burf control

i was listening to a local radio show on my way to work today. and the discussion was about different “catholic” birth control methods that they teach in their schools. they focused on two:

The Withdrawal Method – also known as the “pull and pray,” i’m sure we have all heard of (if not used) this lovely way to prevent procreation. simply put, the male removes his penis from the female’s vagina before he pppppptthhhhhpppppps.

The Rhythm Method – now this is the one that gets confusing. and quite technical. depending on the natural cycle of the female, during the peak days of ovulation (approximately half way through the cycle from your last period), sexual intercourse should be avoided. to properly measure this you have to monitor your temperature and vaginal secretions.

now these methods do make some sense, and could lessen the odds of pregnancy… but one thing sticks out in my mind about the rhythm method.

according to this method, we should abstain from sex between 4 and 8 days surrounding our ovulating time. on top of that, most women avoid sex during the 5 to 10 days that they are menstruating. that could mean for some ladies EIGHTEEN days PER MONTH that they can’t boink. for you math majors, that’s over half of our existence.

but that isn’t where it stops.

i’m sure you are all familiar with this little phenomenon called PMS. this knocks another 3 or 4 days off of the chances of having sex. and if you combine that with the use of the withdrawal method, the time that you DO actually get to have sex… you don’t even get the enjoyment of feeling your partner finish inside of you.

so ladies. when you figure out what your 8-10 day window is… i hope you fuck enough to last you until the next safe period.

damn catholics.

57 thoughts on “burf control

  1. Not exactly sure, and too lazy to look it up, but isn’t the Catholic church against ANY form of birth control, artificial or otherwise?

    #1 | Comment by thess — December 3, 2003 @ 4:14 am

  2. Don’t forget if she is pissed at you for killing her cat, sleeping with her best friend( Because she was during the right time for the rhythm method), or some other reason women get mad at men.

    #2 | Comment by Shifty McNutz — December 3, 2003 @ 4:19 am

  3. Si senorita. But screw them damn catholics anyways, pill + condom = glass slippers of the 21st century!

    #3 | Comment by J — December 3, 2003 @ 4:19 am

  4. thess, they all it "natural family planning." in theory, they teach it so young catholics know when they CAN get pregnant.

    and the whole withdrawal thing… i think that’s a fluke. but if you can’t trust talk radio then who can you trust?


    #4 | Comment by lizzi — December 3, 2003 @ 4:37 am

  5. Just rolling the dice.

    I knew a good catholic girl in high school who would have anal sex with her boyfriend so that she wouldn’t technically be having premarital intercourse.

    #5 | Comment by grud — December 3, 2003 @ 5:02 am

  6. Having been raised Catholic, suppose I ought to know more about the teachings, actually…

    Anal sex is the devil, grud. And you’re the devil for promoting it.

    #6 | Comment by thess — December 3, 2003 @ 5:31 am

  7. Is "pppppptthhhhhpppppps" a catholic term? I’m not familiar with it.

    #7 | Comment by bligityblah — December 3, 2003 @ 5:44 am

  8. I’m a whole other story….I’ve never been to a school where I didn’t have to wear uniforms. I’ve been going to Catholic school all my life. Attended church regularly. I’ve found that I, being deprived of earlier experiences, have become a nympho. I’ve done everything wrong, I guess, as far as what I was tought. I don’t feel dirty. Been waiting to see if the girl I’m dating now wants to try anal. I’m sorry to say but, in my experiences, the wild ones were all the Catholic girls. Infact, dated this girl that loved to fuck on Sunday mornings before church. Gotta love those Catholic girls. Why do you think all those pornos have all those Catholic school girls in them? They are so sexually deprived, that by the time they are 16 or so, they can’t lay off dick.

    #8 | Comment by Alejandro — December 3, 2003 @ 6:25 am

  9. "Anal sex is the devil, grud. And you’re the devil for promoting it."

