Analogy for non-life-giving sex, what do you think

  • Thread starter Thread starter Flopfoot
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

Flopfoot

Guest
Was wondering what you think of this analogy I use when people ask, why can’t we just have sex for fun (and use contraception to avoid getting her pregnant), after all, it is pleasurable and there doesn’t seem to be anything wrong with it. These people I talk to are young people (my friends, about my age) and they are Catholic but not really into the faith. So I don’t want to go into complicated theology and so on.

First I warn them about how no method of contraception is totally safe anyway, and also the emotional damage of sex outside the appropriate relationship (marriage). Then I say this. That God made eating food pleasurable - why? Because he wanted us to eat it, because we need food to live. It would be hard to force ourselves to eat if it all tasted horrible even though we knew we needed it to live. True, it also means that food is a gift from God because we love to eat. But if we could work out a way to get the pleasure of eating food, without the food doing us any good (eg, throwing it up after eating it), then that would be wrong - it’s not the way God ever meant it to work, the pleasure of eating food was always linked to the way food helps us to survive. Similarly, sex is pleasurable because God wants us to do it, because it helps the human race survive. And hence, sexual pleasure is God’s gift to us - but again, there’s a way he wants it used. He didn’t make it pleasurable so that we could abuse it by casual sex and contraception. That does us no good at all in the long run. What’s more, you may notice that, just like a bulemic doesn’t enjoy food as much as we who eat it properly, that sex can never be as good as for people who are married and have waited for it.

Anyway, that’s my analogy. Hope it makes sense. What do you think of it?
 
Pretty good!

Add on a (longer) short list of common probs. with contraception.

pill= higher breast cancer risk/ fertility issues later /possible early abortion

multiple partners/earlier sex= cervical cancer increase/fertility probs

HPVand other STD’s= common, can cause fertility probs and are incurable.

— Who wants to play Russian Rullette with their health, physical and emotional?

(emotional probs include an increase in depression, and lower self-esteem)

-Granted, most of these are geered to girls- but if yuor friends are boys, you can ask them if they would subject someone they claim to care about to such risks???
 
40.png
Flopfoot:
Was wondering what you think of this analogy I use when people ask, why can’t we just have sex for fun (and use contraception to avoid getting her pregnant), after all, it is pleasurable and there doesn’t seem to be anything wrong with it. These people I talk to are young people (my friends, about my age) and they are Catholic but not really into the faith. So I don’t want to go into complicated theology and so on.

First I warn them about how no method of contraception is totally safe anyway, and also the emotional damage of sex outside the appropriate relationship (marriage). Then I say this. That God made eating food pleasurable - why? Because he wanted us to eat it, because we need food to live. It would be hard to force ourselves to eat if it all tasted horrible even though we knew we needed it to live. True, it also means that food is a gift from God because we love to eat. But if we could work out a way to get the pleasure of eating food, without the food doing us any good (eg, throwing it up after eating it), then that would be wrong - it’s not the way God ever meant it to work, the pleasure of eating food was always linked to the way food helps us to survive. Similarly, sex is pleasurable because God wants us to do it, because it helps the human race survive. And hence, sexual pleasure is God’s gift to us - but again, there’s a way he wants it used. He didn’t make it pleasurable so that we could abuse it by casual sex and contraception. That does us no good at all in the long run. What’s more, you may notice that, just like a bulemic doesn’t enjoy food as much as we who eat it properly, that sex can never be as good as for people who are married and have waited for it.

Anyway, that’s my analogy. Hope it makes sense. What do you think of it?
Click to expand...
Now that is an argument i LIKE.!!!
 
Grace & Peace!

It’s a good analogy, but not totally unassailable. For instance, someone could easily say, “the pleasure we get from junkfood far outweighs whatever good it provides. Eating it is not immoral; excessive indulgence is. True, you cannot live on a junkfood diet without serious health repercussions, but is it immoral to eat healthily and every once in awhile have a marshmallow?”

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!
 
