Hatrack River Writers Workshop: Contraception in fantasy

This is topic Contraception in fantasy in forum Open Discussions About Writing at Hatrack River Writers Workshop.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/writers/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=004362

Posted by JeanneT (Member # 5709) on :

(I'm being bad here since when I raised this topic on another forum it caused a HUGE argument -- one in which I was accused of not understanding or being sympathetic to women. Considering, I was vastly amused.)

What are people's opinions on the subject of dealing with contraception (or the lack of it) in fantasies? I have seen references to herbs. Since to the best of my knowledge herbs don't work well in real life, so unless magic is involved this always struck me as unconvincing. There is always good ol' coitus interruptus which was actually used a lot as a form of contraception but is almost never mentioned, nor are condoms which there is evidence have been used on and off (hush, that wasn't a joke) since very ancient times.

I find having a sexually active MC (and to some degree this applies to males as well as females unless they immediately disappear from the vacinity)and not dealing with the possible consequences of sex just bothers me.

So what do you guys do about it (the subject not sex) and what do you find convincing in fantasy?

[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited November 09, 2007).]

Posted by Zero (Member # 3619) on :

Well first of all, let me begin my response by pointing that you clearly don't understand women at all...

Nice little condom pun btw,

OK, well, honestly, my characters tend to lack the situations to have sex. I find the appetite is useful for sexual tension, or character frustration. But I haven't actually had any characters be intimate, and when I do it's usually very implicit. And in those cases, thinking about it, they've always produced offspring.

Posted by JeanneT (Member # 5709) on :

Well, that's logical--the off-spring thing that is.

Honestly, the pun was accidental.

Edit: My grandmother once made a joke (horribly shocking my mother) about the only way to avoid sex was to spend all your time standing up. Whoa--this can be a dangerous topic. My POINT was that not having any possibility for sex might involve being locked in separate cells of the dungeon. LOL

Ok. I can't discuss this without saying things I shouldn't so I'll be quiet for a while.

[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited November 09, 2007).]

Posted by annepin (Member # 5952) on :

quote:
I find having a sexually active MC (and to some degree this applies to males as well as females unless they immediately disappear from the vacinity)and not dealing with the possible consequences of sex just bothers me.

Yes, I've always been disturbed by that too, since becoming pregnant is a huge deal for women, particularly. I mean, childbirth was a leading cause of death for women for quite some time.

I'm not entirely unconvinced by herbs. We've lost a lot of the lore of herbology, so it's possible they were more effective in the past. There's also the rhythm method, which can reduce the rate of pregnancy without any method. Finally, there's always, er, alternative sex.

Of bigger concern to me are STDs. Syphilis was huge in many cultures, not to mention gonorrhea, and so forth.

My MCs don't have a lot of sex, generally. In my WIP, when my female MC does, she's scared of the possibility of becoming pregnant.

Posted by JeanneT (Member # 5709) on :

In the around the 1500s condom use became quite widespread for exactly the reason of STD. The prevention of pregnancy was a bit of an added bonus.

My MCs are adult women and do have sexual partners so it's not a subject I feel I can totally ignore.

I decided to do something different and put in a passing reference to "male sheaths". We'll see what an editor or agent thinks of it. If it's a problem I can always change to herbs, but I am unconvinced from historical evidence and the lack of any data on existing herbs that they were ever effective.

Alternative forms of sex (don't you love our delicacy? *grins*) or interruption of sex--there is a lot of evidence they were widely used. I ran into a rather expicit scupture on the subject.

Edit: If you had an angry woman with a large weapon or angry male relatives, pregnancy was an issue with men as well, if somewhat less than women.

[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited November 09, 2007).]

Posted by lehollis (Member # 2883) on :

Pardon me while I cover my character's ears. They're much too young for this conversation. (Maybe in the sequel.)

