Ok hilariously I'm a natural family planning instructor with my wife, so we've worked with a variety of couples using NFP for varied reasons. We've used NFP for a decade now both to conceive and avoid. My observations:
-Estrogen surges that increase libido build up and are not just on top of ovulation. As a guy, having your partner wanting you + pheromones is pretty great even if you are avoiding intercourse.
-The rhythm of abstaining then using adds flavor to the relationship. Counterintuitively, using days lower libido days creates intentional intimacy which may not happen otherwise. Generally by the time we're back to a abstaining, we're ready for a break.
-Fertility can be very delicate and varies considerably couple to couple. For some women, return to fertility after hormonal birth control is a longer then expected process. Our experience is that cycle charting can identify some issues.
Meaningful sex is better and nothing is quite as meaningful as intentionally creating a new little human. If you know you're ovulating and it's like 20% happening this go, it's super meaningful. This isn't a fetish, this is sex fully aligned with it's function/meaning: the women is saying I'm willing to have your kid and the man is saying I'm committed to support you through doing that. (That may fall apart later, in the moment there is that alignment). I this is an aristatilian definition of good sex.
In Orthodox Judaism, the woman is considered "unclean" while menstruating and for 7 days afterwards, and during the time the couple must not only abstain from sex, but from even touching, embracing or kissing one another. And sleep in separate beds, naturally.
So essentially for 2 weeks out of 4 you're celibate and can only look - and with the modest clothing also prescribed for both men and women, the looking won't do as much for you as it might with certain other styles of clothing.
Some theorise that, since "desire" is about wanting what you can't have, this is in part designed to keep desire going between married couples. But it's also effective at maximising chances of conception.
She's sounding a lot like Robert George, the conservative Catholic philosopher. From his chapter on what sex can be, I mainly inferred that he has an intense breeding kink and wants to convince everyone else to have one too.
Indeed. Vatican Roulette sets both genders up to fail, literally by design. The days when the woman is the most fertile are, not coincidentally, the days when she is the horniest. And when no other methods of attaining sexual release, such as condoms or non-penetrative sex or masturbation are permitted (as they are all "sins", remember), something's gotta give...
Yes, I think that is the right choice after you’re done having kids. But I know many men who are uncomfortable with the idea. Probably because, as committed as they may be to their wife and family, a small part of them wants to maintain their fertility in case they break up and want to remarry a younger woman
I agree with you in that I’m not sure there are vast numbers of women who are having sex out of politeness- personally I think it’s more of a cultural issue in the vein of ‘have sex like a man’.
However you might be interested in this book: How the Pill Changes Everything by Dr Sarah E Hill, it’s really fascinating. She did an interview on the Modern Wisdom and Jordan Peterson podcasts that are a good intro.
Can’t remember if it was Mary Harrington or someone else who said women who had been on the pill then got off it to try for children, suddenly found their sexual attraction changed to the point that they weren’t even attracted to their partner anymore. I’ve also seen claims that women on the pill are less attracted to men in general than they otherwise would be. If true, those seem like pretty big drawbacks. Is using condoms really that bad? I feel like it’s a bigger downside for the man but maybe I’m just ignorant.
Yeah I’ve also heard women who say their overall attraction level, and to some degree what they find attractive, changed when they stopped taking birth control. But for me, it’s not just that condoms are bad but that condoms are not safe enough since I really care about avoiding accidental pregnancy.
Yes! The mirena has been found to be 99.8% effective on a yearly basis with a cumulative 5 year effectiveness of 99.3%. Condoms, even when used correctly and every time, are only 98% effect on a yearly basis and with typical use they’re more like 87% effective. But even 98% is not good enough for me, and that’s 10x less effective than the mirena
As with many things in the modern world, everything is too safe and risk free (including sex), so I can certainly see where she’s coming from when she argues the modern craze for more extreme forms of BDSM is an attempt to bring back some edgy thrill into sex.
