This year there was a predictable amount of hoopla surrounding the 50th anniversary of “the pill.” Many pundits told us that the pill had delivered as promised: Women had become liberated. Sex in the City! Sex in dorm rooms! Sex behind bleachers! Women have it all.
But wait. Now comes word that women aren’t all that interested in sex any more. Their libidos are waning to the point that pharmaceutical companies are racing to find a Pink Viagra: a new pill; a pill that will restore the desire to have the sex that the pill made possible.
Why don’t women want to have sex? Is it because they are so absorbed in their careers? Is it because these careers force women to sacrifice their femininity and males to sacrifice their masculinity and thus the vivifying difference between males and females no longer exists? Why do women need males? Women have everything males have; they can do everything males do; what do males have to offer?
Certainly the above explanations are not unlikely and almost certainly have a degree of truth but — still — can the desire of female for male be so easily obliterated? Isn’t the attraction even more elemental than caps and chaps and buttons and bows?
I find it strange that commentators have not identified a very likely cause of the lack of female libido. The Pill, indeed all chemical contraceptives, have as a common side effect, a reduced sex drive. It is well documented both scientifically and anecdotally that the hormones in chemical contraceptives prevent a woman from producing the level of testosterone needed for her to have a healthy sex drive. The sex drive is largely physiological: When women change their sexual physiology it should be expected that their sex drive will change. Many of the chemical contraceptives put a woman’s body into a state of pseudo pregnancy. Researchers discovered that pregnant women don’t ovulate (and women who don’t ovulate cannot get pregnant), so they learned how to deceive the female body into “thinking” it is pregnant so it wouldn’t ovulate. Nature also establishes that women who are pregnant generally do not have strong sex drives; it serves no evolutionary benefit.
Studies on the effects of hormones on male/female relationships have been proliferating. The work of Dr. Helen Fisher, among others, shows that women who use chemical contraceptives prefer more feminine looking men or “safer” men; when they stop using chemical contraceptives, they discover they have a higher sex drive but are not much interested in the male they chose when they were using the chemical contraceptives. Males are also much more attracted sexually to women who have fertile cycles; they produce more testosterone when around women who are fertile. Certainly the ardor of the male partner affects the female response.
A friend of mine once told me how her seven brothers and sisters one day had a frank and open discussion of their sex lives. Six couples, double income, no kids, lamented the lack of sex in their marriages; the females, attractive, well dressed and well employed, confessed they felt sex was just one more chore demanded of them at the end of a long day. The males, equally attractive, well dressed and well employed, stated they felt they had to beg for sex from their wives, who would rather be watching TV. The one couple who had four children and were expecting a fifth, were a little pudgy, a little bargain-shoppish in appearance and a little financially stressed. They listened to their siblings and their spouses with incomprehension; their sex life, interrupted not uncommonly by sick or needy kids, was frequent and satisfying. The fatigue of home schooling and stretching a limited income had not encroached upon their lovemaking.
And maybe that is the clue. They thought of having sex not as “having sex” but as “making love.” Not that the others didn’t love each other, but sex for them had become routine and not the occasion of making an emphatic statement of love to each other. The pill had enabled them to have sex before marriage, and sex had become simply one more pleasurable act without much meaning. The couple who were also parents had retained the ability to recognize the act of having sex as a profound expression of love; one of the reasons that their sexual acts could express that meaning was their respect for the baby-making power of the sexual act. When couples who are willing to have a baby make love to one another, they are expressing a willingness to have their whole lives bound up together: “I love you so much; I am willing to be a parent with you.” The act itself is laden with the meanings of affirmation and commitment. Contraceptive sex significantly undermines that meaning. By its very nature it expresses the intent not to become a parent with the other. While couples who use contraception may in fact love one another deeply, contracepted sex expresses a willingness only to engage in a momentary physical pleasure and thus expresses neither love nor commitment. The body language of contraception therefore works against the very love which sex is meant to express and cultivate.