It's a level of detail that I think should be explored. The degree to which it is explored is proportionate to the realism of your world. Some fantasy novels are so over-the-top that it hardly matter. I can't imagine Conan saying, "Oh, sorry, I can't do this. I don't want to get you pregnant."

Or ... "Maybe we should consider alternative sex."

So, I think it depends on the book. It's a decision the author should make. In some books, I'd love such detail. In other, even if the characters are active, it really doesn't fit the style of fiction.

But if a novel has such things as condoms, I'd be way interesting in knowing about them. In fact, I'd feel disappointed if the author didn't tell me how they were made, what from, and maybe even how natural they feel.

Okay, maybe not that last part. But, you know, maybe. Or not. Either way, really. But yes.

Posted by spcpthook (Member # 3246) on :

My solution to this is simple. It's a fantasy world. i invent some fantasy herbs. I tend to use a lot of herbs in my stories as several of my characters have been healers or had the need to self-medicate often. My herbology is usually grounded in factual data from our world, but for this one I usually introduce a new herb grown only in whatever world I'm writing in for the moment. The only complaint I've gottewn on my herbology thus far involved a made up poison, not a made up contraceptive. I've also invented herbs for my female heroines to control the flow of their menstrual cycle while traveling for a long time frame to reduce the hassle obviously.

Posted by HuntGod (Member # 2259) on :

Assuming the society understand the association of semen and pregnancy then you have many options.

Keep in mind our own societies, though they associated sex to pregnancy, did not understand how the semen fertilized the eggs etc.

I'd say the most typical form would be the "seed on the belly takes no root" approach, which is actually pretty effective, if the male is prompt :-)

Condoms of various sorts have been around for awhile and would also be reasonable, sheep gut was quite common, though the idea of reuseable condoms is awfully icky, washing out socks is bad enough :-)

In a pure fantasy setting, a barrier method like a sponge, dipped in a medicinal spermicide could also be effective.

Fo abortives, there are many herb's that can cause a spontaneous miscarriage, the problem is they generally carry significant dangers for the mother as well.

Tansy tea, in the GRRM novels, is a nice fantasy version of these abortives.

It is on the whole much easier to induce a miscarriage than prevent the actual pregnancy, depending on the technology available. Could be a nice moral quandary for your society on whether early term abortion.

Good luck with it.

Posted by JeanneT (Member # 5709) on :

Inducing an miscarriage every time you have sex wouldn't be my idea of fun though. I have a feeling some writers don't thoroughly think these things through.

I considered coitus interruptus but that involves a more detailed description that I generally prefer. I'm a "fade to black" gal.

Posted by skadder (Member # 6757) on :

I think you have pretty much covered the main approaches. I would imagine women would use a number of ways to stop pregnancies at the same time. I would imagine that women would have used barrier methods like caps (orange skin) and spermicides (herbs) plus withdrawal method. After they could have taken a morning-after pill (more herbs-obviously not in pill form). If that failed they could take something stronger if they became pregnant. In the middle ages infant mortality was about 50% so without magic a child was unlikely to survive (Many pregnancies naturally abort, followed by 50% death rate after birth.)

That would suggest that using reasonable contraceptive aids would reduce the chances of a successful pregnancy.

Posted by Robert Nowall (Member # 2764) on :

Like feminine hygiene and venereal disease and bowel-and-bladder movements, Man-plus-Woman-plus-Sex-equals-Babies is one of those boldly-ignored details in nearly all fiction, much less SF or fantasy. I do feel the lack when I read---if the action and themes don't directly involve these, I can overlook it---but every time I see a charactes who "get it" that often, I wonder, "How come she's not 'knocked up'?"

I don't think much of making up a special herb...there are some real herbs and folk medicines that might do, along with real devices and methods that a writer could explore. (I read once that the Aztec or Mayan women chewed a tree bark that contained a chemical similar to that in the Pill---must've been Gary Jennings's novel Aztec, I guess.)

