A response to Peter Fournier, part 2: "The urge is too strong!"

Going further into Peter's essay:

Doing that [loving your wife in sickness and in health] requires that you, the man, are able to love her, and love her truly, according to that promise, while abstaining. You have to say no to sexual intercourse, even when she wants it desperately, if you have, as a couple, decided to delay or indefinitely postpone another pregnancy.

This can be a challenge, especially when she wants to take a risk. It is of course a challenge when you want her in a sexual way and the timing is not right -- you have to learn not to pressure or pout. You have to learn to abstain in good cheer.

Oh but I can't do that! The urge is too strong!

Actually, I have been abstaining in good cheer. I haven't refused to take out the garbage or to change the baby's diaper. I'm at home nearly every evening. I don't sulk, I don't snipe at her, and I don't pressure her in the least. She has made her decision, and I respect it.

As for the urge, the urge is there, but I'm well trained in how to resist it. As I said in my initial post, we were both virgins on our wedding night, and we've never strayed. While some young men have the attitude that any woman is potentially sexually available to them -- an attitude that must be hard to shake when they finally get married -- I was inculcated with the idea that no woman was sexually available to me, except, some day when I'd be married, my wife. Assuming that there were 2,000,000,000 adult women in the world, even as a married man I still wouldn't be allowed to have sex with 1,999,999,999 of them. Adding one more (my wife) to that enormous number is not a major adjustment.

This was reinforced in church youth group and the campus Christian ministry. My closest friends were Christians, and they at least professed to live according to that precept. (If they didn't, they weren't bragging about it.) The girls I went on dates with were all chaste Christians, too, belonging to the same fellowships, and they lived by the same standard.

So I'm very comfortable with the idea that the women I work with, the women in Sunday School class at church, the women in my civic club, the women I am around for one reason or another, are nevertheless off limits, even if I am attracted to them and they are (improbably) attracted to me. Accordingly I maintain physical and emotional boundaries with these women. I don't flirt with them, I don't spend time alone with them, I don't confide in them, I don't fantasize about them, I don't get touchy-feely with them, and I steer clear of any emotional entanglements with them.

Therefore, it's not a stretch to treat as off-limits the woman I work most closely with and spend the most time around -- my wife. In fact it's easier in many ways, because while I see my coworkers only when they're wearing their public faces and attitudes, I see my wife not just at her best, but also when she's tired and cranky and not very pleasant to be around. (And of course she sees me when I'm least attractive, too.)

Indeed, abstaining only gets easier over time, as memories of the pleasures of sex fade, and we grow accustomed to not think of each other in a sexual way.

So the strength of the urge is not a problem, but I don't think my ability to control my urges communicates love to my wife. I think she reads it as indifference.

I also find myself applying the same boundaries to her that I have used since high school to avoid getting entangled inappropriately with other women. Sensual touching, passionate kisses, flirting, deep emotional sharing -- these hardly ever happen now, because (just as with a high school date) they would lead somewhere we can't go right now.

And to be crystal clear -- I do not think this is a good path we are on. I do not think it is a good thing for a husband and wife to lose their sexual attraction for each other.

I think the only thing that would communicate to her that I am devoted to her in a romantic way would be for me to get the vasectomy so that we can be sexually available to each other without a significant risk of pregnancy and the resulting medical risks she would face.

A response to Peter Fournier, part 1: Terrified of whom? or of what?

As I begin to respond to what Peter Fournier has written regarding my dilemma, I want to say again that I appreciate the time he spent thinking through the issue, taking my concerns seriously, and setting out a response. I intend to show the same kind of respect to his thoughts that he has to mine. I am going to depend on you, dear reader, to reread his piece as necessary. I won't try to recapitulate the whole thing here.

He begins his essay with the issue of terror, which he calls the elephant in the room. He quotes this comment from PerpetualBeginner on an earlier post:

My simplest argument is that loving one another is high on God's list of priorities, and as I stated above, terror is not conducive to love. I am terrified of what an additional pregnancy would mean (much like your wife), with contraception, this terror has little to no effect on our marriage. Without it, I would be living with it constantly. Every time he gave me a hug, I would be thinking "what if he wants more?"

