys and men used sex on me in an evil way, and it had sort of a corrupting affect on me. And it's not like I had the best guidance nor did I have an understanding there there was a greater meaning to sex so I began to believe that I was meant to be a man tool, that's it.  Sex between spouses can be sinful if we are merely using each other to 'get off'....I remember recently, on this site I believe, someone was poking fun at a couple that had a prayer they said before sex to basically help them keep it pure.  Well, I get the concept because isn't it real easy to begin seeing people, even our spouse that we love, as an object for our own gratification.  That is NOT to say that sex should be enjoyed and pleasurable, because it should be.  Catholic=sex hater =believe sex is evil is not true in my case.  Woman with icky past tends to blame problems on evil sex=maybe true for some=I do not have that belief.

Submitted by Anne on October 15, 2009 - 6:12pm.
Objectifying

I have never seen anyone I've had sex with as an object.  It may be easy for you to do so, but not most people.  Sex is a bonding experience, and even if procreation is not the final goal, and the couple is not married, or even in a life long romantic relationship, it's still something enjoyable, and a normal part of healthy adult romantic relationships when both parties are in agreement.  It's something that brings people closer together as a couple.  I've had moments during sex that were so touching and heartfelt I cried.  I've had times during sex when my partner and I nearly had to stop for laughing so much.  My current boyfriend and I commonly use sex as a comfortable way to re-establish connections after an argument (though those are few and far between).  Sex can be used as a tool to get to know someone you're already close to even better, and to really get to know what makes them tick.  Yes, sex is an enjoyable experience, and yes, sex can create children under certain circumstances, but to be completely honest, I have a hard time seeing those two reasons as the entire reason for having sex in a relationship, and if those are the only reasons your'e having sex, I have to say, you're really missing out.

Equal rights, equal responsibilities.

Submitted by Equalist on October 16, 2009 - 12:09am.
Assumptions.

You all are making alot of them about my sex life.  I never said that I only use objectifying sex and it's easy for me to do.  I also never said that the only reason I have sex is to procreate.  Talk about Catholic stereotypes!  When I talk about using a person as an object for sex, I am not so much referring to the type of relationship that Equalist is talking about-which sound very healthy(except maybe for the part where "it can be used for a tool-I see where you could find out what makes a person tick through sex, but I don't know how I feel about it being used as a tool...).  However, treating someone as an object in a healty/unhealthy relationship can be a s simple as this: having a sexual encounter with that person for the sake of having an orgasm only, for satisfying yourself only, and if the other person gets off too, well, bonus!-not concern for the other person "sharing a whole sexual encounter"...I hope I'm articulating what I mean.  In other words, we can think of this objectifying more easily in terms of a one night stand, but it certainly isn't limited to that kind of sexual encounter.  Now, as far as the fact that I am a fertile married Catholic woman, that DOES NOT mean that I shell out babies like I am a frickin' rabbit.  I am a human being.  My husband and I use NFP, and at this time we really do not want another child.  It would not be a healthy thing for our family for many reasons at this time, SO...when I trach my fertile time every month, we abstain from intercourse during that time...INTERCOURSE...that does not mean that we have to barricade ourselves from each other, but it is a good time to be together and explore each other and achieve an intamacy that does not include intercourse.  Also, because we really do not desire a pregnancy at this time, I tend to add a few days before/after my charted fertile time as a buffer, so that the chances of me getting pregnant are even slimmer.  This works for us, and the Catholic church is all for it.  Contrary to what many people falsley believe, the church insists that you are OPEN to new life, always....BUT you can avoid sex on the woman's fertile days, which can absolutely be tracked.  The catch, if there is any, is that IF you were to become pregnant ANYWAY, you would welcome the new life as a gift from God.  MANY, MANY, MANY, MANY Catholic families have had large, small, middle sized families for years and years.  Yes, even Catholic families that you see where there are only two children, even they have DISCERNED for themselves that two is enough for reasons they have taken to God through prayer, discussed as a healthy couple, and use NFP to achieve.  In fact, the Church expects us to discern for ourselves as married couples how many children we are able to handle, for all reasons like finances, HEALTH OF THE MOTHER, both physical and mental, etc. to discern HOW MUCH LIFE WE CAN WELCOME.  Some encyclicals and Pontifical Council Documents that can be used for instruction on human sexuality in Catholic families are available from RELIABLE resources such as http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_08121995_human-sexuality_en.html  which is a link to a PCD called "The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality"  and also http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_19831101_sexual-education_en.html  which is by The Sacred Congregation for Catholic Education tiltled "Education in Human Love : Outlines for Sex Education."  The Church views married sexual love as total and complete gifting of yourself to your spouse.  Total includes your fertility.