Posted by InarticulateBabbler (Member # 4849) on :

It's ironic that a woman brought this discussion up: Historically, men have had a much more apethetic approach, because we (as a gender) are not forced to deal with the consequences of our actions; that's not to say the other half of the equation bears none of the responsibility. Throughout history, men have raped, used, seduced, and paid for women with reckless abandon. Think of the mentality of the world pre-sixtees. How long was it before women (on the whole) could own property? In Japan, women could be killed by her husband because he owned her. Women did have to rights to free love without the concequences of a bad reputaion--or worse! (Of course, there was a time women could be executed for using a weapon or wearing breeches and cutting their hair, but there's no complaint about the realism of that aspect.)

quote:

I can't imagine Conan saying, "Oh, sorry, I can't do this. I don't want to get you pregnant."
...I think it depends on the book. It's a decision the author should make. In some books, I'd love such detail. In other, even if the characters are active, it really doesn't fit the style of fiction.

I totally agree with lehollis on this. You have to take cultures into account, what kind of sex (rape, servant-master, prostitution, romantic, husband-wife), and the individual character into account.

quote:

Tansy tea, in the GRRM novels, is a nice fantasy version of these abortives.

Also, they had the wall. Jon Snow is but one bastard. Robin Hobb adressed the issue as her protagonist in The Farseer Trilogy.

That contraceptive herbs, prophylactic-intestines, sponges, alternative sex (I assume you mean cunnilingus and the products of the isle of Lesbos and sheep), earth-maidens (barren prostitutes), and feminine washes were used at different times throughout history, it was all relative to the societal culture.

Also, the odds of a woman getting pregnant are not as easy as fifty-fifty. As most couples trying to have a baby know, it can be years of attempting before anything happens. So, there are a lot of factors.

An interesting aside: Has anyone read James Silke's four book series based on Frank Frazetta's Death Dealer? His battle rage turned to battle-lust when not sated--sort of a cost of the magic thing.

[This message has been edited by InarticulateBabbler (edited November 10, 2007).]

Posted by JeanneT (Member # 5709) on :

Actually, no, I didn't mean cunningulus although I'm sure it was used at times as an alternative. My reading (yes, there is research out there on this subject) is that anal sex was a very frequent alternative. There is a fascinating sculpture--I'm afraid I've forgotten the culture it came from--of a man and woman and baby in a bed. She's laying facing the baby and he's-- erm yeah. Better cover those YA character ears.

The problem with depending on there being a 50% infant mortality rate is that the woman is still relatively disabled for months with a pregnancy, so it doesn't work well for a lot of plot lines.

I think most of us are well aware that women could be killed for cutting their hair, wearing breeches or all sorts of things. Ignoring that for most of us is simply that that kind of thing still goes on in the world. Read about "honor killings" in a substantial portion of the world and you quickly realize that. I generally don't read fantasy for that. It's why I put down Kushiel's Dart half read. That series is also proof that some people have a strong interest in female bondage/masochism and whatnot.

Edit: And while men had to deal with the issue less than women, they didn't escape it entirely. There was always the risk of more children than you could feed or a "shotgun wedding" or just getting the s*** beaten out of you for despoiling someone's property that made this issue of interest to men, not to mention the issue of STD. I have read that Casanova used condoms.

[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited November 10, 2007).]

Posted by KayTi (Member # 5137) on :

Have you not considered cycle charting and fertility awareness? How technologically/scientifically advanced is your fantasy world? It is quite simple for a woman armed with 3 pieces of knowledge/items (one of which is not likely available in a less advanced culture) to be able to avoid or achieve pregnancy with rates at or higher than most contraceptives available today.

Fertility Awareness Method is the name of the most rigorous one, not rhythm method or other basic calendar counting measures, though that is another option. A book by Toni Weschler covers the science behind it, but it's low-tech. The only thing your characters might not have is a thermometer to measure basal body temp (waking body temp) - which in FAM one looks for a rise to indicate ovulation.

