? about sex

  • Thread starter Thread starter HoBo30
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’m sorry, but you will never convince me that I am nothing but a breeding machine and can never have sex for the pure enjoyment of it.
 
So then, if the PP’s sister were to conceive using NFP, and it were lethal for her and she and the baby were to die, leaving the husband a widower and the existing children motherless, then it would simply be argued that it was “God’s Will” or something? I’m just confused as to why God would want that.
 
HoBo30 said:
I’m sorry, but you will never convince me that I am nothing but a breeding machine and can never have sex for the pure enjoyment of it.
Click to expand...
No here is trying to convince you that you are nothing but a breeding machine. That statement betrays your ignorance of Catholic teaching and that you (apparently) have difficulty understanding the posts upthread. They suggest nothing of the sort.
 
HoBo30 said:
I’m sorry, but you will never convince me that I am nothing but a breeding machine and can never have sex for the pure enjoyment of it.
Click to expand...
I should hope that no one convinces you of that, for such a belief is gravely opposed to Church teaching.

HoBo30, I *HIGHLY *recommend Christopher West’s “Good News About Sex and Marriage.” Please check it out if you want a deeper understanding about the Church’s teachings on this matter.
 
Originally Posted by Scout
Amen to that! I can’t have children, and I have no qualms saying that sex between my husband and myself is entirely for pleasure.
1ke said:
Scout, this is directly in opposition to Church teaching.
Click to expand...
I don’t believe it is 1ke. So long as the couple is open to fertilization, should God decide one will miraculously occur, then it is within God’s plan for marriage. If not, then John the baptist would never have been born! Elizabeth did not believe she was able to have children.
 
twosweetgirls said:
So then, if the PP’s sister were to conceive using NFP, and it were lethal for her and she and the baby were to die, leaving the husband a widower and the existing children motherless, then it would simply be argued that it was “God’s Will” or something? I’m just confused as to why God would want that.
Click to expand...
Check out St. Gianna Molla’s story. saintgianna.org/main.htm
 
Originally Posted by 1ke
No, they are deliberately removing the element.
johntkd said:
A person abstaining while using NFP is also deliberatly removing the element from said equasion, that being fertile time.
Click to expand...
No, if you are not having intercourse (abstaining) as part of NFP or for other reasons, there are no “elements” to remove, because the action is not taking place.
 
guanophore said:
Originally Posted by Scout
Amen to that! I can’t have children, and I have no qualms saying that sex between my husband and myself is entirely for pleasure.

I don’t believe it is 1ke. So long as the couple is open to fertilization, should God decide one will miraculously occur, then it is within God’s plan for marriage. If not, then John the baptist would never have been born! Elizabeth did not believe she was able to have children.
Click to expand...
Even if it seems unlikely that children will come from the marital embrace, it is about more than just pleasure. There are many other things in life that give pleasure, but I think the intimacy that is supposed to be a part of the union between a husband and a wife is different in kind and not just degree from all other pleasures we are familiar with. I know that sex is pleasurable, but to say that sex between a husband and a wife is only about pleasure is to be falling far short of the mark.
 
When a husband and wife have intercourse, regardless of the time of the menstrual cycle, their intent should NOT be ***solely ***for pleasure. That can certainly be a partial intent, but the PRIMARY intent should be to renew the marriage covenant; that is, renew the promises made at the time of the marriage. One of those promises, in the Catholic Church, is to be open to the *possibility *of children *no matter how improbable that possibility may be. *

FWIW, my boyfriend in high school, Josh, had two younger brothers, Chris and Andrew. After Chris was born, Josh’s mother had her tubes tied. A few years later, along came Andrew. So while it’s improbable, it’s not impossible.
 
dulcissima said:
I also would dispute that abortion is acceptable under any circumstance.
Click to expand...
Let’s just be clear that this is your opinion, and it is a private dispute, and not consistent with the teachings of the church.

ewtn.com/library/PROLIFE/INDIRECT.TXT

Although it is the greatest act of love for a mother to lay down her life for the life of her child, it is not considered a sin if she chooses not to do so, under certain mortal circumstances.
 
guanophore said:
Let’s just be clear that this is your opinion, and it is a private dispute, and not consistent with the teachings of the church.

ewtn.com/library/PROLIFE/INDIRECT.TXT

Although it is the greatest act of love for a mother to lay down her life for the life of her child, it is not considered a sin if she chooses not to do so, under certain mortal circumstances.
Click to expand...
I did read your link, and I am not going to claim to be an expert on this. I don’t think though that an abortion to save a mother’s life is the same thing as removing a non-viable fetus during the course of an operation that is intended to save a mother’s life. The intention in an abortion is to choose one life over another. That is not the intention when a non-viable fetus is removed during the course of a life-saving hysterectomy or when a fallopian tube is removed due to an ectopic pregnancy. Both lives have to be given a chance at life. One life should not be chosen over the other. I would never judge a woman who had to undergo such a sorrowful ordeal.