Submitted by Anne on October 16, 2009 - 10:22am.
I also put this up

on another relavant post about NFP:

 

from Humanae Vitae, a real Catholic Encyclical by a real Catholic Pope:

 

Recourse to Infertile Periods

16. Now as We noted earlier (no. 3), some people today raise the objection against this particular doctrine of the Church concerning the moral laws governing marriage, that human intelligence has both the right and responsibility to control those forces of irrational nature which come within its ambit and to direct them toward ends beneficial to man. Others ask on the same point whether it is not reasonable in so many cases to use artificial birth control if by so doing the harmony and peace of a family are better served and more suitable conditions are provided for the education of children already born. To this question We must give a clear reply. The Church is the first to praise and commend the application of human intelligence to an activity in which a rational creature such as man is so closely associated with his Creator. But she affirms that this must be done within the limits of the order of reality established by God.

If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained. (20)

Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the later they obstruct the natural development of the generative process. It cannot be denied that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result. But it is equally true that it is exclusively in the former case that husband and wife are ready to abstain from intercourse during the fertile period as often as for reasonable motives the birth of another child is not desirable. And when the infertile period recurs, they use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love. ---------------

 

I encourage you all to read the whole thing, it really is quite beautiful.  Also, JP II's 'Theology of the Body" that I mentioned earlier is a responese to Humanae Vitae (which I believe was written in 1968, FYI)

 

 

Submitted by Anne on October 16, 2009 - 1:54pm.
NFP

Natural family planning can be very unreliable, especially in cases like my own where my periods (and times of fertility) are harder than normal to predict as they tend to be highly irregular, not following a normal 28 day cycle, but anything ranging from a 15 day cycle, to at times a 45 day cycle.  In my case, natural family planning would not work.  In my case, the only time I have a regular predictable cycle is when I am on the hormonal pill.  I'm sure I'm not the only one out there.  So what are women in my circumstance to do?  Avoid having marital relations with their husbands at all when they aren't ready to have children?  Or with no reasonable manner of determining when a woman is actually fertile, risk conceiving a child at any time of the month?

 

Equal rights, equal responsibilities.

Submitted by Equalist on October 16, 2009 - 10:58pm.
Irregular cycles

can be more tedious to track when you are first starting NFP.  Of the ones I am familiar with, The Creighton Model is one that is mucous based and is very detailed as far as determining what mucous you see.  This makes it possible to find out when you are fertile.  Even though some woman have irregular cycles, it is very possible to still track fertility based on mucous.  This is because fertile mucous is very obviously different from infertile mucous, and, it only sticks around for a very short period of time.   Of course it takes a few cycles to really get to know what you're looking at and how to record it, and that can be frustrating.  But, lots of Catholic couples do it because of their faith and I know that many of them are dealing with irregularity also.  A trained and certified instuctor helps you through the process. 

Submitted by Anne on October 17, 2009 - 8:16pm.
Sex as a tool

I'm sorry, I was under the impression that tools were good things.  Have you ever tried carpentry or mechanic work without some, and how did that work out for you?  I fail to see where the sex as a tool thing is such a bad thing.  Sex is a useful tool for bonding in a relationship, but so is verbal communication and touch.  I use the word tool because it's an accurate description of the manner in which sex can be utilized in a healthy relationship.  It's a phrasing used by professionals in regards to counseling techniques.

