Category Archives: science and technology

Goin’ Down (or, a Young Woman’s Perspective on Why Oral Sex Sucks)

8 Replies

I am writing this post in response to two comments made on a post at Ambivablog on the teenage culture of oral sex. That post is a response to an Atlantic Monthly essay on the development of that culture. Essentially, Amba argues, the culture is bad for girls because it takes sexuality out of the larger context of the whole person. Amber Stuart responds in comments saying that this culture helps to build self esteem in both girls and boys. Amber Stuart's comments bother me for a number of reasons, both personally and philosophically; I will take each in turn. I think it important to note here, that this is not an argument against oral sex for all people in all situations (that can be discussed some other time), but against casual sexuality amongst teens. Continue reading →

Tough Love

6 Replies

This study ought provide a lot of fuel for debates about parental, administrative, polical, and religious leadership styles.

“Whether it involves persuading people to use sunscreen or eat high fiber foods, good intentions can be elicited by a variety of appeals. However, getting people to actually follow through on these intentions and change their behavior requires appeals combining fear and an emotion high in self-accountability, such as regret, guilt or challenge.”

Is NFP Just Another Form of Contraception?

160 Replies

In the post “French Bishop Urges Vatican to Reopen Debate on Whether 1+1=2”, Funky mentions that:

“Pope Paul VI banned contraception in the 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae, arguing that sexual intercourse was meant for procreation and any artificial method to block a pregnancy went against the nature of the act.” 

I was inclined by this to comment on that post, but its my hope that others might have input on my thoughts about Humanae Vitae and NFP.

Continue reading →

Ugly People Commit More Crimes?

5 Replies

"Not only are physically unattractive teenagers likely to be stay-at-homes on prom night, they're also more likely to grow up to be criminals, say two economists who tracked the life course of young people from high school through early adulthood."

….

"These economists found that the long-term consequences of being young and ugly were small but consistent. Cute guys were uniformly less likely than averages would indicate to have committed seven crimes including burglary and selling drugs, while the unhandsome were consistently more likely to have broken the law."

(Fedora Tip: reader Advogado de Diabos)

What I'd like to know is if the study focused solely on blue-collar crime. There have been other studies suggesting that attractive people are more likely to succeed in the white-collar job market. Consequently, I'd be willing to bet that attractive people commit a disproportionate number of white-collar crimes. Unfortunately, in typical MSM fashion, there's no link to additional information. Anybody out there know more about the variety of crime statistics involved in this study?

French Bishop Urges Vatican to Reopen Debate on Whether 1+1=2

25 Replies

Oh, wait, he just wants the Vatican to reconsider birth control. God save us from such an episcopate!

"Pope Paul VI banned contraception in the 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae, arguing that sexual intercourse was meant for procreation and any artificial method to block a pregnancy went against the nature of the act."

"That encyclical prompted Catholics to leave the Church in droves and undercut papal authority. Many practicing Catholics now simply ignore the ban and some say it weakens the Church’s message on other moral issues such as abortion and bioethics." 

Say what?!? First of all, Pope Paul VI didn’t pull that ban out of thin air. The Church has always forbid contraception. The point of almost every papal encyclical, just like councils, is to clarify an eternal truth in modern terms. Paul VI only reiterated what the Church was already teaching to a generation itching for sexual license (among other stupid things). Secondly, the people who left the Church over this issue were never faithful Catholics in the first place. I mean, that’s a pretty flimsy excuse for leaving the guardian of the Deposit of Faith. Either you trust that the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it or you don’t. Thirdly, if Humanae Vitae undercut papal authority, it’s only because the episcopate and the presbyterate failed miserably in their efforts (or lack thereof) to explain Catholic sexual ethics to their flocks, and continue to do so. Lastly, I’d very much like to know how the Catholic Church’s hestance on contraception weakens her message on abortion and bioethics. It’s all of a piece.

The primary ends of sexual congress are procreation and unification. To block conception is to interfere with both of those ends. Contraceptives, particularly barrier methods, interfere with complete self-giving (an element of unity). They also interfere with the natural product of intercourse, a child. Furthermore, all human life is precious and deserving of respect. Abortion, like contraception, treats conception as an undesireable side effect of a primarily pleasure-oriented act. It also murders children, the true primary product of what should be a love-oriented act. Likewise, embryonic stem cell research murders unborn children and justifies that act by redefining the beginning of human life to some unspecified time beyond conception. It also seperates the creation of humans from the natural procreative act, treating them not as children to be protected and loved, but as raw material to be consumed. Incidentally, these reasons are similar to those for why the Church opposes artificial means of conception, such as IVF. Abortion and ESCR both result from a contraceptive mentality. Denying that sex should be a life-giving activity allows one to justify both the destruction of life if it interferes with pleasure and the production and consumption of life for one’s own purposes.

This Reuters article is very much wrong in its protrayal of Catholic sexual ethics, and reproducing it without commentary or caveat was an irresponsible choice on the part of the editors at CathNews.

(For similar thoughts, head to  Pro Ecclesia * Pro Familia * Pro Civitate)