From time to time from “pro-lifers”* use the phrase “contraceptive mentality.”  Talk2action and pandagon have both mentioned/quoted this phrase – which is what brought it to my attention.  When I did a web search, I found links to the American Life League so I’m guessing their the ones who came up with this little phrase.

“Contraceptive mentality” apparently refers to the ability and willigness to engage in any sexual act any reason other than procreation.  The idea of having sex just for fun, because you and your partner love each other and want to express your love physically is anathema in this worldview.

If you visit the American Life League you will find articles arguing that using contraception leads to abortion.  Since that’s insane on its face, I thought a bit of extra time might be worth my time.  From the article Contraceptive Compromise:

The practice of contraception is intrinsically evil and lays the groundwork for other evils such as the act of abortion. While it may not be feasible at this time to “outlaw” the practice, we have a moral obligation to point out the evil, explain it to our fellow men and women and do all we can to help them see that God has a better way.

(You can almost hear Ian McKellan’s voice “The Pill is altogther evil!”)  In this passage, ALL admits they want to outlaw contraception.  By calling contraception intrinsically evil, they are apparently attempting to place it beyond debate.  But they beg the question:  Why is contraception evil?Reading and rereading the article, I can only conclude their answer is found in this paragraph:

In 1965 the Supreme Court (in Griswold v. Connecticut) established a “right to privacy,” not formerly identified in the Constitution of the United States in matters of sexual practices, and still not found there today except in the creative minds of a politically active Supreme Court. So, because of that case, birth control/contraception/family planning-whatever one wishes to call the artificial separation of man and woman during sexual intercourse-became a matter of “privacy.”  (emphasis mine)

Two ideas jump out:

• American Life League denies Americans have a Constitutional right to privacy.  Hands up everyone who wants to give up your right to privacy.  Nobody?  Hm . . .
• The “artificial separation” caused by contraception is the evil of contraception.  Of course, various forms of contraception have been tried throughout the centuries, most often barrier methods, herbs, and coitus interruptus.  You might think that ALL would favor the latter but not so much.

Which brings me to the ALL’s cenral points:

Could it be that fertility is viewed as a disease? Has man begun to view sexuality as nothing more than a pursuit of lust for the sake of lust? These questions must be asked in the heart of each and every one of us, and then a conscious decision must be made. We must ask whether the choice should be the practice of contraception or, alternatively, the practice of chastity outside of marriage and fidelity within marriage coupled with an absolute trust in God and His will with regard to the gift of children.

Is it possible that the act of sexual intercourse has become nothing more than a mere pastime, completely divorced from love?

Is it possible that love itself has been separated from the image of Christ and simply become a word that makes it easier to participate in acts that satiate the senses but dull the conscience?

Ignored (probably deliberately) is the notion that persons can authentically love one another and be unprepared to become parents.  Using contraception is the way in which mature, heterosexual persons honor their procreative potential.  In this view, the only valid forms of family planning are chastity, the rhythm methods, and an Act of God.  In the real world, the effectiveness of these methods is shockingly low – according to the Society for Adolescent Medicine, chastity’s effectiveness approaches 0%, acts of God are impossibly unreliable.  In terms of method failure, compared to pills, patches, injections, condoms and doing jumping jacks after sex, the rhythm method is the least reliable form of family planning.  To restate: If you get pregnant, it’s God’s will and you had better be happy about it.

With less snark, however, reading American Life League’s list, you see they are committing a basic error in reasoning (hat tip to Carl Sagan’s The Demon Haunted World) – ignoring the middle.  Consider their first question:

Could it be that fertility is viewed as a disease?

This is the most extreme and unrealistic possible understanding of contemporary attitudes toward family planning.  The rhetorical device is as old as Athenian democracy; ask an extreme question with which you know people will disagree and then ask another less extreme question which looks reasonabl by comparison.  Very few people, if any, believe fertility is a disease.  Of course they’ll say no. Then, ALL swoops in with:

Has man begun to view sexuality as nothing more than a pursuit of lust for the sake of lust?