As for using a person as an object for self gratification and not offering the same satisfaction in return is wrong in any circumstances, but this is not something you see in a healthy sexual relationship.  The very act of this kind of behavior makes a relationship that is otherwise healthy, an unhealthy one.  It shows a lack of respect towards the other person in the relationship, and respect is always important in a healthy relationship.

The issue I find most disruptive in NFP is that intercourse can be an important bonding experience in a relationship.  My boyfriend and I have found that in our relationship, when we make time to have sex at least once a day in addition to our normal routine in our relationship, our stress levels are lower, our relationship is healthier, and we have a closer bond than we do at times when we remove this part of our routine and allow our intimacy to lapse in this area.  If you make it a necessity to avoid sex at particular times during a woman's cycle, (in your case adding a few days before and after just to be safe) going from the average information on fertile periods in a woman's cycle, you're removing at the least a full week from available bonding time in this manner.  I'm not saying that sex is the only bonding activity to be used.  My boyfriend and I bond in many different ways.  Performing household chores together such as cooking and cleaning, outings with our girls, watching movies together on the couch after the girls go to bed, making time to talk about our day when I get home from work, cuddling together, laughing together, and a lot of communication.  All these things can be important parts of a healthy relationship.  A healthy romantic relationship should not be based on sex alone, but neither should sex be removed from it.

You also mention that any pregnancy should be regarded as a gift from god and be welcomed as such, but there are instances where a woman becoming pregnant could be severely detrimental to her health or even fatal. Should she have to put her health at risk in order to enjoy a natural and healthy part of her relationship, or should she avoid this part of her relationship at all in order to protect her life and health?  In my opinion, this is asking far too much.

Equal rights, equal responsibilities.

Submitted by Equalist on October 19, 2009 - 5:01pm.
For one, because young kids

For one, because young kids generally don't have horomones running through their bodies yelling "EAT THE MARSHMALLOW!"  Also, teens tend to want to feel grown-up--sex is an adult thing, so there's another reason they might decide not to abstain.

 

Really, there's nothing in your post that is constrained to a abstinent-until-marriage mindset.  My comprehensive sex-ed program went over pretty much all of it, including not caving under pressure (they didn't tell us to wait until marriage, but they did say wail until we're ready).  But we also got plenty of information on how to stay safe when we do have sex--which lets face it, most everyone will unless they join the Church--and that information is still relevant to me today, over a decade later (and married, I might add).  This information will serve these kids for the rest of their lives--why should we short-change them the one chance we have to ensure they get complete, accurate information?

Submitted by Jayn on October 14, 2009 - 2:46pm.
Character and Sex Before Marriage

Most people are perfectly capable of building their character and self-respect while simultaneously leading healthy sex lives. If there is coercion involved, that is obviously HIGHLY detrimental, but saying that teens and young adults who have consensual non-marital sex are somehow missing out on the chance to grow into great people is insulting. And I highly doubt that sexually active teens are worrying so much about pleasing their partners that they never do anything else.

I advocate teaching young people about healthy relationships, and how sexual activity (from kissing to sex) can play a healthy or unhealthy role. They need to know about how to identify their boundaries and how to respect the boundaries of others. They need to understand what coercion is, and to identify when someone is attempting to use it to get what they want. What they don't need are adults telling them what their boundaries should be and that they're bad people if they disagree.

You also seem to be assuming that marriage is a natural goal for everyone. It's not. I know a lot of people who have no intention of ever getting married, so the idea of abstinence until marriage is ridiculous. Additionally, what exactly would you tell gay and lesbian teens? Unless you live in one of a handful of states, that message is not only irrelevant, it's marginalizing. "Don't have sex! Wait until you're... ummmm..."

 

 

 

 

Submitted by ack on October 14, 2009 - 4:35pm.
"Most people are perfectly

"Most people are perfectly capable of building their character and self-respect while simultaneously leading healthy sex lives."

 

Are you meaning to imply that abstinence among unmarried teenagers is unhealthy?

 

"I know a lot of people who have no intention of ever getting married, so the idea of abstinence until marriage is ridiculous."

 

How so?

 

The reason I favor keeping sexual intercourse within marriage is because it provides an unambiguous way for women to withhold consent, for men to know that consent has been established, and for the criminal justice system to know whether a prior act of sexual intercourse (that occurred in private) was consensual. That is why I favor enforcing Minnesota's adultery and fornication laws.

 

https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=609.36&year=2009

 

https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=609.34

 

How can the five-day waiting period for obtaining a marriage license be such a burden? The waiting period even has a judicial bypass provision.

 

https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=517.08&year=2009

 

"Additionally, what exactly would you tell gay and lesbian teens?"

 

The adultery and fornication laws only apply to heterosexual contact. I would favor creating other types of legal unions that included homosexuals. That would allow two unmarried heterosexuals to be able to legally engage in sexual intercourse with each other, permit homosexuals to have some state recognition for their relationship, and allow the state to limit homosexual contact to marriage.

 

www.abortiondiscussion.com

Submitted by GrayDuck on October 14, 2009 - 10:54pm.
@ grayduck...I hate to entertain this...

I never said that abstinence among teens is unhealthy; I said that implying that teens and adults who choose not to abstain until marriage are somehow unable to develop a healthy sense of self-esteem is insulting.

Messages that tout the benefits of abstinence until marriage are lost on those who never intend to marry; you attempt to condemn them to a life of celibacy. But it's an irrelevant parameter for them, so they really don't care.

And I think you haven't quite thought your "consent within marriage" argument through. Women and men ALWAYS have the right to withhold consent. Rape and sexual assault happen within marriages and committed relationships all the time, and being married does NOT mean that consent is a given. Spousal rape is rape. State laws were altered to reflect the fact that women aren't property, and a ring on your finger doesn't equal a yes in the bedroom.

And are you seriously proposing making non-marital sex illegal? Wow. Just wow. How often are those laws actually enforced?

I'd also like to point out an inconsistency: you say you'd favor creating other laws establishing unions between same-sex couples, then say that those laws would "limit homosexual contact to marriage." So are you for same-sex marriage? I'm just trying to clarify how this proposed legislation would play out.

Submitted by ack on October 15, 2009 - 1:06am.
Problems with your stance

"The reason I favor keeping sexual intercourse within marriage is
because it provides an unambiguous way for women to withhold consent,
for men to know that consent has been established, and for the criminal
justice system to know whether a prior act of sexual intercourse (that
occurred in private) was consensual. That is why I favor enforcing
Minnesota's adultery and fornication laws."

This statement is assuming that men are incapable of raping their wives, or that all sex within marriage is concentual, which neither of these are true.  If you use marriage as a point of concent, then that gives a man free reign to rape his wife any time he likes because "she concented when she married him".  This is simply not the case, and leaves many women unprotected by law should they be victimized by their husbands.

 "The adultery and fornication laws only apply to heterosexual contact. I
would favor creating other types of legal unions that included
homosexuals. That would allow two unmarried heterosexuals to be able to
legally engage in sexual intercourse with each other, permit
homosexuals to have some state recognition for their relationship, and
allow the state to limit homosexual contact to marriage."

 Should we have a state official in each and every bedroom to monitor this homosexual and heterosexual contact as well?   The state should not have the right to limit sexual contact between consentual adults.  Also in your statment, you say that unmarried heterosexuals should be able to legally engage in sexual intercourse with each other, but the state should limit homosexual contact to marriage.  Can we say double standard?  The state should stay the hell out of bedrooms unless consent is absent.  What two concenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes and bedrooms is between them, and honestly is none of your or anyone else's business.

Equal rights, equal responsibilities.