Can you at least see the general point she’s making?
Secondly the ‘woman have casual sex out of politeness’ argument.
I’m a guy, so I might be talking BS, though my experience of the feminine temperament would tell me there’s something to this argument. If ‘putting out’ is the social norm and you don’t want to appear a ‘frigid b**ch’ in Louise Perry’s words, then I can absolutely see women doing this, especially under pressure from the more masculine assertive temperament. Yes, I agree leaning to assert yourself is a good idea too, though also feeling ‘armed with permission’ from the culture around you to say no is also a great help.
You can disagree, but can you at least sort of see where the argument comes from?
Indeed the sexual counterrevolutionaries like Mary Harrington, Louise Perry, et al. really seem to have their heads in an anatomically impossible position, at least about some things.
I understood Mary's argument to be that women would make choices about sex that would make them happier in the long run - by avoiding hookups and vague noncommittal "situationships" - if they didn't have BC giving the illusion of consequence-free sex. I don't think that's actually that unreasonable - I've had friends stop to ask themselves "what if I got pregnant?" and realize that would be a nightmare with their selfish loser bf and they need something better.
I don’t really have a problem with the argument that women should examine whether they’re getting what they want out of their romantic relationships. But I don’t think the connection to the pill is meaningful and I don’t think Mary makes a good case for that connection
I think it makes sense that we would never have become a culture that not just accepts but in a lot of ways encourages casual sex without the technology to prevent pregnancy. We don't really see societies with that attitude before the pill, except matriarchal outliers like the Mosuo, where male investment in their children is negligible.
Yes, sure, but I think there were way more downsides to the culture we came from than there are in the one we inhabit. And I think we can address the issues with narratives around casual sex without rejecting a very helpful technology
Ok hilariously I'm a natural family planning instructor with my wife, so we've worked with a variety of couples using NFP for varied reasons. We've used NFP for a decade now both to conceive and avoid. My observations:
-Estrogen surges that increase libido build up and are not just on top of ovulation. As a guy, having your partner wanting you + pheromones is pretty great even if you are avoiding intercourse.
-The rhythm of abstaining then using adds flavor to the relationship. Counterintuitively, using days lower libido days creates intentional intimacy which may not happen otherwise. Generally by the time we're back to a abstaining, we're ready for a break.
-Fertility can be very delicate and varies considerably couple to couple. For some women, return to fertility after hormonal birth control is a longer then expected process. Our experience is that cycle charting can identify some issues.
Meaningful sex is better and nothing is quite as meaningful as intentionally creating a new little human. If you know you're ovulating and it's like 20% happening this go, it's super meaningful. This isn't a fetish, this is sex fully aligned with it's function/meaning: the women is saying I'm willing to have your kid and the man is saying I'm committed to support you through doing that. (That may fall apart later, in the moment there is that alignment). I this is an aristatilian definition of good sex.
In Orthodox Judaism, the woman is considered "unclean" while menstruating and for 7 days afterwards, and during the time the couple must not only abstain from sex, but from even touching, embracing or kissing one another. And sleep in separate beds, naturally.
So essentially for 2 weeks out of 4 you're celibate and can only look - and with the modest clothing also prescribed for both men and women, the looking won't do as much for you as it might with certain other styles of clothing.
Some theorise that, since "desire" is about wanting what you can't have, this is in part designed to keep desire going between married couples. But it's also effective at maximising chances of conception.
She's sounding a lot like Robert George, the conservative Catholic philosopher. From his chapter on what sex can be, I mainly inferred that he has an intense breeding kink and wants to convince everyone else to have one too.
lol I only even learned the term "breeding kink" from Mary's article
Indeed. Vatican Roulette sets both genders up to fail, literally by design. The days when the woman is the most fertile are, not coincidentally, the days when she is the horniest. And when no other methods of attaining sexual release, such as condoms or non-penetrative sex or masturbation are permitted (as they are all "sins", remember), something's gotta give...