It requires your cultures to have an awareness of fertility to the degree of understanding ovulation and menstruation. Or at least understanding ideas like "fertile time" and "infertile time."

In some parts of the world, aid workers distribute "moon beads" or other necklace/bracelet things that mothers use to count her cycle to help identify fertile times. The idea is that she can try to encourage her partner to not engage in those activities when she is most fertile, unless pregnancy achievement is their desire. It's also meant to be subtle, so that in cultures where many children are expected/desired, but women's health suffers, women can wear these bracelets without identifying their purpose, and count their way through their cycle. An average time of ovulation is about Cycle Day 14, roughly midway through what is an average cycle length of 28 days. Cycles are counted from first day of menstruation.

Not sure if this helps, but it's another option, I'm surprised it hasn't come up in the thread (maybe it did, I skimmed some.)

Oh, and for what it's worth, some herbs can be effective by changing the quality of the cervical fluid, which is the second of the three things a woman looks for with FAM. Cervical position is the last.

In an early culture where women breastfeed and carry their babies with them everywhere, you can also expect a minimum of 6 mos fertility inhibition from breastfeeding, though when ecological breastfeeding is practiced (baby nurses on demand and is with mother virtually all the time) the reality is more like child spacing of 2-4 years, longer in some cases.

Posted by KayTi (Member # 5137) on :

Oh, and to address something in IB's post, in any given cycle, a woman in her 20s has about a 20% chance of getting pregnant if she has sex during the time of ovulation. I think.

This number decreases as she ages, and does not take into account male infertility factors.

Alternatively, you could have all the men bind themselves...there is some fertility inhibition by tightness/heat in that area for men...

Posted by JeanneT (Member # 5709) on :

I've known too many women who got pregnant using cycle type birth control to feel any confidence in the "it's more effective" argument. But I haven't checked recent statistics either. It's not something I am interested in introducing. It brings back unpleasant visions of my religious past, but someone else might be so it's interesting to bring up. I think most writers who do go into the subject at all prefer something you can refer to in passing and any cycle method is at the least intrusive. I suspect that why it generally isn't considered. An herb you can mention once.

I think if I ever did a book where sex was a larger part, this might be something to consider. I am just afraid that considering my strong feelings on the subject of the treatment of women that if I went into it, the book would turn into polemic rather than fiction.

I considered writing something where men were kept for stud purposes and prostitutes. I think it could make an interesting world building feature, but I don't find that much more pleasant than women being kept for the same purposes as they in essence were for much of history (and still sometimes are in some cultures).

[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited November 10, 2007).]

Posted by annepin (Member # 5952) on :

I mentioned the rhythm method! No one seemed to pick up on it though...

The FDA associates an 85% rate with no birth control method; with "natural family planning" (aka fertility awareness or rhythm method) the rate is reduced to 25%, while withdrawal method=19%. This is based on "typical rate" of use, that is, with a certain inflation accounting for human error or non-use. If the methods are used correctly, and every single time, the rates are more like 1-9% for natural planning and 4% for withdrawal.

So, it seems to me with a little bit of knowledge and planning, a woman could significantly reduce her chances of getting pregnant, esp if she were to combine methods.

Deciding what your culture knows about sex is always an interesting task.

[This message has been edited by annepin (edited November 10, 2007).]

Posted by JeanneT (Member # 5709) on :

I believe that does not compare well with other more "technological" methods such as oral contraceptives though.

Sorry about not picking up on it. I think it is largely that I think using that (as I mentioned) would be intrusive in the story line or seems that way to me anyway. I prefer a mention it and forget it kind of method rather than having to bring in "sorry darling, not this week".

Actually it might be interesting in a book where sex was a theme though. I can see that being a rather fascinating alternative. I've always wanted to write a novel with a lot of sex. Maybe I should re-think the male sex slaves.

(just kidding)

Well, not kidding about a novel with a sexual theme...something along the lines of Kushiels Dart missing the degrading of women parts. *ponder ponder*

[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited November 10, 2007).]