And lest critics wail that women are not baby-making machines, mention must be made of truly green forms of child-spacing, methods of natural family planning (NFP). Modern methods of NFP enable a woman to determine with great reliability the generally 7-10 days a month she is fertile and is not to be confused with the old “rhythm method,” which relied on counting days on a calendar. Requiring no chemicals, totally without harmful physical or environmental effects (consider the carbon footprint of chemical contraceptives), and costing nothing to use, methods of NFP have proven as effective as any form of contraception. They also respect the baby-making power of sex by not treating fertility as some bodily defect that must be corrected. Most couples who use NFP have contracepted at one time and readily testify that their lovemaking when using NFP is markedly different in quality from their having contracepted sex.
So instead of supplementing one pill with another, women should go green in their sex lives. Not only will they protect the delicate ecology of their female fertility from libido-reducing chemicals, they may find themselves tickled pink with their sex lives.
Janet E. Smith holds the Father Michael J. McGivney Chair of Life Ethics at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, Michigan.
Jimmy Akin: Should We Be Concerned About Pope Francis's Inaugural Mass?
Matthew Warner: Ask Fr. Barron: What to say to Catholics who struggle with Church teaching?
Comments
Post a Comment
I concur on every single point!!! My dh and I always smile conspiratorially at each other when we hear other couples complain about their level of intimacy with each other (sexual and otherwise). We’ve had tried to tell them our story and convert them to a ‘greener’ bedroom but they look at our large family and think we must be lying to them. How could parents of 11 children actually love each other and love being with each other (in every sense of the word). We do not know how to convince them otherwise.
I am a convert to Catholicism who had abandoned hormonal contraceptives long before conversion because it just didn’t feel right to be doing such unnatural things to my body. There are several points here that should be addressed, because while I agree with most of the points made about the pill, there *are* hormonal contraceptives (depo-provera) that can increase sex drive, though that one has several unpleasant possible side effects in addition to making your uterus “like a desert,” as my OB said. Also, while some pregnant women certainly experience decreased libido, I believe there are almost as many who experience a heightened desire—not for any evolutionary purpose, but certainly for bonding with the father of their child(ren), a closeness that prepares for birth. I do agree that there are many career decisions that interfere with couple intimacy, but to set up the dichotomy of career woman and earthy mother-type is to commit an error that is perpetuated in a lot of the literature geared toward Catholic women, and to potentially alienate those of us who are doing our best to fulfill our vocation as mothers and wives while using the other talents God has given us to pursue careers. There doesn’t have to be a contradiction, though of course our dignity as women does not depend on work, and there may be some confusion about that on an unconscious level because of the messages that society sends to women. I resemble the “fifth couple” of your anecdote in my marriage, except for only having 3 children, but I disagree that the reproductive capability that we share is a source of joy for my husband and I, who are navigating a difficult sibling dynamic with very strong personalities in our current parenting. I *have* felt that thrill in being a parent with my husband, but usually when I was newly pregnant, when the awe of it all was fresh. I take issue with the “baby-making power of the sexual act” as energizing, etc. When one is already a parent, x1, x2, x3, etc., there are times when the sexual act is a refuge for the parents—an affirmation that, for the moment, does not include children, which is why humans, unlike other animals, do engage in intercourse when they are not fertile, or when the woman has already conceived. This statement is also deeply flawed, though it may be theologically sound: “While couples who use contraception may in fact love one another deeply, contracepted sex expresses a willingness only to engage in a momentary physical pleasure and thus expresses neither love nor commitment.” It denies the potential of humans to cultivate an emotional bond in spite of physiology. By this same rationale, barren couples should not be able to affirm commitment to one another because their bodies are not joined in a potentially fruitful act during intercourse. While it is true that the psychology and physiology of contracepted sex is different, it is possible to overstate this in a way that diminishes the dignity of the individuals involved.
I still struggle with NFP, and I think I always will. Discourses on NFP do not satisfy, because however sophisticated my understanding of theology, there are elements that seem to me to be expressed without understanding, and that certainly do not fit with my experience. I will never return to artificial contraception, and I think that the culture of contraception is a dangerous thing, but I think generalizing about couples who contracept is ungenerous. And sometimes, restating how the couple that is willing to conceive is superior in their lovemaking because it is so much meaningful is off-putting.
“Green sex” might be encouraged by a little Pink Niagara wine, perhaps…. :D
This is more a question than a comment which I wish to request.
Maybe I can receive an answer from one of the great writers that contribute as staffers to this and other Catholic articles.Or maybe a Priest.
The question. Why doesnt the Catholic church allow women to be Deacons. Mind you I said Deacons not priests.
Women fly to the moon, cure as doctors,they arte excellent teachers, some are famous surgeons are Presidents and Ministers of Countries.Therfore you all recognize or should at least there capabilities and equality to men.
They are many Saint women canonized. Many living today. Many many sisters of Mercy who work in hospitals as teachers in the depth of Africa and Middle and Far East etc etc etc.
I believe you get the meaning.
I have heard Priests comment that some Deacons(male) are improved alter servers.but….
In the event you have a gospel true convincing reason please drop me a line to explain the Churches thoughts on this subject.
Thank you for giving some of your knowledge and God Bless
Error: sex during pregnancy “serves no evolutionary benefit”
Science has shown that Homo sapiens sapiens has never evolved (not since scientific evidence of our intelligent soul) and will never evolve.
Prof. Fred Nazar
http://www.nazar.info
Janet, I’m always impressed by the truth you speak and you’re right on once again here. My wife and I used contraception for around 3 years and since have been using NFP… wow! You aren’t kidding that it is better on every level! Add to that the peace I have knowing that my wife isn’t chemically altering her body and the ‘green-ness’ and there just isn’t an alternative that comes anywhere near it.
This article is so good! Thanks Dr. Smith.
Hello Robert E. Stanfield,
Allow me to ask a question before I go any further to answer your question? If the Catholic Church ordained women as deacons, would you then propose that we ordain women as priests?
As an analogy, the states that have civil unions for homosexuals are rallying for “full rights” and to have homosexual marriage. Seems that they feel they are second-class citizens in the civil unions.
Women as deacons, IMHO, would be the same thing for many out there.
Robert: Please check your World Book Encyclopedia. No women have ever flown to the moon; and that is why women cannot be deacons.
As far as “green sex” goes, I think among us only Captain Kirk can speak to that.
@Nicole D: Thank you for your comments & your honesty. I think you have made an important point about the potential for stereotyping all devout Catholic women who practice NFP. *Just a reminder: some of us are professionals and do have vocations in addition to that of wife and mother; it is a constant struggle to keep the proper perspective, but not impossible. St. Gianna is a great example!*
@Robert Stanfield: It is important to remember that although deacons do not function in the same capacity as priests, both are still ordained. The permanent diaconate was only reinstated after Vatican II. All priests must first be ordained deacons, but not all deacons go on to become priests. That being said, it is also important to remember the function of priestly ministry; semantics can be very important here. Priestly duties are not merely a set of functions and activities to be carried out by someone who is proved capable. Rather, priests act as an ICON (to borrow from George Weigel) of Christ Himself - a re-presentation of our Lord, who is fully human. (The latin is “in persona Christi.”) This in no way implies that women are “incapable” of performing many of the duties of a priest (evangelization, interpretation of scripture, etc.). However, Jesus Christ - the High Priest and bridegroom of the Church - is a man. This is how God willed the priesthood. Similarly, Mary - the Mother of the Church and Mother of God - was conceived without original sin and bore the savior of the world. Men cannot have babies; women cannot be priests - these are physical impossibilities.
The reason, as far as my limited understanding goes, that women are not allowed to be deacons is because part of the Deacon’s duties consist of reading the Gospel and also of giving a homily at mass if appropriate. The priest is the symbolic representation of Jesus during the homily, explaining and teaching the Church each week. A woman cannot stand in persona Christi because she is inherently different. Women were created to receive the seed and bear fruit not to give forth the seed. I listened to an amazing talk by Christopher West called “Naked Without Shame” about the Theology of the Body and he mentioned it, it was a teaching I greatly struggled with prior to hearing his explanation.
Robert Stanfield asks why women cannot be deacons. He then answers his question: “There are many Saint women canonized”.
Precisely, They are busy becoming saints.