In the first section of his essay, Peter correctly assumes that my wife and I made promises to one another when we married, including the promise to love and honor one another in sickness and health. (We used the traditional Church of England service and vows -- the one that begins "Dearly Beloved," albeit the slightly modernized version that appears in the Episcopal Church's 1978 Book of Common Prayer.) Taking this promise and PerpetualBeginner's comment together, he writes:

If your wife is terrified of you, surely this is a symptom of not living out the promise to love and honour in sickness and in health. Having a wife/lover/cohabitation partner/whatever, terrified of you does not indicate that she is being loved and honoured in sickness and in health. It means precisely what is obvious: she is terrified of you, terrified to the point of not being able to accept a hug for fear of the possible consequences.

Now, hold the phone: My wife is not terrified of me. She's afraid of certain consequences of becoming pregnant. Most particularly, she's worried about the risks of enduring yet another abdominal surgery in her mid to late 40s. (I'm worried about that, too!) She's also concerned about other health risks to both mom and baby which increase as a woman ages.

While a fourth C-section is not the only issue, it's a significant one. Vaginal birth would not be an option -- it would be foolish and dangerous to try. The first C-section was an emergency C-section due to fetal distress -- cord prolapse. The second time around we went through the LaMaze classes for VBAC, but the baby was late and big and the doctor advised us to schedule a C-section. The third time the baby was even bigger (10 lbs!) and there was never any question that it would be a C-section.

The bottom line is she's not terrified of me. She's terrified of my sperm reaching her egg. She's afraid of what can make her pregnant and put her in risk of uterine rupture and possibly death.

If the sperm can't reach her, the terror goes away.

Part 2 tomorrow or over the weekend.

Peter Fournier: Terror as "the Elephant in the Room"

I appreciate those who continue to read and comment during my hiatus from blogging. Some work-related travel and a child's illness at home kept me from the keyboard. I'm home again, things have settled down a bit, and, praise God, everyone is healthy.

I've tweaked the template slightly, with help from Blogger University to make distinguish blockquotes from my own words. Hopefully the color isn't too dark.

Peter Fournier, a Catholic layman, advocate of Natural Family Planning, and webmaster of domestic-church.com, offered the following essay as a comment in an earlier entry. I thought it should be placed more prominently than a comment box, so I am reproducing it below, slightly reformatted. I thank Peter for taking my dilemma seriously and for trying to identify other aspects to my dilemma that may point to a resolution.

Sometime soon (I still need to get my taxes done) I will post my reply, but for now I will simply present Peter's essay without further comment.

Well, just one comment: The notion that sexual abstinence within marriage over a long period is a sin comes from I Corinthians 7:1-5. In addition, if you take the line, as I think the Baylys do, that "be fruitful and multiply" is a command to every individual rather than mankind collectively, abstinence for the sake of avoiding further pregnancy would have to be regarded as a violation of that command.

Dear Contraskeptic: The Elephant in the room

I've read all the comments you've posted. I think there is an elephant in the room that is frequently touched on but never faced square on. The issue I'm referring to is summarized quite well by PerpetualBeginner.

In one of her responses (found here: http://contraskeptic.blogspot.com/2007/02/dawn-eden-contracepting-married-couples.html ) she said...

... terror is not conducive to love. I am terrified of what an additional pregnancy would mean ... with contraception, this terror has little to no effect on our marriage. Without it [contraception], I would be living with it constantly. Every time he gave me a hug, I would be thinking "what if he wants more?"

This theme is so pervasive in the pro-contraception comments that I have to admit that this is a very common way of looking at the issue.

You are looking for advice specifically from the Christian point of view, the Christian point of view relative to "the sin of contraception and the sin of abstinence".

Before contraception, a promise

I think there is another layer here, a layer on which all the commentators, Christian, Non-Christian, anti-Christian, and "Feminist" might be able to develop a useful conversation. That layer is: "What did you promise, both of you, when you married?".

I presume you married in a Christian context, that is you have a more than civil marriage. So, presumably you promised to "Love and Honour", you promised to do this in "Sickness and in Health".

Now you are facing a hard time: 15 months, no sex, your wife is terrified of getting pregnant again. But, I think that all commentators can agree that a promise is, after all, a promise, that is if we ignore the civil side of the arrangement. Civil marriage can easily be seen as purely contractual, and a weird sort of contract at that -- either party can breach the contract with "no-fault".

So let's ignore civil marriage (I have no idea at all what it is) and stick with the promise. I'm not sure about the theological implications of marriage for Evangelicals, whether marriage is "sacramental" or not, but no matter. For sure a promise made before God and before the Christian community is a serious thing.