Posted by HuntGod (Member # 2259) on :

Well if you want to put it in perspective.

My first child was born while my wife was on the 6 month shot birth control, back in 1996.

My second child was born thanks to a lapse of...attention about 18 months later. Those little pills are not nearly as effective if you leave them in the box.

My third child, lost in a miscarriage, would have been born in 2000, my wife was taking her pills then, and we are pretty sure the misacarriage was a result of her continuing to take the pill before she knew she was pregnant.

Posted by KayTi (Member # 5137) on :

This isn't going to be relevant to the current WIP since it won't fit with your storyline, JeanneT, but fyi here's a good comprehensive look at fertility awareness methods:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertility_awareness

Which to extend what annepin said (and contradict her a little - eep!), are related to but not the same as Natural Family Planning (a specific version of FAM sanctioned by the Roman Catholic Church that includes abstinence for pregnancy avoidance during fertile times. Someone not concerned with Roman Catholic Church sanctioned-methods might use a barrier method during that time, for instance.) And the rhythm method is the butt of all the jokes. "What do you call people who practice the rhythm method?" - "Parents!"

Perfect use for FAM is 1-3% failure rate, which is roughly comparable. I do not believe withdrawl has that kind of rate, though honestly I'm not searching for the data. Don't need THAT in my internet cache. LOL

JeanneT, if you do explore it as an idea for a future work, one useful tidbit - most women who have used FAM have found it to be an incredibly EMPOWERING thing, knowing and understanding your body's signals to that level is really powerful. There is a sorry lack of basic fertility education in the U.S., most women couldn't pinpoint any one sign of fertility much less the three overlapping ones used for FAM. Anyway...sorry, just one of my areas of interest (I've debated talking to the local high schools about teaching a class on fertility...)

Posted by JeanneT (Member # 5709) on :

Thanks, KayTi. Even if I don't eventually use that (which I may) it might spark something for someone else.

Very interesting information.

[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited November 10, 2007).]

Posted by Robert Nowall (Member # 2764) on :

Near as I can tell, no contraceptive method has one hundred percent reliability...and any fantasy or SF story involving one, real or imagined, would have to take that statistic into account.

Posted by lehollis (Member # 2883) on :

Abstinence is 100%, isn't it? I mean, unless you're a Christian, I guess.

(Meaning the virgin birth idea, not anything else.)

Practices and beliefs are going to vary with differences in both culture and religion. The Roman Catholic Church is a good example of that.

[This message has been edited by lehollis (edited November 11, 2007).]

Posted by Rick Norwood (Member # 5604) on :

Actually, abstinence is not 100%, as many Christian girls have discovered who have done everything short of penetration. There's many a slip 'twixt the cup and the lip.

The standard method of birth control in most ancient cultures was to expose the newborn to the elements. Of course, this did not avoid the dangers of pregnancy. I'm under the impression that abortifacant herbs are more effective than herbs designed to prevent pregnancy.

Probably the safest method of birth control is the one we all assume Xena practiced.

Posted by annepin (Member # 5952) on :

Just to make a distinction, birth control and population control, though related, are to separate issues.

I always assumed abstinence meant _any_ kind of sex.

Posted by DebbieKW (Member # 5058) on :

quote:
Actually, abstinence is not 100%...

*confused look* I thought abstinence meant not touching the other person in a stimulating way (i.e. kissing and holding hands is allowed, but not much else). Thus, short of rape, it is 100%.

quote:
The standard method of birth control in most ancient cultures was to expose the newborn to the elements.

Um, that happens after birth, so I don't think it qualifies as "birth" control.

quote:
Probably the safest method of birth control is the one we all assume Xena practiced.

I must be feeling contentious today. Xena hopped in bed with plenty of men (without any mention of birth control) and even had a couple babies, so I wouldn't look to her as a model of effective birth control.

