50 shades of Pornography

[Lochias]

Why bother condemning it on a Catholic forum? I thought that Catholics didn’t have irrational hangups about sex anymore. I thought that marital, unitive, procreative, pleasurable sex was universally recognized as a good thing.

Surely. But BDSM’s intrinsic elements of pain for pleasure’s sake is the beginning of something that can lead to other things that are not unitive or procreative. Taking that risk is something I view to be a little selfish and irresponsible.

Is that so? There are intrinsic elements of risk in performing vanilla sex as well. So, when I want vanilla sex with my husband, even though I know that it will hurt at some point and I will have to say “Ouch” (which is our vanilla sex safe word), is that warped thinking on my part?

If you go into sex with the expectation of seeking pain for pleasure, yes, I would in my opinion find that to be somewhat warped.

I actually find the idea of “vanilla sex” to be a backwards step in thinking. Sex between a married couple is the physical act of unity and completion of a beautiful sacrament instituted by God Himself. When something like that becomes not enough, “plain vanilla”, I would posit that something has gone awry somewhere.

Where does our fallen desire for more pleasure, always more pleasure, ever end?

 

[Lochias]

Not all forms of BDSM include sado masochism. Which is what I’ve been saying, it’s a grey area and it really just depends. At this point I’m just repeating myself and so it looks like we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

How does something that includes “sado-masochism” in its acronym not include sado-masochism?

 

[EasterJoy]

How does something that includes “sado-masochism” in its acronym not include sado-masochism?

Look at LGBT. It is a grouping includes transgendered people, who may not be homosexual, and homosexuals, most of whom are not transgender.

 

[EasterJoy]

If you go into sex with the expectation of seeking pain for pleasure, yes, I would in my opinion find that to be somewhat warped.

I actually find the idea of “vanilla sex” to be a backwards step in thinking. Sex between a married couple is the physical act of unity and completion of a beautiful sacrament instituted by God Himself. When something like that becomes not enough, “plain vanilla”, I would posit that something has gone awry somewhere.

Where does our fallen desire for more pleasure, always more pleasure, ever end?

I’m not sure I understand the pain thing. I’ve been told it is not experienced like “real pain”, and it is not as if there is no pain someone who might be self-classify as a “masochist” wouldn’t welcome, but I’m having trouble picturing what that even means. Is that like getting a massage and saying “ouch” and then saying, “no, no, I didn’t mean stop?” I don’t get it.

But yes, “vanilla sex” has this connotation that implies there is nothing on the herb and spice aisle that shouldn’t be considered, as if none of the “non-vanilla” bottles have the skull and crossbones on them. It isn’t necessarily meant like that, but it is sometimes used as if that is what is meant. It is kind of like the way some use the word “Amish” in an uncomplimentary way, as if the Amish didn’t have some cooks that could make anybody’s kitchen sing!

 

[johnnyjones]

I’ve already covered this many many times when I stated the Church’s standards on sex - Unitive/procreative between a man and woman in a valid marriage. This hardly means people can “do whatever they want as long as it feels good,” which is something I also did not say. Obviously it rules out masturbation and homosexuality, as well as many many other acts.

Not all forms of BDSM include sado masochism. Which is what I’ve been saying, it’s a grey area and it really just depends. At this point I’m just repeating myself and so it looks like we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

I would leave it at “agree to disagree” but someone could be misled by this topic and assume even portions of BDSM are acceptable in the Christian marriage. Why is the area a gray one? I very well know the churches teachings, and the church knows the history of BDSM. Of course we are free to engage in sexual practices that are consensual in marriage but it is the justifying of BDSM that is very odd. To accept the belief that a Christian man or women should, in a healthy marriage, equate pleasure to pain as it relates to sex is a corruption of the bond between the two.

Nobody wants the church in their bedroom but some things are “obvious”. To give pain and restraint reaches for the dark side of things. Just knowing that many a missing young women (girl, boy) suffered under the wrath of BDSM practices should be enough to give serious pause. Those consenting to these acts may make claims of enjoying it but as the scriptures say, “sin is pleasurable FOR A SEASON”.

---

 

[Lochias]

Look at LGBT. It is a grouping includes transgendered people, who may not be homosexual, and homosexuals, most of whom are not transgender.

Hmm. Well, ok. Still seems a bit counter-intuitive to me.

 

[johnnyjones]

How does something that includes “sado-masochism” in its acronym not include sado-masochism?

Bingo!

 

[EasterJoy]

Hmm. Well, ok. Still seems a bit counter-intuitive to me.

I guess you have to be in the know to realize that BDSM is perhaps an overly-inclusive grouping. Apparently, the BD part does not automatically imply the SM part, so that the single term BDSM groups some fairly different things together. (Presumably, this concerns the BD-only group more than the SM partisans, since the SM group probably wouldn’t care if people think they use restraints they don’t use?)

This is a weird conversation to be in. Let’s hope the book dies an unceremonial death in popularity, and soon. My interest was to defend the idea that some things other people do are not what people outside their marriages might think, but I think we’ve been there and done that. I think I’d better let this thread go…