The Loss of Freedoms

[micro 0]

Quote

Quote

Abstinence programs work.

And as for the birth control you espouse, history has shown that no other form is less reliable.

Please back up this statement w/ facts and I'll pull my literature of NFP in the meantime, mk?

Remember dear friend, we are NOT talking about the rhythm method. We're talking about the sympto-thermal method of BC, aka the Billings Method or NFP.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[billvon 3,009]

>It's not foolproof when the people don't follow it properly. Otherwise
>it rivals every other method of BC.

I agree. However, if two instructors paid to teach it can't do it "properly," ordinary people don't have much hope (I would think.)

>And you admit to condom failure. And when they DO fail, and STDs
>are acquired, what then?

Then you get sick and (perhaps) die. This would be an odd place to argue that one should never do things that carry some risk, though. As skydivers we generally agree that as long as the risk is low _enough_ it's acceptable.

>The answer is sexual continence. The answer is chastity (which differs
>from celibacy, BTW) before, during and after marriage.

Those are great answers for some people, just as for some people the answer to the risk posed by skydiving (or driving, or owning a gun) is "don't do it." They don't work for everyone though.

[micro 0]

Quote

>It's not foolproof when the people don't follow it properly. Otherwise
>it rivals every other method of BC.

I agree. However, if two instructors paid to teach it can't do it "properly," ordinary people don't have much hope (I would think.)

Not much hope? That's bull. I've known countless couples for whom it has worked flawlessly. No "accidents" no "mistakes" (as if a child should ever be called such a thing).

Again, when NFP fails ( which is really a misnomer, but anyway, but meaning they got pregnant when they weren't intending to), almost 100% of the time, it's b/c the couple took a risk and had sex when there were signs of fertility.

The misnomer: NFP didn't fail in those instances, the couple did. If they didn't want a possible unplanned pregnancy then, they shouldn't have ignored the signs of fertility, i.e. change in mucous texture and viscosity, basal body temperature shift, etc. etc. Other possibilities are, did the instructors misread their charts? Did they chart correctly? Did they make a mistake? If they're doing basal body temp, did the woman take temp at the same, consistent hour every morning every day?

Personal disclosure time... don't read on if talk of body fluids and stuff grosses you out.

My wife and I have ONLY gone on external vaginal mucous signs (as opposed to cervical mucous) because it's the most conservative way and Lori doesn't like to wake up early every morning to take her temperature nor does she like to try and examine the firmness or dilation of her cervix during to see when she's ovulated.

So, on that ONE symptom, checked after going to the bathroom, we've been able to avoid or achieve pregnancy w/ a success rate of 100% for over 11 years. And our history is not rare. I can't even tell you how many of our friends and acquaintances have the same experience. No pills, no awkward fumblings for rubbers. No strong hormones. No unnecessary and serious exposure to health risks as w/ the pill.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

It's not foolproof when the people don't follow it

what a perfect dodge of reality! 'it works perfect so long as the persons using it are perfect.' (or not very fertile)

Quote

Or if an unplanned pregnancy occurs, just trot on down to the abortion clinic to take care of the "accident" as if something has gone wrong w/ the act of sex (when in reality, something has gone RIGHT!).

nah - Plan B OTC.

[Royd 0]

Quote

Given that we are the fattest nation in the world, with alcohol and tobacco being two of our top killers, abstience clearly isn't one of our strengths. A dietary-health program founded on the principle of "if you don't tell them anything about food, they won't eat much" is as doomed to failure as a program that hopes that if you don't hear about sex you won't have any.

That being said, an educational program that covers sexual health (including abstinence, use of condoms, risk factors from various types of activities etc) can have an impact on the spread of STD's.

You mean like telling people that most manufactured food products are pure garbage will cause them to want to plant a garden. Right.

This nation is filled with people who truly believe that their personal welfare is not their responsibility.
It is going to take an awakening of some kind, whether personal or national before we get a grasp on any of these problems.

I do find it ironic that we have come to the reality that tobacco is a dangerous product, and have decided to legislate it out of existence, but shrug our shoulders at the debauchery that has caused the aids epidemic.
I could think of a hundred analogies about trying to hide the symptoms while never addressing the cause of a problem.