Posted by JeanneT (Member # 5709) on :

quote:
*confused look* I thought abstinence meant not touching the other person in a stimulating way (i.e. kissing and holding hands is allowed, but not much else).

Many people consider abstinence to refer to abstaining from sexual intercourse, not abstaining from any sexual activity at all.

quote:
Near as I can tell, no contraceptive method has one hundred percent reliability...and any fantasy or SF story involving one, real or imagined, would have to take that statistic into account.

I disagree. I have no intention of taking that into consideration, and seriously doubt anyone will care. I'll say they practice birth control; she won't get pregnant.

quote:
The standard method of birth control in most ancient cultures was to expose the newborn to the elements.

Well, as has been pointed out, this is not a method of birth control. It was used for reasons of eugenics and at times when a child simply could not be care for. But there are other methods of actual birth control which would prevent the "disability" of having a woman's ability to work substantially decreased for several months and were very easily practiced such as coitus interruptus or anal/oral sex.

I think we're getting a bit off the subject of how it can be used in writing for me at least, so I'll make this my last post on it though. Thanks for the input and suggestions.

[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited November 11, 2007).]

Posted by mfreivald (Member # 3413) on :

quote:
Natural Family Planning (a specific version of FAM sanctioned by the Roman Catholic Church...

FYI, NFP is not sanctioned by the Catholic Church except in grave situations.

Yes, you will find people within the church who use NFP without a grave situation, and you will even find many who actively promote it. But they are generally in error. The actual position of the Catholic Church as articulated by Papal Encyclical does not allow it without sufficient gravity.

Posted by lehollis (Member # 2883) on :

Yeah, I was thinking of abstinence as "no touchy" too, but I people do have different definitions on that one. Good point.

Posted by JeanneT (Member # 5709) on :

quote:
FYI, NFP is not sanctioned by the Catholic Church except in grave situations.

I can't help it. This totally startled me although I admit it has nothing to do with writing. You're saying that the Catholic Church says that couples can't abstain during a woman's fertile cycle? That's a bit startling.

Edit: Firmly shuts mouth and leaves. Do NOT let me post on this subject again. I already had to apologize to Kathleen once this week.

[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited November 12, 2007).]

Posted by KayTi (Member # 5137) on :

Mfrievald - you should let wikipedia know, then. The info I took came straight from their Fertility Awareness Method pages.

Posted by Kathleen Dalton Woodbury (Member # 59) on :

Getting into a religious discussion here.

Posted by hoptoad (Member # 2145) on :

I make my characters ugly.

Posted by Rick Norwood (Member # 5604) on :

"Sanction" is an interesting word. It can mean "allow" and it can also mean "punish". So, to say the Catholic church "sanctions" birth control can have two meanings.

I like hoptoad's method of birth control best.

Posted by Elan (Member # 2442) on :

I'm wondering why birth control has to enter into the storyline at all if there is no effect on the plot.

Stories don't usually mention the times they go to the bathroom, or women have their menses cycle, or brush their teeth, or any number of mundane things we all do.

If a character gets pregnant, then it affects the plot. If there is no pregnancy, then does it really matter?

Posted by Lynda (Member # 3574) on :

In my fantasy stories, my couples are committed to each other (monogamous - they end up married), so STDs aren't a problem. Pregnancy is dealt with via a magic spell or a potion. I don't think you need to get into a lot of detail to keep your readers happy unless the story is "about" how people in this fantasy world prevent pregnancy. As someone said, you don't normally describe how they go potty, what they use to wipe themselves, how they deal with menses, so why go into detail here unless it's REALLY important to the story? Instead, indicate that they've done something responsible to take care of the problem, but indicate it in passing. That will keep those who worry about such things (and you) happy, but won't drag the story into places you may not want to go. JMO.

Lynda

Posted by JeanneT (Member # 5709) on :

[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited November 12, 2007).]

Posted by mfreivald (Member # 3413) on :

Just so it is clear, I have no intention of getting into a theological discussion here. I posted the information for the sake of accuracy. Understanding the theology of it would take a much bigger commitment than an exchange here.