In that case we should be eating any processed food, only food in it’s pure, unadultered form as that is how the maker intended it. Even cooking it is questionable as that is altering what God has made good. Yet we alter food, sometimes to benefit our health and we consider how we will eat for the sake of our health. In some cases, the sexual act can be altered for the sake of a wife who may die when having another baby leaving children without a mother. condoms do not cause abortions, they are barriers. Sex is still good, if a little altered or containing an ‘additive’ (condom) just as food can be. Sometimes an additive is intended to prolong the life of a food - as a condom can be to prolong the life of a woman facing serious issues with another pregnancy.

Just trying to give you some counter ideas 😉
 
An additive to food, such as cooking it, doesn’t prevent the food fulfilling any of the purposes that God created it for - it still sustains you. Condoms do prevent a purpose of sex, so it’s not the same thing.

Hmm, still thinking about the marshmallow point.
 
40.png
Flopfoot:
An additive to food, such as cooking it, doesn’t prevent the food fulfilling any of the purposes that God created it for - it still sustains you. Condoms do prevent a purpose of sex, so it’s not the same thing.

.
Click to expand...
Actually, processing food can remove a lot of it’s nutrients and some foods can lead to diseases such as diabetes because of the way they are prepared. As such, the food no longer sustains but can actually harm. There is such a thing as empty calories too. There is next to no nutritive value in sweets yet people consume them for pleasure. Such use and adulteration of food is surely an abuse?

The Bible tells us that the body is a temple to be kept pure and holy. So eating such foods for pleasure must go against that as it defiles and harms the temple. At least sex with a condom allows a couple the benefit of a unitive action. So half the good is there. This is not true of some foods - there is no redeeming value at all.

As an aside, smoking defiles the temple of the body and is known to shorten and kill life by engaging in it. How can any Catholic smoke when this is the case? Yet the church allows this.

Too many inconsistencies.
 
Here is my view on contraception…

Catholic teaching states abortion is a grave sin since it is the destruction of human life. You are right there are many Catholics who are wrongly practicing contraception. Catholics who pick and choose the elements of the church which they feel they want are called “Cafeteria Catholics”. These are not “Practicing Catholics”. Catholic teaching states Contraception is wrong but Natural Family Planning (NFP) is OK since God is still in control of the decision making process.

I look at human sexuality as having 2 variables. There is “gratification” & “openess to new life”. With contraception you want the “gratification” without being “open to new life”. I think if God wanted us to have one of these variables without the other, God would have created another action. God’s Natural Law has both “gratification” & “openess to new life” as ONE ACTION. Who are we to tell the Creator this was a mistake?

Those who feel contraception is morally OK must defend other sexual acts which takes the “gratification” but leaves the “openess to new life” behind like homosexuality (man & man), pedifilia (man & boy), masterbation (man with himself) & beastiality (man & animal) all of which are comdemned in the Bible. This is just the way I look at it.

Face it, Contraception is like a Bulimic! With *Contraception *people want the “gratification” but are not “open to life” which is contrary to God’s Natural Plan.

A Bulimic is similar since they want the “gratification” from food but then stick their finger down their throat because they do not want the “weight” which comes with it!!
ewtn.com/rock/files/images/LR_03032005.jpgLife on the Rock #401.
**Fr. Francis Mary w/ Dr. Janet Smith. **
Originally aired: 3/3/2005
Theme: “The Moral Life Matters: The Contraception Trap”.

ewtn.com/rock/files/past1.asp?pgnu=4

catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0002.html
 
Contraception is not like bolimia, it is like snacking. I read a parody of Humani Vitae once called Nutritioni Vitae but I am unable to find it again. Bolimia damages the esofagus, semen does not damage the urethra.
 
Good analogy Flopfoot!

For those who want to pick it apart - it’s an analogy. Analogies aren’t perfect. As I have said on other threads, the degree to which people will go to rationalize having sex when, where, how, with what, or with whom they please is limitless. And, for most of those who fool themselves through rationalization, sex isn’t about an intimate, loving relationship with someone, it’s about self gratification, simple as that.
 
I think most of the posters are picking it apart to give him a chance to come up with effective counter-arguments to any objections.
 
40.png
vluvski:
I think most of the posters are picking it apart to give him a chance to come up with effective counter-arguments to any objections.
Click to expand...
I hope so, but the various threads dealing with contraception, sex, etc. have settled into a pattern where those who support the Church’s teachings are portrayed as insensitive, cold, or even cruel.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top