? about sex

  • Thread starter Thread starter HoBo30
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I really don’t understand this prejudice against sex merely for pleasure…
For one reason sexual powers are not merely an instrumental good that we may change, manipulate, or use however we desire to derive pleasure.

It is similar to something like the good of friendship. Would we ever use friendship simply as a means to an end? Simply because we demand pleasure alone?
 
I understand what you’re saying, and I was just using myself as an example. Just because you believe it is subjecting someone to humiliation, doesn’t mean that everyone agrees with you. I just don’t think you should lump everyone together.
Nope, but I can’t give a clear yes either.
I will also say that, if you feel you don’t belong in my bedroom, then you don’t belong in any one’s either. That being said, that eliminates theoretical and abstract concepts.

Scout :tiphat:
Nope. The theory is not the sum total of practical cases. 😉 I can talk about how evil murder is without talking about any specific murderer and I can talk about how great almsgiving is without meaning any specific charity even as an example. Therefore the fact I don’t belong into anyone’s specific bedroom (not to imply it’s all the same to me if people are married or not, sleeping with the same sex or opposite etc), doesn’t mean I shouldn’t talk about the theory.
 
first off I want to resond to something you said earlier about BDSM, I myself am not into that in any way, howevere if a coupel is into that, well what happens in the marital bed is honorable. again if both parties are in agreement…
Disagreed. Perversions are not honourable.
On another thread I was reading where the church has some silly law that you have to get married in your local parrish, which tells me a few things one better find a local lady in saqme parrish to marry cause if she Catholic she cant marry in your church and you cant in hers,( yes i am being picky here) but with a rule like that so is the church.
Sorry, that’s inaccurate info. The default parish is the bride’s and you can easily get permission to make it the groom’s.
the “master slave” thing you keep reffering to is eveident in every single thing there is, you have a boss at work, you have to answer to a parent as a child, you have laws to follow as an adult and if you are Catholic you have certain rules to follow as well
Frequency of occurence doesn’t make anything good or right.
these can all be looked at as master slave or they can be looked at in other ways the same goes for various positions and foreplays as well…
Let’s not relativise everything…
 
chevalier,
I agree with all your posts. I have to shudder when imagining what Christ’s expression might be if He were standing in the bedrooms of most Americans.
Thank you. 🙂
you know what I wont go into details about my love life but I dont shudder at all in anything i have done and you know what else I know he was watching me the entire time, just because i am in my bedroom does not mean he cant see me or isnt watching me…
you know what else, I am glad he watches as well so he can see first hand the love flowing from me to another human being
whom he already knows I love more than life itself…
Somehow you won’t convince me that He would be happy with all sorts of things two people of opposite genders can do consensually without spilling seed. And I don’t really see BDSM or any domination themes as an expression of the kind of love you’re talking about.
40.png
LittleDeb:
By some (secular) techniques the penis shaft is being rendered sadly obsolete. The vagina and fallopian tubes in secular society already are. Again, sadly. Fifteen years of research on my part has shown me clearly why the Church is right and secular society is wrong.
That’s why I’m worried to see so much affirmation of oral sex, anal sex and whatnot in modern theology and people’s opinions. It looks like the the organs you mention are becoming obsolete and there is a procreation-pleasure give and take making everything okay and creating some kinds of rights.
40.png
searching06:
how can the Church or God not allow a man and woman to be physically intimate with the spouse He gave them? How is that not being loving, no matter the act?
With whips and chains, even if consensual, would that still be a loving act? What about some other -philias?
 
Imagine if we were talking about consuming food.

Now, everyone here surely understands that the body uses mental, physical and emotional cues to ensure that the organism finds enough pleasure in eating to do it when needed so as to maintain the body’s homeostatic level of functioning for survival.

So then, why is it so hard for people to understand that the human organism uses every part at its disposal to ensure proper actualization of mating? Recent studies even show a correlation of libido to specific body parts in potential mates, such as hip curve and jaw length.

I saw a lot of posts on this thread jabbering off about how the pleasure is so good and sex is so great, whatever floats your boat should be commended and whatnot. That sounded really empty to me, besides clearly demonstrating that the posters who said these things have a grave misunderstanding of bodily function, without even going into religion or morals.

I mean, I can jabber on and on about how I have my stomach stapled so I can enjoy my candy bar. That doesn’t mean I can change the reality of the organism’s system and its primary purpose. The system’s primary purpose is to provide nutrition to the entire organism and to maintain homeostatic functioning so as to grow and survive.

Pleasure is used by the body to ensure this happens and we should do all we can to work with this system. Meaning, the body also uses pain to indicate harm and thus we should make sure it is pleasurable, but as pleasure is not the end result, it cannot be relied upon to tell us what is good and bad. We have to find an external, unbiased source to make good choices for our bodies.

And so it is with the function of sexual intercourse. The sexual organs in the human organism have a pretty clear, primary purpose, and those organs efficiently use pleasure to ensure procreation.

Just as we have stomachs that tell us it is good to eat, we have sexual organs that tell us it is good to mate. And just as we can eat a candy bar and have the same good feeling, we can engage in disordered acts of sexuality and have the same good feeling.

Don’t you folks see? This is why Catholics are paying so much attention to the details and asking so many questions. It’s not simply a matter of going with the pleasure or doing whatever feels right. Just as that muffin might feel right but contain 500 calories and saturated fats, so could a fun sexual action be just as bad for your body, relationship and soul.

You could say the little ingredient sticker on packaging is the CCC of food. 😛

Now, the part that fulfills all of this and makes it not only naturally logical and ordered, but also spiritually logical and ordered, is that Catholics believe Christ instituted marriage as a sacrament, bringing this natural procreative act to a beautiful level of unity and sanctity. In other words, Catholics believe not only that there is an important natural purpose of procreation, as seen through our body’s function, but also a spiritual purpose of unity with Christ in the marital embrace.

So as Catholics, we choose to follow Christ’s teachings.This means not only do we try not to break natural law, but we try not to break moral law.

This isn’t just some overzealous Christian ideal that wants to make sex dirty and painful. It is the understanding that disordered, damaging and illogical actions can harm people. Even the secular world recognizes misuse of the body’s functions.

For example, when a person eats to the point of extreme obesity, we look for mental, emotional or even genetic illnesses and defects as we recognize that the secondary result pleasure has been made the primary focus, at the expense of the natural functioning of the body.

The same can be said of a person who gorges on food, then forces himself to vomit so as not to digest the food. Is this not the same as a person wearing a comdom or vaginal barrier?

If a person cannot recognize natural law or natural consequences, it would do well for that person to study the topic at length before tackling the spiritual aspect of it, unless the person has a disposition that can accept authority before understanding.

P.s. You can’t have your cake and eat it.

P.P.S. Check out www.christopherwest.com

P.P.S.S. To the poster that talks on about the tubal ligation, please look for a specialist and find a new doctor as you have been gravely misinformed on several points. Your procedure is certainly not foolproof as any real medical personnel will tell you and the procedure does have its own longterm effects and consequences. Make sure you are doing your 6 monthly and yearly.
 
I do have to elaborate on some things here though, please forgive me if I offend, but I’d like to put it into context.

I can see what you are getting at here, basically that pleasure is not the end goal of sex, and that pleasure is there to help us pro-create. That is a helpful tool to help the species pro-create, sure…but we are not animals, we do find pleasure in sex. Our free will given to us by God allows us not to misuse the persuit of pleasure, be it through illegal drugs, or sex outside marraige…
In my personal opinion, this analogy is taken to it’s extremes here. Sex for pleasure is likened to overeating to the point of vomiting.

We are not talking about pre-marital, indiscriminate, one night stands here. That I would liken to vomiting food…the persuit of pleasure for the sake of pleasure.
We are looking at the bigger picture here, where a married couple is witheld from experincing unitive, bonding pleasure with each other, expressing love to one another, just because they are not open to life at that time.
In the bigger picture, they are open to life. They are not even practicing Artificial Birth Control in this scenario, they just yearn to express their love to each other by making each other feel good. But we are taught that no, you cannot express that to your spouse, it’s unnatural…
No, your post is not offending nor is it unstructured. But I fear my point is lost.

My point is that Catholic married couples are under Christ’s teachings to ensure that the two purposes, procreative and unitive, are always in focus, with pleasure always being utilized to culminate the act.

The Church does not teach that you cannot express your feelings of pleasure from partaking in this banquet, but rather that you must always be satisfying the inherent natural and spiritual purposes of the act. Thus, every time you engage in the marital embrace, the primary purposes of unity and openness to life must always be there, no exceptions.

It doesn’t mean you have to forego pleasure. And although there are surely some positions or actions out there that are not altogether pleasureable, it would be pretty hard to make sexual intercourse unpleasurable (excluding emotional barriers or physical problems such as endometriosis).

You do rightly recognize the disordered aspect of behaviours such as premarital sex. Those are wrong for many social, biological and spiritual reasons. Yet marriage doesn’t make it a free for all buffet. It is entirely possible to still misuse our spouses and our bodies within marriage.

By my initial post, I had hoped to show that fulfilling the primary purposes does not exclude pleasure, but rather puts pleasure into its useful and best state.
 
Ah…you were too fast for me!

I felt bad about the slight “church bashing” I menioned in that last line so I retracted my post…but not quick enough it would seem 🙂
 
I’ve got a Crucifix on my bedroom wall, hanging right next to my wedding picture…

“He’s” watching every move - and my wife & I aren’t ashamed of any of them so far…

mod: edit

We are an ADULT, Married man & woman who take pleasure in our bodies behind a closed door from time to time. We are responsible adults, that know the consequences to our actions mod: edit.
If either of us is open to experimentation beyond the standard “Man on top get it over with quick” I call that a plus in our sexuality together, and give my pity/hope to other *married *couples who haven’t discovered just how fabulous un-inhibited consentual sex can be.

(I had a Vas 12 years ago. If divine influence can bypass 4 titanium clamps, cauterized ends, and re-connect two tubes with 1/2" of pipe missing between them I may change my tune, until then I’ll not be “absolved”, and not take the eucharist.

Some may say that I was “playing God” by having my plumbing disconnected. I’ll say that I made a decision knowing my capabilities as a wage earner/provider for my family.
 
Ah…you were too fast for me!

I felt bad about the slight “church bashing” I menioned in that last line so I retracted my post…but not quick enough it would seem 🙂
Hi Pennitent man, if you did not post the way you meant it to be, I can retract my quote of yours. It’s really no problem. I have posted things that I later looked at and realized it was not at all what I meant to say.

I think you did make some really good points. I just wanted to take the oppurtunity of your post to make sure my points were clear, too.

Sometimes I tend to talk without ever hammering down the exact point. KWIM?
 
Thank you. 🙂

Somehow you won’t convince me that He would be happy with all sorts of things two people of opposite genders can do consensually without spilling seed. And I don’t really see BDSM or any domination themes as an expression of the kind of love you’re talking about.

That’s why I’m worried to see so much affirmation of oral sex, anal sex and whatnot in modern theology and people’s opinions. It looks like the the organs you mention are becoming obsolete and there is a procreation-pleasure give and take making everything okay and creating some kinds of rights.

With whips and chains, even if consensual, would that still be a loving act? What about some other -philias?
One could view it as a loving act of “charity” i think was one word i seen used on this thread if one person dont want to “inflict” that kind of measures but does so out of love, of course I would find it a little selfish for one ot ask for such a thing but can still see a loving act out of it, again i relize that is “nitpicking it”

I believe I read that you are not nor have been married? if i am misteaken i am sorry but sometimes a couple that has been married a while needs to “spice” ( lack of a better word) things up just a bit to get that newlywed excitement back into the relationship, its hard to imagine that unless you have been there, but I will try to use something different that i think can run along the same lines.

think of a job you hired in on, remember the first few days or weeks and how excited you were to go to work everyday, it was something new and exciting, then after a while it wore off maybe you were thinking gee i need a vacation, or gee I wish i could get laid off for a few weeks etc, then one day the boss comes up and says hey we gonna try something new here so i need to add this to your job its difficult but I think you are the one whom can handle it best, so something now has changed and once again you have an excitement to go to work again.

well them small changes add a certain excitement to a married couple as well, it dont have to be nothing big , heck for many of the couples a simple night out with no hassles or they get lucky and have a grand parent take the kids for a weekend…everyone is different…
 
One could view it as a loving act of “charity” i think was one word i seen used on this thread if one person dont want to “inflict” that kind of measures but does so out of love, of course I would find it a little selfish for one ot ask for such a thing but can still see a loving act out of it, again i relize that is “nitpicking it”
It is not only wrong to request such things but it may be wrong to grant such requests as well. We are responsible for the people in our lives and if they choose disordered ways of expressing themselves, we do them harm by following. If someone thinks he or she is expressing the conjugal love in the spirit of Corinthians and Ephesians with whips and chains, we ought to direct that person to counselling and a good priest, not encourage that kind of thing and pretend it’s all right just so long as the two people are married.
I believe I read that you are not nor have been married? if i am misteaken i am sorry but sometimes a couple that has been married a while needs to “spice” ( lack of a better word) things up just a bit to get that newlywed excitement back into the relationship, its hard to imagine that unless you have been there, but I will try to use something different that i think can run along the same lines.
Am not, never been. However, the rekindlement you speak about is not to be found in anything purely sexual. There’s nothing to say we should make it plain and boring, but pleasure-serving is not the right attitude and focusing on diversity or intensity of experience isn’t likely going towards anything positive. It’s basically pushing it up a notch a bit like it goes with drugs. We become increasingly immune, so we need higher doses or new stuff. I’m not saying this to imply that man on the top etc is the only right way, but to stress that marital love (or its expression) is not about the gymnastics of the act.
think of a job you hired in on, remember the first few days or weeks and how excited you were to go to work everyday, it was something new and exciting, then after a while it wore off maybe you were thinking gee i need a vacation, or gee I wish i could get laid off for a few weeks etc, then one day the boss comes up and says hey we gonna try something new here so i need to add this to your job its difficult but I think you are the one whom can handle it best, so something now has changed and once again you have an excitement to go to work again.
Everyone needs a break or some novelty in his life from time to time, but this doesn’t mean that everything goes. For example, supposing I’m a lawyer and need a break from work. I may go on a trip or switch to charity work for a while, or write a book or two, but I won’t go on and try my hand as a nude model, do illegal car racing by night or start growing strange herbs in my office. 😉
well them small changes add a certain excitement to a married couple as well, it dont have to be nothing big
Nothing wrong at first glance, though if it starts to focus on the gymnastics of it, let alone toys, I start wondering where the charity is.

Besides, nothing says one needs to have sex N times a week or month or year even. Even it doesn’t feel entrancing for the time being, maybe that’s a hint not to do it for a while? With both partners not so very willing, maybe that’s a hint to look at other expressions of love?
heck for many of the couples a simple night out with no hassles or they get lucky and have a grand parent take the kids for a weekend…everyone is different…
Between a simple night out and whips and chains and toys, the road is long. 😉
 
It is not only wrong to request such things but it may be wrong to grant such requests as well. We are responsible for the people in our lives and if they choose disordered ways of expressing themselves, we do them harm by following. If someone thinks he or she is expressing the conjugal love in the spirit of Corinthians and Ephesians with whips and chains, we ought to direct that person to counselling and a good priest, not encourage that kind of thing and pretend it’s all right just so long as the two people are married.
I agree, you are doing no one a kindness when you allow them to demean your person.
 
I agree, you are doing no one a kindness when you allow them to demean your person.
It may be wrong to demand such things, but not to request it, unless you already know the other person is uncomfortable; then you are sill forcing the issue. And who is deciding if it is demeaning - folks here or the couple involved? It’s getting pretty judgemental in here, it seems. But then on-line conversations are difficult to decypher, even with smiley faces and such. Different people will choose different things in line with their relationship, and no, they should not demand or demean or abuse or mistreat the other person. But if whatever the activity or position ends in the proper way required by the Church - the man climaxing inside his wife - then it is up to the couple to decide where they are comfortable or not in their activities. Others may not agree and have a very different lifestyle and sex life, and that is fine. But the poster who said sometimes you need to spice things up is dead on - and it is up to the couple to decide the comfort level, I think, as long as each person is treated with love and dignity.
 
Am not, never been. However, the rekindlement you speak about is not to be found in anything purely sexual. There’s nothing to say we should make it plain and boring, but pleasure-serving is not the right attitude and focusing on diversity or intensity of experience isn’t likely going towards anything positive. It’s basically pushing it up a notch a bit like it goes with drugs. We become increasingly immune, so we need higher doses or new stuff. I’m not saying this to imply that man on the top etc is the only right way, but to stress that marital love (or its expression) is not about the gymnastics of the act.
 
It may be wrong to demand such things, but not to request it, unless you already know the other person is uncomfortable; then you are sill forcing the issue. And who is deciding if it is demeaning - folks here or the couple involved? It’s getting pretty judgemental in here, it seems. But then on-line conversations are difficult to decypher, even with smiley faces and such. Different people will choose different things in line with their relationship, and no, they should not demand or demean or abuse or mistreat the other person. But if whatever the activity or position ends in the proper way required by the Church - the man climaxing inside his wife - then it is up to the couple to decide where they are comfortable or not in their activities. Others may not agree and have a very different lifestyle and sex life, and that is fine. But the poster who said sometimes you need to spice things up is dead on - and it is up to the couple to decide the comfort level, I think, as long as each person is treated with love and dignity.
excellent post, You hit exactly on what I have been trying to convey (although very unsuccessfully) as well, thank you…
John
 
again I say there is nothing wrong with using Toys, the church even allows it, as far as whips and chains go I am not into that but the people that are who am i to say they are wrong we dont see how they are using them ( which is a relief in itself) so how can we make judgement just because of what they are?
Incidentally, I got a copy of “Catholocism for Dummies” and in there they say that sex toys are forbidden.

We never explored or questioned this, just accepted it…
 
Incidentally, I got a copy of “Catholocism for Dummies” and in there they say that sex toys are forbidden.

We never explored or questioned this, just accepted it…
that questioned was actually asked in the appologetics section of this forum and was answered they are allowed, even went so far as to say they prolly should be mail order bought to avoid scandal thats what I based my answer on and I believe the appologists were correct i will search around and see if i can find the actual post for referral
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=75310&highlight=marital+sex+aids

there is one of them i will find the other as this isnt even the one o was refering to
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top