That being said, the possibility of such a situation does not justify a tubal ligation.
 
Scout said:
The ends of the tubes have been cut and burned-off. I’m not going to get pregnant again. I don’t want to get pregnant again. That was the purpose of having my tubes tied.

Scout :tiphat:
Click to expand...
I know several people myself that have had “tubals” and a few men that have had vasectomies, and are now parents again after such procedures, tubes can grow back together making you fertile both in men and women. it is rare but it happens…

must be in “Gods will” they have children,

which is something i have been saying for a very long time with or without ABC if God wants you to have children you will…
everyone here seems to think That ABC is more powerful and can “remove” Gods will which it cant Nothing Man made or done is above or better than God…
 
johntkd said:
I know several people myself that have had “tubals” and a few men that have had vasectomies, and are now parents again after such procedures, tubes can grow back together making you fertile both in men and women. it is rare but it happens…

must be in “Gods will” they have children,

which is something i have been saying for a very long time with or without ABC if God wants you to have children you will…
everyone here seems to think That ABC is more powerful and can “remove” Gods will which it cant Nothing Man made or done is above or better than God…
Click to expand...
What you say is true, but we need to keep in mind that Jesus did warn us not to put God to the test.
 
Scout said:
I’m sorry,perhaps I’m not understanding what it is you’re trying to say. Why is oral sex against human dignity.

Also, from what I understand from the teachings of the Church, it is only the man that has to finish inside the woman. Physiologically speaking, it is almost impossible for a woman to finish that way.

Scout 🙂
Click to expand...
The woman ought to be satisfied as well, not just the man, but the seed is not to be wasted. If it’s spat out, it’s contraception. If it’s swallowed, it’s… well… canibalism?

Why against human dignity? For some people it will work, but typically, oral sex performed by a woman on a man is the icon of male sexual domination in the modern culture, a show-off of objectification. It isn’t necessarily all that, but in me, the association is invincible. I think it’s demeaning for the woman.
Scout said:
This is where I got the impression that you found it demoralizing. I thought you meant just in general, not realizing that you meant it in place of actual intercourse. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Click to expand...
It’s been explained, the quoting confusion, not? 😉 I find it degrading in any context which involves subjection. The mental image of oral sex in the modern culture is a woman kneeling before a man and being humiliated… err… There are teenagers reading us. Suffice to say, it’s a bit like BDSM Lite to me. Whatever involves humiliation or subjection in a sexual context is wrong and perverted.
And, as far as a woman is concerned, it is absolutely the proper use of genital organs since there can be almost no climax for her without oral sex or masturbation.
Click to expand...
Nope. The proper use of genital organs is a procreative ones. Oral or anal sex is not procreative. The presence of procreative intercourse beforehand or afterwards doesn’t make that use proper. This is my opinion, not the Church’s, though. You have no obligation to agree with me, although to me, it’s quite obvious. Sodomy has always been seen as wrong, I don’t get why it should become okay now. To me, it’s just people giving in to perversions and people trying to find theological justifications for that.

Also, it is incorrect, the last part of your paragraph. There may be certain dysfunctions in individuals, but it’s not true that most women need oral sex or masturbation for climax for the following reasons:
  1. There’s nothing in oral sex that couldn’t be in other forms of sexual activity. Nothing technical, at least, that couldn’t be achieved in some other way. Therefore, whatever link there is between specifically oral sex and climax, it must be a psychological link. There’s nothing biological in it. And whatever psychological links like that exist, people aren’t born with them.
  2. There’s nothing in masturbation that couldn’t be achieved with the use of, let’s say, the husband’s hand instead of the wife’s own. This clearly shows that if there is any need for masturbation, it’s psychological and not biological. Many theologians claim it’s okay for the wife to masturbate if she receives the seed from the husband, but I find that to be a big joke. Autoeroticism is wrong and there’s no reason to make an exception from the general rule. That kind of theology can only lead to women doing the “sockage” and focusing on obtaining their own satisfaction themselves, for themselves and without the husband once the seed is collected. That kind of mentality is not the right approach to moral duties.
 
chevalier said:
but the seed is not to be wasted. If it’s spat out, it’s contraception. If it’s swallowed, it’s… well… canibalism?

male sexual domination in the modern culture, .
Click to expand...
Hmmmm and we dont see this anywhere else but in a sexual way,
church teaches us its the mans seed that is important never mind a female has to have an egg.
priests, bishops, etc nope no male domination there.
last names after marriage for majority of people .
the list can go on and on.

its not perversion UNLESS forced, coherced, etc
a persons upbringing can also change how one feels about such things.I personally feel its up to each individual couple to set up thier own boundries on what is demeaning, inhuman,degrading etc… what one couple are into the couple next toy are totally against. kind of like whats for dinner, some like fish some hate it
some want beef others are vegetarians… personal preference.
Code: 
           My normally useless 2 cents

                                     John
 
johntkd said:
as far as human dignity goes on types used that is personal preference, everyone is different,I see nothing wrong as long as both partners are in total agreement and no force or leverage has been used,
Click to expand...
Sorry to barge in. I essentially agree, but I believe free consent (and we don’t know if it’s free or if one of the spouses is actually making a sacrifice of his or her dignity to please the other by allowing himself or herself to be objectified) doesn’t make it right to use forms or positions which are demeaning or objectifying. I realise we aren’t talking about BDSM, but still. It just doesn’t look right. However, I realise some people won’t even get the connection or see anything demeaning in it, sure… But is it because there’s nothing demeaning in it, or is it because we’re desensitised by all the omnipresent porn?
johntkd said:
its not perversion UNLESS forced, coherced, etc a persons upbringing can also change how one feels about such things.I personally feel its up to each individual couple to set up thier own boundries on what is demeaning, inhuman,degrading etc… what one couple are into the couple next toy are totally against. kind of like whats for dinner, some like fish some hate it some want beef others are vegetarians… personal preference.
Click to expand...
I’m not saying it’s objectively demeaning or objectively not-demeaning, but I will say that we aren’t free to make for ourselves the boundaries of what’s right and what’s wrong. We can’t, for example, decide that vaginal intercourse is demeaning. We can’t decide that wasting the seed is all right. I realise we’re talking about different activities here, but the fact stands that in so far as anything objective is involved, we are not free to make up relative rules. As a rule, if it feels demeaning, it shouldn’t be done and if it doesn’t feel demeaning, then perhaps it’s not the time to divagate whether it objectively is or isn’t (spontaneity, anyone?). Still, if a married couple were to implement bondage in the marital bedroom, I don’t think we would all say it’s all fine so long as there’s vaginal intercourse with ejaculation somewhere in the middle of it.
 
chevalier said:
Sorry to barge in. I essentially agree, but I believe free consent (and we don’t know if it’s free or if one of the spouses is actually making a sacrifice of his or her dignity to please the other by allowing himself or herself to be objectified) doesn’t make it right to use forms or positions which are demeaning or objectifying. I realise we aren’t talking about BDSM, but still. It just doesn’t look right. However, I realise some people won’t even get the connection or see anything demeaning in it, sure… But is it because there’s nothing demeaning in it, or is it because we’re desensitised by all the omnipresent porn?
Click to expand...
Chevalier, as someone who is not desensitized by porn, I will share my thoughts with you. Yes, oral sex can be demeaning and can lead to objectification. It doesn’t have to be that way though. Some women actually do enjoy giving it because it is like a pure and loving gift to give their husband, such focused and intense pleasure. I still am not going to argue against Church teaching that each and every act must be unitive and procreative, but as far as foreplay goes, I don’t think that you can objectively call it demeaning. It can be very loving, and a true act of charity.
 
chevalier said:
The woman ought to be satisfied as well, not just the man, but the seed is not to be wasted. If it’s spat out, it’s contraception. If it’s swallowed, it’s… well… canibalism?

Why against human dignity? For some people it will work, but typically, oral sex performed by a woman on a man is the icon of male sexual domination in the modern culture, a show-off of objectification. It isn’t necessarily all that, but in me, the association is invincible. I think it’s demeaning for the woman.