Men and women are different. We were created equal, but not the same. We have different roles within the Church and all are equally as important. All vocations need the other vocations and depend upon them. If men and women were meant to be the same, we would have been created that way.
Article important ommissions:
a) hormonal pills such as the regular contraceptive pill is abortifacient: the other couples had probably killed their babies, no wonder they killed love and love making.
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/new_documentary_on_the_pill_as_abortafacient/
b) according to Familiaris Consortio and Love and Responsibility by Karol Wojtyla, it is a grave sin to use Natural Family Planning if there is no grave reason to do it (e.g. serious illness, starvation, etc.).
About women being deacons:
Tradition proves Jesus ordered male priests in the last supper. Visionaries such as Bl. Anne Catherine Emmerick saw it too. Jesus could have ordained women but HE, GOD, didn’t want to. Who are we to question HIM?
You may read Emmerick’s account at:
http://www.jesus-passion.com/DOLOROUS_PASSION_OF_OUR_LORD_JESUS_CHRIST.htm
Nativity:
http://www.archive.org/details/nativitychrist00emmeuoft
blessings in JMJ
Fred
Janet, thank you again for the Truth! I want to take this opportunity to thank you!!! You basically were the first step for me, toward converting to the Catholic Church. For the first yr. and 1/2 or so of our marriage, I was on the pill, having been taught in almost all protestant traditions that it was perfectly fine to use it, aferall, God gave us the “brains to figure out how to make it” (as well as nuclear bombs?) and “what happens in the marriage bed, stays in the marriage bed” or some such…. Oh how I regret it…but then , too, for that entire time, I was physically ill and miserable from the side-effects of the Pill. The doctor kept trying to give me a lower dosage, etc to help. But I had many nights of insomnia and nausea and missed days at work, just feeling so ill. Along that time, somehow, we got your tape and listened to it. I couldn’t believe it…I went and read the inserts on the packages of pills….I was probably killing babies, on top of what I was doing to my body. I began reading about NFP, and at about our 2 yr anniversary, after a conscious knowledge of my cycle the previous month and known day/night of conception, discovered we were pregnant with our first child :) Our other biological children were both planned and known exact conception dates as well, after some postponing for help reasons. Then after a very traumatic birth and infant loss, and damaged uterus, which sadly had to be removed later (I still hope and pray for as necessary as reasons as given) we used NFP to postpone for grave reasons for 4 years. God is faithful… we’ve since been blessed with our beautiful adopted daughter. But anyway, long story short…thank you for doing what you do, and giving me that first step toward “Rome.” :) That’s an anniversary truly to be celebrated (9 1/2 yrs now :)
This week (July 25-31) is National Natural Family Planning Week. Relevant information and helpful links can be found at the following link:
http://allhands-ondeck.blogspot.com/2010/07/national-natural-family-planning.html
This week also marks the 42nd anniversary of Pope Paul’s prophetic encyclical “Humanae Vitae” which reaffirmed the Catholic Church’s opposition to artificial contraception:
http://allhands-ondeck.blogspot.com/2010/07/42nd-anniversary-of-humane-vitae.html
Chicago is lucky to have Dr. Smith! I have personally witnessed her professional, selflessly energetic dedication to women and to life.
Listen, there’s so much more to it than even this! Men easily lose the habit of reproductive sexuality. A condom manufacturer did a survey in Japan because business was so bad, and found that men there prefer pornography and solitary sex. Apparently it’s practically impossible to unteach, once established. We humans are more fragile, sexually, than we understand. Japan once rejected pornography, but after World War II there was a successful flurry to legalize it, and Japan’s religions were not especially strong in any aspect, without a coherent sexual morality, more of a series of weak customs, so pornography quickly penetrated their society. Now they are paying the price; since their birth rate is so low they’ll be economic toast by 2050, and already slip yearly into oblivion, unable to recover from the 90’s recession. The government has tried to reverse the trend and encourage marriage and parenting, but their men just prefer solitary sex now, and Japanese women apparently don’t ‘like’ Japanese men anymore (probably for that!) and are declining to marry in huge numbers.
I have the links here: http://thewhitelilyblog.wordpress.com/2008/03/04/catholics-save-wall-street/#more-25
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.