[jakee 1,501]

Quote

Quote

A very large problem in many African countries is with Married, monogamous women being infected by having unprotected sex with their husbands who have had unprotected sex with prostitutes.

Do you think that's a cultural issue or a religious issue? IOW, does the church promulgate extramarital sex, or is it a cultural issue? If you trace the issue to it's roots, that's where the solution can be found.

I am giving an example of how even those people who strictly abide by all the churches rules are dying as a result.

Quote

Quote

And yet the church still tries its hardest to deliberately proliferate wrong and dangerous information to its flock. Take for instance the systematic discrediting of condoms. The stance of the Catholic church in this matter is misleading, harmful, immoral, dangerous and disgusting.

Time and again, people blame a religious organization for preaching their beliefs. That's what they do! Religious organizations of all ilk say what they believe is the "right" thing, and the "correct" thing according to their faith. To hold a religious organization responsible when they preach/teach their position which goes against what you personally believe is, imho, fallacious and irresponsible.

I'm sorry but your naivety here is painfully obvious. The Vatican's religious belief is that contraceptives are immoral. To attempt to strengthen that position they are deliberately spreading outright lies about the effectiveness of condoms. Not things they believe, but fake science they know to be false. Try this for starters.

Quote

Religion teaches religion. Public health officials teach public health. When a church teaches it's doctrine, it needs to be seen as that doctrine, and not held responsible for things which are not criminal.

No.

The catholic church works very, very hard to gain a position of authority in peoples minds, it then uses that position to spread junk science in favour of its outdated and dangerous doctrine. It is a disgusting breach of trust.


Edit:

Quote

Frankly, the governments have fallen down on the job, and to blame a church for that is misplaced.

If you think my anger is strictly confined to religious institutions think again. Search for a news story I posted just last week about the SA govt's stance on AIDS.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,501]

Quote

It is simply an incredible myth to state that the church says "don't use condoms!" and then doesn't do anything in the way of teaching and education to help substitute better behavior. What a lot of people are chosing to hear in this debate is the Church saying "don't use condoms" and FAILING miserably to hear the rest of what the Church is saying... be faithful to your spouses. Don't engage in extramarital or premarital sex. Submit to your spouses and love them as Christ loved the Church, even unto death. How silly it is for someone to commit adultery, contract HIV b/c of it, then come home and transmit that to his spouse b/c the church said he can't use a condom?!? Crazy Can't you see the incredible lack of logic here?

Abstinence is an 'ideal.' The unfortunate thing about ideals is that they very often fall down when tested in the real world. In the real world teaching abstinence does not work. It never has worked and it never will work.

To take an example from history you might compare the Catholic church to Neville Chamberain in the late 1930s. His ideal was 'peace in our time' for Europe. In order to try and preserve his ideal he allowed Germany to build the strongest army in the world without complaint, he turned a blind eye to its first annexations and even signed away the sovereignty of independant states to appease the Third Reich. His ideal failed miserably, as the Catholic ideal is failing now and real people are dying because of it.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,501]

Quote

HOWEVER... the mere existence of things like condoms makes it easier FOR self-restraint to breakdown. It's easier to give in to temptation when you can avoid the consequences of f*cking up by using a condom when you're cheating on your wife (and thereby avoid an STD or an unplanned pregnancy). Perhaps these problems would be so rampant if we wouldn't make is so easy for people to be so weak.

Bull.

The spread of AIDS is currently so rapid because people are still very, very frequently having unprotected sex in high risk areas. Aside from hunger and thirst its the strongest instinctive urge we have! The use of condoms would mean that far less of these people would become infected.

The number of sexually active people who could be protected by using condoms is far greater than those who are currently abstinent who would suddenly jump in the sack if you gave them a rubber.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[GTAVercetti 0]

Obviously, there is just a fundamental difference of belief between you and myself. And that is fine, but it will not really lead to anywhere new. So, I will look at this statement instead --

Quote

Well, has the advent of birth control and condoms made for happier marriages? I'd say not. The divorce rate certainly doesn't reflect that (I know that the there are more factors in that, but it's part of it).

I am going to need to see some data that condoms have resulted in more divorce.