    Damn Thess, you just ruined one of my favorite fantasies. Guess I can mark you off the list. 🙂

    #9 | Comment by grud — December 3, 2003 @ 6:26 am

  10. Thess… being raised catholic myself, as well as going to catholic school, I would be happy to… ahem… look over any forms of birth control for you. If you want to send visuals for me to reference that would be perfect. Just doing my part for the church… /stupid-grin

    #10 | Comment by matt — December 3, 2003 @ 7:01 am

  11. Thess-

    It’s on of the catholic churchs fun little inconsistencies that they partake in. On the whole, they oppose any birth control and staunchly stand by it as a ‘doctrine’. However, good religious leaders will also tell you that they support the above methods that lizzie mentions. They are ‘natural’ childbirth methods.

    And that leads to the bigger catholic inconsistency that bothers me. They are against artifical insemination because it is UNnatural. They are against birth control because it is UNnatural. That is the ‘official’ doctrine against it. To interrupt NATURE is BAD. Which should mean that the church should be against all unnatural things…such as:
    organ transplants
    open heart surgery

    what else? I could go on and on…point being, those are all ‘unnatural’ as well.

    With all these inconsistencies, I had to seriously reevaluate many of my catholic beliefs.

    #11 | Comment by smash — December 3, 2003 @ 7:17 am

  12. Smash – inconsistency is why some of us believe that organized religion is in fact the devil. If the church could make money with contraceptive sales you’d better believe that the Pope would be changing a doctrine or two. But its not like repression of urges have ever been a problem, look at the Catholic churches recent track record.

    #12 | Comment by bligityblah — December 3, 2003 @ 7:40 am

  13. I’m catholic…

    #13 | Comment by stacia — December 3, 2003 @ 7:54 am

  14. does anyone have passwords to tilashotspot.com or modfxmodels.com? if so post them or if you wanna try to get them feel free to 🙂

    #14 | Comment by The Dark 1 — December 3, 2003 @ 9:05 am

  15. I went to a Catholic high school, and some lady actually came in and talked to us about "natural forms" of birth control…Oh yeah, I forgot to mention, it was an all boys school…imagine that, a room full of guys, listening to a 65 year old woman talk about girls cycles, and "The Rhythm Method", and oh yeah, she never mentioned pulling out…does that work anyway?

    #15 | Comment by blinkaddict720 — December 3, 2003 @ 10:23 am

  16. pulling out "helps." it can’t completely "work" because the tip of your wee wee has a bagillion little spermie doodes on it even before you pppppptthhhhhpppppp.

    #16 | Comment by lizzi — December 3, 2003 @ 10:38 am

  17. Well there’s 2 problems with pulling out, A it’s rather difficult, and B precum has sperm in it, and can (it has for that matter) impregnate your loved one.

    #17 | Comment by Charles — December 3, 2003 @ 10:41 am

  18. I’m catholic too, but i must say some of our teachings are a bit anal (no offense jesus)

    #18 | Comment by P. Orno Rocks — December 3, 2003 @ 10:42 am

  19. I grew up Catholic. Gave it up cold turkey in 10th grade. Only times I have set foot in a Catholic chuch in the last 20 years was my Brother’s wedding and my Grandma’s funeral. All of you have touched on the basic reasons why, inconsistencies, that and the fact that Catholicism is all about money and power. The Vatican has the resources to end world hunger and innoculate every child, but chosses not to. I guess in their mind it would be UNnatural.

    #19 | Comment by AKApostal — December 3, 2003 @ 10:53 am

  20. Y’know, I wouldn’t complain if I had only eighteen days a month in which to "boink," as it were. I wouldn’t complain if I only had one per month. As it stands, I haven’t had sex since the first term of the Clinton administration, so my pity for the birth control tactics (or lack thereof) of Catholics is nonexistent, as it is with virtually everyone else in the world: You’re getting laid, huh? Good for you, but I hate you now.

    #20 | Comment by Umgawa — December 3, 2003 @ 11:01 am

  21. Oh, by the way, it’s been known THROUGHOUT HISTORY that the withdrawal method is flawed for the exactly the reason that Lizzie stated above.

