Claire Barshied on sex, part 4

This is the final installment in this series. Parts I - III can be found here, here, and here.

A more troublesome matter than use of contraception for family planning, I think, is the attitude that marriage justifies sex. While this is true in a sense, what it implies is that marriage is a justification for pursuit of one’s own sexual gratification. Also troublesome is a view that the pleasure of sex is an end in itself, even in marriage.

We all yearn for that perfect “completer of our souls” – that ultimate life partner -- in a marriage partner. And truly that is what a spouse is, even if not quite in the way we imagined as we were walking down the aisle. The natural response is to want to give oneself fully and completely, including sexually, while simultaneously receiving same. In this way, one is completed, and this is what marriage should entail.

I know that a Catholic would say that the act of sexual giving must include a complete giving (of gametes) in order to be a selfless act of giving, and this is a compelling argument. However, the argument then runs up against the issue of family planning. Complete sexual giving is clearly not taking place if one is abstaining in order to avoid conception. Such abstinence is obviously not self-giving. Catholics say it is self-denial. But self-denial in and of itself is not a virtue; it is a requirement toward some other end. Self-denial in the wrong circumstances is actually selfishness.

I think that, in the contraception question, the real issues do not pertain to whether or not contraception is inherently bad, but to the motives of the heart for using it. If used for responsible family planning, the only way use of contraception can be selfish is if the procreative aspect of sex is more important than the other unitive aspects. This may be true, but I have not seen it proven.

Obviously there can be selfish sex in marriage, whether contraception is used or not. If one spouse is using the other for their own gratification, then this is as much of a problem as whether or not they are using contraception, for it violates the unitive purpose of sex. A child conceived as result of a selfish act of marital sex is begun at a distinct disadvantage. What kind of environment will that child grow up in, if it’s one not founded in a mutually-giving-and-receiving marital relationship? What kind of marriage is it that has produced this child?

It’s these questions that must be addressed first and foremost, I believe, in order to set the context for the rest of the debate.

Endnote: What bothers me about Barshied’s article and others I’ve seen that revisit contraception and the purposes of sex and marriage is that the contemplations are either initiatory ones (i.e., of someone embarking upon a change of heart) or, they mimic those of dogmatic Catholics. Or they are given by those who had a change heart some time ago yet the change was tied to attitudes not related specifically to contraception in and of itself -- their use of contraception was associated with or representative of the old attitude, to them. Where are the voices of the folks long-established in a marriage, with children, who have been more or less steady in their perspective? Is it possible for them to defend a proper use of contraception, in ways that do not capitulate to the “liberal” thought of our times?

Neither Onan, Natural Law, or the Humanae Vitae provide sustainable argument against contraception. (And yes, I realize what that sounds like... I’ve discussed my reasons for believing so in the latter part of my series on contraception, here and here.) Perhaps someone out there can show me a different way to argue from natural law, or else has an argument based on a different line of thinking. If so, I’d love to hear it.