It’s About Making Babies!

I get more spam than I can handle, wanting to sell me drugs that will make my sex organ perk up, perform longer, and produce more fluid. The claim is that these are the features of a sexual encounter that any partner will value.

I see nothing said about whether these drugs or devices to make things bigger will produce healthier, happier babies. I recall the earliest birth control had some horrendous side effects (can anyone say ‘thalidomide’?). And since apparently every sexually active adult in America is taking these ‘please your partner’ drugs — both from the original developer, and from the cheapest sources — I think there is a very good reason to ask, “What is this doing to the babies?” Presumably most encounters are non-productive by design (birth control), but apparently there is enough inter-personal exposure to be sending occurrences of venereal disease — diseases spread by contact with another person’s genitals — through the roof.

So what happens to babies that aren’t prevented, like the ’social’ diseases that aren’t being prevented? Will they develop normally or is the chemically charged environment of their conception going to affect development?

OK. I am not bioengineer, biologist, or research physician. I cannot answer these questions about the medical effects.

Bu behavior crap, that bothers me, too. Suppose a guy sees the ads, gets the pills, and enters an inter-personal encounter believing that all bases are covered — his organ will be functioning for days, will produce copiously, and be bigger than is natural for him. And not only that, by buying the drug company’s message (or the message of the cut-rate source he actually got the pills from) he also buys their message that these particular drug-cured physical aspects of the encounter are *all* that are needed to not just satisfy his partner, but to delight his partner. Note the particular lack of interpersonal affirmation (emotional attachment, regard for the partner’s self-worth and preferences, addressing needs for emotional and/or relationship security, etc.). Does this sound like the sound basis of building a family and home to support and nurture a baby?

If your partner isn’t your choice for a parent for your child(ren), how can you spare the time to be intimate with them?!? Unless a physician is directing the pharmacoepia to manage a particular, specific condition, is the encounter truly nurturing each partner along the path towards parenthood? If not, how can you be wasting the time for a (hopefully) non-productive encounter? When do you intend to begin building a loving, nurturing environment so that you can grow together with a partner, whether or not you ever have a child?

Let me summarize several earlier posts about my feelings: Sex is about making babies. When we consider each sexually oriented issue in the light of this simple statement, we see that we should not be distracted by potential partners that would not be a suitable co-parent. We should avoid encounters with people that we do not consider potential co-parents, because they distract us from the concept of ’sex is about making babies’, and they distort our perceptions of our selves and those we want to identify with. Think about this — the skill ‘is popular’ and ‘attractive to the opposite sex’ becomes not just irrelevant, but a true liability at the moment of marriage. I heard a report that a surprisingly common factor of divorces, is living next door to a single person.

A nurturing relationship of co-parent adults would find emotional connection, physical intimacy, and mutual play to be very valuable. Focusing on physical performance for recreational reasons would detract from the growth of the relationship.

If your partner needs you to perform beyond your physical development, then you might reconsider whether your partner is actually such a great choice as a parent for your child. Likewise, if you need to see a specific organ enhancement, piercing, tattoo, or gain or loss of body weight, then likely your partner should be reconsidering whether you are worth her time.

What I consider as important in selecting a mate/partner is almost biblical. He/she must be honorable and honest, must show discipline in their life, must be kind and gentle with animals and children, They should show responsibility in choosing how and with whom to spend their time. Personally I avoid people that spend inordinate time or effort on grooming. Perfume and makeup are meant to deceive, coerce, and manipulate. It is the actual underlying pheromes that will determine ‘chemistry’ — valuing a person because of the musk, scent, cologne, etc. they choose is folly. Exchange of pheromones and air and bodily contact borne hormones are primary elements in bonding and growing a nurturing relationship — shared breaths, kisses, and other intimate exchanges affect how our bodies respond to those we associate with. Sharing small quarters — closed car, small room or apartment — with a partner or mate is crucial in maintaining a relationship. Artificial agents, from colognes to room air fresheners, degrade our body’s ability to detect and adapt to our partner.

These ‘organ enhancement’ drugs *have* to have a hormonal impact on us and our partner. The decision to procure and use them, or the action of convincing a partner to use them, has to impair our understanding of what values we exhibit with our lives.

And it is still to early to tell whether the original manufacturer’s pills, or the cheap-rate almost-the-same pills will make happier, healthier babies.

Brad K.

I notice that I am seeing more new Playboy stickers on truck and car windows, usually displayed by younger people.

I Googled for ‘playboy philosophy’, and found lots of commentaries and paraphrases. Apparently ‘playboy philosophy’ is a truly favorite phrase of clergy and biblical scholars. The common theme seems to be that the Playboy Philosophy meant — men should not control their sexual urges, but indulge themselves with whichever women would let them. That can’t be it, can it? I mean, the whole concept of provacative playmates, magazines of ‘great new articles’ and touched up pictures of naked ladies is about selling sex, magazines, paraphenalia, and liquor, and has almost nothing to do with willing women (who aren’t actually engaged in soliciting) and the indulgent men that find them. That falls more into line with Penthouse Letters. For most, though — don’t as what Penthouse Letters, Penthouse Forum, and Penthouse Variations advertise.

One article in particular caught my attention. A Youth Pastor Speaks Out on the Playboy Theology. “The present generation of young people is firmly committed to the “playboy” philosophy, with its goal of pleasure. This is not a new philosophy. The ancient Greek philosopher, Epicurus, enunciated the ethical philosophy called “hedonism” (the word is the transliteration of the Greek word for pleasure). Hedonism commits its followers to the goal of pleasure. It believes that pleasure is the sole good. ”

Personally I find the author’s arguments weak and his logic tenuous, but it does hit all the contemporary Hot Buttons that today’s congregation expects to hear. Not to imply that most of the sermons preached today are populist tripe (outside certain communities with actual commitment, such as many Amana, Mennonite, and Amish and other ‘withdrawn’ peoples). On the other hand, ‘An Eye For An Eye Will Quickly Lead To Blindness’ seems pretty far afield from actual spiritual growth. Catchy, but is the point the growth of the congregation, enlightenment of the stranger, or competition with the snappy phrases two blocks south? Most of the time I expect the times of service and counseling phone numbers would be a lot more effective, if less entertaining.

If we live a ‘playboy philosophy’, does that mean we plan on living our lives in constant sexual adventures with whomever? Are we living the playboy philosophy when we cohabit with our sexual partner, without marriage? If we engage in a series of sexually intimate encounters through all or part of our lives, is that the Playboy Philosophy? As I understand it, the playboy philosophy demands a couple of things. 1) Men live the playboy philosophy by successfully convincing attractive women to engage in sex on a casual basis, for ‘fun’. 2) Women engage in sex for the *man’s* fun. 3) Men will be affluent (rich). 4) Women will be elegant in clothes, big-breasted and world-class beauties naked.

Personally I tend to avoid the ‘beautiful’ women. I have met few truly good looking women that actually have a life beyond their efforts to appear beautiful, and to use their beauty for social, financial, and political gain. Jane Fonda comes to mind. Pretty at first glance, but I haven’t found anything about her that attracts me. I find the way Darryl Hannah appears almost free of the appearance of makeup in ‘Crazy People’ much more appealing. I would not permit anyone to put makeup on my puppy or pony.

Are there people living the Playboy Philosophy? I suppose. I don’t care. The real issue is what we can do to reduce unhappiness in young and mature people. What we can do to increase security and happiness, and discipline, in our children.

In the new today was a story about a school that canceled their school prom. “…So the principal of Kellenberg Memorial High School fired off a 2,000-word missive to parents at the start of the school year informing them that the Catholic school would no longer put on the spring prom.

“It is not primarily the sex/booze/drugs that surround this event, as problematic as they might be; it is rather the flaunting of affluence, assuming exaggerated expenses, a pursuit of vanity for vanity’s sake _ in a word, financial decadence,” Brother Hoagland said, fed up with what he calls the “bacchanalian aspects” of the prom.”

I believe the spring prom is a direct descendant of the ‘coming out’ parties of upper-class debutantes. Only the purpose got lost. Where the purpose was a grand gala ‘introducing’ the girls to ’society’ was actually to find them ‘good’ marriage prospects it was critical that the parents of the prospective mates be present, so they could pick the most ’suitable’ of the girls for their boy. The Prom with ‘chaperones’ doesn’t fill any realistic purpose. How can children ‘join’ society or ‘come out’ if they stick solely to their own company? And of course they have to elect a ‘queen’ and ‘king’ as if one girl or boy is ‘better’ than the others, or cuter or prettier or whatever. The election of class ‘royalty’ only imposes the value of ‘prettiness’, ‘popularity’, or athletic prowess as validations for every person there. Instead of binding the group together, it belittles everyone involved by removing the traits of true character, honor, and piety from the list of important virtues that our children should have been taught to value about all others.

See, I have no problem with a man looking at any woman, and wanting to get ‘busy’ with her (engage in sex, conversation, or a lifetime relationship). Until he promises to care for her children. At that point, he has found his ‘home’. A man either has honor — stays with his promises — or he is a threat to his friends, family, and community. Forming a family — bonding with a woman — is an honorable thing to do, however they find each other. Lawyers today have transformed ‘marriage’ into an arrangement to divide assets when the marriage ends, and sacrificed kids’ welfare to further the lawyer’s financial and career goals. I can understand both why David Letterman celebrates the birth of a child to his unwed girlfriend, and why the (shallow?) pastor above holds up DL as an example of morals gone awry. I will wait to meet Mr. Letterman and the lady involved, and watch them in their home with their children, before I would be able to state whether or not they live a moral life. My suspicion is that I would respect the Letterman household.

We worry about what we tell our kids about sex, about what pornography does to us, our children, and our society. We worry about casual sexual encounters and the impact on our children. Easy! Instead of worrying about what is on TV, in ads, in songs, etc., let us work to put the stuff in that *should* be there!

How many country or rock songs talk about breaking up, losing a cherished person? Now how many songs explain how, on the morning after the marriage, you assure that both you and your beloved will want to be with each other at the end of the day? How about after 8 years? Don’t worry about the seven year itch, which is another name for the Playboy Philosophy. A guy/gal either has honor, commitment, and discipline, or they should be shunned from your life.

We need advertisements on radio, TV, in print and on the Internet that promote honor and discipline. Not gambling. And leave the porno be. The softcore stuff has done more to instruct couples and console individuals than anything else. Demonstrate honor in the stories we watch and read, and we will relieve the interest in most of the dangerous versions.