Let's leave it at that for now: the promise made at marriage is a serious thing. Furthermore it involves "loving and honouring" in "sickness and health".

Before contraception, love

Now back to the quote from PerpetualBeginner , specifically this: Every time he gave me a hug, I would be thinking "what if he wants more?".

I think it's fair to restate that quote, given the context as follows: Every time he gave me a hug, I would be terrified that he might want more."

Given the tone of the majority of the comments, I think that many, if not most, of the commentators will be able to agree that this terror is one the of the real problems addressed by contraception. "I/we are terrified, therefore contraception is necessary."

But, before we jump to contraception as a solution, let's go back to the promise. If your wife is terrified of you, surely this is a symptom of not living out the promise to love and honour in sickness and in health. Having a wife/lover/cohabitation partner/whatever, terrified of you does not indicate that she is being loved and honoured in sickness and in health. It means precisely what is obvious: she is terrified of you, terrified to the point of not being able to accept a hug for fear of the possible consequences.

This terror is surely more fundamental than any question of "should I or should I not contracept" or any religious teaching on the matter (but I'll get to that later).

It's more fundamental because even if you as a couple use a contraceptive technique, the contraceptive does not address the problem of terror directly.

The contraceptive can only make a situation in which the wife is terrified somewhat bearable by removing the consequence of, what has to be, a lack of love. The contraceptive cannot, by itself, address the source of the terror. The contraceptive can, at best paper it over. With or without contraceptives you remain yourself, the man who terrorizes your wife. (I apologize right now for neglecting the vice/versa of the terror -- men are equally terrified of their wives, but there is not enough time or space here to address this).

Bluntly, resorting to contraceptives is an acceptance of a lack of love, an acceptance that the best we can all hope for is to deal with the implicit breaking of the promise made before God and the community, the breaking of the promise to love, by covering it over.

Now many of you who are pro-contraceptive will want to stop reading at this point because, after all, that last paragraph was too harsh, too judgemental. I urge you all to read on, most especially those of you who still have some good will. I hope that you will at the least gain some insight of the basis for the religious opposition to contraception.

After thirty years of NFP/NFA

Thirty years ago my wife and I were both outside of any organized religion. We were part of that vast number of un-churched, pro-contraception, pro-abortion crowd who really did think that we were, after all, intelligent enough to make decisions about these matters on our own. We weren't going to let some dogmatic formulation rule our intimate lives.

That stage did not last very long. We were faced very early on with a few observations that turned out to be seriously awkward, given that we were very serious about the promises we had made when we were married.

First, from a scientific point of view, I see no evidence that fertility can be anything other than a sign of health. A man with a prize winning bull will think something is wrong, something is broken if the bull is sterile. The same can be seen when a couple discovers that they are infertile: how much are they willing to spend in order to 'correct" the problem? Yes, I know all the objections re: overpopulation, women's rights etc. etc. Even if any of these objections are in some way valid, they cannot be wholely valid if they deny that fertility is healthy --- 'cause it just ain't so.

So fertility is healthy, and I promised to love her in sickness and in health. So we went with that conclusion and started living as though the promise made really was the deal between us: no contraceptives because that violated the promise to love. Anyway, it struck as as reasonable at the time.

But, just like any other couple, terror of the consequences did, for sure, intrude. All of the consequences of fertility can (oh how I know they can!) be terrifying!

But, unlike most of the pro-contraceptive commentators, we for some reason did not paper over the terror with contraceptives. We faced it square on and overcame it. My wife is no longer terrified that he might want more." and neither am I terrified that she might want more.".

We decided to limit our family to the six we already had, 17 years ago, about 250 periods ago. Before that spacing with NFP/NFA was effective. Contraception was never at any time required. Getting over the terror was, absolutely, required.

Getting past the terror, largely the man's problem

So, how do NFP/NFA couples get past the terror? I think, based on my experience, that this is largely the man's responsibility. Inevitably, because of biology, a fear of pregnancy will be more immediate and pressing for the woman than the man, especially where there are medical concerns.

This where the commitment to love her in sickness and in health becomes a challenge. You have to get beyond loving her when you have access to sexual intercourse and get to a place where you can love her, and cherish her for who she is and what she is, with or without the sexual communion.