There is are strong reasons why divorce has gone up. Here are two:

1) It has not been acceptable until relatively recently. The LACK of divorce before then is not NECESSARILY indicative of happy marriages, but instead of staying together because of the stigma of getting a divorce.

2) People get married WAY to fast. For some, it is a valid choice, but I think far too many rush into marriage with really knowing the person they are getting hitched to. I am a strong believer in marriage counseling for most couples. Even if you think you know the person, you will certainly find out alot more.

In the long list of reasons for divorce, I can see very little influence of the ability to use birth control...unless we are going to try to relate condoms to adultery again. And you already know my position on that.

You also have to realize that your morality is NOT everyone else's. The way you view the world and family is your choice and is perfectly valid for YOU. But you want to get rid of birth control for EVERYONE. So for people who have different views on the matter (and who will not be convinced of your view on morality no matter how much you try), you are not even giving them a CHOICE to be safe. You are saying, "Do it my way or get the fuck out." You are taking away their ability to decide for themselves and are imposing your own view upon everyone. On the other hand, allowing birth control to be available does not hinder you in influencing your children and friends to see your way. You are still free to teach abstinence as much as you want.

I just rambled for a long time there.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[micro 0]

Quote

It's not foolproof when the people don't follow it

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


what a perfect dodge of reality! 'it works perfect so long as the persons using it are perfect.' (or not very fertile)

Oh BS. The people who use it don't need to be perfect, they just need to know how to recognize basic signs of fertility AND if they want to avoid pregnancy, they need to abstain from sex during those fertile times.

It's like being on the pill... it's not going to work as well if you skip a day or two now, is it

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[micro 0]

Quote

Abstinence is an 'ideal.' The unfortunate thing about ideals is that they very often fall down when tested in the real world. In the real world teaching abstinence does not work. It never has worked and it never will work.

Well, all I can say to this is 1) abstinance is NOT an ideal to many, many people who practice it EVERY SINGLE day successfully (which blows your statements out of the water) and 2) you have a very pessimistic (although you'll call it "realistic") view of humanity.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[micro 0]

Quote

I am giving an example of how even those people who strictly abide by all the churches rules are dying as a result.

No, incorrect. No one is dying b/c of what the Church is saying. People are dying b/c of personal choices they are making. You have to understand that. They are NOT just advocating NOT using condoms. They are ALSO advocating abstinance, fidelity in marriage, etc. As I've said before, WHY would people JUST listen to some religious person about NOT using a condom bot NOT listen to them about the other things, esp. when it's all couched in "using a condom is sinful. Adultery is sinful." "Gee, let me avoid the sin of condoms, but let me still participate in the sin of adultery."

You're personal hatred towards the Catholic Church seems to me very misplaced in that situation.

On the other hand, I'd like to have more information on the issue of impermeability of condoms. I've heard about this before, and NOT just from "Catholic" sources. In fact, the first time I heard about the size of HIV virus and it's ability to pass through the membrane of a condom (albeit rarely) it was not in a Catholic context at all. If someone knows more about this, I'm open.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[Michele 1]

Morning, Jakee

Quote

I am giving an example of how even those people who strictly abide by all the churches rules are dying as a result.

Which didn't answer my question. And that question was

Quote

Do you think that's a cultural issue or a religious issue? IOW, does the church promulgate extramarital sex, or is it a cultural issue? If you trace the issue to it's roots, that's where the solution can be found.

So do you think it's a cultural issue or a religious issue?

Quote

I'm sorry but your naivety here is painfully obvious.

Wow, thanks. It's been a very long time since someone called me naive. Sorry, though, you're incorrect. I'm not naive.

Perhaps you missed the point. Micro said it pretty well; if the choice is there (and it is; condoms are available) and someone chooses to not avail themselves of protection, then they might encounter STDs and unwanted pregnancies. Your position that all people are sheep, and not able to learn, grasp, and employ a potentially lifesaving device negates the reality of things. I'll not call you naive, nor anything else; rather, I'll just point out that personal choices are key.

It is my belief that when I go to a church, I will be exposed to their faith. When I go to a government health offical, I will be exposed to their positions, as well. It then becomes my responsibility to make a decision, and to employ that decision.