JeanneT

quote:
I can't help it. This totally startled me although I admit it has nothing to do with writing. You're saying that the Catholic Church says that couples can't abstain during a woman's fertile cycle? That's a bit startling.

That's not what I said. It is more complicated than that. The simple answer is that Catholics cannot abstain for the purpose of denying life, but, as I said, it will take much more discussion to clarify it properly. The main thing you need to understand for accuracy's sake is that NFP is only an option under grave* circumstances.

KayTi

quote:
Mfrievald - you should let wikipedia know, then. The info I took came straight from their Fertility Awareness Method pages.

Well, there are far more forums than Wikipedia that need to be corrected on the matter--many of them Catholic forums. Regardless of the rampant error out there (including any number of abuses of the language that depart from the intentions of the encyclicals), the truth is still the truth--and that truth is that the Catholic Church does not permit NFP except in grave circumstances.

*It is interesting to note that some of the translations vary. Some use the words "serious motives," instead of grave, and I've recently seen it toned down to "well-grounded reasons." That doesn't change the substance of the encyclicals, though, and it is clear -- when read in the full context(s), that there isn't a blanket sanction (permission for) of the use of NFP for Catholics.

Posted by JeanneT (Member # 5709) on :

*repeatedly bonks head on keyboard and bites tongue until it bleeds*

I WILL not get into a discussion of the Catholic Church--EVER. You would not like my opinion and it has no place here.

A discussion of real world religion and theology surely has no place on this forum. I suggest locking it for all of our benefit. I knew I'd get myself in trouble bringing this subject up, but to a certain point it was both interesting and informative. It is an subject I was dealing with in a novel. Debating or discussing real world religion has unfortunately gotten dragged in.

[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited November 13, 2007).]

Posted by mfreivald (Member # 3413) on :

Be at ease, JeanneT. I haven't said anything about the merits of it. I've simply clarified it for accuracy. This is within the goal of understanding and clarity that is good for good writers to know and (I believe) is within KayTi's objective for bringing it up.

Posted by mfreivald (Member # 3413) on :

Actually, I didn't mean to imply that understanding the merits of something is not necessary for a good writer who wants to write on the subject. If a WIP was about Catholicism specifically, I think it would be a requirement.

Posted by RobertB (Member # 6722) on :

If you have a basic conception of sex as something that exists purely for procreation, as the Catholics do, then anything whatsoever that lets you have sex and avoid babies must be a Bad Thing, even if it is allowed under special circumstances. Whether you think their understanding of sex is adequate is another matter! But unless you're writing about the RC church, it's not too relevant.

Posted by mfreivald (Member # 3413) on :

quote:
If you have a basic conception of sex as something that exists purely for procreation, as the Catholics do,...

*sigh*

For the record, and for the sake of accuracy, yaddah-yaddah-yaddah, the Catholic Church does not have that basic conception of sex. Please learn about it before you make such false statements. There is far more to it than that, and (trying to keep it relevant to the list) if you want to write about it, it would behoove the writer to study it quite deeply. There are any number of surprises and enlightenments about Catholicism that might come of it.

For that matter, it might even be a profitable thing to study the Catholic views of sexuality and contraception more deeply even if you aren't going to write about Catholicism. Because Catholicism has developed thought about contraception more than just about anyone else, it could give some ideas and reference points that would enhance your writing.

Posted by mfreivald (Member # 3413) on :

I might suggest that Kathleen lock this one up. I am doing my best just to respond to inaccuracies (for the sake of accuracy in writing) and to avoid talking about the merits of Catholic sexual theology. But the tone of some of the other posts are leaning towards criticism, and if they were to make an accurate criticism, I would feel compelled to respond rather than just correct, which is clearly out of scope, here.

Anyone reading by now should be able to see that simple, unstudied statements about the Catholic view will not do to understand it. A commitment to much deeper study is required for those who care about accuracy and truth.