Doing that requires that you, the man, are able to love her, and love her truly, according to that promise, while abstaining. You have to say no to sexual intercourse, even when she wants it desperately, if you have, as a couple, decided to delay or indefinitely postpone another pregnancy.

This can be a challenge, especially when she wants to take a risk. It is of course a challenge when you want her in a sexual way and the timing is not right -- you have to learn not to pressure or pout. You have to learn to abstain in good cheer.

Oh but I can't do that! The urge is too strong!

That is precisely the point. Abstaining, embraced as a sign of love, is the foundation of getting over the terror. Only by abstaining, FOR THE LOVE OF HIS WIFE, only in this way can a man overcome the terror. Of course you, the man, can do that, can resist the urge, even the strong urge, IF YOU LOVE YOUR WIFE AS YOU PROMISED.

I know this is a strong claim I make. I'm saying that abstinence, the man's embracing of abstinence is not a problem if he loves his wife truly (more precisely if he perseveres his whole life in leaning to love his wife truly). Is it hard, very very very hard? Yes, but no more so than many other things mature, adult men are expected to do.

Of course the woman has to accept that perseverance ... which is a whole other letter.

A religious perspective, finally

So far I've mentioned that the promise you made when you were married is a serious thing. It was, I hope, a promise made freely, a promise to be faithful, a promise made with no reservation and a promise that was hoped to be fruitful. That is what Christian marriage is: free, total, faithful, and fruitful.

The promise was an offering of yourself to the other, of yourself as a complete person, and the acceptance of the other, the complete person.

The promise was made before God and before the community.

It was a promise to love your wife.

All of these things have a heavy religious significance. It is directly related to the two commandments to, first, love God with all your heart mind and soul, and to love others as you love yourself. It is also related to Saint Paul's admonition that husbands should love their wives, as Christ loved the Church. The cross is a symbol of sacrifice, I admit. But it also a symbol of love (for he so loved ... etc.).

From a Christian perspective, love and sacrifice are inseparable. This is the context in which abstaining should be considered -- not as rule to be followed, but as a natural consequence of loving your wife rightly. Just because it involves sex does not mean it is in essence any different from any other sacrifice you make for your wife or children. It is simply not possible to love without sacrifice. Because this sacrifice involves sex makes no difference, if love is what drives the decision to sacrifice.

I'm Catholic, you are Evangelical. I'm not familiar enough with the Evangelical teaching on marriage to comment any further on the religious aspects, in an Evangelical context. But I believe that my comments so far can be generally applied to "Christian" concepts of marriage.

Getting past all the denominational issues, it comes down to this: contraception has to be evaluated in the context of Love, with the capital "L". If God is Love, all religious statements about contraception have to be clearly linked to Love, and love -- the love we try to make real, to incarnate, in our lives.

Papering over the terror doesn't fit in this scheme.

And now a non-religious perspective

Now let's back up a bit and assume that religion is not involved in the decision to, or not to, contracept.

If, as I paraphrased PerpetualBeginner , Every time he gave me a hug, I would be terrified that he might want more." we have still have a problem.

I do not believe that contraception actually solves the problem of being afraid of each other. It especially does not address the problem of the woman being afraid of the man.

As you have all guessed by now, I think that the contraception institutionalizes or formalizes the acceptance of the woman fearing her husband. And this, quite apart from any religious perspective,is a serious problem for anyone advocating contraception, and most particularly for anyone claiming to be feminist. How is a benefit to women to institutionalizes terror directed at women? Even if the woman acquiesces to the terror and chooses to contracept, is the decision truly free? Can it be a true reflection of her will, her free will?

It is very common to say that what I am advocating, a rejection of contraception, is unrealistic. But so was advocating the extension of the vote to women. And, as universal suffrage was seen to be necessary because women, as they are, are PERSONS, I believe that there will come a time when contraception will be seen in the same way, women will demand that they be taken as they are, body soul and personhood.

Only with a feminist rejection of contraception will we arrive at that point where we can get past the idea that "My urge is so strong, you will just have to bear the consequence, you will have to get pregnant against your will. I will be satisfied, I will use you.".

But this unrealistic! Yes, but it is scientific ...

I'm at a loss to respond to this objection. I am after all real, and my wife does not live in terror of my sexuality, does not live in terror of her sexuality, and most importantly does not live in terror of our sexuality.