It’s been explained, the quoting confusion, not? 😉 I find it degrading in any context which involves subjection. The mental image of oral sex in the modern culture is a woman kneeling before a man and being humiliated… err… There are teenagers reading us. Suffice to say, it’s a bit like BDSM Lite to me. Whatever involves humiliation or subjection in a sexual context is wrong and perverted.

Nope. The proper use of genital organs is a procreative ones. Oral or anal sex is not procreative. The presence of procreative intercourse beforehand or afterwards doesn’t make that use proper. This is my opinion, not the Church’s, though. You have no obligation to agree with me, although to me, it’s quite obvious. Sodomy has always been seen as wrong, I don’t get why it should become okay now. To me, it’s just people giving in to perversions and people trying to find theological justifications for that.

Also, it is incorrect, the last part of your paragraph. There may be certain dysfunctions in individuals, but it’s not true that most women need oral sex or masturbation for climax for the following reasons:
  1. There’s nothing in oral sex that couldn’t be in other forms of sexual activity. Nothing technical, at least, that couldn’t be achieved in some other way. Therefore, whatever link there is between specifically oral sex and climax, it must be a psychological link. There’s nothing biological in it. And whatever psychological links like that exist, people aren’t born with them.
  2. There’s nothing in masturbation that couldn’t be achieved with the use of, let’s say, the husband’s hand instead of the wife’s own. This clearly shows that if there is any need for masturbation, it’s psychological and not biological. Many theologians claim it’s okay for the wife to masturbate if she receives the seed from the husband, but I find that to be a big joke. Autoeroticism is wrong and there’s no reason to make an exception from the general rule. That kind of theology can only lead to women doing the “sockage” and focusing on obtaining their own satisfaction themselves, for themselves and without the husband once the seed is collected. That kind of mentality is not the right approach to moral duties.
Click to expand...
I think it’s up to the individual woman. I, myself, do not find oral sex degrading in any way. There’s nothing to say that it’s wrong, as long as the man finishes through intercourse. So, it’s perfectly fine as a means of foreplay.

I find this discussion very interesting. I just don’t understand why we can’t just enjoy something God has given us without having to analyze it and disect it into a million pieces?
Scout :tiphat:
 
dulcissima said:
Chevalier, as someone who is not desensitized by porn, I will share my thoughts with you. Yes, oral sex can be demeaning and can lead to objectification. It doesn’t have to be that way though. Some women actually do enjoy giving it because it is like a pure and loving gift to give their husband, such focused and intense pleasure. I still am not going to argue against Church teaching that each and every act must be unitive and procreative, but as far as foreplay goes, I don’t think that you can objectively call it demeaning. It can be very loving, and a true act of charity.
Click to expand...
Ummm… Yes, some do. But how many? Don’t get me wrong, I’m not calling for a ban on it or saying it’s absolutely and objectively demeaning. But I believe in most cases, it will involve objectification, especially if requested by the man. Again, not always, but most of the time. Besides, when I hear questions and discussion about “is position N okay or not?”, I’m wondering where the gift of self has gone. After all, we’re supposed to be self-giving, not really seeking experiences and sensations. If I had to wonder if one position or another were morally acceptable or not, I would just skip it. If I had to go to any lenghts to reconcile it with morality, I would ask myself why I want so much for it to be legitimate - what is my motive and whence my insistence.
Scout said:
I think it’s up to the individual woman. I, myself, do not find oral sex degrading in any way. There’s nothing to say that it’s wrong, as long as the man finishes through intercourse. So, it’s perfectly fine as a means of foreplay.
Click to expand...
Hmmm… Maybe I just can’t defeat the master-slave association then. Surely, for some people it will be loving, for others it will be fine, but it is my impression that these days, “blowjob” is a mandatory institution of itself and a cultural icon, plus a sign of subjection/dominance. I don’t have a problem with what touches what, but I have a problem with even the slightest hint of subjection. Besides, I’ve always liked the decorum. Hopefully we agree on subjection, dominance and the like?

Well, the whole analysing and dissecting is in no way to my enjoyment… I don’t belong in anyone’s bedroom and, frankly, I really am not interested. I’ll have my own and that’s enough and if I won’t, that’s fine as well, but I don’t have the gift of simple answers to complicated problems. 😛 Additionally, I would hate to give a wrong answer and, in the initial setup, if I were to answer, “yes, oral sex is okay,” I might well have given a wrong impression, which I wanted to avoid. Guess I should have said it simply carried the risk of objectification and objectification was wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top