Personal responsibility. Personal accountability. Personal choice. Pretty clear to me.

Quote

No.

The catholic church works very, very hard to gain a position of authority in peoples minds, it then uses that position to spread junk science in favour of its outdated and dangerous doctrine. It is a disgusting breach of trust.

And that is your opinion. Again, I ask you...is monogamy/abstinence taught in the church? Yes. Is birth control available? Yes. Are the governments in question advocating the use of "junk science" as well? Yes. Is it personal responsibility/choice in question? Yes.

IOW, if one adheres to the church's basic position - faithful to the spouse once married (on both sides), and abstinence until marriage - the chances of an unwanted pregancy prior to marriage is nil. So is the chance of an STD, prior to and consequent to marriage, if one follows the teaching of the church.

If one adheres to the teaching of the governments and avails themselves of the use of condoms, then again, the risk of STDs and unwanted pregnancies goes way down. Doesn't eradicate them completely, but reduces them quite a bit.

If accurate info is provided, and a person doesn't adhere to it, then whose fault does that become?

Blaming a church for teaching what they believe in is simply wrong. Maybe it's naive, but that's the way I see things.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[micro 0]

oh how I love you. you are so much better at this than I am. can I just hire you to argue for me from now on?

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[Andy9o8 2]

Hi, Michele - I know Jakee can speak for himself but I don't think:

"The catholic church works very, very hard to gain a position of authority in peoples minds, it then uses that position to spread junk science in favour of its outdated and dangerous doctrine. "

is the same as:

"Blaming a church for teaching what they believe in ."

It seems more a criticism of using the technique of the use of junk science as a teaching tool. Use moral, ethical and theological persuasion, fine. Use hard science, fine. But the use of junk or discredited science is intellectually dishonest, or at least intellectually lazy. That's not much different, as I see it, from Creationists' use of junk science to discredit the fact of evolution.

By the way, the danger that junk science poses to the search for truth is appreciated, and guarded against, in real-world practical application. For example, in courts in the US, a very stringent test, known as the "Daubert-Frye" test, is used to assure that expert witnesses base their opinions only on hard science; and the use of "junk science" is specifically prohibited. If the judge, after sometimes exhaustive analysis of the scientific evidence, decides that the expert has based his opinion on junk or unreliable science (for example, scientific theories that have not been published in a scientific journal accepted in the science community as being credible, and have not been subjected to peer review), then the expert's opinion will not be admitted into evidence. That's just one example.

[micro 0]

Quote

Hi, Michele - I know Jakee can speak for himself but I don't think:

"The catholic church works very, very hard to gain a position of authority in peoples minds, it then uses that position to spread junk science in favour of its outdated and dangerous doctrine. "

is the same as:

"Blaming a church for teaching what they believe in ."

It seems more a criticism of using the technique of the use of junk science as a teaching tool. Use moral, ethical and theological persuasion, fine. Use hard science, fine. But the use of junk or discredited science is intellectually dishonest, or at least intellectually lazy. That's not much different, as I see it, from Creationists' use of junk science to discredit the fact of evolution.

By the way, the danger that junk science poses to the search for truth is appreciated, and guarded against, in real-world practical application. For example, in courts in the US, a very stringent test, known as the "Daubert-Frye" test, is used to assure that expert witnesses base their opinions only on hard science; and the use of "junk science" is specifically prohibited. If the judge, after sometimes exhaustive analysis of the scientific evidence, decides that the expert has based his opinion on junk or unreliable science (for example, scientific theories that have not been published in a scientific journal accepted in the science community as being credible, and have not been subjected to peer review), then the expert's opinion will not be admitted into evidence. That's just one example.

I've asked for some evidence of the claim that the HIV virus molecule cannot pass through the condom, assuming the condom is not broken. As I mentioned earlier, I have heard this from places other than from w/i the church. (In fact, I have NOT heard this from w/i the church, at least I don't recall).

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[billvon 3,009]

>I've known countless couples for whom it has worked flawlessly.

Me too. And I know several couples for which hormonal methods and barrier methods worked flawlessly. All of them can fail though.

>NFP didn't fail in those instances, the couple did.