    HOWEVER, it does provide an excellent excuse for a man to pull off the "money shot."

    #21 | Comment by Umgawa — December 3, 2003 @ 11:05 am

  22. In the school where I go, which is all-boys and catholic. They had this priest come in to religion class and he said that the only effective birth control was abstinince (lol) and that when we got married was the only appropriate time to have "relations" (lolzz) and he also said that the only church approved method of birth control was natural family planning. Later on in the year we studied a guy named Augustine of Hippo, he was a saint that lived 1900 years ago and fucked sex up from then on, he wrote a book that said sex for pleasure was a sin, and it had been church dogma since. Previous to that, Catholics were free to have sex whenever they wanted to, Damn Augustine, ruined everything. So that is the origin of the Catholic church against sex. 🙂

    #22 | Comment by annubius — December 3, 2003 @ 11:22 am

  23. You know that the church only recently admitted that the Earth revolves around the sun… I think it was like 1991 or somewhere around there… Any bets on how long it’ll take the catholic church to come around on this birth control thing?

    #23 | Comment by AlphaPrimal — December 3, 2003 @ 11:29 am

  24. I’ll take 3 days after the earth collides with the sun.

    #24 | Comment by bligityblah — December 3, 2003 @ 12:26 pm

  25. Damn, I passed up a ‘withdrawal’ joke earlier figuring everybody knew how ineffective it can be. Did anyone else think of this when they read AKApostal’s comment?

    Druish princesses are often attracted to money and power, and I have BOTH, and you KNOW it!

    #25 | Comment by jeff — December 3, 2003 @ 1:52 pm

  26. Catholisism = a 1500yo organization based on a 2000yo dead guy and a (roughly) 4000 to 5000yo piece writing written by untold # of authors…

    Yer damn right there’s inconsistancies… I’d be scared if there weren’t.

    #26 | Comment by matt — December 3, 2003 @ 2:20 pm

  27. its time to convert to islam.

    #27 | Comment by fezz — December 3, 2003 @ 4:45 pm

  28. Am I the only atheist in here or what? everyone is raised in some kinda churchy environment… and that all boys school? do they even exist in the world? I thought that was abolished a 100 years ago or something!

    #28 | Comment by WP — December 3, 2003 @ 5:08 pm

  29. WP – that must be America for ya – in the UK were tought all the ‘real’ methods.

    and let me tell ya – when i’m on the job a pack of wild horses couldn’t make my ass reverse!!!

    #29 | Comment by NGEddie — December 3, 2003 @ 5:47 pm

  30. No religion for me. I do what I please. Yeah, And there aint no such thing as safe sex. Theres Safer Sex. But no safe sex. Unless your sterile, or have had a vasectomy.

    #30 | Comment by Bingo — December 3, 2003 @ 6:24 pm

  31. I am not the devil.

    But if I were, it would be a promotion.

    #31 | Comment by grud — December 3, 2003 @ 7:24 pm

  32. couple of things: (1) the Church is against deprivances of life, but for the conservation of life; so by having pacemakers, transplants, we are helping continue life, and is therefore accepted. (2) if people can’t live their lives without having/thinking about sex 24/7, then there is something terribly wrong. the only reason sex exists is to continue the human race. to deprive sex of its original purpose, then there is absolutely no need to have sex at all. i really dont know what you are all worrying about.

    #32 | Comment by johannes paulus secondo — December 3, 2003 @ 7:49 pm

  33. "the only reason sex exists is to continue the human race. to deprive sex of its original purpose, then there is absolutely no need to have sex at all."

    Seriously….didn’t everyone agree ages ago that it’s perfectly ok to admit that having sex just really feels good? If I had to think about procreation as my motivation everytime I was getting laid I’d have to find a better hobby.
    I was raised Catholic too, and I remember having a conversation with a nun one Sunday about why masterbating was considered a sin, and she told me it’s because they used to think that man only had a certain number of "seeds" and it was a sin to waste them. So by that twisted logic, wouldn’t it be more accurate for the Church to state that having premarital orgasms is the real sin?