Submitted by Equalist on October 15, 2009 - 11:03am.
A system to deal with 'unlawful fornication' has been found

The Muslim innovation called 'misyar marriage' allows men to pay the family for the right to marry a daughter 'on paper' for a few weeks so that they can have sex with each other 'morally', and then divorce when the vacation is over.  Perhaps instead of 'prostitution' Las Vegas could come up with a similar type of 'temporary marriage' where for payment of a fee people could have 'legal sex'.  Personally, I think that's hairsplitting, but I guess those who feel society has a right to grant or withhold 'permission' for others to have sex might be satisfied.

 http://www.answering-islam.org/Index/M/misyar.html

 

Submitted by crowepps on October 15, 2009 - 3:44pm.
Check your facts-- or your assumptions.

It's actually pretty easy to give alot of reasons why one should wait
until marriage, such as: no risk of std, no risk of pregnancy, no risk
of needing an abortion, no risk of side affects of contraception, no
risk of a condom breaking...

While I certainly agree with anyone who makes a personal choice to delay sexual activity until they feel they're ready, your statement here makes some inaccurate assumptions about marriage. 

 

First off, waiting until marriage does not contain "no risk of std." This doesn't apply to all couples, of course, but marriages (about half?) do break up, and sometimes spouses within them do cheat. Additionally, because of crimes like sexual abuse and assault, even people who would choose abstinence for themselves sometimes have sex -- and the risk of sexually transmitted infections -- forced on them. As someone who's a survivor of such an event, I find it's something I can never personally discount. 

 

Moreover, your statements "no risk of pregnancy, no risk
of needing an abortion, no risk of side affects of contraception, no
risk of a condom breaking" kind of assume that once a couple is married, they'll want to have children: a) at all; b) without spacing them out. The idea that married women are at "no risk of needing an abortion" is at odds with the Guttmacher study that cites that 14% of abortions are obtained by married women. Also according to Guttmacher, 63% of married women worldwide use contraception, so more than half of married women are at "risk of side effects of contraception." As for married couples having "no risk of a condom breaking," well, my mom -- who got pregnant with me right around my parents' first wedding anniversary -- frequently assures me that a broken condom was her ticket to a positive pregnancy test (and my parents' careful and conscious choice was my ticket into the world). 

 

I'm not suggesting that people shouldn't wait. Like I said, I think the decision about becoming sexually active is one that should be approached thoughtfully and critically by individuals as they make that choice for themselves. But I do think it's important to recognize that for a lot of people, waiting until marriage doesn't remove the possibility of unwanted consequences from sex. 

Submitted by frolicnaked on October 14, 2009 - 8:01pm.
Context:

I was referring to teens who have not yet had a sexual experience with another person.  Not anything that could occur after marriage.  The arguments you bring up -I get what you're saying-but in a case where there is a whole sexual training of a young person, those things are addressed and I think those issues could be lessened in our society if there was such training.  Yes, std can happen with a sexual assault but that's not what I was referring to.  I am also sorry that you had to endure that in your life.

Submitted by Anne on October 15, 2009 - 11:19am.
An awful lot of qualifiers there.

Only speaking of teens who have not yet had a sexual experience with another person.  Nothing that could occur after marriage.  If no one involved in the relationship is sexually assaulted.  If there is no infidelity in the marriage, and on and on and on.  When you ignore or invalidate the facts that don't support your point of view, of course the remaining ones support it.  

 

Equal rights, equal responsibilities

Submitted by Equalist on October 15, 2009 - 11:49am.
Ignoring

Anne,

 

By not "referring to" situations that represent the complexities of everyday life for no small amount of people, it feels like you're ignoring the realities of those people. Certainly your recommendations could work for a narrow subset of people -- who plan on marrying, who will only have one successful and wholly monogamous marriage, who won't feel the need to space out childbearing, etc. -- but that's leaving an awful lot of people to fall through some very large cracks. 

Submitted by frolicnaked on October 15, 2009 - 12:10pm.
but in a case where there is

but in a case where there is a whole sexual training of a young person, those things are addressed and I think those issues could be lessened in our society if there was such training.

I'm not sure how you can describe as 'whole sexual training' admonitions that all sexual activity of any kind is forbidden and that only married people should be given the necessary information.

Submitted by crowepps on October 15, 2009 - 3:46pm.
1234next ›last »