I agree that that's the most likely reason. But people screw up sometimes. And if two people who do this for a living can screw up, it's likely that people who are less well trained (and are less familiar with it) will screw up more.

Don't get me wrong; I've got nothing against NFP. But it's not foolproof and it's not the only method out there. Heck, one of the people that developed the birth-control pill did it so that catholics woul have another "natural" option for birth control!

[Michele 1]

Morning, Andy!

Quote

It seems more a criticism of using the technique of the use of junk science as a teaching tool. Use moral, ethical and theological persuasion, fine. Use hard science, fine. But the use of junk or discredited science is intellectually dishonest, or at least intellectually lazy. That's not much different, as I see it, from Creationists' use of junk science to discredit the fact of evolution

I understand your position, but the fallacy lays is insisting that the church teaches anything other than faith. It doesn't. That's it's business...teaching faith. Teaching spirituality. Teaching the numinous, as it were.

The public, time and again, demands that a church (of whatever persuasion) teach science. They're not scientests, though. Why should I go to a priest when I want scientific info? Similarly, why would I go to a doctor if I wanted faith and spiritual information? The public doesn't demand that a doctor teach faith and spirituality, but the opposite is true. There's a nasty little double standard, don't you think? I don't know the faith of my Drs., and I don't want to. I do know the faith of the rabbis, monks, priests, and pastors I speak with. But I don't know if they're Drs, lawyers, or indian chiefs - because that's not what I'm relying on them for.

As for a church using "junk science" to enforce their beliefs, I see the same thing happen with governments. Why does no one take them to task for using junk science (i.e. sex with a virgin will cure you), and yet hold a church responsible for teaching faith-based ideals and modes of behavior?

Quote

By the way, the danger that junk science poses to the search for truth is appreciated, and guarded against, in real-world practical application. For example, in courts in the US, a very stringent test, known as the "Daubert-Frye" test, is used to assure that expert witnesses base their opinions only on hard science; and the use of "junk science" is specifically prohibited. If the judge, after sometimes exhaustive analysis of the scientific evidence, decides that the expert has based his opinion on junk or unreliable science (for example, scientific theories that have not been published in a scientific journal accepted in the science community as being credible, and have not been subjected to peer review), then the expert's opinion will not be admitted into evidence. That's just one example.

And it's a good example, but it doesn't address the issues we're discussing (i.e. who teaches what to whom and when, why, and how).

I had a teacher in high school. He was retiring at the end of the year, and I had Mr. Marshall the semester he was retiring after. This was in 1983, the class was AP History. On the last day of classes, once finals were done and it was more a free-for-all class, Mr. Marshall brought into the classroom lots of bananas and cucumbers. And he brought nearly 500 condoms. He taught us - boys and girls alike - how to put a condom on a piece of fruit.

It was the talk of the school, and of the district. However, as he was already retiring, it didn't affect him at all. He took the responsibility for teaching us how to be safe; AIDs was just poking it's ugly head up, and was still only considered a "gay" disease. But Mr. Marshall saw the issue, addressed the issue, and taught us something which, to some, was embarrassing and to others abhorent. However, we all had the opportunity to learn it, and learn it some of us did. He was NOT teaching faith. He wasn't even teaching History. But what he was teaching was preservation...But he wasn't a preacher, rabbi, pastor, or monk, either. He was just trying to save some lives.

To insist that a church adhere to a layman's perspective on what it should teach is to nullify a church. Those in the church are tasked with - some would say "called to" - teach that church's position on different things. Only the church's position. Only that church's position. To proclaim that a church's teaching is wrong seems somewhat silly, when they are teaching that church's position.

To say that hard science is only allowed in a court room is fine. I understand that completely; the result of a courtroom adventure is the potential for lack of freedom and in some instances life. However, the church is not criminal for teaching their perspective, nor is a person who follows that church a criminal for doing so. Unless a crime has occurred, to hold a church to the standard of a courtroom proceeding is not valid.

The "expertise" of any church is faith, religion, and spirituality. The "expertise" of a government health official is health. I expect the CDC to have info on emerging, existant, and possible epidemics. I don't expect the CDC to have info on biblical positions. The opposite is true, as well.