    #33 | Comment by matt — December 3, 2003 @ 9:20 pm

  34. Can we just be clear that Catholicism is NOT Christianity?

    #34 | Comment by pottedmeat — December 3, 2003 @ 9:49 pm

  35. "i really dont know what you are all worrying about."

    it’s not about worrying. it’s about trying to fit "nature" into a cute little box with a bow on it.

    i think it’s lame.

    #35 | Comment by lizzi — December 3, 2003 @ 10:18 pm

  36. pottedmeat –
    That’s going to be tough, since Catholicism IS a sect of Christianity.

    #36 | Comment by Stink — December 3, 2003 @ 10:27 pm

  37. Is it just me… or does the "Rhythm Method", in the context of sex, sound way hotter than it is?

    #37 | Comment by Amy — December 3, 2003 @ 10:36 pm

  38. oh and just to follow up… this morning my radio show was on the topic of pooping in their pants.

    the front runner had a skid marked boxers in his car… and he paid his intern $60 to wear them for an hour. another intern had the nerve to give him a wedgie.

    very classy entertainment.

    #38 | Comment by lizzi — December 3, 2003 @ 10:41 pm

  39. hey guys…last week or maybe the week before someone posted a link to some pics of Jenna Jameson and compared them to Hillary Duff…can anyone give me that link?

    #39 | Comment by Amber — December 3, 2003 @ 10:45 pm

  40. I think they forgot about the other options such as anal. That way you females still get the wonderful feeling of me finishing inside of you. A little ATM action (ass-to-mouth).

    Other then that i would definitely rate the withdrawal method as a the best choice. Everyone gets to have some fun with that.

    My only other issue is avoid sex during the 5 to 10 days that they are menstruating. Most girls I know are even hornier during this period (no pun intended. Throw a towel on the bed and away you go, and your pretty much 100% safe during this time too.

    #40 | Comment by J-Mo — December 3, 2003 @ 11:15 pm

  41. amy-
    Is it just me… or does the "Rhythm Method", in the context of sex, sound way hotter than it is?

    what are u talking about sweetie,this method has to be the worst i ever heard about i don’t have time to be figuring out when & when not to have sex,its bad enough to keep track of when u ladies are willing to give it up as it is.7 about the pullout method i wouldn’t recommend it.(parent @ the age of 17)

    well on the other hand i’m new to this site & i’m have a ball catching up to all the stories.I will be commenting in the future

    good job guys & gals … i’m hooked !!!!

    #41 | Comment by freddy — December 4, 2003 @ 2:17 am

  42. freddy — I agree it’s a terrible method.

    The reason I said it sounds hot is because when I hear the word "rhythm" in relation to sex, I don’t think about breaking out charts and graphs to determine when I’m ovulating.

    It would be nice if one could avoid pregnancy just by being in synch with your partner.

    #42 | Comment by Amy — December 4, 2003 @ 2:55 am

  43. Yeah, but there’s nothing like letting it fly freely.

    #43 | Comment by grud — December 4, 2003 @ 3:12 am

  44. WOW Amy-
    that actually sounded musical … lol … but i get u’r drift now .It seems like that ladies on this site really got going on & know the real deal how to arouse a man !!!

    #44 | Comment by freddy — December 4, 2003 @ 3:16 am

  45. Let me clarify then, Stink. Catholocism, though a sect of Christianity, is almost wholly made up of doctrine that appears nowhere other than within Catholocism itself and more importantly it is wholly different than Christianity in the discussion we’re having now. Then again, I consider Christianity to be that which is relating to the teaching of Christ, not the teachings of the church. But I might add that I’m an idiot.