This is another extreme question but not as extreme at the first.  It’s also very smart – many Americans (I’d guess a very large majority) have some free floating guilt about sexual matters so a question such as this makes the average American squirm.  A question such as this taps into our individual and cultural anxiety about sexuality in very real and discomforting ways.  Asking these questions together would drive many readers to feel strong anxiety about their sexuality and sexual behavior.  The intent is to avoid the simple, commonsense middle ground most Americans hold – namely that fertility is a good thing, but having children isn’t always practical, reasonable, or desirable and adults can reasonably choose to manage their fertility and will choose to have children at some point in their lives.  Delaying parenthood until one is more financially and emotionally stable is a wise choice, one that more and more Americans are making.

The writer continues the path of extremes with the next question:

Is it possible that the act of sexual intercourse has become nothing more than a mere pastime, completely divorced from love?

Some form of this question seems to come up every time social conservatives talk about sex.  Lakoff explores this notion in his writings; Jeffrey Feldman at Frameshop talked about it as well.  In strict father morality, sexuality is dangerous and seductive (pun intended) and must be channeled as narrowly as possible to prevent people from giving in to temptation and perversity.  Conservatives often argue that sexual activity is addictive.  In this moral system, intercourse must not be separate from procreation since only the threat of procreation and social shaming keep people from engaging in wanton acts of sex.  Within the strict father morality, sexuality serves the single purpose of procreation.  Having sex for fun is a morally invalid use of sex.  By acting as if any sex outside except for procreation is purely animalistic and emotionless they are hoping to stigmatize non-marital and/or non-procrative sexual activity.  The questions presumes that sex as a pastime is inherently wrong.

The final question in the series:

Is it possible that love itself has been separated from the image of Christ and simply become a word that makes it easier to participate in acts that satiate the senses but dull the conscience?

The overtly religious language is intended to frontload the question and distract from the underlying assumption that having sex satiates the senses and dulls the conscience.  This question presumes that sex is inherently damaging, and probably inherently immoral.  This question strikes me as particularly insidious.  Sexuality can be used to satiate desires, as a substitute for genuine love and affection, as a pastime divorced from love and I’d guess a very sizable minority if not an outright majority of people have at one time or another done so.  A question such as this one provokes the super ego into a fit of harsh moralizing.  But, the underlying assumptions about the dangerous and harmful nature of sexuality do not stand up to close scrutiny.  It does not follow that all sexual activity except that between persons who wish to have children is devoid of love, emotion, intimacy and connection.  Certainly real world experience shows that two persons who are unmarried can enjoy a healthy and fulfilling sexual connection.  That exploitation happens in some sexual relationships does not in any way prove it happens in most or even all instances.

ALL’s view of sexuality is grim, joyless, and utilitarian.  Sex for babies, nothing else, and the only valid form of family planning is trust in God.

I prefer a more expansive view of sexuality.  Sexuality enhances and enriches human life by allowing us express love, joy, connection with another, and delight; it allows us to experience and epxress intimacy and to bring new life into the world.  That sexuality can bring new life into the world does not mean it must or that the only valid use of sexuality is procreation.  Sexual activity need not only occur be between married persons, certainly not solely between persons of different genders.

Sex is like pizza.  When you share with someone, you have to negotiate to get the pizza everyone wants, but everyone gets it the way they want and enjoy it.  Pizza is great when shared, but not bad alone.  Everyone likes pizza their own way, but they also know they can try it new ways if they so desire.  Pizza doesn’t have to be for dinner – it can be breakfast, lunch, dinner, late night snack.  You can have it almost anytime and you can share it if your partner is willing.  Pizza is also a great equalizer – there are very few people who don’t like it.

* I put “pro-life” in quotes because, after the Terri Schiavo affair which was a cause celebre for the movement, I think they aren’t so much pro-life as they are anti-death.