It really does come down to personal choice and responsibility. To me, that's an amazing thing to have - the ability to take information from sources, apply my own brain to the puzzle, and arrive at a solution which works for me (abstinence, fidelity, or contraceptives). It's about my body; it's about my choice and responsibility. Bottom line.

Again, I understand your (and others) position, I just don't necessarily agree with them. And again, as I stated earlier, I am not catholic, so this is an outside perspective on things.

Ciels-
Michele

PS...me wuvs the Michael, too!!!

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[micro 0]

Quote

Heck, one of the people that developed the birth-control pill did it so that catholics woul have another "natural" option for birth control!

Explain this statement please. B/c the way I read what you wrote. there isn't a damned thing "natural" about taking a "pill" (although the woman isn't sick!) to prevent something natural from occuring in her body! Artificial birth control is one of the most unnatural things one can do to the human body, putting it in such a hormonal state.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[micro 0]

Quote

And if two people who do this for a living can screw up, it's likely that people who are less well trained (and are less familiar with it) will screw up more.

That's an overgeneralization and IMO, an unwarranted assumption. They could have just been really shitty teachers or shitty adherants to the practice of NFP. I've known a lot of NFP teachers and have been to the Couple to Couple Leagues offices in Cinncinnati, where a lot of the teaching occurs and where they have amassed alot of data on NFP research. What you are describing is just not the norm.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[billvon 3,009]

>Explain this statement please. B/c the way I read what you
>wrote. there isn't a damned thing "natural" about taking a "pill" . .

It mimics the body's own method of determining when pregnancy can and can't occur; Dr. John Rock, one of the developers of the pill (and a devout catholic) considered it a "morally permissible variant of the rhythm method." Indeed, he developed it for that specific reason.

>Artificial birth control is one of the most unnatural things one can do
>to the human body, putting it in such a hormonal state.

Actually, not having lots of kids is unnatural to begin with. It's what we're designed to do. Now we're just arguing over how to accomplish that.

[billvon 3,009]

>That's an overgeneralization and IMO, an unwarranted assumption.
> They could have just been really shitty teachers or shitty adherants
> to the practice of NFP.

I think that you calling a teacher you've never met "shitty" is getting into some unwarranted assumptions.

>I've known a lot of NFP teachers and have been to the Couple to
>Couple Leagues offices in Cinncinnati, where a lot of the teaching
>occurs and where they have amassed alot of data on NFP research.

I don't doubt that - but that's sort of like going to the Discovery Institude and asking for data about evolution. (Or to HairyJuan's website to get statistics about catholicism.)

[Lindsey 0]

I'm just thankful that there are all of these methods designed to prevent pregnancy. For those of us who still like a roll in the hay but for whom pregnancy is just not a good option, I'm just glad there are ways to avoid the "natural" consequences of screwing around....whatever they are :)

Peace~
linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[micro 0]

Quote

It mimics the body's own method of determining when pregnancy can and can't occur; Dr. John Rock, one of the developers of the pill (and a devout catholic) considered it a "morally permissible variant of the rhythm method." Indeed, he developed it for that specific reason.

If he were a devout catholic, he wouldn't have developed something that divorces the unitive and procreative meaning of intercourse. Concraception has been verboten in the Church for ages. It is not a "morally permissible variant" according to the church. Never has been, never will be. Perhaps a consultation of Church documents such as Humanae Vitae and others are in order.

Quote

Actually, not having lots of kids is unnatural to begin with.

That's not true either, unless you're looking at this from a purely biological perspective. But from the church's perspective, we're not just animals. However, I'm much more inclined to agree w/ that statement, b/c it's my view that marriages are far more stable and families much more happy, enjoyable, etc. when they are LARGE. In fact, I seem to recall some research on that very thing, but I can't recall the dudes name... something about the divorce rate decreasing as the number of children increasing... ah well...

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[Michele 1]

Quote

I'm just thankful that there are all of these methods designed to prevent pregnancy. For those of us who still like a roll in the hay but for whom pregnancy is just not a good option, I'm just glad there are ways to avoid the "natural" consequences of screwing around....whatever they are :)

Me TOO!!!!
Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~