    #45 | Comment by pottedmeat — December 4, 2003 @ 4:58 am

  46. Catholiocism is one of the few religions that doesnt allow preists to marry, i mean just solve the little boy touching problem by letting them get married so they can touch grown women

    #46 | Comment by P. Orno Rocks — December 4, 2003 @ 7:47 am

  47. "You could outlaw religion and most of the of these sex crimes would disappear in a couple of generations, but we don’t have time for rational solutions!" – George Carlin

    #47 | Comment by bligityblah — December 4, 2003 @ 8:06 am

  48. just to remind those of you that don’t know, it was jesus christ himself that established the catholic church, he himself being the first pope. so to say that catholicism is not christianity, is probably one of the most stupid things ever.

    #48 | Comment by johannes paulus secondo — December 4, 2003 @ 12:57 pm

  49. I don’t think I would try any of the above methods. I know plenty of Catholic families with 12 kids running around…something isn’t working.
    I think the Catholic Church made the "no birth control" rule so they cold keep multiplying and try and take over the world.

    #49 | Comment by girl — December 4, 2003 @ 1:02 pm

  50. pottedmeat-
    Well clarified. I absolutely agree that many of the doctrines of the Catholic Church are isolated sectually (hah). I don’t know enough about Catholicism and the development of doctrine to know whether the Church has ignored the teachings of Christ, but maybe you can fill me in. (It’s hard for me to believe that the Church would try to "make stuff up" and would, instead, at least attempt to relate it to the Bible – but if anyone has proof to the contrary, I’m willing to listen.) If the Church HASN’T blatantly ignored the teachings of Christ, but has (mis?)applied them, isn’t that a matter of human intrepretation? And, then, isn’t it related to the teachings of Christ?
    My point is that it seems to me that if you consider "Christianity to be that which is relating to the teaching of Christ, not the teachings of the church," then Christianity only refers to one’s personal relationship with Him. (And He tells us, most Christians argue, to find community for worship… –> a church, who will interpret. Odd…)

    #50 | Comment by Stink — December 4, 2003 @ 3:04 pm

  51. Stink-

    To address your final point. It is supposed to be to find a community to celebrate your beliefs together. Not necessarily to worship together.

    In theory, it would be a gathering of people talking about their beliefs and discussing them together for a mutual better understanding.

    In theory…again, not in reality because then the Church lacks control.

    #51 | Comment by smash — December 4, 2003 @ 5:20 pm

  52. smash-
    true,true … very true !!!

    #52 | Comment by freddy — December 4, 2003 @ 10:54 pm

  53. What happened to Thess’ page?!?!

    #53 | Comment by grud — December 5, 2003 @ 4:41 am

  54. just to clerify there seems to be 2 matts mostng here.

    Catholisism doesn’t ignore the bible or christianity. But you can’t just go out and say catholisism is wholly different then christianity. It’s like saying Ford is wholly different then automobiles. Christianity is a generic term for anyone and/or group’s belief in christ. Hence the name. Catholic is just the most known (and arguabley most powerfull) sect.

    #54 | Comment by matt — December 5, 2003 @ 7:20 am

  55. "just to clerify there seems to be 2 matts mostng here."

    I’m the one that can spell. But from this point forward, I’ll be calling myself Casa de Ocho.

    #55 | Comment by matt — December 6, 2003 @ 5:52 am

  56. "I’m the one that can spell"

    Yes you are.

    #56 | Comment by matt — December 6, 2003 @ 3:36 pm

  57. Johannes paulus secondo, Jesus was a jew. He established no such catholic church and was certainly not a pope.

    Responsible for the creation of many of christianity’s doctrines are Paul’s writings.
    Although Paul was very much a believer in Christ and his teachings, some of his beliefs were not shared by Peter and many other disciples.

    The Church came a while after Jesus’ death, and because there were man different people trying to spread the religion, different sects evolved. Catholicism was certainly one of the earliest, but not neccessarily THE first.

    and I am Catholic myself, so don’t think I’m trying to bash the religion as many people do

    by the way
    In response to an earlier comment you made…
    I find it hard not to think about sex 24/7…
    Something’s terribly wrong with me? well perhaps, but it’s not like i have much control over it

    #57 | Comment by Penir — April 18, 2004 @ 5:03 pm

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *