We’ve all heard the phrase “making love”, but it’s not used much anymore.  I think it went out of vogue in the ’80s  or perhaps even the ’70s.  Today, we’re more into technical phrases for sex.  We need to be more descriptive, of course, because with the proliferation of pornography and subsequent legalization of sodomy, we’ve had to widen our vocabulary in polite society.  What kind of sex do we have?  Well, there’s oral sex and anal sex. There’s masturbation and beastie sex. There’s groupie sex and snuff sex. And then there’s just plain old intercourse.

But there was a time when that cheesy phrase, “making love”, actually meant something significant because it pointed to the reality of what sex was, or at least, was supposed to be.  Sex was about love. And love meant sacrifice.   In contemporary society today, of course, sex is not about love. Sex is about using another person for orgasmic gratification apart from sacrifice

In our times, sex is not about “making love” but rather “making war”.

Indeed, if we survey the sex scene in today’s culture, what do we see and read?  We read about having “safe sex”.  We need to have “safe sex” because sex has apparently become dangerous, otherwise why would we need to have sex that was “safe”?  So we are told that we must “protect” ourselves.  But that begs the question: from what are we to protect ourselves?   Do we not protect ourselves from an attack of some sort?  Yes, this particular attack is from sexually transmitted diseases.  Therefore, it’s a war.  “The War Against AIDS” and other sexually transmitted diseases.  But this war, the sex authorities tell us, is on two fronts, not just one.  The other front of this war is the war on pregnancy.  That’s kind of a disease too that we need to fight against, they tell us.  An unwanted pregnancy is almost as bad as an STD so they say. Therefore, we must also be protected against this attack as well.

So if you are in a war, you need some defense, some protection.  What kind of protection do we need in this sex war to protect us from STDs and pregnancy? The sex authorities tell us to use latex as “protection”.  A condom, in other words.  It will provide us with a defense against the STDs and “baby bombs” that might fall on us.  There’s even a brand called “Trojan Condoms” that puts us in the right frame of mind for this particular battle.  (Personally, I think this latex defense is one big fat lie.  But I don’t think they want to admit to the troops that their latex defense is no defense at all. If they did, it would demoralize everyone.  There might even be mass suicide because the despair would be so great.  So they keep it under wraps…so to speak).

But now I’m getting all confused.  I thought sex was about making love, not engaging in war.  When you make love, your defenses are supposed to come down.  Everything is stripped naked and vulnerable, not sheathed up in latex awaiting the “battle”.  But if this sex war is the kind of thing going on externally in the flesh, what is the psychological state of the persons engaging in it like?  When a couple has natural sex, they are open to conception of another human being.  That is the essence of the sexual act:  where love actually becomes another person. The sexual act is an act of harmony and unity. It begets a beginning and a new life through nature.  In contrast to this, the act of war does the exact opposite. The name itself tells us something about the nature of the act. Contra-ception : literally “against the beginning…against life” where conflict and death are nurtured in an artificially constructed environment.

When you go to war, there’s usually some form of bodily mutilation and destruction.  That’s certainly true in the sex wars we play with one another.  The very act of these medical procedures does unnecessary violence to the human body.

There’s the fallout of the birth control pill which leads to breast cancer and other diseases.

There’s the fallout of the vascectomy and tubal ligation whose effects are still being debated. In fact, there’s quite a debate raging over the possible link between vascetomies to prostate cancer, although it is disputed by some other studies. Whatever the outcome of these studies are, men are now breaking the silence of what vasectomies have done to themSome of them are even losing their minds over it

There’s the fallout of the failure rate of condoms which have catastrophic effects on those who rely on them for a false sense of security. Then, of course, there’s abortion. That’s the fallout when your sexual organs have not been protected when the trojans didn’t hold the line.  Abortion is the nuclear bomb that cleans things up and ensures no “enemy” trooper makes it to your home base.  In calling it a nuclear bomb, I guess this description kind of relates to what Blessed (Mother) Theresa of Calcutta alluded to when she said that abortion was the prelude to nuclear war.  Makes sense, doesn’t it?  Wipe out the innocent in the womb. Wipe out the innocent in the world.  Did I mention that abortion is the best predictor of breast cancer too?

In this war, the sex authorities have proposed the above “shields” against the weapon that is attacking us.  In the “battle front” against pregnancy, for example, the sperm is the defacto weapon of the enemy.  If the sperm successfully penetrates our contraceptive defenses, then we must call out the “big heavy” of abortion to wipe out any successful assault.  But if the sperm is the weapon of the enemy, who is the actual enemy launching this assault?  That would be the woman’s sex partner – the man.  We really don’t conceive of people who are performing actions which we normally associate with “making love” as really “making war” instead.  The same action of hugging someone one can turn into a violent mocking by strangling the person.  A loving caress turns into a strangulation.  And that’s what’s going on when we “make war” instead of love through sex.

When we “make love”, the language of the body tells the truth of who we are and how we are created.  There is a total self sacrifice and reciprocation of what we are to the other person. We give ourselves completely and totally as nature has revealed us to be.  When we make love, the unity and harmony is so intense that love is actually personified. In contrast, when we “make war” we lie to our partner about who we really are. We suppress our fertility. We hold back our gift of selves and distort what the natural act of sex says we are doing.  Sex is an act of unity in part because our fertility binds us to the other person in fundamental way by conceiving in us another person.  In the act of war, there is no unity but only separation. And that’s what contraception is at its core: a separation.  It physically separates what nature has bound together.  Whether it’s a condom, pill, or mutilation of a sexual organ. There is a violent separation so that unity may not occur with the other person.  And we see that separation in the act of sex being played out long after the act is consummated.  Because contraception is a lie, because it is a war, we see the fruits of both in the marriage itself.  Where contraception is, divorce is also.  The sex authorities don’t tell you that engaging in contraception means that the chances of divorce are exponentially much higher.  But since the sexual revolution (another war term if there ever was one), that’s exactly what’s happened.  And why shouldn’t it be?  War is about propaganda, lies, and ultimately separation.  It’s all about collateral damage too. In the case of divorce, they’re called “children”.  When you keep engaging in sexual war, you can’t expect to be married or together forever.  That kind of explains why couples don’t stay together anymore.  War, after all, can only last so long before things start to fall apart.   

You see, it’s all about war in your body and through your sexual organs.  There are different kinds of war, of course. There are the conventional kinds of wars with real guns and bullets and bombs. Then there’s the 21st century “war” that is fought through sex.  If you look at what war is trying to accomplish – the subjection of a population or the overthrow of a political philosophy, I’d say the West is near the end of its own civil war: the de-population war.  Its population has been decimated and now, coincidentally, the values which under-girded and strengthened it are now struggling to survive. 

There will be no facet of society that will be left untouched by the demographic implosion brought about by this war – whether that is the labour pools, pension plans, health care services, or even our fundamental freedoms because we won’t reproduce and then transmit the teaching to future generations.  Social liberals who bleat on and on about being “anti-war” have been, in fact, the biggest war-mongers in the history of the world.  And right now, our society is being decimated by their war games.

The West has been concerned with external threats to its existence.  For the first 40 years after the Second World War, it was Communism.  For the past number of years, it’s been Islamic Jihad.  But for all the threats of nuclear annihilation in the past and even today, who needs a nuclear bomb when a latex condom will do?

CONTRACEPTION INDEX PAGE

18 Responses to “Contraception: The Language of War”
  1. Hi John,
    Magnificent article–hit the nail on the head about ten times!
    Fr. Tom Euteneuer
    Human Life International

  2. WL Mackenzie Redux says:

    Essentially the self absorbed boomers and their yuppie kin are too self “realized” to share their life rearing children.

  3. Jack Picknell says:

    WOW! I have seen a great deal of pro-life writings in my time, but this article is Pure Gold. Thank you.

  4. Elena Sanchez says:

    I thank our Lord and the Virgen of Guadalupe for the fruitful work you are doing. This article is more than Pure Gold.

    I have a son who is 16 and caught him with pornography pictures from the internet. I’m glad I have this information for him to read it.

    Every time I pray the rosary, I pray to the Virgen of Guadalupe for you and Fr. Pavone to give you strength in this battle of Liberalism and Culture of Death. May the Virgen Mary of Guadalupe protect you and bless you.

  5. Allison F. says:

    I once sat next to a Catholic man on a plane who spent most of the time listing off things in the world that came in 3′s in order to prove the existence of the Holy Trinity.

    Wait, but don’t an infinite number of things also come in 2′s, 4′s, 5′s, 6′s … 20′s, etc? Although I think this article makes some valid points, I see its main argument as being in the same vein as this man’s argument about the recurrence of 3′s.

    This article says that the use of war words in liberal sex ideas means that the liberal conception of sex is equated with the negative connotations and meanings of war.

    However, there are so many other concepts that also borrow war words, like “The Green REVOLUTION” in agriculture, which helped feed many more people then could be fed before it; “The Industrial REVOLUTION”; and there’s even a book out called, “The Conservative REVOLUTION: How to Win the Battle for College Campuses.” (And really, “revolution” in the dictionary means a radical change, which CAN be brought about by war but is not always).

    Also, when this article refers to the terms “safe sex” and “protection” to equate the liberal conception of sex to the badness of war, one must think about how many good things are there that require safety. What about “safe driving” and “seat belt protection devices for children” (google that one, it exists). Would this article also equate driving to war? People also wear some sort of “protection” in football, biking, kayaking, you name it.

    The mere fact that contraception vocabulary includes war-like diction means little, because such a broad range of concepts use such language as well. Thus, I do not think this article, unlike what comments above said, “hit the nail on the head.” The conclusion of this article, that the liberal conception of protected sex equates to “making war,” does not follow from the premise, that the concept of protected sex uses war vocabulary, and therefore the argument is not sound and I don’t buy it.

  6. Karen Kang says:

    Well said, Allison!

  7. Pacheco says:

    Allison,

    Here are some of my remarks to your points:

    1) Regarding the words “war” and “revolution”. Generally speaking, war and revolution are not a good thing. The onus is on the one pushing for either to prove it’s a good thing. Usually, one goes to war against tyranny and injustice for it to be considered a “just war”. In the case of sex, what are the sexologists among you going to war against? You are going to war against the human body and its natural sexual functions. The only way you can win the debate is to suggest the human body is not noble or good as created, that it must be changed in order to accomodate orgasm at the expense of procreation.

    2) Regarding “safety”. You missed my point. I was being facetious in using the term. While it is true that we can legitimately take precautions about dangerous things, we do so because the consequences are objectively tragic. Yet, one cannot say that the natural consequence of sex which is procreation is objectively tragic. We know this because the natural act of sex results in pregnancy!

    War-like diction has its place in contraception because that is what is going on. It is a violent attack on the human body in so many ways. And we know that this particular war is hardly justified. So I am afraid your objections are quite baseless and rather shallow.

  8. Natalie Nugg says:

    Pacecho, your arguments are strikingly poor and just painful to read. Even if I shared your views I would have to use self delusion tactics to believe you made strong points.

    Allison, YOU hit the nail on te head. Simple and NOT sensational. Elegantly said.

  9. Natalie Nugg says:

    Sorry Pacheco, I spelled your name incorrectly.

  10. Anonymous says:

    1) I agree that generally speaking, war and revolution are bad things. But what i said above was that a conservative author used “conservative revolution” as a good thing. So my main point was not that war and revolution can be good, but that just because the those words are used to describe a concept doesn’t make the concept, such as “conservative revolution” or “sex revolution,” NECESSARILY a bad thing.

    2) Liberals do not think the consequences of sex are “objectively tragic,” for two reasons. First, the consequences, although sometimes seen as tragic, are not always seen as tragic. Often times liberals just don’t want to have a kid when they’re not ready to take good care of them, yet still want to have sex. So in this case, the consequences are seen as “undesirable,” not “tragic.” The only times when the consequences of sex would be “[objectively] tragic” would be when they are STDs.

    As for the “objectively” in “objectively tragic,” other than STDs liberals do not think the consequences of sex are “objectively” anything at all. Liberals believe that some people subjectively believe that a pregnancy would be detrimental to either themselves or their potential child, and believe that these people should be able to prevent a pregnancy if they subjectively find it detrimental to their own personal lives. So I guess here you have a legitimate disagreement with liberals, because they think it’s still legitimate to protect themselves from something that would leading to suffering for themselves and a potential child, while you believe that you can only protect yourself from something that’s “objectively tragic,” which I find to be a bit of an extreme requirement.

    I think it is fine for you to believe that contraception is a war against our bodies. But I think your true reasoning is that it is so because sperm have a sacred duty, procreation, that should never be messed with. So you could say we are warring against the purpose of our sexual organs and related substances, but it still is in a figurative, religious sense that comes from your faith. It is not from a logical derivation that has to do with the diction of contraception, because as I proved above, your conclusion of “badness” does not follow from your premise of “bad words.”

    Now stepping out of the realm of the logical and into the realm of my personal feelings, I subjectively believe that it is not morally wrong to prevent sperm from fertilizing an egg. I think having sex while using contraception can still be “making love,” and ability to access contraception has led to a less repressed and more free society. I think sex is a beautiful thing, not just because it creates babies. It is a special connection between two people who are in love, and can bring them closer if it’s not abused. But also, I’m agnostic, so that obviously contributes. My two cents :)

  11. Allison F. says:

    Oh, Anonymous is me, by the way.

  12. Joel says:

    Allison (as Anonymous),

    That is a very intelligent and well-thought argument. Correct me if I am wrong but basically your point is one of relativism, what is right for you is right for you and what is right for me is right for me. Am I correct?

    At the end of your comment you say that “[sex] is a special connection between two people who are in love, and can bring them closer if its not abused.” How do you abuse it? Is it possible to abuse it from the relativistic stand point?

    Let’s look at some facts. Since the widespread acceptance of the pill in the 60′s, marital infidelity has risen, unwanted pregnancies have increased, child abuse has increased, divorce, single-parent families, child abuse and spousal abuse, pornography, and many other sexual ills have increased.

    It is easy to say that it is because of the culture at the time but that doesn’t explain it all. People are people and if there is a serious risk to an action they will be less likely to do it. If cheating on your wife meant that you could get another woman pregnant then you are less likely to do it but with the advent of birth control that risk is no longer there. Therefore, infidelity rises. I could go through each one of the items in my list but that would take too long.

    Of course, that doesn’t make the action immoral. Just because an action can result in bad things doesn’t mean the action itself it immoral but it does lend weight to the fact that we should consider the consequences before doing that particular action.

    That said, I would go into the morality of birth control but it is based on the existence of a God that loves us and therefore can not be argued with an agnostic because they deny the first premise.

    But, please think about the problems brought on by the widespread acceptance of birth control. It isn’t a pretty picture.

  13. Colm says:

    Allison,

    You’ve also caught yourself out in trying to divide your arguments between the ‘logical’ and the ‘emotional’. Now that in itself is a fine technique so long as the employer of this technique actually formulates a clear distinction within their arguments between the rational and the emotional. Unfortunately, you haven’t done that. You have resorted in each case to an emotional approach: You feel sex is something because you feel sex is something. You’ve failed to provided any morsel of empirical evidence to back your assertions, relying instead on the things you think people think. This is fine if you are making an emotional argument, but not if you are trying to make a ‘logical’ one.

    And then you go and bring up John Pacheco’s religious beliefs. Apparently, if John’s arguments happen to fall in line with the rationale advanced by the Catholic Church, then all his arguments are just religious, and hence not ‘logical’. This is big problem for you because, you see, you’ve revealed to us that you are an agnostic, and we all know an agnostic relies upon the absence of objectivity – the void in which one’s own self-crafted beliefs are preeminent. And quelle surprise, this ‘religious’ belief pops up just about in every argument you’ve developed here. It’s the splinter, my dear, and it’s in your eye.

    Finally, John makes uses war vocabulary because, like any common sense person, he is judging something by its fruits. The Sexual Revolution has given us a massive increase in spousal abuse, rape, sexual harassment, abortion, single-motherhood, abortion and STD infections. If that’s not worthy of heavy, militaristic language, then I don’t know what is.

  14. Bill Thoms says:

    As I often have said, I have no dog in this fight. I am not Canadian and lead a celibate life. But this sentimental thing about sex, it is about love and the willingness to form a new human being, might be the way it should be, but I am sure that is not what husband and wife usually think when they go to bed together, especially that business about unitive and procreative.

    By the way, I finally sat down and read Humanae Vitae. It sounds like something that would come out of North Korea, full of self-congratulation and fiat statements. Notable is that it is addressed to brothers, sons, and men the world over but not a word of it is addressed to women. Glad we don’t have any more Italian popes.

  15. Paycheck says:

    Hi Bill,

    1) What husband or wife usually think about when they go to be together is irrelevant of what sex is. They can abuse it, just like men and women can abuse anything. The problem today, of course, is that regarding sex between “consenting adults” anything does and can go. But that does not answer the question of whether any sexual act is moral or not. It is a false understanding of freedom.

    2) Humanae Vitae was prophetic. Read it again about what has happened to women since the introduction of contraception. It’s all come true, just like the Pope said it would

  16.  
Trackbacks
  1.  
Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>