Posted by RobertB (Member # 6722) on :

I think this is a reasonable summary of the official position. It says you can't do anything sexual which isn't aimed at procreation. OK, the 'love union' comes into it as well, but the ban on anything not open to the production of offspring is just as solid as I suggested. If you want to put people straight on RC doctrine, or anything else, please be specific, and put forward evidence for your position; don't just dogmatise! The positions on AIH and contraception, to my mind, show up the weakness of their stance. But you're right, this isn't the place for theological debate.

'The official teaching rests on the view that the innate purpose of the sexual faculty is twofold: procreation and love union. Every sexual act must be open to procreation, and must be expressive of love. This is the church’s basis for condemning masturbation, contraception, sterilization and homosexual acts. It is also the ground for condemning artificial insemination, even with the husband’s semen (AIH). Contraception is wrong, in the hierarchical magisterium’s view, because it prevents procreation. AIH is wrong because the act of insemination is not the natural act which, by its very nature, is expressive of love.'

Quoted from http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=113

[This message has been edited by RobertB (edited November 13, 2007).]

Posted by wetwilly (Member # 1818) on :

Trying not to be graphic here...

During Shakespeare's time (not sure how far back the practice goes or how recently it died out), they used a form of birth control you might consider (for your story...none of my business whether you consider it for your own use or not. It was actually primarily a form of STD protection, used to have sex with prostitutes without getting Siphilis (I have no idea how to spell that), but a secondary function was birth control. The woman would keep her legs together, and the man would basically have sex with her thighs, or between her thighs...not sure which preposition would best describe the act. Anyway, that might work for your purposes, JeanneT.

Posted by Rick Norwood (Member # 5604) on :

The word is frotter, a great word to spice up a bodice and broadsword historical.

Posted by InarticulateBabbler (Member # 4849) on :

quote:

The woman would keep her legs together...

LOL. Yeah, holding an aspirin between her knees helps, too.

[This message has been edited by InarticulateBabbler (edited November 13, 2007).]

Posted by mfreivald (Member # 3413) on :

quote:
It says you can't do anything sexual which isn't aimed at procreation.

*sigh*

That does not cover all situations, so it is incomplete and inaccurate. For example -- what if one spouse was sterile? They certainly don't have to abstain from sex just because they know it isn't going to procreate.

And as far as being specific, there isn't enough room to be specific and thorough on this forum--and, as stated, it would be out of scope.

I don't think you even understand what it means to dogmatize from a Catholic perspective, so I'm not sure what you are telling me not to do. I am simply stating the truth. Deal with it. The "specific details" and much discussion to understand those details are in several encyclicals, including Humanae Vitae and others, as well as in many teachings on the theology of the body. But a discussion about those details and specifics cannot possibly be captured here with your simple, inaccurate statements. They require study and further explanation within the Magesterium of the church to understand them. If you don't want to do the work because somehow you think it is my responsibility to provide the details to you -- you are being willfully ignorant. If you want to be a willfully ignorant writer, that's up to you. You can enjoy Dan Brown's company. Tell him I said "Hi."

Posted by mfreivald (Member # 3413) on :

RobertB, it is also telling that the article you got the quote from was "Roman Catholic Sexual Ethics: A Dissenting View" (Emphasis mine). An honest attempt at understanding Catholic teaching goes to Catholic teaching--not to a dissenting view.

Posted by mfreivald (Member # 3413) on :

By the way, there is some truth to the quote above, but it does not provide a fair picture of it. You can't possibly think you understand everything about what the Catholic Church teaches on the subject by that quote.

For example, the statement "This is the church’s basis for condemning ..." is grossly incomplete. The mentioned reasons have something to do with it, yes -- but there is far more to it than that.

Posted by Kathleen Dalton Woodbury (Member # 59) on :

Yeah, maybe I'd better close this one up.

It appears to have exhausted the original question, at the very least.