But this is easily dismissed with "Yes, well if I were as much of a religious fanatic as he is, then maybe it is possible, but for not John and Jane Doe!"

It's hard to respond to that objection except to point out that the objection is itself an expression of religious fanaticism, and that religion is the religion of despair.

We despair that men and women can ever respect each other, we despair that teenage boys can want life long love, so we train our young women to abandon the hope for life long love as well. We teach our children to plan for divorce, as though this were somehow more "realistic". I admit, it is more realistic, if we despair of our society and of ourselves.

More curious to my mind is the phenomena that as soon as we touch on "sex" even the materialists among us abandon science without so much as a backward glance.

Evolutionary biology has a lot to say about kinship structures in human societies -- and how are they supposed to work, in a practical sense, without a life long commitment to marriage -- one woman and one man for life? Why would be expect the availability of contraception to change, in any way, our inherited evolutionary development? But we do.

Babies like their mothers, they like their smell, their skin, their voice. They recognize their mothers immediately after birth. That link, that baby/mother love/attachment is natural is a fact. How can we suppose, scientifically that it does not extend into adulthood and the attachments formed there? Of course it must, and it must presume that "terror" is a deviation from the natural state of affairs, or at least it seems reasonable to me that this should be so.

Sociology points to problems with broken down families, families often broken down because men can't say "I abstain for love of you."

Young men want to get married and have children and love them and their wives. As far as science can determine this is built in, hard wired.

Scientifically, abstinence is not physically damaging, and need not be psychologically damaging. (A speculation: A little more development in that area will show that abstinence is only psychologically damaging if you start out damaged.)

Scientifically unrestricted promiscuous sex leads to disease, and it seems this will always be so -- it's how disease works.

All of these things weave together and at least support the idea that marriage is normal, indeed very normal biologically, as are all the other facets of our lives that are touched by marriage.

We can list these facts for many many pages. We all have our favorites. Only a culture of despair can lead us to abandon all the facts supporting marriage and the appropriate place of abstinence in affective relationships (every marriage will have them, contracepting or not, scientifically speaking) and focus solely on the "me", and even then not on the complete me, just the sexual me.

Scientifically the idea of "How's your sex life?" is nonsense. Psychology shows that sex and the rest of your life have to be an integral whole. Terror h
as no place in the psychologically healthy person. I believe that eventually psychology will conclude that contraception, insofar as it masks terror, but does not address it, is a symptom of psychological ill-health.

Oh well!

A final religious word to Contraskeptic

You mention somewhere that "abstinence is a sin". I'm not familiar with that formulation. However, if it is Christian, then it has to conform with Ephesians and the expectation that husbands must be willing to sacrifice in order to love their wives. If it doesn't, I cannot see how it makes sense in a Christian context. Please explain.

Also, when depending on quotes from the Bible, it is, I believe, necessary to understand any particular quote in the context of Christ's commandment to love, in all it's various expressions. "I came not to replace but to complete the law" is something to be considered very carefully as well.

As for any argument based on scripture of the type "The bible says nothing about such and so, therefore it says nothing at all."-- these ideas have to be tested against the commandments to love, otherwise nothing has been said. The bible says nothing about titanium dioxide? So what.

As for using NFP/NFA because it is the right thing to do, it is the rule to follow -- your chances of success in following the rule, because it is a rule, are minimal. That it is a rule, or dogma, is not the point. Love is the point. From that comes the rule, and from that the dogma, available to you to be freely embraced. So I agree with one of your commentators on the pro-contraception side: to impose a rule on you and your wife is not fair. On the other hand, to use the "rule" as part of loving her is very practical. Of course, viewed this way it is not a rule at all.

And finally, in the situation you find yourself in, with your wife, love will be, in the end, the answer. It's hard, it's largely up to you as the husband, and it will be long.

As for the question of methods, NFP/NFA is apparently 99.4% effective (recent study in Europe, see http://www.oxfordjournals.org/eshre/press-release/freepdf/dem003.pdf ) very similar to the birth control pill. As well, both vasectomy and tubal ligation have a failure rate, so your wife cannot feel completely "safe" even with these. In our town there is a couple who decided to stop at one child so he got a vasectomy. She got pregnant. She decided to get a tubal ligation. She got pregnant.

So, nothing is certain, except, perhaps, if you dare, Love.

Yours however inadequately in Christ
Peter Fournier,
www.Domestic-Church.Com