Did you know that if you’re on hormonal birth control you’re turning the friggin frogs gay -- no, no, it's *atrazine* that's turning the frogs gay.
As an aside: for most married couples, there comes a point where a vasectomy is the best option available.
Yes, I think that is the right choice after you’re done having kids. But I know many men who are uncomfortable with the idea. Probably because, as committed as they may be to their wife and family, a small part of them wants to maintain their fertility in case they break up and want to remarry a younger woman
I agree with you in that I’m not sure there are vast numbers of women who are having sex out of politeness- personally I think it’s more of a cultural issue in the vein of ‘have sex like a man’.
However you might be interested in this book: How the Pill Changes Everything by Dr Sarah E Hill, it’s really fascinating. She did an interview on the Modern Wisdom and Jordan Peterson podcasts that are a good intro.
Thanks Eva, I’ll check her out!
Can’t remember if it was Mary Harrington or someone else who said women who had been on the pill then got off it to try for children, suddenly found their sexual attraction changed to the point that they weren’t even attracted to their partner anymore. I’ve also seen claims that women on the pill are less attracted to men in general than they otherwise would be. If true, those seem like pretty big drawbacks. Is using condoms really that bad? I feel like it’s a bigger downside for the man but maybe I’m just ignorant.
Yeah I’ve also heard women who say their overall attraction level, and to some degree what they find attractive, changed when they stopped taking birth control. But for me, it’s not just that condoms are bad but that condoms are not safe enough since I really care about avoiding accidental pregnancy.
is BC and condom effectiveness that different?
Yes! The mirena has been found to be 99.8% effective on a yearly basis with a cumulative 5 year effectiveness of 99.3%. Condoms, even when used correctly and every time, are only 98% effect on a yearly basis and with typical use they’re more like 87% effective. But even 98% is not good enough for me, and that’s 10x less effective than the mirena
Re rewinding sex.
As with many things in the modern world, everything is too safe and risk free (including sex), so I can certainly see where she’s coming from when she argues the modern craze for more extreme forms of BDSM is an attempt to bring back some edgy thrill into sex.
Can you at least see the general point she’s making?
Secondly the ‘woman have casual sex out of politeness’ argument.
I’m a guy, so I might be talking BS, though my experience of the feminine temperament would tell me there’s something to this argument. If ‘putting out’ is the social norm and you don’t want to appear a ‘frigid b**ch’ in Louise Perry’s words, then I can absolutely see women doing this, especially under pressure from the more masculine assertive temperament. Yes, I agree leaning to assert yourself is a good idea too, though also feeling ‘armed with permission’ from the culture around you to say no is also a great help.
You can disagree, but can you at least sort of see where the argument comes from?
Indeed the sexual counterrevolutionaries like Mary Harrington, Louise Perry, et al. really seem to have their heads in an anatomically impossible position, at least about some things.
I understood Mary's argument to be that women would make choices about sex that would make them happier in the long run - by avoiding hookups and vague noncommittal "situationships" - if they didn't have BC giving the illusion of consequence-free sex. I don't think that's actually that unreasonable - I've had friends stop to ask themselves "what if I got pregnant?" and realize that would be a nightmare with their selfish loser bf and they need something better.
I don’t really have a problem with the argument that women should examine whether they’re getting what they want out of their romantic relationships. But I don’t think the connection to the pill is meaningful and I don’t think Mary makes a good case for that connection
I think it makes sense that we would never have become a culture that not just accepts but in a lot of ways encourages casual sex without the technology to prevent pregnancy. We don't really see societies with that attitude before the pill, except matriarchal outliers like the Mosuo, where male investment in their children is negligible.
Yes, sure, but I think there were way more downsides to the culture we came from than there are in the one we inhabit. And I think we can address the issues with narratives around casual sex without rejecting a very helpful technology