Addendum: I am not saying you have to have babies to have a meaningful life. The point here is to think about what it means to be human, male or female, and a being imbued with significance. Where are you going to put your creative efforts? If it's to satisfy yourself, no good. And if it's for other, that's right and good. Now, what could beat having a kid for giving your creative efforts away? Unless you're St. Gerald, probably nothing.
Kimberly's not on the pill. We tried it the first year of our marriage, and it was terrible. The pills made her sick and moody and depressed...so we hopped off. I understand that this happens a good bit with the pill, and that many women have the guts to get off these seriously body-altering drugs.
Renata was conceived in the third year of our marriage, and yes, we did use birth control up until then. Okay, so we were a little indifferent about it.
Six years after that, and here we are with four kids, and (yes I'm bragging) one happy woman.
This could totally lead me off-point, to wander down roads where I show you how wonderful potency and fertility are when we're talking about life and creation and significance and work and poetry and all the things God made us for.
Meanwhile, the much more compact thing I have to say is, read this article, yo. It suggests that use of the pill has altered what women believe is desirable in a man, so that over 40 years of popular use, the ideal (Hollywood version of) man has become more and more effeminate. From Burt Lancaster and Steve McQueen to Johnny Depp and Zac Ephron (and yes, I think Johnny Depp is cool). And the argument isn't that the drug does this, although the article fails to make that clear. The idea is that since women know they're infertile, they're less interested in "masculine" men. I'm willing to buy that.
Understand that I say the following with the knowledge that a diversity of personalities on the female and male sides allow for a lot of variation. But it seems logical that if you know you're infertile, you're going to be more likely to want simply a friend. If you know you're fertile, you'll want a man. Even if you're not ready or wanting to have a baby...knowing you might, and knowing you'll then dedicate yourself to the child and the family, you'll more likely want that prototypical old-fashioned idea of a man: someone who is potent to sow and grow and harvest.
I wouldn't tell you to go out and have seventeen babies, but if God has made you potent/fertile, wouldn't you not be living up to your human potential if you declined to participate in the creation (which in Latin languages means the upbringing) of people? Maybe you just work on a couple of masterpieces. Or maybe you crank out seventeen solid works of art. Or maybe even seventeen masterpieces.
Makes sense to me. Correct me if I'm wrong, the ladies.
Kimberly's not on the pill. We tried it the first year of our marriage, and it was terrible. The pills made her sick and moody and depressed...so we hopped off. I understand that this happens a good bit with the pill, and that many women have the guts to get off these seriously body-altering drugs.
Renata was conceived in the third year of our marriage, and yes, we did use birth control up until then. Okay, so we were a little indifferent about it.
Six years after that, and here we are with four kids, and (yes I'm bragging) one happy woman.
This could totally lead me off-point, to wander down roads where I show you how wonderful potency and fertility are when we're talking about life and creation and significance and work and poetry and all the things God made us for.
Meanwhile, the much more compact thing I have to say is, read this article, yo. It suggests that use of the pill has altered what women believe is desirable in a man, so that over 40 years of popular use, the ideal (Hollywood version of) man has become more and more effeminate. From Burt Lancaster and Steve McQueen to Johnny Depp and Zac Ephron (and yes, I think Johnny Depp is cool). And the argument isn't that the drug does this, although the article fails to make that clear. The idea is that since women know they're infertile, they're less interested in "masculine" men. I'm willing to buy that.
Understand that I say the following with the knowledge that a diversity of personalities on the female and male sides allow for a lot of variation. But it seems logical that if you know you're infertile, you're going to be more likely to want simply a friend. If you know you're fertile, you'll want a man. Even if you're not ready or wanting to have a baby...knowing you might, and knowing you'll then dedicate yourself to the child and the family, you'll more likely want that prototypical old-fashioned idea of a man: someone who is potent to sow and grow and harvest.
I wouldn't tell you to go out and have seventeen babies, but if God has made you potent/fertile, wouldn't you not be living up to your human potential if you declined to participate in the creation (which in Latin languages means the upbringing) of people? Maybe you just work on a couple of masterpieces. Or maybe you crank out seventeen solid works of art. Or maybe even seventeen masterpieces.
Makes sense to me. Correct me if I'm wrong, the ladies.
This is one reason I love you so much, dude.
ReplyDelete